The Concept of Foreign Policy

Foreign-policy analysis is a study of the management of external relations and activities of Nation-states,
as distinguished from their domestic policies. Foreign policy involves goals, Strategies. Measures,
methods. Guidelines, directives, understandings, agreements and so on, by which ‘national governments
conduct international relations with each other and with ‘international organizations and non-
governmental actors. It is their attempts and efforts to influence the goals and activities of such actors,
whom they cannot completely control because they exist and operate beyond their sovereignty
(Carlsnaes 2002: 335). All national governments, by the very fact of their separate international
existence, are obliged to engage in foreign policy directed at foreign governments and other international
actors.
Policies lay out courses of action for government agencies and their personnel. Foreign policies consist
of aims and measures that are intended to guide government decisions with regard to external affairs,
particularly relations .with foreign countries. Government officials in leading positions-presidents, prime
ministers. Foreign ministers, defense ministers, finance ministers and so on, along with their closest
advisers are usually the key policymakers. Managing foreign relations calls for carefully considered plans
of action that are adapted to the foreign interests and concerns Le goals of the government.
Policymaking involves a means-end way of drinking about goals and actions of government. It is an
instrumental concept: what is the problem or goal and what solutions or approaches are available to
address them? Instrumental analysis involves thinking of the best available choice or course giving comet
advice—to make things happen according to one's requirements or wishes. It can be an integral element
of studying foreign policy, where the analyst seeks to provide knowledge that is of some relevance to the
policymaker. It involves calculating the measures and methods that will most likely enable one to reach a
goal, and the costs and benefits of different available options. It may extend to recommending the best
course to follow. At that point policy analysis becomes not only instrumental but also prescriptive: it
recommends what will best enable a government to solve its foreign-policy problems or achieve its
foreign-policy goals.

Foreign-Policy Analysis:
Foreign Policy analysis involves scrutinizing policies and placing them in a broader context of academic
knowledge. That academic context usually defined by theories and approaches.
The relationship between theory and policy complex, because any one theory does not necessarily lead
to any one clear Policy Option; in most cases there will be several different options. Even so, the choice
of theory affects the choice of policy.
That is partly because different theories emphasize different social values. Realists underline the value of
national security. National military power and power balancing is the major way of achieving national
security. Foreign-policy theorists concerned with defense or security issues are likely to take a realist
approach, emphasizing the inevitable clash of interests between state actors. The outcomes of which are
seen to be determined by relative state power. 0n the other hand, those concerned with multilateral
questions are just as likely to take a liberal approach, emphasizing international institutions such as the
United Nations or the World Trade Organization as means of reducing international conflict and
promoting ‘mutual understanding and common interests.
There are various approaches that are specific to foreign-policy analysis. Some approaches are derived
from theories. Some are adapted from other disciplines, such as economics and social psychology.
Policy analysis approaches are evident not Only in academic scholarship but also in advocacy think
tanks and the analyses of experts associated with them.
Elements of Foreign Policy

