Gulf war vs. Current situation

Great Debates
1

The airstrikes against Afghanistan got me to thinking about the current conflict and the Gulf War. Which do you think was/is the most dangerous situation? By dangerous, I don’t mean in terms of US casualties exactly as the WTC bombing already killed far more than the entire Gulf War. I’m thinking more along the lines of what we all fear: The conflict escalating and getting out of hand. My feeling is that the Gulf War was more dangerous (even though it didn’t come to pass) for several reasons:

[ul]
[li]The Gulf War was a war against a legitimate government. Legitimate in terms of international recognition at least. The Taliban was not recognized by the vast majority of states, and the few that did have abandoned them. No chance of anyone coming to their aid (no official government anyway)[/li][li] This conflict was instigated by an unprovoked and catastrophic attack on US soil. The majority of rational people can understand that the US has the right to defend its citizens. The Gulf was started by an invasion of a country that the US had no real interests in. Mucb more likely to be seen as US meddling.[/li][li] In the Gulf, the coalition was going against a large and powerful military. Much greater chance of a long, drawn out fight that would have weakened the coalition, led an increasingly desperate US to do something more drastic, and possibly drawn much more Arab sympathy for Iraq.[/li][li] Also in the Gulf, Iraq was known to have chem/bio weapons and had shown that they weren’t afraid to use them. Had they done so, things would’ve gotten ugly real fast.[/li][li] The Gulf War required US troops to be posted in Saudi Arabia, Muslim’s holiest land. This is apparently what set OBL off, and could’ve done the same to many others, or even whole nations.[/li][li] Lastly, and most importantly, Israel was caught right in the crossfire. Hussein launched numerous missles into Israel to goad them into responding. To their credit, they didn’t. Had they entered the fray, the coalition would’ve collapsed almost immediately and we most likely would’ve seen a larger Israeli-US vs. Arab conflict.[/li][/ul]

While the current situation IS perilous, I think we have survived worse. Very recently, in fact.

I’m wondering how others view the two situations.

2

I think we could potential be in for some interesting times. Check out the thousands of anti-US protestors from Pakistan to Indonesia. I can easily see anti-US governments/organizations using this to stir up anti-US hatred. Which will lead to more and more terrorist attacks, more terrorist organizations, destabilize moderate governments, and generally intensify the “Clash of Civilizations”. Hell, you can see it happening right here on these boards.

During the Gulf war we were fighting a government. We had all kinds of leverage over Saddam Hussein because he wanted to remain dictator over Iraq. He’s not the martyr type. We could hit him because he owned Iraq and didn’t want his property destroyed.

Bin Ladin doesn’t care if Afghanistan is destroyed, hell he’s probably happy that the bombs are falling. I believe his goal is to trigger WWIII, Islam vs the West. Since he’s a religious fanatic, death and suffering here on earth–even of Muslims–is meaningless to him.

3

I think this situation is much more severe than the Gulf War. The Gulf War was about protecting interests–there was no way the US could accept Iraq’s absorption of Kuwait for a number of reasons, including regional destabilization and a whole lot of oil.

This war today is about eradicating terror. There is no clear target – the war on the Taleban is merely a side-track – and no visible enemy. There is a craggy mountainous land so dry and austere that Afghanis themselves sometimes refer to it as “the land cursed by God”.

Most importantly, Saddam Hussein was never regarded as any sort of religious authority. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, on the other hand, are considered by many extremist Moslems as instruments of God. The Taleban are a religious organization who enjoy support across the citizens of several countries where Islam is the dominant religion. The common objective of both the Taleban and Bin Laden is to portray this as a clash of civilizations and to stir up anti-American sentiments in the region. It’s bad enough that their detestale plans are working, but now the West has to deal with its own ignoramuses, the idiots (some of them on these boards) who choose to mischaracterize this situation for something it’s not. This is not a war against Afghanistan, and if it becomes that the coalition has lost.

It was easy to handle Saddam Hussein. In this situation I think we will see the madness escalating unless a very efficient propaganda program is implemented all over Asia and the Middle East.

4

jk:

The lack of diplomatic recognition does not mean that a government does not exist in a particular area. What it means is that those countries which do not extend diplomatic recognition to that government are isolating the government.

5

I think the current situation has the potential to be far more dangerous than the Gulf War. I’ll address the points one by one for ease of reading:

The Gulf War had readily identifiable goals - expel Iraq from Kuwait, prevent regional instability, and cheap gas. This war on terrorism has only the vaguest goals. There’s no standing army, no government, no nation to attack. As people have said for weeks now, who do you bomb? And if the strikes widen to other countries as the US government has hinted, how many coalition members will support it? Think Syria and Iran will continue their tacit understanding once some missiles fly their way?

Instigated by a catastrophic attack, but the perception of some is that the US provoked this. Sure, the US has the right to defend its citizens. It’s easier to defend your citizens from a military invasion than it is to defend them from terrorism. Justifying these military strikes under the UN’s “self-defense” clause seems very iffy to me - and I’m in favor of them. This smacks more of retaliation than self-defense.

Furthermore, as some have already stated, we had definite interests regarding Kuwait; it wasn’t just some random country used as an excuse to play with a new generation of war toys.

But the large and powerful military was also an easily-identifiable target. Drop enough bombs on an army, and there’s no more army. Drop enough bombs on “terrorists”, and you really accomplish very little. There’s a much greater chance of a drawn-out conflict here that will weaken the coalition, both domestically and abroad – footage of Afghan civilians killed by US ordnance broadcast around the world, and if the conflict drags on, footage of American soldiers home in caskets broadcast on CNN. There’s no Marquis of Queensbury rules - no army is going to stand up and say “Ok, let’s fight” like Iraq’s army did.

And still could. I bet Tokyo couldn’t have stopped Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack with military bombing - since who and where would you bomb?

And we’re using bases in Turkey, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan is solidly in the US’s camp. The troops are posted all over the mideast - this issue is the same for both.

And depending on how Israel and the PLO conduct themselves, it could escalate even further. Sharon (in my opinion) was a bit out of line equating bringing Arab states into a coalition with appeasing Hitler at Munich. If there is another string of bombings in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Hebron, and there’s an Israeli response that is viewed as heavy-handed and cruel, then the moderate Arab states may be a little more vocal in their complaints.

The Gulf War was straightforward. This war on terrorism isn’t. There are all of the risks of 1991, but they’re intensified.

(This is a situation that I’d like to play in Civ3 - but as a participant in this as a real-world situation, I’d much rather play Solitaire or Minesweeper instead.)