Why exactly did Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait?

KingBishop

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
57
Location
Washington DC
To the best of our knowledge, what were his objectives? What sort of response did he expect from:

The U.S and the "West"?
Europeans?
Muslims states?
Arab community at-large?
OPEC Nations?

Just curious and have never really looked into/discussed it...
 
To the best of my knowledge his mistake was in thinking he wouldn't get much a response at all.

Talk mostly, but no military action and certainly not on the scale he got.

Do the deed quickly and put a fait accompli before the world, and it will be too much work to undo it for anybody to bother.
 
What was his reasoning/justification for the invasion, though?
 
Saddam Hussein had recently come out of a war with Iran that was disastrous, especially considering that he was winning it in the beginning. He seemed to have this idea that military expansion was the way to make a nation great and strong, so he picked on Kuwait. He claimed that he was retaking it as a former province of Iraq (not sure if this is even true), and figured no one would do anything about it. He probably wanted the oil fields as well as more access to the sea, for trading purposes. He probably figured he could do the job quickly before anyone could do much about it. This last part indicates to me that the man is a complete idiot. A rich oil-producing nation like Kuwait is going to get noticed by the entire world, which depends on petroleum for its very existence. The fact that S.H. didn't see this coming suggests he has no clue about the international diplomatic sphere. He probably figured if the West backed him up on Iran (it was the bigger threat at the time), they'd back him up elsewhere.
 
I believe I recall hearing that the Kuwatis were drilling down diagonally into oil deposits actually under iraq and taking the oil. This prompted the invasion.
 
budweiser said:
I believe I recall hearing that the Kuwatis were drilling down diagonally into oil deposits actually under iraq and taking the oil. This prompted the invasion.

:lol:

Funny!

He was crazy. End of story.
 
Nanocyborgasm said:
He probably figured if the West backed him up on Iran (it was the bigger threat at the time), they'd back him up elsewhere.

They backed him up because the US feared Iran would have begun more conquests after Iraq.
 
Kuwait did used to be a province of Iraq but this was divided up by the British (pretty sure)
 
Why? Because he couldn't afford to pay his debts.

He owed the Kuwaitis a shed load of money from the Iran-Iraq war. He couldn't pay so he invaded.

That was the main reason... interestingly enough, Ayotollah Khomeini predicted that was exactly what would happen, even while the Iran-Iraq war was still going on.
 
DexterJ said:
Kuwait did used to be a province of Iraq but this was divided up by the British (pretty sure)
The way I've understood it, in Ottoman times there were three diffrent provinces; Basra, Baghdad and whatever the Kurd province to the north was called. But there was no Iraq.

Iraq came about because Britain after WWI decided to roll the three provinces into one, except Kuwait that had up until then been part of the Basra province. And then the put a Hashemite king from the Hejaz in Arabia on the throne of this new political entity.
 
Dreadnought said:
They backed him up because the US feared Iran would have begun more conquests after Iraq.
But it was Saddam who attacked Iran. The Iranians were busy with their revolution and Saddam thought it might be a good opportunity to hack of some nice bits and pieces through a war of agression.

He really is a misrably failed warlord. Gasing civlians is just about what he has accomplished militarily. Everything else has been more or less a disaster.
 
Verbose said:
He really is a misrably failed warlord. Gasing civlians is just about what he has accomplished militarily. Everything else has been more or less a disaster.

The Kurds had been staging an insurgency since the late 50s. It wasn't one way traffic you know.

I'm not saying they deserved poison gas, but it wasn't done on a whim or personal dislike of the Kurds.
 
It was the biggest bank-robbery of all time.

If Saddam hadn't been foolish afterwards and hadn't played with Western hostages, the West would not have responded militarily. That is the reason Saddam took the strange move of stopping at the Kuwait-Saudi border while he could have advanced a lot further if he'd wanted. He knew that the West would certainly intervene if he did advance into Saudi-Arabia.
Iraq was after the Kuwait conquest invited to an Arab top-conference with Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and some 4th nation I can't recall the name of and made the blunder to not accept. He should have accepted it and discuss/debate the Iraq-Kuwait matter the arab way -meaning talking for years and years-. As long as negotiations were held, the West would not have responded militarily (besides flying in defensive troops to stop any further (unplanned) Iraqi conquests) and after 10 years of negotiations it would have been forgotten.

He gambled on the west not to react at all, except from some harsh critisism, and lost the gamble due to the hostage-blunder and the blunder to not accept the invitation to negotiate. He could have easily gotten away with it, if he had played it a bit smarter after the conquest of Kuwait was completed.
 
"Why? Because he couldn't afford to pay his debts."

CrudyLeper is correct. He owed a lot of money to a lot of his neighbors, but Kuwait was the smallest creditor nation and easiest to overrun. It was sort of a re-financing invasion.
 
CruddyLeper said:
The Kurds had been staging an insurgency since the late 50s. It wasn't one way traffic you know.

I'm not saying they deserved poison gas, but it wasn't done on a whim or personal dislike of the Kurds.
Nothing whimsical about it. The 20 million or so Kurds were the only major ethnic group in the Mid East to get completely short changed in the political shake up following WWI. They've been trying to upset the apple cart for Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria ever since.

But I fail to see how anything even vaguely approaching equal blame can be divided between the Kurds' insistance on not being ruled from Baghdad and Saddams attempt to eradicate them?
He turned large parts of northern Iraq into a waste land in order to root them out.
 
That suggests the Kurds didn't have backers.

Go read "Israel's Secret Wars" by Ian Black, Benny Morris and you might learn a thing or two.
 
So hoiw much of this tied into the US reasons for invading Iraq 10 years later? From what I am hearing, the tensions between Saddam and the Kurds had been brewing since after WWI. And what was Kuwait's position as it related to the US invasion of Baghdad?
 
CruddyLeper said:
That suggests the Kurds didn't have backers.
Go read "Israel's Secret Wars" by Ian Black, Benny Morris and you might learn a thing or two.
Yeah I might, if I can find the time.:)
I just happen think the Kurds have a legit complaint over their situation after WWI.
 
Agreed. The Kurds got a crummy hand dealt to them.
 
Top Bottom