Was the first Iraq War justified? If not, how do you deal with the invasion of Kuwait?

[entremet]

This was the one where Iraq invaded Kuwait. Unlike the second, this war had international aggreement. It was based on any bogus intelligence either.

The UN heavily sanctioned Iraq as well for the original invasion. Whether sanctions are a good tool, is another discussion. I personally think they are not.

Looking back, I was not a fan of how the war was covered, especially by CNN. It was the first modern war in the cable news era. It really felt like a commercial for the military.

I do need to do more reading on the topic to give an answer, but what would've been the alternative outside of war action?

Gulf War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[purseowner]

No, of course not.

 

[Deleted member 9241]

I don't justify it at all. I was against it from the very start. It happened anyway and the rest is history.

 

[Onix555]

Well the first question to ask is if Kuwait is a legitimate country, different people will have different opinions on that and various other ME nations concepted during Sykes-Picot.

If you view Kuwait as legitimate, then the Iraqi annexation was an illegal move by Saddam and therefore GW was justified.

If you view Kuwait as illegitimate, then the GW was an aggressive neo-colonial ploy by the west to keep the ME weak and divided.


Both viewpoints are valid, though the most important views will be the Kuwaiti people during the time.

 

[bionic77]

I don't remember or know enough about the war other than it being totally senseless.

But yes the coverage from CNN was horrible. But just as bad was the joyous reaction from everyday people. That is not a normal way to act when you see a bomb blowing up something. At least not for me.

That is sadly probably not limited to Americans. I think a lot of people would be happy to see their army destroying another army and country on the news.

 

[Mona]

War is rarely justified, so no

 

[Kill3r7]

Well the first question to ask is if Kuwait is a legitimate country, different people will have different opinions on that and various other ME nations concepted during Sykes-Picot.

If you view Kuwait as legitimate, then the Iraqi annexation was an illegal move by Saddam and therefore GW was justified.

If you view Kuwait as illegitimate, then the GW was an aggressive neo-colonial ploy by the west to keep the ME weak and divided.


Both viewpoints are valid, though the most important views will be the Kuwaiti people during the time.

Click to shrink...

.

 

[Gwenpoolshark]

About as justified as Vietnam lmao.

 

[Shard Shinjuku]

I suppose it was justified in the sense that it had an international backing up to the UN.

 

[Uzzy]

Of course it was. Whatever the disputes between Kuwait and Iraq, allowing them to be resolved by the invasion of a sovereign country is a real bad idea, and the UN rightly passed resolutions demanding the Iraqi withdrawal, explicitly threatening military force to remove them if not. That's about as justified as it gets in the post-WW2 era really.

 

[thesoapster]

I was under the impression that we went there because of Saudi Arabia getting nervous about Sadam's forces pushing so close to their border.

 

[poklane]

Completely justified. Iraq had no right to do what they did and didn't comply with an UN Resolution which demanded their withdrawal.

 

[jph139]

The US involvement wasn't altruistic or anything, but it's as close to justifiable as a war can get: Iraq was the aggressor, they refused to deescalate despite warnings from the UN, and when all was said and done, there wasn't much in the way of mission creep.

Iraq probably had some legitimate grievances against Kuwait, economically, and against the UN, which tends to favor the hegemonic status quo. But invading sovereign states isn't a tolerable solution to that.

 

[Magnus]

Well the first question to ask is if Kuwait is a legitimate country, different people will have different opinions on that and various other ME nations concepted during Sykes-Picot.

If you view Kuwait as legitimate, then the Iraqi annexation was an illegal move by Saddam and therefore GW was justified.

If you view Kuwait as illegitimate, then the GW was an aggressive neo-colonial ploy by the west to keep the ME weak and divided.


Both viewpoints are valid, though the most important views will be the Kuwaiti people during the time.

Click to shrink...

Hold up — there is/was debate about whether Kuwait was its own nation?? In the same vein as the discussions about Israel and Palestine?
I was born in Kuwait (moved to Canada as a refugee due to circumstances arising from the invasion in 1990), and I've never heard of this before, but I'm definitely under-educated about most of the political issues and history in the Middle East.

 

[Puroresu_kid]

I was under the impression that we went there because of Saudi Arabia getting nervous about Sadam's forces pushing so close to their border.

Click to shrink...

Correct

 

[Deleted member 8257]

No it was not justified. Nor the sanctions that followed that killed 1 million Iraqis, mostly children.