Identifies the principal elements of the foreign Policy process, national interest the fundamental wants of
States are the foundation of foreign policy.
1. The national interest: a concept examined more fully later in this chapter is rooted in a country's
dominant values and orientations and, in particular, in the nature and character of nationalism and
ideology of the State. Because national interest define the fundamental wants of states. They provide not
only a broad vision and direction to society' but a foundation for identifying the more specific and concrete
national goals.
2. National goals: Whereas national interests include security, political independence, and economic
wellbeing, national goals include the pursuit of short and long term objectives, such as the regulation of
immigration, the reduction of illegal drug trafficking, the development of regional trade agreements, and
the promotion of basic human rights.
3. National strategy: is the means by which a State seeks to implement its foreign policy. To be
effective, foreign policy must be based on realistic goals and defined in The terms of a State‘s existing
capabilities. National strategy is the process by which states assess their relative power capabilities and
devise creative, yet credible, methods for using their political, economic and military resources to achieve
desired goals.
Although foreign policy is frequently associated chiefly with political objectives, foreign policy actually
seeks to advance a vast array of state interest, including the security of the state and the political
independence of the government.
4. National security policy (also called defense policy) centers around the territorial integrity and
political independence of a state. Because each state is ultimately responsible for its own existence and
safety, governments give highest priority to the protection of their territory from foreign aggression,
National security policy is therefore concerned with the development of strategies and military capabilities
that can effectively deter aggression and, if necessary, defend vital interests with force.
5. International economic policy the second sphere of foreign policy International economic policy,
revolves the pursuit of foreign economic objectives. Because countries seek to improve economic
wellbeing through international economic initiatives, a country's international economic policy is a central
component of foreign policy. Examples of this type of policy include trade negotiations, foreign economic
assistance support for international economic institutions, and coordination of international monetary
policies. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union's international economic policy involved significant
foreign economic support in helping to sustain and to expand the number of socialist economies in the
world.
6. Diplomatic policy the third domain of foreign policy, is concerned with the advancement of states'
political and ideological interests. For example, a primary aim of U.S. diplomatic policy in the post-Cold
War has been the promotion and strengthening of democracy in the developing nations and the former
Soviet-bloc states. As a result, the United States has implemented numerous pro-democratic initiatives,
including the assistance of former Soviet-bloc in consolidating democratic structures, the expansion of
NATO to include three central European States, and the restoration to power of Haiti's democratically
elected president, Bertrand Aristide.
Foreign-Policy Approaches

1. A traditional approach to foreign-policy analysis involves being informed about a government‘s

external policies: knowing their history or at least their background, comprehending the interests and
concerns that drive the policies, and thinking through the various ways of addressing and defending
those interests and concerns. The traditional approach involves, as well, the exercise of judgment and
common sense in assessing the best practical means and courses of action available for carrying out
foreign policies.

2. The comparative approach to foreign policy was inspired by the behaviouralist in political science. It
was theoretically informed by james Rosenau’s (1966) pre-theory of foreign policy. Rosenau’s identified a
large number of possibly relevant sources of foreign policy decisions and grouped them into five
categories which he called: idiosyncratic, role, Governmental, Societal and systemic variables.

3. The bureaucratic structures and processes approach focuses on the organizational context of
decision-making, which is seen to be conditioned by the dictates and demands of the bureaucratic
settings in which decisions are made. Analyzing processes and channels whereby organizations arrive at
their policies is seen to be a superior way to acquire empirical knowledge of foreign policy. The strength
of the bureaucratic polities approach is its empiricism:
4. The cognitive processes and psychology approach also focuses on the individual decision-maker,
this time with particular attention to the psychological aspects of decision- making such as perceptions of
actors. Example in this category is the work of Margaret Herman (1984). She studied the personality
characteristics of fifty-four heads of government, making the claim that such factors as the leaders'
experience in foreign affairs; their political styles, their political socialization and their broader views of the
world all should be drawn into the analysis in order to understand the ways in which leaders conduct
foreign policy.

5. The ‘multilevel, multidimensional ‘approach has developed because over the past or three
decades, it has become increasingly clear that there will never be one, Big, all-encompassing theory of
foreign policy, just as there will never be one big theory of R. Many scholars now use the various major
theories presented earlier in this book as approaches to study particular aspects of foreign policymaking
in the realist tradition, studies of balance of power behavior and of deterrence and security dilemmas are
examples of this.

6. The Constructivist Turn: A focus on the role of ideas and discourse is indicative of a social
constructivist approach to foreign-policy analysis. Constructivists see foreign policymaking as an
intersubjective world, whose ideas and discourse can be scrutinized in order to arrive at a better
theoretical understanding of the process. These constructivists claim that identity, rooted in ideas and
discourse, is the bar's for a definition of interests and thus lies behind any foreign policy, in that
approaches, ideas and discourse, always constitute foreign policy. Some constructivists focus on
domestic sources of ideas and identities, others focus on the discursive interaction of states.
Nature of Foreign Policy:

International relations involve relationships among governmental and nongovernmental actors resulting in
three types of interaction: 1) inter-governmental, 2) governmental-societal, and 3) nongovernmental.

