Why war in 1991 and 2003 against Iraq




 
--
 
October 10th, 2004  
Doc.S
 

Topic: Why war in 1991 and 2003 against Iraq


I have studied another thread ("America is a better place WITH Saddam Hussein") that was locked down and a member asked a question about timing and why U.S and coalition togheter in 1991 could attack Saddam Hussein and liberate Kuwait and now in 2003. Why did they finish the dictator now?

About Timing:

Well one good explanation why the west could go into the middle east in first hand was because of technology. 1968-1981 the different nations were almost on the same street level when it came to technology, with few exceptions. 1981 M1 Abrams was introduced in the U.S armour arsenal and it was not untill then the technology began to be lifesaving in the US tank arsenal.

Another good reason is that the cold war was over 1991 and the Soviet Union ceased to excist and that was one more reason why west could do as they did. Now west is military superior over any middle east nation and the only nation down there that can threat the west military is Israel. And as we know Israel will never attack the west. But it can if they want to occupy even bigger areas of the middle east but why do that? I think Israel have enough problems with Palestine to be honest.

The rest of the middle east has only defensive forces and even if some of those nations as Jordan, small Gulf States, Saudi and others has western technology they can only use them in a short defensive campaign against another agressor.

But still Kuwait did have some equipment superior to Iraq in 1991 and Saddam Hussein proved to the world that a supprise attack is still a good tactic in war. I think this is my answer about timing.

LINK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2526937.stm


The political, business lines are other issues that I dont include in this message togheter with nuclear weapons or biological weapons.


Cheers:
Doc.S

October 10th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
The UN had a lot to do with US forces not pushing all of the way through Baghdad and removing Hussein in '91.
October 10th, 2004  
Doc.S
 
With all respect towards UN, but I think that the Arab veto in 1991 was the biggest reason for not going any further in to Bagdad. And I dont think that even with the massive coalition force on the ground would have made it in 1991 war against Saddam Husseins forces further in to the country. Iraq didnt have the big sanctions on itselfe and 12 years of sanctions against any country has its effect, and I think that is why the outcome of this fast victory in 2003 was possible. If not possible it surely brighten up the operation and it did save alot of coalition life to be honest.

1991:
Another major factor was that president George Bush and other presidents and primeministers in Europe didnt want another cold war with the new Russian federation. President Michail Gorbatjov was one of the last standing presidents in the west that wanted a peaceful solution on the crisis. As we also know from history is that the so called hardliners in Russia did try to make a coup d'état in august 1991 but it failed so the political climat was very tensed in that particular period of time. West has much today thanks to people like former president Boris Jeltsin and Michail Gorbatjov, and not to forget former US president Ronald Reagan.

Third was that Iraq still had Scud missiles and I dont know what would have happened if more of them had hit Israel? The coalition was strong but an Israeli interference in a operation like that and the coalition would have been in serious trubble in my humble opinon. But this is all foreign policy and I will try to not bring it up again, the Scuds could have been loaded with biological warheads and then it would have been even more complicated.

My point of view is that they did the right thing in 1991. If Saddam Hussein ever would have uset biological weapons I think an attack to take his throne 1991 would have been a perfect excuse for that man but this is only what I believe. The UN was a big factor ,yes, with its resolution that only included the liberation of Kuwait and a reduction of Saddam Husseins armed forces so he would not threaten the region for a while.

Most Sincerly:
Doc.S

--
October 10th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
I agree that hindsight shows removing Hussein in '91 would have been a problematic and generally bad idea, this does not mean US forces as well as supporting forces could not have pressed on. While Iraq's military was far larger and better equipped in '91 than recently, they were hardly to the standard of the US military and many of the US' coalition partners. They would not have stood a chance, the RG would have put up a much better fight than regular forces - but the end result would have been the same.

Our Arab allies were a factor, had we pushed on - we would have alienated and lost most of them. However, I would not put that above the actions/reactions of the UN. At that time, we were very interested in keeping on good terms with them.
October 11th, 2004  
Doc.S
 
I totaly consent with you RnderSafe

It is true that US forces in 1991 had both the equipment and the manpower to remove Saddam Hussein, still there was no plan for Iraq after that the coalition had removed Bath party and Hussein from power back then. And I agree it would have been expensive in coalition life with the RG in its best condition. I dont even want to know what those guys had done if they had stayed in the Bagdad area and officers had not left their men behind. And not only the RG was a potential threat.

The Special Forces later Special Republic Guards was really tough men back then I have heard. But still US forces had all what it took to kick out Saddam Hussein from power allready back there in 1991 but as you say the arab veto had complicated things down there. You know Rndersafe?
The "funny" thing with the Iraqi army in general was that there was some really bad units and a few pockets here and there that really putted up a fight. When I looked at this new 2003 war I could see significant differances from the 1991 war.

The AA-fire was not half or a third of what it was in 1991 and the SAM batteries was I believe completly out of the battle. "I was almost dissatisfied with the opening this time." Dont get me wrong.

Best Regards:
Doc.S