Did we lose the First Gulf War also?

Question

I realize that we kicked butt in individual battles, just like in the current conflict. However, having to go back a mere 10 years later makes it seem like a Pyrric victory. Will history treat it as a loss?

Answer 1

I was there and at that time I believed we had won, but I am in Kuwait right now and have been for several months and it seems the people we liberated have no sense of liberty and freedom. Because they have demonstrated against the U.S. since I have been here and have even burned the American flag in some of their protest. Makes you wonder why the U.S. would choose to liberate any country. They all have short memories.

Answer 2

What is this lose crap? We have not lost anything. Some of you seem to be rewriting history. The Gulf War acheived the limited goals it had. Liberate Kuwait, Defend Saudi Arabia, destroy the Iraqi Army & Air force. Goals wer met and done overwhelmingly. AS for the current conflict? Again what is this lose crap? We came, took a nation capital in month. Destroyed the army and Republican Guard. Destroyed the Bath party government. Ended any threat to the Gulf states. Captured Saddam, Killed the head of Al Queda in Iraq. Built a govenment from scratch. Helped them build A Army & a constitution faster than we wrote our own. We done this and more with some of the lowest casulity rates since the Spanish American war! So I say again. What is this lose crap?

Answer 3

We were victorious in Desert Storm, in that we set forth the goal of expelling Iraq from Kuwait and achieved that goal.

Our goal never was the removal of Saddam from power. That would've alienated many of the coalition forces who joined us for our primary objective.

Part of the condition, though, was a cease-fire, which Saddam violated more than a dozen times over the next 12 years. That is sufficient reason to resume hostilities, which is essentially all this is.

BTW, a Pyrric victory means you've suffered catastrophic losses in order to attain a measure of success; like nuking a ghetto in order to eliminate the drug trade there.

Answer 4

Why people in this country can't pick up a history book and read it.

Desert Storm "the first Gulf War" was a victory. Our job was to liberate Kuwait and that was it. We went there and liberated Kuwait from Iraq.... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. We did not cut and run, we did what we were told to do.

As for this war we kick Iraq butt again we won the war with Iraq this time too. The insurgents are from other countries and are terrorist and we will kill all of them too. We are not losing by a long shot. Sure we have lost about 2500 men,but our enemies have lost tens of thousands. The liberal jerks in this country should move to China or Russia with the rest of the Commies. Why can't you and you know who you are, read the facts before you make stupid and bias comments about your fellow countrymen.

Answer 5

The first Gulf War never ended. Iraq was allowed a temporary cease-fire in which Saddam had to hand over all his WMD materials. In exchange, he would receive consideration for rejoining the cooperative international community.

Saddam defied the cease-fire disarmament mandates, continued the shooting conflict and the UN dragged its feet issuing one resolution after another that Saddam should, absolutely must, stop being defiant (or they'll maybe this time do something about it).

The temporary cease-fire ended when Bill Clinton made it official US policy to eliminate Saddam's regime by force and install a new government in Iraq (Iraq Liberation Act, 1998). Clinton bombed Iraq for three days, tried to support insurgents in overthrowing Saddam (as the CIA did in Afghanistan). Clinton failed miserably. Bush got the job done, bringing conclusion to the Gulf War.

Now, we are mopping up, aiding the legitimately elected government of Iraq in suppressing Islamists trying to seize control of the country. They're the same crowd Saddam struggled against.

Answer 6

I fought in both Desert Storm and OIF-1 (Operation Iraqi Freedom) with the initial entry/attack forces. The mission during Desert Storm was basically threefold:
1) defeat the occupying Iraqi forces
2) liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control
3) RESTORE order (to the pre-existing government)
That was a fairly simple mission, compared to the OIF campaign.

The mission during the initial entry OIF forces was fairly simple as well, however, we (the Coalition forces/United States) did a poor job on the follow up "exit plan" and understanding the full complexity of trying to establish a democratic-like state into a culture that does not support democratic norms (Islamic culture). For example, our initial plan of attack was to:
1) liberate the oppressed majority (Shi'ite Muslims) which composed almost 75% of the population
2) win the hearts and minds of the people
3) re-establish a central government that would take control of the population
4) leave the country in better shape than we started.
There were several flaws to this plan, obviously:
1) we did not count on the liberated people to "turn on us" (have a negative view of the liberators) so quickly
2) we were totally ignorant of the cultural norms to expect them to adopt a western form of democracy so quickly (if it took God 40 years of making these folks wonder in the desert before delivering them to the promised land, who are we to think we can do any better in less time?)
3) our arrogance did not allow us to think beyond 12-24 months time of occupation - we are now "playing it by ear" and can no longer afford to leave out of fear we will leave the country in worse shape than we found it
4) lastly, we are on a steep learning curve and have no real chance of creating a democratic nation in that part of the world until we can change the hearts and minds of the people that continue to teach (as we feed, cloth, house, pay, and provide basic needs to the Iraqi's) their children that we are the enemy.

Bottom line: The first gulf war could be compared to getting a burgular removed from your home, whereas OIF could be compared to capturing David Karesh of the Branch Davidian complex (Waco, TX) alive, without killing or injuring any of the other people that were held up in the complex.

I believe history will write that we accomplished the mission during Desert Storm, but we should have realized much sooner than we did, that Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein were both monsters that should have been dealt with sooner than later.

Answer 7

A Pyrrhic victory is one in which the costs outweighed the gains. What were the costs of the first Gulf War? It was basically free (underwritten by audis and Kuwaitis), we lost like 200 soldiers, and it didn't interfere with other operations. And we gained the establishment of the standard that "Sovereign Countries Don't Invade Each Other." What were our losses?

