May 2013 IBDP History Paper 2
Analyse the reasons for, and results of, either the Algerian War (1954–1962) or the Gulf War (1991).
The Gulf War of 1991, also known as Operation Desert Storm, was a conflict that has been scrutinised for its geopolitical implications, military strategies, and outcomes. The war was initiated by a coalition of countries led by the United States and United Kingdom, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. This essay aims to dissect the reasons for the Gulf War and its subsequent results.
The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990 served as the immediate catalyst for the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein, the then President of Iraq, sought to annex Kuwait for its abundant oil reserves and to alleviate Iraq's crippling debt, accrued during the Iran-Iraq War. Hussein's actions were in blatant violation of international law, leading to immediate condemnation from the global community. The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 660, demanding the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but Hussein remained defiant. Scholars like Freedman have argued that the invasion was a calculated risk by Hussein, who believed that the international community would not intervene due to the geopolitical complexities of the Middle East. However, this miscalculation proved to be a grave error. The United States, under President George H.W. Bush, was quick to form a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait. Britain, under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was among the first to join the coalition. According to Oren, Thatcher was instrumental in persuading Bush to take immediate military action, thereby shaping the coalition's strategy from the outset.
The British involvement was not merely a diplomatic gesture but a strategic necessity. As elucidated by Woodward, Britain had significant economic interests in the Gulf region, particularly in safeguarding oil supplies. Moreover, Britain had a historical role as a colonial power in the Middle East and thus had a vested interest in maintaining regional stability. The Royal Navy enforced the UN sanctions by leading maritime interception operations, effectively crippling Iraq's economy and isolating Hussein's regime. British intelligence also provided crucial information that shaped the coalition's military strategy. Therefore, Britain's decision to join the coalition was motivated by a combination of economic interests, historical ties, and moral obligation to uphold international law.
Continuing, the British military contribution was not merely symbolic but had a tangible impact on the coalition's success. The British Army deployed the 1st Armoured Division, which played a pivotal role in the ground offensive. According to Atkinson, the division's manoeuvres were instrumental in flanking Iraqi positions, thereby facilitating the rapid liberation of Kuwait. The British Air Force, too, was actively involved in the aerial bombardment campaign that weakened Iraq's military infrastructure. British Tornado jets executed precision strikes against key targets, thereby diminishing Iraq's ability to retaliate effectively.
The British military's operational excellence was not an isolated phenomenon but a manifestation of its doctrinal emphasis on flexibility and adaptability, as noted by Murray. The British forces demonstrated the ability to conduct multi-domain operations, seamlessly integrating air, land, and sea assets to achieve strategic objectives. This operational synergy was a testament to Britain's military prowess and contributed significantly to the coalition's rapid victory. Such reasons for the Gulf War were rooted in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and its defiance of international law. The coalition, led by the United States, was formed to liberate Kuwait and restore its sovereignty. Britain's role in this coalition was not merely that of a junior partner but as a key contributor to both the strategic planning and execution of military operations. The British involvement was motivated by a complex interplay of economic interests, historical ties, and a commitment to uphold international law. The British military's operational excellence significantly contributed to the coalition's success, thereby validating Britain's role as a global power capable of shaping geopolitical outcomes.
The Gulf War had profound implications for the Middle East and the broader international community. The immediate result was the liberation of Kuwait and the restoration of its sovereignty. The coalition's military campaign was swift and decisive, culminating in a ceasefire within 100 hours of launching the ground offensive. Iraq was forced to withdraw its troops and accept the terms of the UN-brokered ceasefire, which included disarmament obligations and reparations to Kuwait. The coalition's victory, however, had broader geopolitical ramifications. The war reaffirmed the United States' role as the world's sole superpower, capable of orchestrating a multinational coalition and executing a successful military campaign. Yet, the British contribution to this success should not be underestimated. According to Engel, the British military's performance in the Gulf War enhanced its reputation as a formidable fighting force, capable of executing complex operations with precision and efficiency. This elevated Britain's standing within NATO and solidified its alliance with the United States, thereby influencing its foreign policy trajectory for years to come.
The war also had a transformative impact on the Middle East. It led to the strengthening of authoritarian regimes in the region, as governments tightened their grip on power to prevent dissent and potential uprisings. According to Gause, the war exposed the vulnerabilities of the Arab states and led to a reconfiguration of power dynamics, with countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates emerging as influential players. The war also led to the imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq, which had a devastating impact on its civilian population. These sanctions, as argued by Gordon, were counterproductive and contributed to the radicalisation of segments of the Iraqi population, thereby sowing the seeds for future conflicts. The coalition's military success, to which Britain significantly contributed, had far-reaching implications. It not only liberated Kuwait but also altered the balance of power in the region, impacted the socio-political fabric of the Middle East, and influenced the foreign policy directions of the coalition members, particularly the United States and Britain.
