Could Saddam Hussein have "peacefully" annexed Kuwait?
- Thread starter vuun
- Start date
Paul V McNutt
Banned
No why would the Emir give up power? Why would the people of Kuwait want to be annexed into Iraq.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Peaceful and Saddam don't go together. I don't see a way where the Iraqis take over Kuwait without having a lot of blood shed and the Emir isn't going to step down.
Kuwaiti was a corrupt backwards fiefdom. There's no way that the regime governing Kuwait would have voluntarily joined Iraq.
That said, there are scenarios where the Kuwaiti regime gets destabilized, and absorbed or occupied by Iraq.
That said, there are scenarios where the Kuwaiti regime gets destabilized, and absorbed or occupied by Iraq.
Yeah, you'd need the ruling regime to be toppled, followed by a civil war between Islamists and a Ba'athist-like group for control. Saddam supports the Kuwaiti Ba'athists, they end up taking power, a little while later Kuwait joins Iraq in the name of pan-Arabism.
Let's say then 'peacefull' in the sense nobody give a damn and no fuss, no war, so.. peacefull.
Iran becoming more of a threat, and Irak being more.. usefull for allies? They turn an eye away for the taking of Koweit in hope it make Irak stronger, and so bukllmark stop Iran?
Iran becoming more of a threat, and Irak being more.. usefull for allies? They turn an eye away for the taking of Koweit in hope it make Irak stronger, and so bukllmark stop Iran?
Cook
Banned
You are slightly off target with the analogy; Czechoslovakia involved the international community colluding to sacrifice a nation to satisfy the belligerent demands of an aggressive neighbor. It wasn’t something that would ever have been accepted in Kuwait, even if we stretched the analogy and considered the border oil fields as on a par with the Sudetenland; to be sacrificed as an aperitif before the main meal of Kuwait City and the south.
A more likely analogy would be the Anschluss, with Saddam bankrolling Kuwaiti elements who topple the ruling family and then ‘invite’ Saddam in. It would have been difficult; the Emir was reasonably popular, particularly within the small but well trained Kuwaiti armed forces.
Last edited:
IIRC there's a theory floating about that when the US Ambassador April Glaspie asked the Iraqis about the military build-up and told them that "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, [the US government] does not have an opinion" on the disagreement between the Iraq and Kuwait stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts" that it may have been a mutual understanding. The Americans thought they were giving a green light to Iraq simply seizing the disputed border areas and negotiating the debt and oil issues from a position of strength, the Iraqis thought they were being given a green light to seize the whole country under their claim of Kuwait being the 19th province of Iraq. If the Iraqis accepted limited gains and then went after the whole place a way down the line they might be able to get away with it since no-one made a fuss the last time.
The other theory I've heard is that if Saddam hadn't been such an idiot he would have invited the Saudis to send monitors to the border to see that he was digging in and not planning a drive further south and done everything possible to drag out the proposed peace talks in Egypt as long as possible. Considering how much Arabs like to talk and negotiate, the fact that the Kuwaitis weren't all that popular in the region, a general disposition to try and avoid fighting, and mollifying the Saudis the Iraqis could have dragged things on so long no-one would end up caring/accept it as a fait accompli and the Kuwaiti royal family become just another bunch of exiles living in Switzerland or France. Not sure how much I buy that but it can't be any worse than what he actually did.
Not unless there was some sort of Bathist coup in Kuwait. The Nazis had some influence in Austrian politics before the Anschluss.
This seems to be the actual transcript:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/april.html
I can't vouch for the interpolations. But historically, Iraq has always had a nominal claim on Kuwait as a lost province since the British divided the two countries. Much as Argentina has claimed the Malvinas.
Nevertheless, here's Glaispie claiming to speak directly for the President and the Secretary of State telling Saddam Hussein that although they know he's massing troops in the south, they don't care about Kuwait. That really is hard to interpret as anything but a green light to the invasion from the highest levels of the American government.
Glaispie has been repeatedly busted over this. Here's her response to a couple of journalists:
Well, I don't know why she wouldn't think that. Saddam Hussein was talking to her, directly to her face. And while things can get lost in translation, and there's nuances and differences of intention, it's not like Glaispie was a neophyte. She was a highly trained diplomat... and not a stranger to Saddam Hussein or Iraq:
From Wikipedia
Whoa dude! Some people might consider that an ethnic slur.
rebeu
Banned
Also, even if the the American ambassador and the U.S. establishment didn't particularly care about Kuwait (there is no special US-Kuwaiti relationship to speak of) there is a special relationship between the U.S. and Saudi dating back to Roosevelt meeting Ibn Saud back in the 1940's: that relationship is Saudi provides a stable outflow of oil to the U.S. in return for the U.S. guaranteeing the Saudi state.
