WI: Iraq Invades Kuwait in the 1960s (Second Anglo-Iraqi War)

I recall coming across a CIA document not that long ago discussing, during the 1960s, the increased perception and worry that Iraq would attempt to invade Kuwait. Iraq had, pre-1991 invasion, long standing claims of Kuwait as Iraqi territory. Depending on the year of invasion, the British would have been required to intervene, and when it looked like Iraq may have invaded, Britain did prepare to intervene. When Iraqi Prime Minister Qasim was killed in a coup, Iraq reaffirmed Kuwait's sovereignty, though border clashes continued throughout the 60s and 70s and Iraq continued as a potential threat to Kuwait all the way up to its invasion in the 1990s.

What if fears had been realized, and Iraq invaded Kuwait in the 1960s, embroiling very likely the United Kingdom and possibly Saudi Arabia?

EDIT:

I found the entry
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...udies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article03.html

Qasim was bonkers, and his rule was unstable.

There may well be an instance of Qasim's political enemies collaborating with the British out of the feeling that the local devil is more odious than the foreign one. I don't really see Qasim being able to pull the country together over it, Iraqi political society in this era was extremely fragmented.

May I bump? I assume this topic would have some more public interest. It's Cold War and Desert Storm and British. It's a hodgepodge of interesting interests.

Emperor Norton I said:

May I bump? I assume this topic would have some more public interest. It's Cold War and Desert Storm and British. It's a hodgepodge of interesting interests.

Click to expand...

How quickly could British forces from the Emergency in Aden be transferred to the gulf? Could they be spared?

Lord Brisbane said:

How quickly could British forces from the Emergency in Aden be transferred to the gulf? Could they be spared?

Click to expand...

No idear. I was wishing someone who knew the topic better than I would come in and be able to answer that sort of thing. I myself have no clue.

I have a personal rule of trying to avoid creating topics I myself can't chime in on, but I thought this situation was a really interesting scenario so I decided to make a thread on it anyway.

Prior to the 1970's Iraq's military was puny, and it wasn't until under Sadam it became the behemoth that it is generally seen as. While it wouldn't have been an easy fight per se, I recon that the UK could on its own provide enough firepower to stop the Iraqi military, especially in a defence action inside Kuwait. In OTl, all it took was a show of force from the RN with the already obsolete Sea Vixens to make the Iraqi's back down.

The more intersting issue is how it feeds into the wider geopolitical issues - Soviet support in the region, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the growing dominance of the US in the region.

That said, if it does lead to war - a war that results in a reasonable vixtory for the British, it could restore some much needed national pride for the British after the Suez dabacle. It would have a profound effect upon British politics and international relations at a time when the country was shedding empire and turning away from its East of Suez policy. A second Anglo-Iraq war could considerably alter this, with profund effects upon Britains relations with Europe, the US and the Commonwealth (particuarly in Asia). Britains military would also be considerably effected.

Russell

Lord Brisbane said:

How quickly could British forces from the Emergency in Aden be transferred to the gulf? Could they be spared?

Click to expand...

Britain had a small naval force in the Gulf, as well as a very small number of troops in Bahrain or Quatar. The country also has military efforts it Yemen and Oman at this time. In OTL, a British carrier was already present (HMS Victorious, I believe), and as I have already pointed out it was enough to deter the Iraqis. Iraq's army/military numbered less than 80,000 at this time. Poorly trained and only now starting to recieve some newer Soviet kit. A loose coalition of British and other Arab states could probably at the very least ensure Kuwaits existance. The only real concern is how it affects Soviet relations or the Arab Israeli conflict - that could lead to a serious conflgration that Britain would probably find difficult, if not impossible to handle.

Russell

As Russell says, at the time Iraq's military was pretty small and hadn't yet been expanded to such as massive a size under Saddam. Operation Vantage, the British operation in support of Kuwait in reaction to the noises Iraq was making since at the time they were still responsible for Kuwait's defence, saw them dispatching the aircraft carrier HMS Victorious, the commando carrier HMS Bulwark, four destroyers, six frigates, the Landing Ship Tank HMS Striker and a minesweeper squadron as the naval flotilla part and on land they deployed 42 and 45 Marine Commandos, two companies of 2nd Coldstream Guards, C Squadron of 3rd Carabiniers' driving Centurion tanks offloading from HMS Striker and land based Hawker Hunters. These were shortly then added to with an artillery battery, a cavalry regiment with armoured and more infantry battalions. Quite frankly I'm not surprised that Qasim and the Iraqis backed down, had they actually attempted anything from the looks of things they would of lost horribly.

That's not what they were going to send that's what they did send, and with more to come if necessary. It's a bit of a mindset change but back then the UK still had far flung colonies, most of which were to shortly gain independence, and a rather large military capability that they were more than willing to deploy if felt necessary as opposed to nowadays.

Simon said:

That's not what they were going to send that's what they did send, and with more to come if necessary. It's a bit of a mindset change but back then the UK still had far flung colonies, most of which were to shortly gain independence, and a rather large military capability that they were more than willing to deploy if felt necessary as opposed to nowadays.

Click to expand...

