Project Reflection for U.S. Military Intervention

After completing this research assignment, I feel that I have walked away from this project with a better understanding of how our military operates and its true motives in a given conflict. It is somewhat disheartening to realize that most of the conflicts that we find ourselves in are based upon economic benefit or the possession of materials we don’t already possess. It was an eye opening project that led me in a direction of learning that I would not have been able to obtain if I simply went through a U.S. history text book to find information.

I initially chose to study the Persian Gulf War because I was lacking even a basic idea of why the war was fought and I truly wanted to learn more about the intervention. At first, the research for the project led me in a pretty straight forward direction. I was primarily focusing on the one dimensional aspects of the conflict such as the military campaigns of Saddam Hussein and the logistics of Operation Desert Storm. However, as I traveled deeper into the informational abyss that the internet provided, I found myself learning more and more about the economics during the 1980’s. This led me to question the legitimacy of the U.S. government’s intentions in assisting Kuwait in the removal of Iraq from its lands. I then researched the histories of oil and gas markets and began to make comparisons between the fluctuations in oil prices and the dates of military conflicts and found that whenever the U.S. became involved in a conflict with a country with large oil reserves, oil prices would climb. Whenever the U.S. emerged from a conflict with victory the oil prices would decrease. From here I was able to conclude that the Persian Gulf War was fought to keep control over oil while using the humanitarian liberation of Kuwait as a public appeal to morals. This allowed me to look as other interventions with a totally new perspective that rested on economic expansion. I think that this was that most beneficial lesson I have learned from the humanities coursework this year and I believe that I will continue to apply this newfound perspective in the future.

One of my favorite aspects of this project was the class viewing of other projects through PowerPoint presentations. It was very rewarding to listen to my classmates’ interventions in a visually stimulating experience. I learned a great deal from this event and I even learned of a few interventions I never even knew took place. An example of this would be Denvir Clarke’s presentation on the U.S. intervention in Columbia and the relation to the war on drugs. I had no idea that military involvement in Columbia ever occurred before and I was very surprised to learn of the CIA’s secret involvement in the issue.

I believe that the key take away from this project was a valuable lesson that we can all learn from: Always look behind the media and the one dimensional resources before you can true take a stand on an issue. I now try to look at the story behind the story in any provocative issue before I can even formulate an opinion because so much may be going on behind something like the media that might never be recognized as a truth. In fact, I would very well assume that the majority of our population has never known, does not know or will ever know some of the truths that are hiding behind clever rhetoric. That is why it is of the upmost importance that the American populous understands the lesson being taught through this project. So much can be changed through perspective and in order to preserve the future we must first understand the true perspective.

Iraq: An Economic Destination

The military intervention with Iraq is well remembered in our history as one of the first of many occupations in the Middle East. What we can learn from this intervention is that military action was called for as a humanitarian response to the Kuwaiti people as Iraq invaded their country, but there is no denying that the taking of Kuwait was an alarm to the U.S. administration. The fact that Kuwait was in such proximity to our oil interests in Saudi Arabia triggered an immediate response in order to protect any rise in oil prices and to secure resources in Saudi Arabia. This was the primary directive for the war.

In the mid ‘70s, Iraq’s relations with Iran were aggressively deteriorating after an Islamic revolution took place in Iran and the newly formed government began to grow hostile towards Iraqi officials. As relations finally fell through, Iraq was in the position of initiating a war with Iran in order to achieve the following: 1) to gain possession of the coveted Persian Gulf, 2) to assert dominance in the Middle East and replace Iran as the most powerful Persian State and, 3) to effectively end any further Persian-Arab conflict. By the early ‘80s the cry for war was almost deafening. Although the tension between the two nations was high and the demand for war was increasing exponentially, the actual decision to engage in conflict was rash and ultimately costly. Phoebe Marr, a noted analyst of Iraqi affairs, stated that "the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgment and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein," and "the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam's"(Pike).  Saddam Hussein committed to a long bloody war, with Iran ultimately winning. This left Iraq with many casualties and majorly indebted to surrounding countries and the United States, which supplied Iraq with weapons and money.

