The Gulf War of 1991, Lessons For Commanders - Report Example

THE GULF WAR OF 1991, LESSONS FOR COMMANDERS The Gulf War of 1991, Lessons For Commanders The military commander in any country shoulders a heavy role of ensuring that the military in the country performs as per the expected standards. In a military campaign, the commander plays a key role in planning, organising and implementing the military attack, a role that requires wisdom and expertise. The Gulf War is one of the military attacks that demanded effective military operation to defend the rights of Kuwait. After Iraq, under the command of Saddam Hussein, attacked Kuwait, an act that the United Nations regarded as an unacceptable, US declared war against this country. As troops from different countries assembled, Commander Norman Schwarzkopf of the US Army became the leader of the troops and led the war against Iraq. In guiding the military in the war against Iraq, Schwarzkopf stood out as an apt commander who can be emulated by other commanders across the world. He portrayed skills of proper planning and tactful military leadership as opposed to Saddam Hussein, who underestimated the power of the troops that aimed at defending the right of Kuwait. From this point of view, Saddam Hussein is a central commander and that made him lose the war, while Norman is a democratic leader and that made him win the war. The Gulf War is one of the historical wars that involved many countries across the world after the Second World War. It was a war of nations against Iraq, after it attacked Kuwait, an act that was criticized by the international community. In this light, the international communities declared war against Iraq after they refused to heed to the demand of the US that they withdraw from Kuwait before the 15th of January.1 With Saddam Hussein leading his troops against Kuwait, he exercised a dictatorial power to suppress the small country. On the other hand, the US engaged Iraq in a negotiation through the international community and threatened to attack Iraq if they failed to abandon Kuwait. In the history of the US military, Commander Norman Schwarzkopf has remained a democratic leader and portrayed strength in tactful conflict resolution, which has made him successful in winning in many wars against their foes. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein has enjoyed the bad reputation of being a dictatorial leader. From the point of view of many analysts, this bureaucratic attitude of Saddam Hussein has seen him lose in his role as a commander. Over the world history, Iraq is a country that has always ignited numerous wars against different nations. The Iraq war against Kuwait started shortly after Iraq had given up on its war with Iran. In July 1990, Saddam Hussein gave up on the conflict he had held for a long time with Iran. At this time, Iraq had greatly invested in its military and the country was in an economic crisis. As a matter of fact, Iraq owed Kuwait 30 billion dollars and was unwilling to pay. To counter the demand of Kuwait that Iraq pays this debt, Saddam Hussein launched a counter claim that Kuwait had cost Iran a great fortune by reducing the price of oil, hurting the business operations in Iraq. Consequently, Saddam Hussein demanded compensation and refused to pay the debt they owed this country. To make matters worse, Saddam Hussein launched claims that he had held earlier that Kuwait is a country that belongs to Iraq. In an effort to control Kuwait, Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to monitor the borders of Kuwait and counter any resistance from the government of this country.2 The feeling of this letter was that Kuwait being a small country, he could easily capture it to his economic advantage as this country was rich of Oil wells. The action of Saddam Hussein against Kuwait was highly criticized by the international community. Consequently, the international community launched a negotiation plan to reinstate peace in Kuwait and pursue Saddam Hussein to withdraw his army that had already besieged Kuwait. However, Saddam Hussein refused to withdraw his army and refused any negotiations with Kuwait as well as the international community. Iraq felt confident to seize Kuwait and any demands that he withdraw his troops became a source of noise to his ears. To react to the adamancy of Saddam Hussein, the US government declared war against Saddam Hussein and his country if he failed to withdraw his armies by the 15th of 1991. The US government requested the government of Saudi Arabia to allow them set up camps in this country to mitigate any attack from the Iraq. 765, 000 troops from 28 different countries were stationed in Saudi Arabia and the US commander Schwarzkopf took the role of controlling the troops. This was his practical plan on how to win the war against Iraq in case they failed to comply with the withdrawal demands.3 After Saddam Hussein refused to call his troops off bragging about their power, Schwarzkopf launched a strategic attack in Kuwait and in Iraq that saw Saddam’s troops overpowered within a period shorter than 100 hours. The surrender of the Saddam Hussein’s army can be attributed to poor military planning and failure to advocate to democratic leadership. The war on Iraq against Kuwait Portrays Saddam Hussein as a dictator and a central commander and this is the reason why his commandership failed in the event of the Gulf war crisis. To start with, Saddam Hussein motive to invade Kuwait was fuelled by a selfish motive. Despite the fact that he owed Kuwait about 30 billion dollars, he arranged for a war to seize the country and possess its resources. Although the two countries had previously had a broader disagreement as regards the OPEC operation of mining, oil in Kuwait, it would have been wise for the country to resort to a diplomatic approach of the crisis. However, Saddam Hussein claimed that Kuwait had put his country out of market by selling oil to US at much reduced prices. Following this claim, Saddam refused to pay the debts and opted for war rather than a peaceful conflict resolution. He organized his armies and prepared to attack the country and use force to control the resources in this country. 