Indeed, we were only just adjusting from the debacle of Suez. While politicians were beginning to use more retoric of scaling back and cutting costs, the military was still, in essence, that of an Imperial power really only just realising she was past her prime.

As for one of the side effects, could this lead to a UK which takes a much more 'French' attitude to the Commonwealth? One in which the UK's role is one of providing both a focal point for unity, and a power which can, and will, intervene to help preserve the status quo if asked to. We had a bit of that with Sierra Leone OTL, but especially if this leads to, for example, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar in the Commonwealth as 'small states who recon this gives them a bit more protection from the big neighbours), could we see a Britain which is more interventionist than OTL in the postwar era?

Alex Richards said:

As for one of the side effects, could this lead to a UK which takes a much more 'French' attitude to the Commonwealth? One in which the UK's role is one of providing both a focal point for unity, and a power which can, and will, intervene to help preserve the status quo if asked to. We had a bit of that with Sierra Leone OTL, but especially if this leads to, for example, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar in the Commonwealth as 'small states who reckon this gives them a bit more protection from the big neighbours), could we see a Britain which is more interventionist than OTL in the postwar era?

Click to expand...

Well I can't really see Kuwait, Bahrain or Qatar joining the Commonwealth since they weren't technically part of the Empire, a nebulous term I know, but protected states with their own rulers and heads of states, Britain just controlled their foreign relations and defence, although I'm sure they did have a fair amount of unofficial influence on internal matters as well. Funnily enough at the time the Trucial States, what would become the United Arab Emirates, were quite surprised when Britain started making noises about giving up their role in their government and more than a little put out. Since they were still rather worried about defence and other issues they tried to convince the British to stay on and continue their role under the protection treaties going as far as offering to pay the costs of keeping the British military presence in the country, the Labour government however refused which apparently offended some people. The Royal Navy still also had a base at HMS Juffair in Bahrain, what would become Naval Support Activity Bahrain the home of the US Fifth Fleet, that they'd be renting out part of it to them.

If having to fight a limited war in defence of Iraq or simply deciding that Operation Vantage shows that they still need to keep at least limited involvement in the region and take a more 'French' attitude to things like you mention then it could be somewhat achievable. The main reason for getting out of the Trucial States and Middle East seems to of been given as financial, although ideological beliefs/confidence might also of unofficially had something to do with it considering the Wilson government turned down the funding offer. Rather than casting the Trucial States adrift the government takes up the funding offer to pay for the deployment of troops with a small permanent garrison that has units rotated through and facilities to host a much larger force in the event that it's felt more troops need to be surged into the region. Recognising the necessity of drawing down commitments they sign a long term lease agreement for HMS Juffair in Bahrain then turn around and sublet it to the US for however much it is to cover the costs with a provision that the Royal Navy can still maintain use of part of the base, a bit like the deal with Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia. The Trucial States, Qatar and Bahrain slowly progress along to independence over time whilst still allowing the UK to maintain a presence in the region for what's pretty much cost neutral. That's all with hindsight though.

As a punitive measure in the wake of defeat, would Iraq be forced to give up claims to the Saudi-Iraqi neutral zone?

Emperor Norton I said:

What if fears had been realized, and Iraq invaded Kuwait in the 1960s, embroiling very likely the United Kingdom and possibly Saudi Arabia?

Click to expand...

It's an international crisis. Kuwait is a recognized sovereign state and UN member. Whatever claims Iraq may assert regarding Kuwait, a unilateral invasion/conquest/annexation is a gross violation of the international norms established by the UN.

Iraq would be condemned by everyone. Even the USSR and its satellites would not dare defend a regime engaged in blatant territorial aggression.

Furthermore, Iraq would be condemned by the Arab League (Kuwait is a member of that too).

Britain would be the first state to come to Kuwait's assistance. I suspect that there was a small British detachment there to begin with. Other British forces would be deployed from the Gulf States and Aden. The U.S. would also bring forces to support Kuwait from Europe via Turkey and Iran.

Even Iraq's ramshackle 1960s army could probably occupy Kuwait, but not hold it for long.

This page on the Britain's Small Wars site may also be of interest

(Love the idea of this topic. Still have no knowledge of anything at all)

Would this have any effect on decolonization and how would it relate dynamically to the decolonization issue?

Would it delay it? Unlikely I'd say. By this point the jewel in the crown of India is independent with Burma and Ceylon as well, they've left Egypt and the Suez Canal zone, relinquished the Mandates in the rest of the Middle East, Macmillan has given his "wind of change" speech in Cape Town, Ghana has gone, Nigeria is about to become independent, and the rest of the African colonies following on over the next decade or so. It was mainly a combination of political and social change in the UK that started to see colonies as not really the done thing any more, financial reasons since whilst some colonies made a profit a lot of them cost the UK money to run, and the locals wanting it as well.

No it wouldn't delay decolonisation. It might prevent the attitude that decolonisation meant a complete and immediate end to any involvement in the area though. Obviously Britain is unlikely to be proactive, but you certainly may see a harder line being taken in some cases (Idi Amin for example, or Apartheid South Africa, or Rhodesia) or intervention on request.