After the end of the war, Iraq fell into a deep depression in the late ‘80s and morale among its people and government was diminishing. Hussein began to look for possible ways to regain the nation’s losses from the war and find more revenue to finance the crippled country. He then turned to neighboring Kuwait, seeking the immediate access to the Persian Gulf, an essential asset in Persian trade, and to attain large oil reserves that Kuwait possessed. In a fit of rage, Hussein launched a full-fledged offensive on the small kingdom on February 8^th, 1990, taking Kuwait City in less than a day. Most of the world was appalled by the hostile takeover of Kuwait, but western involvement took place five days later due to the U.S.’s urges to use diplomacy through the United Nations (which initially voted for sanctions against Iraq). Iraq’s one and only major export was oil, making it very susceptible to trade embargos. The only nations that seemingly supported Iraq were Pakistan and Jordan, even though they refused to offer military support. The rest of the Arab States united together, which was traditionally uncommon in Arab history, and even sent troops to combat Iraq as they condemned the invasion. Saddam had underestimated western involvement and began to take more serious measures. By September, Iraq began gathering western hostages in Kuwait and transporting them to Baghdad, using them as human shields. Surprisingly, hostages were released shortly afterward after UN diplomats convinced Saddam that hostages would not cause the U.S. to repel an offensive. On August 7^th, 1990, coalition forces began to land in Saudi Arabia and prepare for an invasion of Kuwait.

The war itself can be called an “open-shut case,” with very few large-scale battles beside “Operation Desert Storm,” and minimal coalition casualties. The UN gave Iraq the ultimatum of immediately pulling out of Kuwait and restoring the legitimate government and disassembling the puppet regime that was installed. Through the use of modern technology such as laser and computer guided missiles, the coalition forces were able to cripple Iraqi air and land forces without ground invasion. During operation Desert Storm, the largest offensive of the war, military precision on the part of General Norman Schwarzkopf allowed for a very effective offensive against the Iraqi army ultimately driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and well into Iraq. At this point, President Bush called for an immediate ceasefire and UN council meetings were arranged to plan the surrender of Iraq. On February 28^th, 1991, Iraq officially surrendered, leaving the country crippled and in even more debt than before. The U.S., on the other hand, walked away from the war in favorable standing with most Middle Eastern countries and, more importantly, their oil reserves.

The most interesting concept of this war is the relationship between Iraq and the United States and how this relationship changed so quickly. During the Iraq/Iran war, Iraq was considered to be an ally of the United States. In an event called the contra-affair scandal, President Reagan and his administration provided Iraq with multiple weapons including long range missiles and chemical weapons in hopes that Iraq would provide the U.S. with cheaper oil prices. This scandal was later exposed in the federal courts during multiple law suits against the Reagan administration. What we have learned from this event is that the Reagan administration was incredibly adamant about possessing a relationship with Iraq in the hopes of securing a trade in oil.

The possession of oil and natural resources is a key factor in our relationship with a country like Iraq and any Middle Eastern state. These countries are not viewed as humanitarian locations but economic stock houses. Oil is one of the most important resources to our economy and our livelihood. Our entire society relies on oil and petroleum-based products in one way or another so the mission of obtaining oil is set as a priority to the U.S. government. James Williams, a notable analyst of oil history, stated, “Following what became known as the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, crude oil prices entered a period of steady decline. In 1994, the inflation adjusted oil price reached the lowest level since 1973,”(Williams). The actual methods of obtaining oil, ether diplomatically or by force are often disregarded in order to keep our nation at the top of the totem pole. This race is what determines many of our foreign relations with countries of the Middle East. Although the Bush administration claimed that the Persian Gulf War was fought in response to the moral obligation to re-liberate Kuwait, many other countries in the world such as Rwanda (Langford) were under similar oppression. The U.S. intentionally ignored and continues to ignore these countries because there is no economic gain to be made. The U.S. can even be considered a colonial power in our modern world because of our pursuit of economic resources. It even seems as though humanitarian interest is not a factor when decisions are made to engage in warfare with a country that either threatens U.S. interests in natural resources or is in position of natural resources.

 The consequences of this war have not only lead to the termination of a positive relationship between the United States and Iraq but also brought many factors into foreign relations with Middle Eastern countries in general. The war even caused an unethical approach to the war on terror ultimately leading to the second invasion of Iraq. This was also a war that was fought in the pursuit of foreign oil while using the conflicts surrounding the events of 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. The greed and quest for international power is a key driving force in our relations with countries that do not have the means to protect themselves or could easily be controlled by the American establishment. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was unethical and was a violation of international law and a response was required from the rest of the world to restore order. However, the U.S.’s involvement with the war was primarily focused on protecting oil interests in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern territories. So now the question is asked: Are the wars we currently fight justified as humanitarian protection and justice? Or are we fighting an economic war with live fire? The answer is dependent on three things: the strength of the nation we are at conflict with, the values of the natural resources said countries possess and what events surrounding the war could potentially be used as a justification of action. We must always remember to constantly analyze U.S. policies and dig deeper into foreign relations to truly find the justifications (or lack thereof) of the military conflicts we find ourselves in.