The Gulf War and the role of air power in the Gulf War in 1991 The WritePass Journal

The Gulf War and the role of air power in the Gulf War in 1991 Introduction The Gulf War and the role of air power in the Gulf War in 1991 : vii). Nevertheless, the rising number of casualties, especially amongst children worried many people. Lesley Stahl said, â€Å"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima†¦is the price worth it?† (Leigh Wilson, 2001). Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded with, â€Å"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it† (Leigh Wilson, 2001). An attack on the ground followed on 24 February, which brought a victory for the coalition forces, freeing Kuwait from seven months of Iraqi military occupation (Sulton, 1995, pp.195-200). Following this liberation the coalition entered Iraq and after four days (exactly 100 hours) after the ground assault on Iraq) a ceasefire was declared (Dinackus, 2000, pp. 225-230). Air Power in the Gulf War Given the major use of air power in this war, some refer to the Gulf War as the ‘1991 Bombing of Iraq’, as Iraq military was enthusiastic to show off their airpower in the region. The bombing campaign began on 17 January 1991 and from that time until the end of the conflict, the coalition forces were involved in flying over 100,000 sorties in the region. â€Å"Air power dominated the media images of the Gulf War. Video footage of precision-guided munitions hitting their targets with pinpoint accuracy remains embedded in popular memory† (Finlan, 2003, p.30). It is arguable that one of the main factors forcing the retreat of Iraqi troops was the dropping of 88,500 tons of bombs across the country, which destroyed many areas within cities. The strategy in the air was to target not only Iraqi military sites, but also to destroy structural landmarks. This appears to have made the Iraqi military embark on a defensive strategy in response to the air campaign (Finlan, 200 3, p. 33). Hallion (1992) shares this view, and argues that strategy was evolving, seen in how the coalition air forces targeted places and structures rather than citizens. These air tactics, Hallion argues, allowed coalition forces to control Iraq without causing large fatalities. He maintains that, â€Å"the air commanders of the Allied coalition could approach the prospect of war with Iraq with such confidence in the air† (Hallion, 1992: 4). It is this confidence that stopped the Iraqi air force from being able to compete with the strength and quality of the coalition forces. Posen (2003) agrees with the assertion that air power played a significant role in the Gulf War. He took the view that, â€Å"air power alone may not be able to determine the outcome of all wars, but is a significant asset. Moreover, US air power has proven potentially devastating to mechanized ground forces operating offensively†¦as was discovered in the only Iraqi mechanized offensive† (Posen, 2003: 16) This shows that, whilst air power was not on its own sufficient for the coalition forces to be outright successfully, it did contribute greatly to the overall result. In contrast, however, Press disagrees with this argument and puts forward the view that, â€Å"even after 5 weeks of bombing, the best Iraqi units†¦were willing to maneuver into the path of US forces.† (Press, 2001: 37). Although Press does agree with Hallion that the coalition forces were more superior when military supplies and availability of resources were compared. The press argues that sup erior military resources were the main factor why US-led allied team won the war, rather than the much publicised air power. However, there is considerable support among historians for the idea that air power played a significant part in Iraq’s defeat. This includes Schultz and Phaftzgraff who argue that the strategy in the air campaign was an overarching reason why the ground assault brought rapid, total success: â€Å"All major government, military, and party headquarters were wrecked; both civil and military telecommunications were totally silenced; Iraqi air defences were largely incapacitated.† (Schultz Phaftzgraff, 2001: 19). This strategy of destroying main services greatly helped the coalition forces and because of this, many scholars argue that air power played a valuable and significant role in their victory. It was true, however, that Iraqi forces had air power of their own too, and this was evident when they started off their intensive military invasion of Kuwait (Fulghum, 1991: 71-73). One of the reasons for the relatively quick takeover of Kuwait by the Iraqi military was that the former was taken by surprise, and was not able to offer much resistance, particularly in the air (Sayenga, 1991). Therefore, even at the outset of the war, air played a part, by assisting Iraq to take over Kuwait in a very speedy manner. However, when the competing allied forces confronted the Iraqi forces with similar airpower, the latter soon realised that their airpower