1. Inter-governmental the first type of interaction involves actions among governments and other
regional or global intergovernmental organizations (lGOs). Fundamentally, foreign policy refers to type of
interaction. Although international interactions are most frequent among nongovernmental actors, the
most significant relations are among states.

2. Governmental-societal The second type of international interaction occurs between the government
of one state and societal elements in another. It includes activities such as Third world relief efforts by
foreign governments, propaganda designed to influence foreign society.

3.Nongovernmental The third type involves international interactions among different elements society,
including the religious, social, cultural, technological, and economic aspect: For example, events such as
the quadrennial world soccer tournament the Olympic Games involve global participation and
presuppose a high of level transnational cooperation and coordination. Such functional co-operation is
significant because it encourages greater global integration and fosters transnational understanding
indeed, functionalism a theory of integration examined assumes that an effective way to build and sustain
political community is through transnational nongovernmental interaction.

Dimensions of Foreign Policy:

In assessing countries foreign polices it is important to differentiate goals announced policies, and action.
International policy refers to real interests objectives of government, whether they are publicly announced
or not declaratory policy is concerned with the goals and interests articulated by government officials and
operational policy describes the foreign policy decisions and actions taken by government.
For example: nearly a decade before the United States established diplomatic relations with the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) in 1979. It’s sought closer political and economic ties with China. Beginning in
the 1970s, the U.S. adopted an intentional policy of exploring the feasibility of closer ties with the China.
To give effect to this policy, President Nixon sent his national security advisor Henry Kissinger on several
secret trips to the China. These exploratory tips were part of the United States' operational policy towards
China. Finally, after publically disclosing the exploratory secret trips, President Nixon announced, in 1973
the establishment of a US. Liaison Office in Peking. This phase of American declaratory policy
culminated in 1979 with the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China.
In assessing foreign policy, it is important to distinguish between its intentional, declaratory, and
operational dimensions. Sometimes all three aspect of foreign policy are explicitly defined. Generally,
however, only one or two dimensions are clearly articulated or self-evident. Sometimes governments
refuse to publicly express their foreign policy goals. In other cases they seek to keep their interests and
intentions obscure and to pursue goals indirectly or to carry out actions through covert means.
One of the major challenges in foreign affairs is to accurately ascertain the intentions of foreign
governments. This can be especially difficult, because state may pursue goals that are at times
inconsistent with its official declarations.
Critiques of Foreign Policy Analysis:

Foreign policy decision making has been and remains at the core of foreign policy analysis and its
enduring contribution to international relations. The adoption of rationalist approaches to foreign policy
decision making, predicated on an actor-specific analysis, paved the way for scholarship that sought to
unpack the sources of foreign policy through a graduated assessment of differing levels of analysis. The
diversity of inputs into the foreign policy process and, as depicted through a rationalist decision-making
lens, the centrality of a search for utility and the impulse toward compensation in “trade-offs” between
predisposed preferences, plays a critical role in enriching our understanding of how that process
operates.
FPA scholars have devoted much of their work to pointing out the many flaws in rationalist depictions of
the decision-making process, built on a set of unsustainable assumptions and with limited recognition of
distortions underlined in studies drawn from literature on psychology, cognition, and the study of
organizations. At the same time, proponents of rational choice have sought to recalibrate the rational
approach to decision making to account for these critiques and, in so doing, build a more robust
explanatory model of foreign policy.
Levels 0F ANALYSIS & Foreign Policy

A. Individual-Level Analysis This level of analysis looks at the people who make the policy. This level of
analysis involves understanding on how is the process of policy making.
The basic question regarding this level of analysis is on how do basic human traits influence policy, which
is a discussion on human as a species. There are clearly several factors that determine how a human
being takes a certain policy among them:

• Cognitive factors. Human beings are bounded by a certain limitation cognitively in making
certain decision. There are enema! Boundaries, which include missing or unknown information;
and internal boundaries, that include human physical frailties. In coping with this problem decision
makers tend to seek cognitive consistency by discounting ideas that contradict their existing views

• Emotional factors. This is one factor that determines the condition of the decision maker in
making decision. While it is easy to imagine that the decision maker would be rational enough in
taking the decision, in reality decision maker will find him/herself under pressure, sad, angry or
depressed.

