Essay: For Warfare During The Gulf War

For Warfare during the Gulf War

On August 2, 1990, under the orders of President Saddam Hussein, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Because Iraq had far more soldiers and military resources than Kuwait, the former conquered the latter within one day only. Appalled of this unjust war, the international community immediately condemned Iraq, and the United Nations (UN) demanded the latter to withdraw immediately. Adamant, Hussein remained in Kuwait. As a consequence, the United States (U.S.) and 38 other countries drove the Iraqi forces out. On August 7, 1990, the U.S. troops headed to Saudi Arabia and soon, Great Britain, France, and Egypt joined. Should the coalition have conducted warfare or simply use economic sanctions as an alternative to the former? The coalition is right to engage in war because economic sanctions and other peaceful alternatives would not have worked as Hussein was intent on sacrificing his people and Kuwait to assert and defend his power.

If the U.S.-led coalition did not start the war, Hussein would have been brazen enough to conquer other nations (Debs & Monteiro, 2014, p. 2). Believing in the superiority of his forces and military strategy, Hussein would also attack Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Soon, Iraq may be able to control the Middle East and the harder it would be to defeat him. Besides preventing a massive spillover across the Middle East, attacking Hussein’s forces immediately paralyzed his troops before they even recruited more soldiers and supporters. Hussein could have expanded his military force if the international community stood by waiting. He may have attracted or forced people in Kuwait as well as hired other fighters who were against the U.S. or the West in general. As a result, using peaceful alternatives may have enabled him to consolidate his forces and increase his aggressive expansion in the Middle East