ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The two Gulf Wars - Was it really to help the people escape a tyrant or just for revenge and oil.

Updated on September 01, 2016
T72 Tank used in Gulf War by Iraq
T72 Tank used in Gulf War by Iraq
British Challenger 2 tank in Basra
British Challenger 2 tank in Basra
British Special Forces Land-Rovers and bikes
British Special Forces Land-Rovers and bikes
British Panavia Tornado GR1
British Panavia Tornado GR1


1990-91 Desert Shield/Desert Storm and 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom



In the beginning Britain and USA were minor suppliers to Iraq in the sense of conventional weaponry. Russia was the primary supplier of tanks, aircraft and other light to medium arms. Numerically, Iraq had respectable armed forces, but most of the equipment was outdated and/or deliberately kept short of essential spares and upgrades.


From the start Donald Rumsfeld was in discussions with Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad and Iraqi arms dealers and diplomats were actively on a buying spree in Western Europe. In Washington, Ronald Reagan was highly impressed by the Iraqi Chargé d’affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, who proved to be a skilful lobbyist, particularly with the American Jewish community.


Whilst the USA did not appear to be supplying conventional arms to Iraq, as I mentioned previously, they were supplying billions of dollars in credits, military intelligence/advice and were closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to ensure they had what they needed. In addition the Reagan administration was “turning a blind eye” to chemical precursors and steel tubes. Following the 1991 Gulf war, the UN weapons inspectors, found chemicals, missile components and computers from US companies such as Union Carbide and Honeywell, all being used for military purposes.



At the start of the more recent conflict, Iraq, although still smarting from the 1991 Gulf War, had re-built a capability to fight a guerrilla type war against superior forces (their officers were taught well at Sandhurst !) However, its air force was impotent due primarily to lack of spares and outdated avionics. Its main battle tanks were T-55 or T-72, both hopelessly outdated and useless against anything other than small arms fire. Iraq’s army was composed mainly of unwilling conscripts or psychopathic fanatics, scared of their fate should they lose.


To pit such an army against state of the art aircraft, tanks, missiles and well trained soldiers would be, not only suicidal but would have resulted in slaughter of biblical proportions.


So, we had to thrash them significantly enough to sate the contrived revenge bloodlust of the American people, while at the same time appearing to free an oppressed people and justify Blair’s saviour act of the weak campaign. Ok, so cynical, greedy Governments play these sorts of games – but the clever ones play and win. They cover every angle and eventuality they have in place an immediately executable plan to replace the deposed Government of Hussein with an acceptable interim Government. Bush and Blair did not, neither did they listen to their military and diplomatic advisors, all they apparently saw was the glory.


As you may know, behind the scenes in both the USA and UK (and Russia for that matter) are a “grey” group of experienced men and women, whose prime task is to protect the world from the excesses of our political masters. They operate without the need for sanction from the President or Prime Minister and their identity is both protected and denied. To save the world from an Islamic backlash and protect the lives of the innocent a war within a war was fought.


We could divide the Iraqi opposition roughly into three camps:



  1. Ruling Baarth party officials, members and Special Forces.
  2. Mercenaries from the Arab world – Syrian Baarth Party forces, Egyptian and Palestinian terrorists.
  3. Regular military forces made up primarily of forced conscripts.



We knew the plan would be to use the worst of their forces and the rubbish T-55’s to initially counter the first strike from the South. The intention was to force the West to expend valuable ammunition on pretty much defenceless armour and to tie up our forward troops with massive numbers of POWs who would surrender at the first opportunity. As the advance encountered better opposition the Iraqi commanding officers would be contacted by Special Forces and offered large bribes to disperse. For the price of a few cruise missiles this strategy proved very successful. Time and again before each major battle was expected to start our forces found the regular army had gone and their targets were 1 and 2 above. The UK army and Special Forces have a wealth of experience in dealing with terrorists in their own back yard and they tended to employ rather savage termination tactics rather than bribery.


Having completed the “liberation” by use of these tactics and a rather unnecessary show of force, Bush and Blair needed to finish the job – but they showed themselves to be totally clueless and inadequate. Quite frankly those who followed have been little better being driven by the greed for oil.


The West had been given an unbelievable chance to show the Islamic world how we can live and work together but these two clowns will walk away from the mess and make a fortune on the speech circuit while leaving others to make the best of it.



What is your view of the Gulf Wars

See results

© 2012 Peter Geekie

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Lipnancy profile image

      Nancy Yager 4 years ago from Hamburg, New York

      Thanks for the historical account. I really enjoyed your hub. It is my highest hope that there will be no future wars for you to write about.