And yes, we were there at the behest of Saudi Arabia. Not like we give a fuck what UN resolutions say. If not, Israel is in violation of quite a few UN resolutions, so why not invade Israrl?

 

[Dyle]

As always wars cannot be justified, only all of the individual actions which occurred during them.

In this case significantly more actions that were taken by US and allied forces during it were justified than not. Iraq was the aggressor, continued to act despite global condemnation of their actions that went well beyond what can be viewed as legitimate means, and collateral damage of the fighting was relatively minimal.

 

[thesoapster]

Correct

Click to shrink...

Yeah so if you think of it as the US getting involved to "protect our interests," and you accept this type of foreign policy, I guess it's "justified". Never mind that SA doing this pissed off Osama bin Laden and we know the events that followed. 😑

 

[The Albatross]

Yes, I believe it was justified. Like Onix555 mentioned, if you believe that Kuwait is a legitimate country, which I do and the United Nations did, and other regional and international powers did, then Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was illegal. I don't know if there is an effective mechanism to prevent the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Arab League had tried to intervene, Syria and Egypt threatened retaliation against Iraq, Kuwait offered to pay $500m to Iraq for lost oil revenue and Iraq declined (they wanted $10b) and invaded instead... UN condemned the invasion, 20/22 members of the Arab league condemned it, both tried to negotiate a withdrawal, but it wasn't happening, Iraq took over Kuwait in early August, like... half a day after the invasion, plundered the Kuwait central reserve, destroyed the Kuwaiti currency, bankrupted the country, exiled the leaders, and the UN gave Iraq ~5 months to withdraw, obviously they saw no incentive to doing that, neither with a blockade or sanctions being worth it.

The response to Iraq invading Kuwait was also a United Nations security council resolution, was performed by 35+ countries, and while it was led by the United States, the US was joined by Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy, the UK, and other countries who would not ascent to the second invasion of Iraq ~15 years later.

Furthermore, while GWB was criticized for not "going all the way to Baghdad," I think it was the right decision. 100 hours after the ground war start, coalition troops -- largely the US, UK, and France -- stopped their advance, GWB declared a ceasefire, Iraqi troops withdrew from Kuwait, and the war was effectively over. It was much more limited in scope than what we'd come to be used to in the 2000s, it didn't try to establish ... democratic elections or vast social change in Iraq or Kuwait, it didn't try to push the American or European way of life or something... And democracy advocates in Kuwait wanted more, the leader of Kuwait was a self-appointed dictator and the coalition restored him to power. Is that a good thing? Maybe not, the guy was a dictator, but it's very different from the military action that the US would start to take in the following decade.

 

[Ernest]

At least we didn't stay there indefinitely, without any plans like the second time.

 

[Sanatana]

No but Christopher Hitchens would like a word with you.

 

[Ensorcell]

Yes, not only because Hussein invaded a sovereign country against the condemnation of the UN but not forcing him out would have emboldened him to do more.

 

[PeskyToaster]

It had pretty wide international support and was in response to an aggressive invasion so it's definitely on the more justifiable side. Even countries like Iran were part of the coalition. Obviously, the US had other concerns than just Iraq invading Kuwait since occupying Kuwait would give Iraq control over a vast amount of oil but there are always a number of reasons for going to go that range from nice altruistic ones to more realpolitik ones. What even makes a justifiable war if not in response to an aggressive invasion of another sovereign nation?

I was under the impression that we went there because of Saudi Arabia getting nervous about Sadam's forces pushing so close to their border.

Click to shrink...

Iraq actually pushed into Saudi Arabia and occupied some territory at one point so I guess it wasn't an unfounded concern. Really, it just seemed like none of the countries in the region wanted to see Iraq under Saddam gain that much power. Other countries in the region were (probably rightfully) concerned about Western involvement in the conflict and preferred to resolve it within the Arab League but I think that would've been a much longer and more destructive conflict if it came to that without the giant fist of the US smashing its way through Iraq's army.

 

[sangreal]

Iraq started the war and defending Kuwait was justified, whether in self-interest or not. Appeasement doesn't work

 

[iksenpets]

Hold up — there is/was debate about whether Kuwait was its own nation?? In the same vein as the discussions about Israel and Palestine?
I was born in Kuwait (moved to Canada as a refugee due to circumstances arising from the invasion in 1990), and I've never heard of this before, but I'm definitely under-educated about most of the political issues and history in the Middle East.

Click to shrink...