4This individualistic motive of Saddam Hussein can be interpreted as negative aggression and a poor attitude for a military commander. This drive to capture and suppress a small country such as Kuwait is an undemocratic act that defies the rules of effective leadership. When the Kuwait government took refuge in the power of democracy, the government of Iraq was adamant to participate in peaceful negotiations. On August 1990, the Kuwait government insisted that the two countries engage in a consultative meeting to resolve the boundary issues and develop a clear peace plan rather than engage in fierce war that would see both countries lose5. On the other hand, the Iraq government headed by Saddam refused to negotiate and opted for war to resolve the problems. For the Kuwait government, they saw war as a source of death and property loss and at the end, war would not bring a solution to the two countries.6 The Iraq government looked at this as an act of cowardice and declared war without considering the impact of the war on the two nations. Resultantly, Saddam Hussein lead 100 troops of soldiers armed with tankers to the borders of Kuwait and strategized on the way to capture the country and overpower it. This portrays the weak character of a central commander who does not place value on diplomatic conflict resolution. It is this kind of poor commander that led to the defeat of this army that was too obsessed to overcome Kuwait and forgot to prepare well for the war. Another instance that shows the pride of Saddam Hussein in the event of this war is when he refused to heed to the diplomatic settlement offered by the US government. The US government sent their diplomat, April Graspie, to ask the Iraq government to refrain from war and resort to diplomatic peace settlement between the two countries. Graspie stated that dispute could not be settled “by any but peaceful” to express the value of diplomacy in countering the profanity of war7. Saddam Hussein felt this as a nonsensical argument and did not drop his plans to invade Kuwait. He warned the US government not to intervene in the matters of the two countries, especially in an effort to prevent Iraq from invading Kuwait. Even after the Egyptian president, Mubarak, inquired the intentions of the Iraq government over the matter, Saddam Hussein was unwilling to reveal their plans to deploy military power in this country. Saddam proudly claimed that he would be able to accomplish his intentions and that the US government would not prevent them. In his reasoning, he could manage to overpower Kuwait even before the UN would think of responding. From a critical point of view, Saddam Hussein portrayed the traits of a central commander who was obsessed with personal satisfaction and was willing to do anything to benefit his country. His underestimation of the power of other nations and poor estimation of the impact of the war culminated to his loss of the war that was to follow their attack on Kuwait. On the other hand, Schwarzkopf is a leader who attaches a lot of value in diplomacy. As the US commander, he followed a diplomatic process before engaging in war against the Iraq troops. The US government sent their peace diplomat to exercise their democratic rights to develop a strategy to end the war between the two Arab countries. Supported by the United Nations, the US government engaged Saddam Hussein and the Kuwait government in a consultative meeting to help settle the conflict peacefully to avoid the consequence of war. In this light, the commander of the US army perceived war as only a last resort after all the diplomatic procedures had failed. Even when this commander acquired at camp in Saudi Arabia, he continued to engage Iraq in a diplomatic meeting that did not succeed due to the Iraq reluctance to resolve the conflict peacefully.8 The efforts of Schwarzkopf to develop a peace plan have been praised as one of the best strategies that a commander can engage in protecting the peace of the country. In his perspective, war is not a conflict resolution tool as it leads to loss of life for all the fighting parties. As opposed to Saddam’s attitude as a bureaucratic leader, Norman feels obliged to refrain in the war as much as he can. Another action of Schwarzkopf that portrays him as a democratic leader is his engagement of support from other nations. When the Iraq government refused to heed to the request of the UN nation that it withdraws its troops from Kuwait, the US commander took an initiative to launch a practical plan to resolve the conflict. As a democratic leader, he appealed for support from other nations that are a member of the United Nations. He garnered support from 28 countries and supplemented his 541, 000 troops to make up a battalion of about 765,000 troops. The support he received from these countries depicts Schwarzkopf external support for the mission. Democratic leaders have much ease in obtaining support from other countries as they are admired by other nations. Also his value for the support of other countries shows that he is a commander who values democracy and ready to mingle with other countries freely. It is possible to attribute his strong leadership and military control during the gulf war with his ability to executed democracy during the period of preparation of the war. His willingness to come up with a practical plan to aid