    • Peter Geekie profile image
      Author

      Peter Geekie 4 years ago from Sittingbourne

      Dear Lipnancy,

      I sincerely hope so as well - regretably it seems it is in the nature of man to try and devise ever more efficient ways of killing each other. History should be able to teach us not to make the same mistakes again and again but we don't learn.

      I would love to write about the nice things in life and I'm making a start with a series of 7 thoughts for the day - problem is I've only published number 1 so far - number 2 is still on the drawing board !!!

    • SweetiePie profile image

      SweetiePie 4 years ago from Southern California, USA

      Whereas there is a loud contigent of people in the US who claim they want to go to war, those are usually people that benefit from it financially. There is a larger segment of the population that is tired of interventionists wars, and unfortunately some just go along with it because they are told in the media it is patriotic and all that. There a lot of Americans who want to pull out of all of these conflicts, and not start any new ones.

      Of course if you vote for Mitt Romney, you probably are of the school that it would be super cool to get in a conflict with Iran, arm Syrian troops, and lots of other things that will lead to the death of innocent lives, and drain the world economy.

      War is not the answer, but the people who benefit from it economically will do everything to make people think it is. I am for the self-determination of peoples and say it is up to the Syrians to fight their own civil war, and up to the people of Iran to overthrow their puppets. The west should not be involved in overthrowing any more leaders like we did with Saddam. Sure he was a dictator of the first order, but he was also a secularist, which means people did have freedom of worship. After Saddam was gone many Christians fled Iraq because extremists Muslim groups made it harder for them to survive there. I feel the west really does not need to get involved in the politics of this region any longer.

    • Peter Geekie profile image
      Author

      Peter Geekie 4 years ago from Sittingbourne

      Dear SweetiePie

      A shrewd assessment of the situation - I agree the world would be a much happier place if we could eliminate war and profiting from war. Most people have the common desire to live together harmoniously, but, of course there will always be the occasions when a government is so cruel, oppressive and lacking in common decency and compassion to its own people that it is our moral duty to bring them to book. The danger, of course, is the old adage - one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

      Kind regards Peter

    • SweetiePie profile image

      SweetiePie 4 years ago from Southern California, USA

      The west never would have went after Saddam if Al Gore had been elected. This was Bush jr wanting to avenge some unjust wrong he saw his father suffering.

      I do not believe taking Saddam out of power was a good thing as it tanked the American economy, and displaced a lot of people in their own country. It was up to the Iraqi people to decide if they wanted him out of power, and I will never feel right about how Bush and Blair went in to take care of it. The repercussions have just been so bad all around, and nothing good came out of it. When my fellow Americans in Hawaii only have a four day school week, I will never feel all these military ventures are good. When they are talking about cutting some many public schools here in California and consolidating more kids into classrooms of a ratio of up to 35 kids per teacher, I will never be in favor of military funding. More cuts for public education are always on the horizon in the US, but there is never cuts for military spending, or the suppliers that profit from this.

    • pramodgokhale profile image

      pramodgokhale 4 years ago from Pune( India)

      Iraq war , through American point of view that they eliminated a Monster

      like Saddam, but America's arms merchant were behind the war

      and got the cream.The dictator in the third world dares to act against American interests then he is the criminal and media presents him as a monster, getting eliminated.The cold war is still going on under only Super power. Vietnam had shown Americans that they decide the fate of their nation and not any foreign power.

      Americans tested their advanced weapons in both Gulf wars

      ensure their Arms industry gets the market share. My country India is towing American line and buying American weapons.

    • Peter Geekie profile image
      Author

      Peter Geekie 4 years ago from Sittingbourne

      I effectively agree with what you say, pramodgokhale, but I should point out India is also buying or leasing billions of dollars worth of Russian equipment (nuclear subs etc) and possibly millions of dollars worth of fighter aircraft from the Uk. I do ask myself the question why does India need all of this state of the art hardware.

      Kind regards Peter

    • pramodgokhale profile image

      pramodgokhale 4 years ago from Pune( India)

      Sir,

      i read your comment, why India needs military hardware because we have hostile Nuclear neighbors i. e. China and Pakistan and unstable regimes around us Nepal Bangladesh ShriLanka Myanmar.We had wars with China and Pakistan, cold war game.We were the victims of Divide and Rule policy of British Imperialism.we bleed by partition and Sikh separatist movement.

      We need minimum deterrence to protest us.

      thank you.

    • profile image

      Phoonsiri 2 years ago

      America has done many atrocities in Iran n in other cueitrnos, India also loosing out to Us via Brain drain,they undrstnd our weakness for money,recognition many young genius s pulled towrds us.can see McDonals n Kfcs sprouting up ,hate 2 c our culture,taste n elite young urban sold 2 us in de name of better opportunities n grwth.

    Click to Rate This Article