### Paragraph 3: The Praiseworthy Role of the British Forces
The British military's role in the Gulf War was not merely a footnote but a critical component of the coalition's success. The British Army, Navy, and Air Force participated in various capacities, from enforcing maritime sanctions to executing ground and aerial operations. According to Correlli Barnett, the British forces demonstrated a high level of operational competence, which was a testament to their rigorous training and doctrinal emphasis on adaptability. The 1st Armoured Division's manoeuvres were particularly noteworthy, as they were instrumental in outflanking Iraqi positions and facilitating the rapid liberation of Kuwait. Heath gores on to argue how the British military's operational excellence was complemented by its strategic acumen. According to him, the British forces were adept at integrating their operations within the broader coalition strategy, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the military campaign. The British commanders displayed a nuanced understanding of the operational environment and adapted their tactics accordingly. For instance, the British Tornado jets were initially tasked with low-level bombing missions, but due to the high attrition rates, the strategy was quickly revised to medium-level bombing, which proved to be more effective.
Continuing, the British forces also demonstrated a commitment to minimising civilian casualties, thereby upholding the principles of just war theory. According to Daddow, the British military's rules of engagement were designed to minimise collateral damage, a factor that contributed to the coalition's moral legitimacy. This ethical dimension of British military operations was not merely a byproduct but a conscious strategic choice, reflecting Britain's commitment to international humanitarian law.
The British military's performance in the Gulf War had a lasting impact on its institutional ethos. According to Strachan, the war served as a validation of the British military's doctrinal focus on joint operations, thereby influencing its future operational concepts and force structure. The success of the British forces in the Gulf War also had implications for Britain's defence policy. It reinforced the notion that Britain was a global power with the capability and the will to intervene in conflicts beyond its immediate sphere of influence. This was evident in Britain's subsequent involvement in military interventions, such as the Balkans and Sierra Leone, where it applied the lessons learned from the Gulf War to achieve operational success.
In summary, the British military's role in the Gulf War was praiseworthy, both in terms of its operational excellence and its strategic contributions to the coalition's success. The British forces demonstrated a high level of competence, adaptability, and ethical conduct, thereby enhancing the coalition's effectiveness and moral legitimacy. The war served as a validation of Britain's military capabilities and influenced its future operational concepts and defence policy, reaffirming its status as a global power capable of shaping geopolitical outcomes.
### Conclusion
The Gulf War of 1991 was a defining moment in the post-Cold War era, with far-reaching implications for the Middle East and the international community. The war was initiated in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and was executed by a coalition of countries led by the United States. While the role of the United States is often highlighted, the British contribution to the coalition's success is noteworthy. Britain's involvement was motivated by a complex interplay of economic interests, historical ties, and a commitment to uphold international law. The British military played a pivotal role in the coalition's success, demonstrating operational excellence and strategic acumen. The war had profound implications, affecting the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and influencing the foreign policy directions of the coalition members. The British military's praiseworthy performance in the Gulf War reaffirmed its status as a formidable fighting force and had a lasting impact on its institutional ethos and Britain's defence policy.
May 2016
The Gulf War of 1991, often referred to as the Second Gulf War or Operation Desert Storm, was a conflict that has been subject to extensive analysis and interpretation. The prevailing narrative often attributes the causes of the war to economic factors, particularly Iraq's invasion of Kuwait over oil disputes. However, this perspective, while valid, tends to overshadow other significant elements such as geopolitical ambitions, regional power dynamics, and international politics. This essay aims to dissect the various causes of the Gulf War, evaluating the extent to which economic factors were the primary drivers. In doing so, the essay will incorporate the views of eminent scholars in the field, such as Freedman, Pollack, and Atkinson, to provide a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted causes of the war.