I think this is less particular to Kuwait, and more an argument that the entire map of the Middle East is illegitimate because it was imposed by Western powers after WWI. Quick reading online, it looks like Kuwait was historically independent from the Ottoman and Persian Empires it was up against for the past 500 years, though this was maintained through support of Western trading powers, first the Portuguese and then the British. It looks like after WWI, there were large Arab nationalist movements who wanted union with Iraq, but the British resisted that, and then after being released by the British in the 60s, the monarchy resisted any calls for larger union with Iraq.

So you have pretty strong appeals to history to establish Kuwait as a separate nation, but also pretty strong appeals to popular sovereignty and, just, the map, for union with Iraq. Neither of which really serve as a great guide for what's the right call when Saddam Hussein tries to take it by force, especially given that Saddam is very much governing a country that really has no claim to existence outside of Westerners having thought it was a nice geographic area to carve out of the Ottoman Empire, and which had pretty exclusively been run by one foreign power or another for 2500 years.

As a general rule, I would say that "country x invaded country y" is probably the clearest rule you're going to get for when retaliation against country x is justified, and if you're going to get into which countries are legitimately formed or not, you end up with maybe most of Western Europe and like half of East Asia, and no one else. And even most of those are going to have some historical border dispute you could cite against them.

 

[thewienke]

I think framing it as the "first Iraq War" is adding a bit of unnecessary color to what was a justifiable war compared to a completely unjustified war over a decade later. The official name of the conflict was always "The Gulf War" or "The Persian Gulf War".

The coalition that was formed against Iraq in the Gulf War was something unseen since WW2. Can't say as much for later wars.

 

[entremet]

No, of course not.

Click to shrink...

Can you justify your position at least?

One country invaded another. What's the solution? Just let it happen?

About as justified as Vietnam lmao.

Click to shrink...

Did Vietnam invade another country?

 

[ArtTeitlebaum]

Let's put it this way: There have been a lot of lesser justified wars in American history. And they tried to make sure there was a legal basis for their intervention, which is not always a matter of course in US foreign policy. Of course Saudi Arabia and oil resources played a big role for their motivations.

 

[SuperHans]

Today I learned that 70% of the population of Kuwait is expats. Of the 4.6 million population only 1.4 million are Kuwaiti.

 

[MJForum Poster]

I think framing it as the "first Iraq War" is adding a bit of unnecessary color to what was a justifiable war compared to a completely unjustified war over a decade later. The official name of the conflict was always "The Gulf War" or "The Persian Gulf War".

The coalition that was formed against Iraq in the Gulf War was something unseen since WW2. Can't say as much for later wars.

Click to shrink...

Yes, there's an argument to be made that the Gulf War was how conflicts should be handled post-WW2; with international agreement and cooperation and also some restraint once it was clear what the outcome would be

 

[Deleted member 8257]

Can you justify your position at least?

One country invaded another. What's the solution? Just let it happen?



Did Vietnam invade another country?

Click to shrink...

We let Russia invade Crimea and take over.

 

[Antrax]

We let Russia invade Crimea and take over.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't call that a good decision either. If you extend the argument, then we never should've gone to Europe in 1941 either

 

[Deleted member 15240]

We let Russia invade Crimea and take over.

Click to shrink...

And let the US invade Iraq and Afghanistan. If only someone justifiably invaded the US in the last 20 years.

 

[Moff]

No and it had a similar lie to push it through like the WMDs

Nayirah testimony - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Edit: Shit, hit post too soon, will post the whole thing later.

 

[The Albatross]

Hold up — there is/was debate about whether Kuwait was its own nation?? In the same vein as the discussions about Israel and Palestine?
I was born in Kuwait (moved to Canada as a refugee due to circumstances arising from the invasion in 1990), and I've never heard of this before, but I'm definitely under-educated about most of the political issues and history in the Middle East.

Click to shrink...

There is not a legitimate debate about whether Kuwait was its own nation. It was, and is a legitimate nation. There are people who are so critical of American/European (or European/American backed) intervention that they come up with reasons to justify the actions of dictators. Kuwait existed as a distinct place for 500 years, but European colonialism divided up the middle east wrongly, and Iraqi ultra nationalists used that as justification to claim Kuwait as property if Iraq.

Claiming in the 1990s that Kuwait is not distinct and is part of Iraq, or that Kuwati's are not a legitimate people, or what have you, is like Putin justifying the invasion of crimea or Ukraine, or Hitler and Stalin justifying the Nazi invasion of Poland. Sure, dictators justify it, but it's not some "both sides have merit" argument. Claiming that a sovereign, independent nation is actually your own property is a perpetual justification for invasion and, usually, genocide or mass murder.

