- 04 Jan 2012 23:49
#13864967
does this make sense?
I was thinking about this, and looking back at the US-led response, it doesn't quite add up to me. Everyone knows about the white house woman (forget what position she held) who told Tariq Aziz that the US was not interested in getting involved in a possible Iraq-Kuwait dispute - after he openly told the US Iraq was about to attack. Was this a gigantic miscommunication?
So what am I missing here? The US knew that Iraq was about to attack Kuwait, and seemingly gave approval for it. Or did they genuinely believe Saddam was bluffing and were caught off guard when he actually did attack?
Consider US's strategic position - Iraq right up until that point was a staunch US ally. And its not as if Saddam was suddenly out of control - the country was devastated by the 8 year war with Iran. And he basically asked the US's permission to invade Kuwait. There was obvious goodwill on Saddam's side - why wouldn't the US want to keep their strategic ally? Had the strategic use of Iraq expired by that stage? Maybe they figured the buffer against Iran was no longer needed - since Iran too was exhausted by the 8 year war.
Then there is that supposed threat of an invasion in Saudi Arabia. I find it difficult to believe that Saddam would be foolhardy to consider this. And why would the US think that there was any threat of this? By politely informing them of their intentions in Kuwait, I would take that as a reassurance that Iraq is basically saying "thats all we want". The US had spent well over a decade apologising for Saddam's excesses and attempting to cover them up (Halabja was originally an Iranian operation according to the US). Why would they suddenly stop now over such a small issue?
No one loved Kuwait, it certainly wasn't something worth marshalling an international coalition over - or so I would have thought.
Possible alternative explanation: 1990 - the Berlin wall has just fallen, the Soviet Union's satelites in Eastern Europe had all fallen. America still didn't have any clue that the Soviet Union was itself about to collapse. Was this a statement of strength by the US - particularly aimed at the Soviet Union? Strategic manouvering not in anticipation of an imminent Soviet collapse, but more a case of "kick-em while he's down". Basically just another strike in the cold war?
Or could it be something so mundane as President Bush seeing a great opportunity for a Thatcher-esque re-election war?
FRS in another thread wrote:The threat of an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia was what prompted Operation Desert Shield.
does this make sense?
I was thinking about this, and looking back at the US-led response, it doesn't quite add up to me. Everyone knows about the white house woman (forget what position she held) who told Tariq Aziz that the US was not interested in getting involved in a possible Iraq-Kuwait dispute - after he openly told the US Iraq was about to attack. Was this a gigantic miscommunication?
So what am I missing here? The US knew that Iraq was about to attack Kuwait, and seemingly gave approval for it. Or did they genuinely believe Saddam was bluffing and were caught off guard when he actually did attack?
Consider US's strategic position - Iraq right up until that point was a staunch US ally. And its not as if Saddam was suddenly out of control - the country was devastated by the 8 year war with Iran. And he basically asked the US's permission to invade Kuwait. There was obvious goodwill on Saddam's side - why wouldn't the US want to keep their strategic ally? Had the strategic use of Iraq expired by that stage? Maybe they figured the buffer against Iran was no longer needed - since Iran too was exhausted by the 8 year war.
Then there is that supposed threat of an invasion in Saudi Arabia. I find it difficult to believe that Saddam would be foolhardy to consider this. And why would the US think that there was any threat of this? By politely informing them of their intentions in Kuwait, I would take that as a reassurance that Iraq is basically saying "thats all we want". The US had spent well over a decade apologising for Saddam's excesses and attempting to cover them up (Halabja was originally an Iranian operation according to the US). Why would they suddenly stop now over such a small issue?
No one loved Kuwait, it certainly wasn't something worth marshalling an international coalition over - or so I would have thought.
Possible alternative explanation: 1990 - the Berlin wall has just fallen, the Soviet Union's satelites in Eastern Europe had all fallen. America still didn't have any clue that the Soviet Union was itself about to collapse. Was this a statement of strength by the US - particularly aimed at the Soviet Union? Strategic manouvering not in anticipation of an imminent Soviet collapse, but more a case of "kick-em while he's down". Basically just another strike in the cold war?
Or could it be something so mundane as President Bush seeing a great opportunity for a Thatcher-esque re-election war?