Kuwait in time of crisis is an expression of his efforts to fight for the democratic rights of other countries. For a long time, Kuwait is a country that had lost its democratic power and received exploitation from other countries.9 The attack from Iraq came shortly after the country had regained its independence from the Britain. Despite Iraq owing Kuwait a debt worth 30 billion dollars, Saddam Hussein felt that there was further need to oppress the country and if possible put it directly under their control.10 The intention of the Iraq government was to deny the country of its political and democratical rights. As a democratic leader, the US commander felt deeply indebted to Kuwait and felt the need to organize his army to protect the rights of this presumed inferior country. Consequently, this commander developed a clear work plan to help overcome the irrational Iraq army that was guided by Saddam, a commander too obsessed with personal interests. As such, Schwarzkopf took his time to organize his troops to ensure that he succeeded in reinstating peace in a country which was about to lose its democratic rights. On the part of the Saddam Hussein, his dictator attitude was a hindrance to the planning and the approximation of the impact of war against Kuwait. In times of war, there is the need for preparation and its only after a country understand the nature of their action that they should be able to start a war. In his attack, Saddam sent an army of 100, 000 troops and felt that even the most powerful army would not overcome his troops. On the other hand, Schwarzkopf expressed his tact by acquiring external support and garnering as many troops as he could. In total, he garnered a total of 765, 000 troops that he lead into war against 100, 000 troops that the Iraq team had deployed.11 Setting up a sizeable battalion was part of the US commander’s plan of winning against the Iraq army. Notably, the reason why Saddam’s army was easy to beat is because they lacked proper planning and failed to weigh the practicality of the war against Kuwait. As Saddam was too obsessed with selfish motives for the country, he planned blindly and this culminated in his defeat within the first 100 hours of war with Schwarzkopf army. According to Kruse engaging in war is not a show of real courage for a commander, but engaging in diplomacy is the real courage for a commander. The success of a commander depends on their ability to engage in non-war conflict resolutions. Going by the words of Kruse, it is crucial for any military commander to exercise democracy by refraining from war and taking bravery in engaging their enemies in a dialogue.12 This is the kind of strength that the US commander found value in. As much as possible, he tried to engage Saddam Hussein in a dialogue before planning to launch an attack. As a matter of fact, he gave Saddam an ultimatum to exit Iraq despite the fact that he had a greater number of troops. He portrayed his courage without being too obsessed that he would win the war due to his greater support. On the other hand, Saddam lost due to his pride in failing to accept democracy. He refused to heed to peace talks and felt that engaging in war was the only way to show courage. The failure of the Iraq commander to engage diplomacy is the principle reason that he was blind to see the shame that would befall him in confrontation with Schwarzkopf’s army. Another weakness in the Saddam’s planning process is depicted in his efforts to ignite a war when his own country was in a financial crisis. At the time when the country required recovering from an economic recession, Saddam organized a war against Kuwait. In 1990, Iraq was in financial crisis and was heavily indebted to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This implies that their army did not adequate resources to counter an attack from resource rich countries such as the US. The first thing that an army commander should do is to amass resources that can support their proposed war plan and ensure that they do not exhaust in the course of the war. An army that is going to war without enough resources is inclined to be defeated and to share in a battle of shame. 12 The action of Iraq commander to engage his army in a war when the country was economically unstable is a careless act that can only be associated with a poor planner and a man driven by centric or rather individualistic motives. Contrary, Schwarzkopf took his time to amass resources and troops to ensure that he would win in the battle. As such he can be regarded as superior planner who is capable of estimating the demands of the war. Additionally, it is possible to regard the US commander as operational and well-coordinated leader. This is clear from the various actions he took in approaching the war against Iraq during the Gulf War. To start with, he entered into South Arabia and organized his troops before the ambush. This action shows his wit in encroaching the enemies and coming to a close proximity where he could easily attack the enemies. He exhibited a lot of tact in his operations as he organized the storming of the Iraq army13. To start with, he targeted the most sensitive infrastructure in Iraq to weaken the enemies and reduce their efficiency. For instance, he started a six weeks bombardment of Iraq and the major target was the communication infrastructure which was critical at that moment when war was at its climax. After this, he feigned an amphibian landing in Kuwait pulling the Iraq forces to this site leaving their entry point unprotected. This made it easy for the US armies to enter into Kuwait and launch an attack. 