 

[Deleted member 8257]

I wouldn't call that a good decision either. If you extend the argument, then we never should've gone to Europe in 1941 either

Click to shrink...

I'm just saying Country X invades Y, time for America to invade country X is a wholly inconsistent metric to abide by.

 

[purseowner]

Can you justify your position at least?

One country invaded another. What's the solution? Just let it happen?

Click to shrink...

War is never justifiable. Killing is never justifiable.

 

[entremet]

War is never justifiable. Killing is never justifiable.

Click to shrink...

Never? Not even in self defense?

 

[purseowner]

Never? Not even in self defense?

Click to shrink...

Actively attacking another country's soil is not self-defence.

 

[Masterz1337]

Yeah, absolutely. The fact the people of Kuwait were happy we went there and the entire world was behind us and the fact Sadat targeted innocent people with chemical weapons is all you need to know.

 

[entremet]

Actively attacking another country's soil is not self-defence.

Click to shrink...

The country couldn't defend itself. So just let it get invaded?

I'm trying to see what other solutions have been discussed other than just annexation.

 

[ZiZ]

Of course it's justified, a US ally was invaded. Kuwait wanted the US there, the Kuwaiti people wanted the US there. The US government wanted to be there. I get that every war since has been a tragedy with the US being the "bad guys", but this one was not.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Actively attacking another country's soil is not self-defence.

Click to shrink...

So what do you do about Iraq invading Kuwait?

 

[Jroc]

IIRC even the Soviet Union backed the US on this.

Unless you're a Baathist I don't see how the Iraqi position was justifiable.

 

[electricblue]

If it's true that Bush admin told Saddam they didn't care if Saddam invaded then no, I don't see how it could be justified

 

[The Albatross]

We let Russia invade Crimea and take over.

Click to shrink...

I don't really follow the logic of how something that happened in ~2014 (Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea) should be grounds to justify events in 1990 (Iraq's illegal annexation of Kuwait).

Hitler invaded Poland to kill the Jews in 1939. The US did not declare war on Germany following the invasion of Poland and ensuing genocide. So, like should that be the template going forward, because the US didn't do something in 1939 the US should forever not do anything going forward when similar events transpire?

I get that you're pointing out contradictions -- the the UN acted when Iraq invaded Kuwait 1990 and the UN did nothing when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 -- but I don't think the wrong thing is something to justify future wrong things.

Following the end of the war in Afghanistan, finally, I think it'd be a horrible thing it was looked at Afghanistan as the template to use going forward. Like, "The US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and occupied the country for 20 years, and that's the template we should use going forward because that's what we did in 2001." When something turns out badly, like the 1939 German invasion of Poland and ensuing holocaust, or the International community not caring about the genocide of Armenians by Turkey, or any number of wrong decisions, or the wrongful invasion of Iraq in 2003, ... etc ... I don't think it's logical to use those as a template for the future action or inaction.

If it's true that Bush admin told Saddam they didn't care if Saddam invaded then no, I don't see how it could be justified

Click to shrink...

It's not true that "Bush admin told Saddam they didn't care if Saddam invaded." There's some more context to pre-1990 discussions between US ambassadors to Kuwait and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (the US [officially] took a non-interventionist position on border disputes between member countries in the Arab League, but not taking a position on border disputes is not justification for one country to invade and wholesale destroy/takeover/annex another one), but the idea that like "The US didn't care" is not true.

But, moreover, the Gulf War was led by the United Nations, which the US is obviously an important member of, but not the only member... and especially in 1990. The UN condemned the Iraqi invasion, the UN set the terms of withdrawal, the Arab League passed similar condemnation and similar terms of withdrawal.

 

[ZiZ]

Actively attacking another country's soil is not self-defence.

Click to shrink...

It was in defense of an allied government and the country's civilians. Saddam was the clear aggressor here. You're saying the US should have let him attack, bomb and annex another country even though the people living there didn't want him.

 

[mael]

Was the Koweit invasion done because the US baited Iraq into thinking it wouldn't act in the 1st place?
By the time Koweit was invaded the 1st Gulf war was pretty much inevitable, no one of note had a problem with that intervention so that should tell you everything you need to know about this.

 

[Antrax]

I'm just saying Country X invades Y, time for America to invade country X is a wholly inconsistent metric to abide by.

Click to shrink...

It's not at all because the posters saying "Country X invades Y, time for America to invade country X" aren't the ones who decide whether we invade Crimea. Ascribing the behavior of a govt to a person you're talking to is not logical.