Barry Bull
Donor
I believe the British sent their armed forces to ward off an Iraqi attack on Kuwait in 1960.
Different situation and era, Kuwait had an Independence agreement with British that allows that to request UK military aid.
I believe the British sent their armed forces to ward off an Iraqi attack on Kuwait in 1960.
The problem is that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was facing an economic catastrophe, with more than a hundred billion dollars needed for reconstruction and debt repayment, not nearly enough money coming in from oil, a non-oil sector simply incapable of filling the gap, and a military that could not be demobilized because the labour market could not handle hundreds of thousands of young male entrants. If Iraq did not get a massive influx of funds from (say) a successful invasion of Kuwait, the country would have faced a meltdown.
The Persian Gulf War was a huge military success for the United States, a quick and easy victory that achieved America's strategic goals without bringer down into a protracted quagmire like Vietnam or Afghanistan. However, in the long term this set the stage for the disastrous Iraq War in 2003. What if the Persian Gulf War had never happened? The POD is the US Congress passes the Prevention of Genocide Act in 1988, punishing Hussein for his crimes against humanity and ultimately deterring him from invading Kuwait two years later.
Suppose the US deters an attack by sending troops to Kuwait in response to the Iraqi buildup, before the attack actually begins, but otherwise takes no action.
IIRC prior to the crisis Kuwait offered to pay Iraq $10 billion compensation for drilling in a manner which took some of its oil.
So suppose Hussein accepts this deal. What happens on the long term if the war never takes place?
Side (Slant) drilling or whatever it's called. Basically the wells were in Kuwait but they drilled at an angle so they were pulling out oil that was on the other side of the border.
Directional drilling actually, used to work with a guy who was on the projectSlant drilling IIRC.
I think the suggestion that Saddam (Or his successor) would have been overthrown in 2011 due to the arab spring is a ludicrous one. Saddam's Iraq was not like any of the other authoritarian regimes in the region. Of course Gadaffi, Assad and Mubarak were no democrats, but in relation to Saddam they may aswell have been. Iraq under Saddam was more akin to Nazi Germany or modern day North Korea than other middle eastern regimes.
The personality cult and security services that he built were like nothing that region had ever seen, or indeed has seen since. Any rumblings of dissent in 2011 if he's still in charge would have been utterly crushed in days, not weeks.
I’ll also note that what set up 2003 was not the First Gulf War but the refusal of our allies to support taking Saddam out at that time rather than leaving him to linger. Keep in mind the US was IN Baghdad when things got called off.
(Well along with a bunch of policy wonks in Washington, pretty much the entire upper administration of Bush II btw, who “decided”, with no input from people who actual understood the Middle East mind you, that a “stable and democratic Iraq” was the key to stability in the Middle East and achieving that meant we had to invade and take out Saddam)
It is arguable that had there been no First Gulf War then 9/11 would not have happened but I think it unlikely. While the US presence after the Iran/Iraq war was greatly reduced there was still a presence.
In Baghdad in '91? US forces were in southern Iraq, but....
Wolfowitz and others sure led this country into a mess...
Furthermore, from what I've read, the 9/11 Commission determined that US support of Israel was among the reasons for the attack.