While the U.S. could care less about Kuwait, it was considered a direct threat to the Saudi dynasty in Kuwait. Despite the friendly rivalries between Kuwaitis and Saudis at this point (which has changed today, now its Qatar the friendly black sheep of the Gulf family), but overlooked is the role Kuwait and Al Sabah played in the unification of the kingdom in Saudi. It was in Kuwait and under traditional bedouin protocols that Al Saud harboured almost a generation and prepared to take back their ancestral inheritances in Diriyyah in Najd and with that went on to conquer the peninsula.
Thus, it was a personal obligation on behalf of King Fahad to respect Emir Jaber's father and Al Sabah legacy to assist Kuwait. And how does Saudi support Kuwait? By activating their end of the special relationship with the U.S.
This might also explain why the U.S. does not topple Saddam, as the Gillespie situation exposes, the U.S. was trying to maintain a relationship with Iraq par rapport Iran. Unfortunately, Saudi pulled the "It's either us or him!" card (at this time Iraq was the sole greatest threat to the Kingdom.) The U.S. chose Saudi, and voilà.
My two cents.
While the U.S. could care less about Kuwait, it was considered a direct threat to the Saudi dynasty in Kuwait. Despite the friendly rivalries between Kuwaitis and Saudis at this point (which has changed today, now its Qatar the friendly black sheep of the Gulf family), but overlooked is the role Kuwait and Al Sabah played in the unification of the kingdom in Saudi. It was in Kuwait and under traditional bedouin protocols that Al Saud harboured almost a generation and prepared to take back their ancestral inheritances in Diriyyah in Najd and with that went on to conquer the peninsula.
Thus, it was a personal obligation on behalf of King Fahad to respect Emir Jaber's father and Al Sabah legacy to assist Kuwait. And how does Saudi support Kuwait? By activating their end of the special relationship with the U.S.
This might also explain why the U.S. does not topple Saddam, as the Gillespie situation exposes, the U.S. was trying to maintain a relationship with Iraq par rapport Iran. Unfortunately, Saudi pulled the "It's either us or him!" card (at this time Iraq was the sole greatest threat to the Kingdom.) The U.S. chose Saudi, and voilà.
My two cents.
not logical
Part of the reason for the golabl response was the agressive attack on Kuwait, but the other portion of our repsonse was the consolidation of oil nito Saddam's hands, and the threat to Saudi his control of Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil posed.
I don't see a single scenario in which Saddam annexes Kuwait peacefully.
Now, on the other hand, if you create a scenario in which a future ruler of Iraq seeks to take the mantle of pan-arabism/pan-sunni islam in his fight against IRan and Sia islam, you could talk about a confederation or a defensive pactthat migth go somewhere, but given this region of the world, distrust and fear are more likely.
Part of the reason for the golabl response was the agressive attack on Kuwait, but the other portion of our repsonse was the consolidation of oil nito Saddam's hands, and the threat to Saudi his control of Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil posed.
I don't see a single scenario in which Saddam annexes Kuwait peacefully.
Now, on the other hand, if you create a scenario in which a future ruler of Iraq seeks to take the mantle of pan-arabism/pan-sunni islam in his fight against IRan and Sia islam, you could talk about a confederation or a defensive pactthat migth go somewhere, but given this region of the world, distrust and fear are more likely.
One issue could be that Kuwait threatens to stop or raise the price of its oil.
Saddam in the back rooms tell the US to allow him to do what he wants and "The Oil Will Flow"
Saddam in the back rooms tell the US to allow him to do what he wants and "The Oil Will Flow"
In my opinion, big-picture, we might have been better off with a secularist Baathist regime controlling the Saudi peninsula.
Both the Saudis and Saddam Hussein had totalitarian approaches to government. The difference is that in Saudi Arabia this included managing women as explicitly second-class residents. For women and enforcing religious conformity, compared to Saudi Arabia, Saddam's Iraq was Holland and Canada combined.
As for a "peaceful" resolution of Iraq annexing Kuwait, two words:
President Dukakis.
President Dukakis.
If Saddam smuggled some agitators into Kuwait to kick off some kind of revolt against the al-Sabah dynasty by Palestinians and oppressed foreign workers, then moved into "restore order" or "punish injustice" in the aftermath of some regime atrocity, that'd get him some good PR.
Bonus points if he trumpeted to the skies how much better for women, religious minorities, etc. his regime is.
Of course, that would require Saddam to be a bit more subtle than he seems to have been OTL.
Bonus points if he trumpeted to the skies how much better for women, religious minorities, etc. his regime is.
Of course, that would require Saddam to be a bit more subtle than he seems to have been OTL.