• Psychological factors. There are psychological traits shared by humans that explain why their
feelings and decisions are usually less than fully rational.

• Biological factors. While controversial there are various theories that explain how human
decisions are often not fully rational. One of them is bio politics which tries to explain the relations
between physical nature and political behaviors of human. The comparison between animal and
human behavior that often used in explaining the way humans act is ethology.

• Perceptions The ancient debate on perceptions is philosophical, to determine whether there is an

objective world or whether everything is only what we perceive to be. There are four common
characteristics of perceptions:
➢ We tend to see opponents as more threatening than they may actually be (e.g. how the
united States are really alarmed by North Korean nuclear threat).
➢ We tend to see the behavior of others as more planned and coordinated than our own.
➢ We find it hard to understand why others dislike, mistrust and fear us.
➢ Others and we tend to have similar images of one another.

B. State-Level Analysis Policymaking is significantly influenced by the fact that it occurs within the
context of a political structure, in which countries are the most important.
The type of government, the situation and the type of policy determines making foreign policy.

• The type of government and the foreign policy process. The more authoritarian a government
is the more likely it is that foreign policy will be centered in a narrow segment of the government.
Foreign policy making in democracies is much more open with inputs from legislators, the media,
public opinion, and opposition parties.

• The type of situation and the foreign policy process. Policy is made differently during crisis
and non-crisis situation. Crisis policy making is likely to be dominated by the political leader and a
small group of advisers.

• Type of policy and the foreign policy process. How foreign policy is decided also varies
according to the nature of the issue are involved. Issues that have little immediate or obvious
impact on citizens of a certain country can be termed pure foreign policy. By contrast, Foreign
policy that has an immediate and obvious domestic impact on citizens of a certain country is
called intermestic policy.
Culture: also determines the foreign policy making. Each country’s foreign policy tends to reflect its
political culture. This concept represents a society widely held, traditional values and its fundamental
practices that are slow to change.
There are some policy making actors:
➢ Heads of government and other political executives. Some important factors regarding to
the political executives are the executive's formal powers
➢ Legislatures In all countries the foreign policy role of legislatures play a lesser role compared
to the executive branch. Yet it does not mean that all legislatures are powerless. Legislatures
play a larger foreign policy role in democracies yet it still constrained by several factors:
extensive legal powers.
➢ Interest groups. Interest groups are private associations of people who have similar policy
views and who pressure the government to adopt those views as policy. There are several
kinds of interest groups.
➢ The people. The public plays a highly variable role in foreign policy. Public opinion is a
marginal factor in authoritarian regimes yet the role is more complex in democracies.

C. System-Level Analysis While countries are free to make any foreign policy decision they want
practically they have to make choices that are reason able within the context of the realities of the
intentional system.
Every system has its own structural characteristics. Two of particular relevance to this analysis is on the
organization of authority and the scope and level of Interaction among of the actors in the system.

• The organization of authority. The structure of authority for making and enforcing rules for
allocating assets and for conducting other authoritative tasks in a system can range from
hierarchical (vertical) to anarchical (horizontal).

• Scope, level, and intensity of interactions. Another structural characteristic of any political
system is the scope (range). Frequency and intensity (level) of interactions among the actors. In
the international system the scope, frequency and level of Interaction among the actors have
grown extensively during the last half century mainly due to economic independence.