14 Next, the US commander guided his armies across the Kuwait border into Iraq. After 100 hours of continuous attack in the capital of Iraq, the Saddam troops gave up and started surrendering. While thousands of the Iraq armies were killed, the US army only lost about 115 soldiers. The lesson that can be learnt here is that there is a need for a commander to be operational and well organized in the event of a war. Schwarzkopf in his leadership as the commander of the US armies is reputed as a being a loving person and especially for the people who served under him15. He led his team democratically won their cooperation through compassionate leadership. He is famous for instituting unity among his leaders and as a man who won over the loyalty of his troops. This is one factor that can be attributed to his effective coordination of the troops.16 Democratic leaders find it easier to develop a cohesive team that is obedient and aligned to the goals and objectives of their leaders. The easy win of the team against Iraq can be attributed to the unity of the team and their willingness to implement the plans of their leader. On the contrary, Saddam was a dictator who forced his troops to undertake a mission that was against their own will. His failure to engage in negotiations led to the death of his troops, interpreted as a sign of weak leadership. If he had surrendered before the attack had soared, he would have reduced the negative impact of war on his troops and country.17 This way, he would enjoy the loyalty of his troop in future war. In this light, it is important for leaders to execute democracy, even among the people they lead to ensure that they are aligned with his plans and goals. An important lesson that commanders should learn from this case is that group management is an important aspect of their duties in defending the nation. Just like the employees in an organization should join hands in accomplishing the goals in an organization, the armies must have a cohesive relationship if they have to win in the event of a war. The success of a commander can be measured from their ability to define a cohesive team and to guide them through the goals of the team. In the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein faced the challenge of uniting his armies in accomplishing the goals he had targeted. As he pursued his own motivations, the armies were divided as some saw this as task too heavy that required more power and more troops. On the other hand, Schwarzkopf accomplished his goals much easier for the reason that he had a well-organized and cohesive team. This points out that the need for unified team cannot be undermined in times of war. In conclusion, the analysis of the incidence of the Gulf war portrays Saddam Hussein as a central commander who applies a dictatorial attitude in leading his troop. He is too obsessed on his own ambitious intentions to suppress other countries. As such, he blindly engages in war and skips the procedures of planning. His central inclination inhibits him from appreciating the value of negotiation as part of resolving conflict. They refute any efforts of resolving conflict through a peaceful process and deploy their army troops in Kuwait. The principle reason why Saddam Hussein lost, the battle is because he failed to plan and underestimated the probability of war. On the other hand, Norman Schwarzkopf is portrayed as a democratic, operational and effective leader who and these qualities lead to his triumph in the Gulf war. After diplomacy failed, he developed a clear and tactical strategy to launch a successful attack against the Iraq troops. Within a period of 100 hours, the Iraq troops had surrendered and the US troops suffered minimum injury. The attitude of Schwarzkopf shows the qualities of an exemplary military commander that can be emulated by contemporary leaders. Bibliography Cohen, Roger; Gatti, Claudio In the Eye of the Storm: The Life of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, New York City, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 1991. Connelly, Owen On War and Leadership: The Words of Combat Commanders from Frederick the Great to Norman Schwarzkopf, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002. Craft, Douglas. An Operational Analysis of the Persian Gulf War. 2001. Dunne, Michele Durocher. Democracy in contemporary Egyptian political discourse. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 2003 Finlan, Alastair. The Gulf War of 1991, New York City, New York: Rosen Publishing. 2008. Grossman, Mark. World Military Leaders: A Biographical Dictionary, New York City, New York: Facts on File. 2007. Hersh, Seymour M.. Against all enemies: Gulf War syndrome: the war between Americas ailing veterans and their government. New York: Ballantine Publishing. 1998. Lee, Robert. Technology Child: Schwarzkopf and the Operational Desert Storm. 2000. MacArthur, John R. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War, Berkley, California: University of California Press, 2004. Mandeles, Mark David, Thomas Hone, and Sanford S. Terry. 1996. Managing "command and control" in the Persian Gulf War. Westport, Conn: Praeger. McNeese, Tim H. Norman Schwarzkopf, New York City, New York: Chelsea House Publishing, 2003. Murdico, Suzanne J. The Gulf War. New York: Rosen Pub. Group. 2004.Pyle, Richard Pokrant, Marvin. Desert Storm at sea: what the Navy really did. Westport, Conn. [u.a.]: Greenwood Press. 1999 Schwarzkopf: In His Own Words, New York City, New York: Signet Books, .1991. Ricks, Thomas E., The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today, London, England: Penguin Press. 2012. Schwartz, Richard A. Eyewitness History Series: The 1990s, New York City, New York: Facts on File, 2006. Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. It Doesnt Take a Hero: The Autobiography of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, New York City, New York: Bantam Books. 2000. . Read More