were less superior. Despite the use of ground-to-air missiles by the Iraqi military, they were no match to the allied forces’ military ability (Morrocco, 1991: 40-43). USAF Lieutenant General Chuck Horner led the coalition forces and the overall military air strategy included the deployment of Tomahawk cruise missiles from warships. As part of the air campaign, A-10 Thunderbolts bombing large sections of Iraq, causing considerable military and civilian deaths. It can be safely argued that the air campaign led to the destruction of much of the Iraqi armed forces, and that without this air campaign, the result might have affected the outcome, such is its importance in the Gulf War. When the coalition forces were combined, their artillery total was 2,250 combat aircraft, which was significant under any circumstances, but was particularly damaging when compared to the 500 members of the Iraqi air force (Hallion, 1992). The air campaign is often referred to by its code-name, â€Å"Operation Desert Storm† and more than 1,000 sorties were sent on a daily basis (Finlan, 2003: 30-32). Iraqi defence forces were not able to stand up to this military assault, particularly when â€Å" the first night of operations over Iraq witnessed the longest bombing run in history†(Finlan, 2003: 35). This puts into perspective how significant the role of air power was, as it had never before been seen on this scale in any war in the history. The casualty numbers were kept to a minimum for the coalition forces who only suffered 75 aircraft losses out of 100,000 sorties. Faced with this air bombing onslaught, many of the Iraqi air forces fled to Iran. This was unexpected, as coalition military had assumed that the escape might be towards Jordan and had adapted their strategy for this action. After just a few weeks, the air power assault had mostly stopped by 24 February, with the successful entry into Kuwait by coalition troops. It is arguably not a coincidence that the end of the bombing campaign and the end of the War came close together. The impact of the Gulf War on the Iraqi Government Following the passing of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991, the UN deployed several other controversial measures against Iraq, (Cortright Lopez, 2000). As in the aftermath of any War, the Iraqi Government continued to experience financial difficulties as the rising costs of the war impacted across the country (Alnaswari 2000:89-119). Following the extensive bombing campaign by the coalition forces, the Iraqi Government had to start the process of reconstructing major towns and cities that had been severely destroyed by the bombs. It was reported that Iraqi planners believedthe coalition’s intention had been â€Å"to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. The worst civilian suffering, senior officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray but from precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they were aimed at electrical plants, oil refineries and transportation networks.† (Gellman1991). However, it is in economic terms that the real impact of the Gulf War was felt. Alnasrawi has argued that oil was Iraq’s ‘gold dust,’ forming the bedrock of their economy and therefore the UN sanctions virtually destroyed this industry with the closure of 90% ports and 97% of exports (Alnasrawi, 2000:89-119). As long after the war as 1996, Iraq was in a dire situation, with a humanitarian crisis, and the UN agreed to offer temporary oil-for-food (OFF) program where Iraq was permitted to sell oil under very stringent conditions. Historians disagree and argue about the exact effect of this on the Iraqi Government; one report stated that, â€Å"Even under the most benign conditions, OFF only allows Iraq to be run as a relatively efficient refugee camp in which people get just about enough food to eat† (Gazdar, 2002). Although it has also been suggested that â€Å"Between the springs of 2000 and 2002, [US and UK] holds on humanitarian goods tripled† (Gor don, 2002), the financial ruin that the Iraqi Government found itself in, was as a direct result of the Gulf War. Conclusion With its many casualties and serious effect on global politics, the Gulf War remains a crucial landscape when considering modern politics, particularly in the Middle Eastern region. During its occupation by the Iraqi military, more than 1000 Kuwaiti civilians died, and thousands more fled the country never to return. As it has been shown here, there are a number of factors put forward as contributing to the invasion of Kuwait, and it has been this essay’s aim to argue that the allegation that Kuwait was stealing oil from illegal sources was the ultimate catalyst for the war, rather than the main reason. There were many different forces at play as relations between the two countries had reached volatile to say the least. Nevertheless, what is also interesting in this debate is the suggestion that interest in the conflict from coalition forces came out of an attraction to Kuwait’s oil production. Oil is in increasing demand within the Western World and it is not surprisin g that many see it as a strong underlying motive for – or at least, a significant factor in the Coalition’s engagement. This is summed up very well by Finlan, who states, â€Å"The critical issue that transformed the situation in the Gulf from a regional dispute into a full-blown international crisis was, above all, the substantial oil reserves in that area and the world’s dependence on this ‘black gold.’ If left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein possessed the ability to have influence over, or outright control of, 40 per cent of the known oil supplies on the planet by combining his own reserves with Kuwait and possibly, that of Saudi Arabia.† (Finlan, 2003: 9). In addition, it has been proposed here shown that air power had a significant role to play in the war and its eventual conclusion. The Iraqi Air Force were no match for the advanced technology at the disposal of the Coalition military, made clear during the extensive bombing campaign and also from the defensive strategy which the Iraqi army were forced to take. It has been this essay’s objective to provide evidence for the contention that the role of air power was considerable. Without the serious impact the bombing campaign had on the Iraqi forces and the Iraq infrastructure, no one knows how the Gulf War would have developed, how long it would have lasted, and what other consequences there might have been. Many lives were lost and it was clear that the Iraqi Government could not compete with the sheer scale of its opponents or stop the devastating impact on its civilians. The aftermath of the Gulf War therefore had a considerable impact upon the Iraqi Government. Arguably, the most significant effect of the war was on the economy, asthe war â€Å"produced serious hardships to the people and set the economy back to 19th Century status† (Alnasrawi, 2000: 89-119). Many academics working in this field believe that, the Gulf War laid the foundations for the more recent ‘Iraq War’ in 2003, which extends its significance even further to say the least. References Allison, W. (2012) The Gulf War, 1990-91 Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan Alnasrawi, A. (2000) Iraq: Economic Embargo and Predatory Rule Oxford: OUP Cordesman, A. Wagner, (1996) A.The Lessons of Modern War, Vol IV – The Gulf War Oxford: OUP Cortright, David, And George A. Lopez. (2000) The Sanctions Decade: Assessing UN Strategies in the 1990s. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Coyote, C. (2013) Iraq War 2013: What Really Happened Behind the Scenes, US: Charles Edmond Coyote. Danchev, A. Keohane, D. (1993) International Perspectives on the Gulf Conflict: 1990-91 London: Palgrave Macmillan Dinackus, T. (2000) Order of Battle – Allied Ground Forces of Operation Desert Storm, Oregon: Hellgate Press Finlan, A. (2003) The Gulf War 1991 (Essential Histories) Oxford: Osprey Publishings Fisk, R. (2006) The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East London: Harper Collins Flanagan, E. (1991) ‘The 100-Hour War,’ Army, April, 1991, pp 18-26. Freedman, L. Karsh, E. (1994) The Gulf Conflict 1990-1991 and Diplomacy and War in the New World Order London: Princeton University Press Fulghum, D. A. (1991). Allied Air Power, Forward Controllers Back Arabs to Make Their Drive Succeed. Aviation Week Space Technology, 134(16), 71-73. Gazdar, H. (2002) â€Å"Pre-Modern, Modern, and Post Modern Famine in Iraq† Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, The New Famines, October, Vol. 33. Gellman, B, (1991) ‘Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq: Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets’ Washington Post, (June 23, 1991) Gordon, J., (Dec, 2002) ‘Cool War’Harper’s Magazine. Available at: http://harpers.org/archive/2002/11/cool-war/ [accessed 28 February 2014] Hallion, R. (1992) Storm over Iraq – Air Power and the Gulf War, Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press Hillen, J. (1991) ‘2nd Armoured Cavalry: The Campaign to Liberate Kuwait’ Armor, July-August, pp 8-12 Khaddori, M Ghareeb, E. (1997) War in the Gulf 1990-91 Oxford: OUP Leigh, D. Wilson, J. (10 October 2001) ‘Counting Iraq’s Victims’ The Guardian Available at: theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/10/iraq.socialsciences [accessed 28 February 2014]. Morrocco, J. (1991) ‘War will Reshape Doctrine, but Lessons are Limited’ Aviation Week and Space Technology, April 22, pp 40-43. Muellor, J. (1994) Policy and Opinion in the Gulf War Chicago: University of Chicago Press Posen, B.R. (2003) Command of the Commons: The Military Foundations of U.S Hegemony, International Security pp 5-46. Press, D.G. (2001) ‘The Myth of Air Power in the Persian Gulf War and the Future of Warfare’ International Security, Vol 26, Issue 2, pp 5-44 Sayenga, K. ‘Wings over the Gulf’ The Discovery Channel: Bethesda, 1991 Schultz, R. Pfaltzgraff, R. L. (1992) The Future of Air Power in the aftermath of the Gulf War Alabama: Air University Press Sulton, B. (1995) Desert Warrior: A Personal View of the Gulf War by the Joint Forces Commander London: HarperCollins