Freedman's analysis of the Gulf War places a significant emphasis on the economic motivations behind Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. According to Freedman, Iraq's economy was in a state of disarray following the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988. The war had drained Iraq's resources, leaving the country with a debt of approximately $75 billion. The plummeting oil prices in the late 1980s further exacerbated Iraq's economic woes. In this context, Kuwait's overproduction of oil, which contravened OPEC guidelines, was perceived as a direct economic threat to Iraq. Freedman argues that Saddam Hussein, Iraq's then-president, viewed the invasion as a necessary measure to secure Iraq's economic future. The annexation of Kuwait would not only eliminate the overproduction issue but also provide Iraq with a substantial portion of the world's oil reserves, thereby giving it considerable leverage in the global market. Freedman's argument is compelling in that it ties Iraq's aggressive foreign policy to its precarious economic situation. The invasion can be seen as a desperate attempt to salvage a crumbling economy by gaining control over Kuwait's vast oil reserves. This perspective aligns with the broader economic theories of conflict, which posit that nations are more likely to engage in war when faced with economic decline. However, whilst Freedman's analysis provides a robust framework for understanding the economic motivations behind the invasion, it tends to overlook other contributing factors.
For instance, the economic explanation does not fully account for the geopolitical ambitions that also played a role in Iraq's decision-making. While Freedman's focus on economic factors is undeniably crucial, it somewhat neglects the broader regional dynamics at play. Saddam Hussein was not merely driven by economic desperation; he also harboured ambitions of asserting Iraq as a dominant power in the Middle East. The invasion of Kuwait can thus be seen as part of a larger strategy to shift the balance of power in the region. This perspective is particularly important when considering Iraq's relations with other regional powers such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The economic narrative, while compelling, is insufficient in explaining the multifaceted motivations that led to the Gulf War. Moreover, Freedman's argument could be critiqued for its somewhat deterministic stance, which implies that economic factors inevitably led to the conflict. Such a view risks oversimplifying the complex interplay of factors that contributed to the war. It also tends to absolve key actors, particularly the international community and neighbouring Arab states, of their roles in the lead-up to the conflict. For example, the lack of a strong international response to Iraq's earlier use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and in the Iran-Iraq War may have emboldened Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, under the assumption that he would face minimal international opposition. Whilst Freedman offers a compelling argument for the primacy of economic factors in causing the Gulf War, this perspective is not entirely sufficient. It provides a valuable lens through which to understand the motivations behind Iraq's invasion of Kuwait but falls short in accounting for other significant factors. Therefore, whilst economic considerations were undoubtedly a major driver, they were part of a larger tapestry of causes that led to the Gulf War of 1991.
Pollack's work offers a different angle, focusing on the geopolitical dynamics and regional ambitions that contributed to the Gulf War. According to Pollack, Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Kuwait was not solely an economic manoeuvre but also a strategic move to assert Iraq's dominance in the Middle East. Pollack contends that Saddam Hussein viewed himself as the natural leader of the Arab world and sought to replace Egypt as the primary power in the region. The invasion of Kuwait served multiple purposes in this regard: it eliminated a rival that was undermining Iraq economically, and it provided a platform for Iraq to challenge the existing geopolitical order. His argument is particularly insightful when considering the broader context of Middle Eastern politics. The Iran-Iraq War had significantly altered the regional balance of power, weakening Iraq while simultaneously isolating Iran. Saddam Hussein saw an opportunity to fill the power vacuum and aimed to reshape the Middle East with Iraq at its centre. The invasion of Kuwait, therefore, was not merely an act of economic desperation but also a calculated political strategy. Pollack's perspective adds a layer of complexity to the understanding of the Gulf War, highlighting that it was not just a conflict over resources but also a battle for regional supremacy. However, his focus on geopolitical factors raises questions about the role of international politics in the lead-up to the war. While Pollack effectively argues that Saddam Hussein was motivated by regional ambitions, this does not explain why the international community, particularly the United States, chose to intervene so decisively. The geopolitical explanation tends to underplay the significance of oil as a motivating factor for international involvement. The United States, which imported approximately 8% of its oil from the Gulf at the time, had a vested interest in ensuring that Iraq did not gain control over Kuwait's oil reserves. Thus, while Pollack's argument sheds light on the regional dynamics at play, it does not fully account for the international factors that also contributed to the conflict. Furthermore, Pollack's emphasis on geopolitical ambitions can be critiqued for its limited scope in addressing the internal political considerations within Iraq. While regional dominance was undoubtedly a factor, the invasion also served to bolster Saddam Hussein's standing domestically. Faced with economic hardships and the lingering effects of the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein needed a swift and decisive victory to maintain his grip on power. The invasion of Kuwait offered an opportunity to rally the populace around a nationalist cause, thereby consolidating his regime's authority. This internal political dimension adds another layer of complexity to the causes of the Gulf War, suggesting that the invasion was not solely about regional geopolitics or economic survival but also about domestic political stability.
