The Gulf War

Throughout history, the United States Government and Armed Forces have learned from devastating mistakes and decisive victories making the US Armed Forces superior to most, if not all, other militaries; however, the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia throughout Operation Restore Hope, Operation Provide Relief, and the Joint Special Operations Task Force missed the mark on such “lessons learned”. The inadequate intelligence; the ignorance of tactics, techniques, and procedures; and absence of reinforcements cost needless loss of US troops, and crippling a sophisticated, well-equipped military at the hands of an under-equipped militia using irregular warfare tactics. Even 24 years later, the impact resonating still weighs heavily on minds of key leaders in the government along with all echelons of military commanders.

In General Petraeus' Opening Statement to the Joint House Committee on Iraq, General Petraeus covers a summary of the surge and its effects, the nature of the conflict in Iraq, the situation before the surge, the current situation, and explains his recommendations to his leadership on the future of Iraq. This speech, or statement by title, was made as part of an update following the commencement of the surge. General Petraeus' speech, while lacking in non-verbal communicative properties, was extremely effective when paired with its topical organization and logos proofs.

It is not enough to understand that the surge and Petraeus’s strategy were effective; policymakers must be able to comprehend why they were effective, that way these strategies and lessons are properly put into action in the future. I will explain why they were effective by comparing and contrasting the situation in Iraq before and after February, 2007 (when Petraeus took command and the additional troops started arriving) and establishing the causal relationships between the new strategy and the decline in violence and that between the troop surge and the decline in violence. Furthermore, I will address the arguments put forth by those who do not believe the surge or Petraeus’s strategy were the main factors that caused violence in Iraq to fall precipitously.

Wars have been apart of this world almost as long as anything else has. Even in the Bible days there are records of wars. There are many reasons that states choose to go to war. Sometimes it is for the expansion of a nation or state, other times it is for financial gains, and it also could be for security or defense purposes. Whatever the case may be, wars have been apart of human life and will always be. There were no differences when it came to the Persian Gulf War. This war involved the United States, Iraq, and Kuwait. When trying to determine the purpose behind this war I chose to view it from a comparison of both the realist and liberalist views on the war.

In the early morning hours of the 19th of March 2003 the leviathan force better known as the United States military began an occupation to topple the brutal Saddam Hussein regime. The conflict later known as the Iraq War and dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States, brought together four separate nations to overturn Saddam Hussein and the Ba’athist government. The war introduced tactics and strategies of urban warfare, the likes of which have never used by the U.S. military before; and despite President George W. Bush declaration on the 1st of May 2003 abroad the USS Abraham Lincoln, the war was anything but “mission accomplished.” Operation Iraqi Freedom consisted of twenty-one major battles throughout its rough ten-year occupation. Operation Phantom Fury, or better known as the Second Battle of Fallujah, was one of those strategic key battles. Then Major General Richard F. Natonski led the 1st Marine Division through Operation Phantom Fury. I will introduce a brief history of LTG Natonski, the strategic location of the City of Fallujah, and an in-depth critical analysis of the mission command throughout the deadliest battle in the Iraq War.

The invasion and the war in Iraq remains a continuous topic of divisiveness and sensitivity in today’s America. One of the negative evaluation of the war is attributed to the false impression of the length of the war which lasted seven years, not six months as presumed in 2003. As the invasion initiated, the ideologies of American government then failed to perceive the large number of troops required, casualties and the financial toll in the interest of the preventive war doctrine. However, when weighing the failures of this war, there are successes brought home that relate mostly to the lessons the American military and the government learned with the use of counterinsurgency tactics after “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis (Young). Nevertheless, with evaluation through levels of analysis, the accomplished agenda of ending Saddam Hussein’s regime justifies success and failure, mutually.

As seen through today’s prism of operational art and design, the U.S. military’s campaign planning for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) was not successful. This failure resulted from flaws in the planning process itself, and the conclusions that flowed from that process. The lack of adequate advance planning for Phase IV stability or transition operations proved especially problematic. This contributed directly to rising levels of violence in Iraq, and indirectly to increased public scrutiny of the war at home. Throughout 2006, the U.S. public, pundits and military planners debated the way forward in Iraq. The plan that emerged from this period, known as the surge, successfully overcame the deficiencies in the initial planning and execution

In August 1990 the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein commanded his military to invade Kuwait. Leaving this to be the first time a United Member Nation had attacked just one of its fellow United Member Nation. Kuwait is a small country located at the North-Western end of the Persian Gulf, this gulf separates South Western Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Saddam Hussein was known to be a ruthless dictator. Refugees fled Kuwait, as many were robbed, assaulted, and looted. According to legends, that Hussein himself accepted, during the war with Iran he had used poison gas against both Iranian troops and Iraqi civilians because they opposed to his regime (Carlisle 3). With this certain example we can furthermore comprehend Hussein’s brutality and desire for power.

On September 11, 2001, two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, New York. This was the very first contact that the United States of America had with the terrorism that went on in Iraq. March 20, 2003 marked the day that President George W. Bush announced the start of the war against Iraq (1). This was the beginning of a very costly war on both America and Iraq. The cost of the Iraq War was not just the amount of money spent, but the impact of war on the soldiers and the toll that it took on the families of those who were involved, as well as the amount of time and dedication of resources put into the war by the Government.

Was the Gulf War a fight on the protection and freedom of a defenseless nation. Or was it what laid beneath Kuwait's city in its rich oil field reserves. The Gulf War or also called the Persian Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm or the First Iraqi War was a very cooperative

While both Iran and Iraq, the two most powerful states in the Persian Gulf, had boarder disputes dating back to 1501, Iraq has always had a long history of conflicts with its neighboring countries but none more conspicuously than Iran. Historians believe that the forty battles of the Iran- Iraq war were fought because of territorial and government disputes. After eight long years, the Iran- Iraq war was adequately more than people had every imagined it to be. The bitter war devastated both countries and left many with unanswered questions.

Throughout American history wars have played a huge part. From the start of the country to the present wars have played a lagrge part in shaping America into the national power that it is today. Not only is America the most pwerful nation in thwe world but it is also the policeman for the entire world, making and checking up on the world and all the interactions of foreign countries worldwide. Being born in born in the early eighties prohibitied me from experiencing many of the Americas war firsthand. This however changed early in the 1990's.

Persian Gulf War, also called Gulf War, (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait with the apparent aim of acquiring that nation’s large oil reserves, canceling a large debt Iraq owed Kuwait, and expanding Iraqi power in the region1. The Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein claimed as a reason for the invasion a territorial dispute over the Shatt al-Arab, the waterway which forms the boundary between the two countries2. Saddam Hussein believed that Iran was in turmoil and that his forces could achieve quick victory3.

A brief history of the middle east and the nation of Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War will help explain why the Persian Gulf War was viewed as necessary by the allied countries. The formation of a coalition of countries, the use of innovative military equipment, and strategic military operations helped the allied forces secure victory in the Persian Gulf War. The effects of this victory and subsequent conflict have changed our world as we know it.

This paper explores a few articles that report on the results from research conducted on online (internet) and offline (non-internet) in reference to the Gulf War also known under other names such as The Persian Gulf War, First Gulf War, Gulf War I, Kuwait War, First Iraq War, or Iraq War. The Articles though similar vary in the information. Finlan (2003) gives a breakdown the coalition forces, Sadam Husain invading Kuwait, Global impact and casualties. CNN.com and Gulf War link offer very similar time while but some facts are not identical, both articles examine and decipher the time line, the size of the force or troops , the makeup of the coalition, the types and amount of equipment , the cost for the war and the casualties