Margaret Beaufort Facts and Timeline

Margaret Beaufort Facts and Timeline Also see: Margaret Beaufort Biography   Margaret Beaufort Facts Known for:  founder of the (British royal) Tudor dynasty through her support for her son’s claim to the throneDates:  May 31, 1443 – June 29, 1509 (some sources give 1441 as birth year) Background, Family: Mother: Margaret Beauchamp, an heiress. Her father was John Beauchamp, and her first husband was Oliver St. John.Father: John Beaufort, earl of Somerset (1404 – 1444). His mother was Margaret Holland and his father was John Beaufort, first earl of Somerset.Siblings: Margaret Beaufort had no full siblings. Her mother had six children with her first husband, Oliver St. John Margaret’s mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was an heiress whose maternal ancestors included Henry III and his son, Edmund Crouchback.   Her father was a grandson of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was a son of Edward III, and of John’s mistress-turned-wife, Katherine Swynford. After John married Katherine, he had their children, given the patronym Beaufort, legitimized through a papal bull and royal patent.   The patent (but not the bull) specified that the Beauforts and their descendants were excluded from the royal succession. Margaret’s paternal grandmother, Margaret Holland, was an heiress; Edward I was her  paternal ancestor and Henry III her  maternal ancestor. In the wars of succession known as the Wars of the Roses, the York party and the Lancaster party were not completely separate family lines; they were much interconnected by family relationships.   Margaret, though aligned with the Lancaster cause, was the second cousin of both Edward IV and Richard III; the mother of those two York kings,  Cecily Neville  was the daughter of  Joan Beaufort  who was the daughter of John of Gaunt and  Katherine Swynford. In other words, Joan Beaufort was the sister of Margaret Beauforts grandfather, John Beaufort. Marriage, Children: Contracted marriage with: John de la Pole (1450; dissolved 1453). His father, William de la Pole, was Margaret Beaufort’s guardian. John’s mother, Alice Chaucer, was the granddaughter of the writer Geoffrey Chaucer and his wife, Philippa, who was the sister of Katherine Swynford.   Thus, he was a third cousin of Margaret Beaufort.Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond (married 1455, died 1456). His mother was Catherine of Valois, daughter of King Charles VI of France and widow of Henry V. She married Owen Tudor after Henry V died.   Edmund Tudor was thus a maternal half-brother of Henry VI; Henry VI was also a descendant of John of Gaunt, by his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster.Son: Henry Tudor, born January 28, 1457Henry Stafford (married 1461, died 1471).   Henry Stafford was her second cousin; his grandmother, Joan Beaufort, was also a child of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford.   Henry was a first cousin of Edward IV.Thomas Stanley, Lord Stanley, later Earl of De rby (married 1472, died 1504) Timeline Note: many details have been left off.   See: Margaret Beaufort biography 1443 Margaret Beaufort born 1444 Father, John Beaufort, died 1450 Marriage contract with John de la Pole 1453 Marriage to Edmund Tudor 1456 Edmund Tudor died 1457 Henry Tudor born 1461 Marriage to Henry Stafford 1461 Edward IV took crown from Henry VI 1462 Guardianship of Henry Tudor given to a Yorkist supporter 1470 Rebellion against Edward IV put Henry VI back on throne 1471 Edward IV again became king, Henry VI and his son both killed 1471 Henry Stafford died of wounds suffered in battle on behalf of the Yorkists 1471 Henry Tudor flees, went to live in Brittany 1472 Married to Thomas Stanley 1482 Margarets mother, Margaret Beauchamp, died 1483 Edward IV died, Richard III became king after imprisoning Edwards two sons 1485 Defeat of Richard III by Henry Tudor, who became King Henry VII October 1485 Henry VII crowned January 1486 Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville September 1486 Prince Arthur born to Elizabeth of York and Henry VII, Margaret Beauforts first grandchild 1487 Coronation of Elizabeth of York 1489 Princess Margaret born, named for Margaret Beaufort 1491 Prince Henry (future Henry VIII born) 1496 Princess Mary born 1499 1506 Margaret Beaufort made her home at Collyweston, Northamptonshire 1501 Arthur married Catherine of Aragon 1502 Arthur died 1503 Elizabeth of York died 1503 Margaret Tudor married James IV of Scotland 1504 Thomas Stanley died 1505 1509 Gifts to create Christs College at Cambridge 1509 Henry VII died, Henry VIII became king 1509 Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon coronation 1509 Margaret Beaufort died Next:  Margaret Beaufort Biography