Answer 8

The word "also" implies that we have lost the current one -- pretty defeatist attitude isn't it? It took decades to defeat the insurgencies and return normalcy to Japan and Germany after the military victories of WW2, so think about giving it a chance in Iraq. Don't throw away what the soldiers have sacrificed for just because it isn't going according to your timetable.

Anyway, rephrasing your question to simply "Did we lose the first Gulf War": No, it accomplished completely what the intended (and UN-sanctioned you may recall) goals were, namely to kick Iraq back out of Kuwait and reduce it's army to the point that it could not militarily threaten its neigbors with another invasion.

The "peace" afterwards was lost, however, when certain politicians refused to hold Saddam Hussein to the terms imposed on him by the UN, specifically that he must allow unhindered UN inspections to ensure that he had completely destroyed his WMD programs. His refusal to do so by constantly playing games with the inspectors, preventing them from inspecting critical sites for days while trucks ran back and forth from them under military guard, then finally letting the inspections happen only after the trucks were gone, is what led to the current war. It was simply not possible to trust his claims that he had fully dismantled and destroyed his WMD programs. He was trying to keep his neighbors in terror of his WMD program (real or imagined) and in so doing convinced the west that he was still pursuing said program in violation of the UN mandates. Do recall, that Iraq most definitely DID have a WMD program up until the first Gulf War, and he used at the very least the chemical weapons part of it in battle and against civilian populations on multiple occasions. This showed that he not only had the weapons, but was perfectly willing to use them in a manner absolutely abhorrent to all civilised nations.

Had the UN, President Clinton, and other international leaders simply held Hussein to the terms which had been originally imposed on him (and which still stand), we wouldn't be in there today. But he was allowed to enrich himself and rearm his military by abusing the UN "oil-for-food" program (which more aptly should have been called "oil-for-money-for-Saddam"), and as a result President Bush was forced to decide between allowing that to continue and leaving the civilised world looking like idiots (which would send entirely the wrong message to other would-be despots), just giving up and letting Hussein go back to being an unchallenged dictator and threat to a critically important part of the world (which would have made all the previous effort and losses pointless and potentially destabilised not only our own economy but those of most of the nations friendly to us), or taking military action even if it had to be unilaterally in order to show the world that even if the UN wasn't serious, WE were.

So its like asking if we lost WW1 just because WW2 broke out. And the answer is the same -- no, we won. But the whining politicians pi$$ed it all away because they were too involved in their own goals and too lazy or stupid to look at the larger sweeps of history, so in the end we got dragged back into an even bigger conflict that could be considered "round 2" of the first conflict. Winning the war is not what makes the world safer. Winning the peace is. We've won the WAR in Iraq. Now we need to defeat the insurgency and bring Iraq into the 21st century as a stable nation so that we don't have to go back in there and do it all over again in 2015.

And really, when you look at it, the current Gulf War has also accomplished its main goals -- to eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime and to ensure that Iraq does not have and can not develop WMD's. We could just walk away now and say "that meets our needs." That we don't is a testament to the fact that we are not interested just in defeating an enemy, but rebuilding and stabilizing them just as we did in the aftermath of WW2 (the Marshall plan).

Answer 9

The First Gulf War (AKA Desert Storm) Had a very specific goal.
To return Kuwait back to it's people after Saddam Hussein invaded and took it over for his own. This we did with a 23 nation coalition that included many Arab Islamic Countries (Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and even Syria to name a few). Yes the same Syria that is so against us and Israel now and supporting Hesbollah (Even those terrorist supporting bastards knew Saddam was wrong then).
We went in and we kicked butt on the worlds 4th largest Army. (Yes, Iraq had the 4th largest after China, USA, and Russia). We got back Kuwait and it is a free nation again from Iraq.
Here is the key as to why people think we didnt finish the job... AKA get Saddam Out then in '91...
That wasnt the goal of Desert Storm. As I pointed out before there were many arab nations on our side. we were fighting FOR an arab nation who was attacked ruthlessly by Saddam. Once we did that, if we were to have gone further and took Saddam out, We would then have had those Arab nations turn on us as we would then be invading another arab nation (Iraq) ourselves. Doing that was beyond the scope of the coalition.
So NO we did not lose the first gulf war.

Your use of the word ALSO in your question is wrong. We did not lose the second gulf war either. It is over and we have won. The second gulf war was to remove Saddam from power after he failed to comply with UN resolutions put in place by the UNITED NATIONS. We kicked his butt in '03 just as bad (Even worse) than we did in '91. Saddam is gone. he is standing trial for genocide against his own people. Iraq has a freely elected government today.
What is going on in Iraq today is not a continuation of the War against Saddam. It is Al Qaida and other extremist Islamic militants using Iraq as an excuse to wage their "Jihad". Over 90% of the "insurgents" are not even Iraqi but are other foreign fighters coming into the country to wage their "war". Today most of the attacks are being directed not at our troops but at the Iraqi people and their new government. We are still there and still fighting FOR our Ally (Iraq). Iraq as it is now is very unstable and unable to defend themselves against the onslaught of nutcase terrorists and we are there helping until they can stand on their own.

Answer 10

A few answers up... Dave there pretty much sums it up.. Good for you Dave. Have you heard of the "highway of death"? Iraq's troops were booted out of Kuwait and headed north. Bush Sr. was doing some serious eliminating.. He was told to stop.. To cruel