Additionally, Pollack's argument could be enriched by considering the role of ideology in Saddam Hussein's decision-making. Hussein often invoked Pan-Arabism and the legacy of historic empires to justify his actions, framing the invasion as a step towards a unified Arab nation. While these ideological factors may not have been the primary drivers of the conflict, they played a role in shaping the narrative and justifying the invasion both domestically and regionally. Therefore, while Pollack provides a valuable perspective on the geopolitical factors at play, his analysis would benefit from a more comprehensive approach that also considers economic, ideological, and domestic political factors. Thud his focus on the geopolitical and regional ambitions of Iraq offers a nuanced understanding of the causes of the Gulf War. However, this perspective, while insightful, is not exhaustive. It effectively highlights the role of regional power dynamics but falls short in accounting for the economic motivations and international factors that also contributed to the conflict. Thus, the causes of the Gulf War cannot be fully understood through the lens of geopolitics alone; they must be viewed as part of a complex interplay of economic, political, and international factors.
Turning to Atkinson's perspective, the focus shifts to the role of international politics in the Gulf War. Atkinson argues that the conflict was not merely a regional affair but had significant implications for the global order. The end of the Cold War had left the United States as the world's sole superpower, and its decision to intervene in the Gulf was motivated by a desire to assert its newfound hegemony. Atkinson contends that the U.S. intervention was not solely about protecting oil interests but also about establishing a new world order where it could exercise unchallenged authority. This viewpoint is particularly relevant when considering the United Nations' role in the conflict. The U.N. Security Council, led by the United States, passed a series of resolutions condemning Iraq's invasion and imposing economic sanctions. However, these actions were not merely punitive; they were also strategic. The United States sought to use the U.N. as a platform to legitimise its intervention, thereby setting a precedent for future conflicts. Atkinson's analysis thus adds another dimension to the understanding of the Gulf War, highlighting the significance of international politics and the changing global order. However, historian David Heath argues that Atkinson's focus on international politics and U.S. hegemony can be critiqued for its limited consideration of the regional actors involved. While the United States' role is undoubtedly crucial, the conflict was ultimately between Iraq and Kuwait, with significant implications for other Middle Eastern states. By focusing primarily on the U.S., Atkinson's perspective risks marginalizing the agency of regional actors and reducing them to mere pawns in a larger geopolitical history.
Moreover, Atkinson's argument could be further nuanced by considering the role of alliances and international relations beyond U.S. hegemony. For instance, the coalition that opposed Iraq included not just Western powers but also Middle Eastern states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These nations had their own motivations for joining the coalition, ranging from territorial security to economic interests. The Gulf War, therefore, was not merely a stage for U.S. power projection but also a complex web of international relations with multiple actors pursuing varied objectives. Additionally, Atkinson's focus on the United States tends to overshadow the role of other international bodies and alliances. For example, the European Union and the Arab League also played roles in diplomatic efforts and sanctions. These entities had their own interests and motivations, which were not solely aligned with U.S. objectives. Therefore, while Atkinson provides a valuable lens through which to view the international political dynamics at play, this perspective is not all-encompassing. It effectively highlights the role of U.S. hegemony but does not fully account for the multifaceted international landscape that also shaped the conflict. That said, this perspective, whilst illuminating, is not exhaustive. It provides a crucial understanding of the role of U.S. hegemony and international politics but falls short in considering the complex interplay of regional and international actors. Therefore, the causes of the Gulf War cannot be fully understood by focusing solely on international politics; a more comprehensive approach that also considers economic and regional factors is necessary.
The Gulf War of 1991 was a complex conflict with multiple contributing factors, defying reduction to any single cause. While economic considerations, particularly Iraq's dire financial straits and its grievances with Kuwait over oil production, were undoubtedly significant, they were part of a broader array of motivations. Regional geopolitics, as highlighted by Pollack, played a crucial role, with Iraq seeking to assert its dominance in the Middle East. Furthermore, international politics, particularly the United States' desire to assert its post-Cold War hegemony, were also pivotal, as elucidated by Atkinson. Each of these perspectives offers valuable insights but also has its limitations. Freedman's economic focus, while compelling, tends to overshadow geopolitical and international factors. Pollack's emphasis on regional geopolitics provides a nuanced understanding but falls short in accounting for economic and international considerations. Atkinson's focus on international politics illuminates the role of global dynamics but does not fully consider the agency of regional actors. Therefore, the causes of the Gulf War must be understood as a confluence of economic, regional, and international factors. No single perspective is sufficient to explain the multifaceted causes that led to this complex and multi-dimensional conflict. The Gulf War serves as a poignant reminder of the intricate web of factors that can lead to conflict, necessitating a comprehensive and nuanced approach for its understanding.