Power relationships Countries are restrained by the realities of power in the international system. The
conduct of the international system is heavily Influenced by power consideration such as the number of
powerful actors and the context of power.
THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND FOREIGN POLICY

Definition: One of the widely used concepts in the discipline of IR is the idea of national ineptest. This
concept is generally used by scholars and practitioners to donate the fundamental needs and wants of
states in terms of the basic needs and wants of other states. Subjective in character, the national interest
is based on the perceived long-term collective interests of a country’s citizenry. Thus, even though states
pursue a variety of foreign policy goals in the global system, the concept of national interest is a singular,
unitary notion.
The citizens of countries generally share a variety of common interests. Some of these are more
significant than others. One way of clarifying the nature of national interest is to distinguish among
different types of states' interests. One scholar has identified three major Standards for classifying such
interests level of priority, degree of specificity, and level of permanence. These three categories yield six
ideal-type interests.
• Vital Interest (also known as core or strategic interest) these include the fundamental, long-term
state goals, such as national security:
• Non-Vital interests: secondary concerns on which states may be willing to compromise;
• General interests: The diffuse, global concerns of states, such as the maintenance of regional
peace and the promotion of economic well-being.
• Specific interests: the limited, clearly defined objectives of states;
• Permanent interests: the unchanging goals of states, such as the protection of territorial
boundaries.
• Variable interest: The changing interests of States that arise in response to particular geographic
or political developments
Limitations

Despite the widespread use of the idea of national interest, the concept is conceptually deficient in
several respects.
➢ One difficulty is the subjective character of the concept. Significant disagreement exists about
how and by whom the national interest should be defined.
➢ Second, the national interest is based on the assumption that states are rational and coherent
actors. The assumption that states re unitary, rational actors is not realistic. States and nations
comprise numerous elements, each of which has its own particular interests.
➢ Third problem is the difficulty of distinguishing national interests from global interests. Are national
interests and global interests complementary or conflictual? A cursory review of modern history
suggest that foreign policies are often guided by parochial and short term prospective but as
global interdependence increases and world’s resources become more limited the quest for short
term gains is clearly inadequate.
Hierarchy of Interests

According to psychologist Abraham Maslow, human needs can be ranked according to their level of
significance. They are (l) physical needs, such as air and food, (2) personal security and safety, (3) the
need for love and belongings (4) self-esteem; and (5) self-actualization that is, the development and
fulfilment of a person's capabilities.

Security
Former US. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said that “foreign policy must start with security."
Security is the most basic concern of states because the international political system is a decentralized.
Anarchic political order in which the responsibility for preservation and security is wholly up to each
member-state
National security involves two distinct but essential elements. First, it requires the preservation of the
nation-state and in particular the protection of the state’s territorial boundaries. Second, it presupposes
the protection of national sovereignty that is, national self-determination. Security means that a state can
defend its land and people. It also means that a people must have the freedom to act independently from
other states
Since the 1980’s, a growing number of scholars has called attention to other dimensions of national
security including drug trafficking, economic development, environmental threats, national migration, and
population growth.

Economic Well-Being
The second basic state interest is economic prosperity. There are two fundamental reasons why the
economy is important. First, governments pursue national wealth in order to increase their political and
military influence in the international system. Historian Paul Kennedy has investigated the relationship of
wealth to military power and found that the two attributes are closely linked historically. This should
surprise no one, because an economically prosperous state is better able to build and maintain a strong
army and navy than an economically weak State. Of course, states need not use their wealth to secure
increased military power. Some developed countries notably Austria, Japan, Luxembourg, and Iceland
devote less than 1 percent of their GNP to national defense.
National Identity

The third basic interest of States is the protection and preservation of a nation's way of life. Including its
cultural, social, religious, and political distinctive although the national character of a state comprises a
number of dimensions, two elements are especially important nationalism and ideology.
1. Nationalism
It functions as a collective will binding together a people sharing common historical past, a shared
culture, a common language, and, most importantly, shared political aspirations. Occasionally,
nations share a common religion and ethnic origin. Regardless of its nature, basis, or origin
Nationalism has been a major influence in contemporary global relations, providing the inspiration
and reaction for a large share of global interactions. Nationalism has been both an integrative and
disintegrative force. As the farther, nationalism has contributed to group cohesion and the
consolidation and protection of nation-states.
2. An ideology
Commonly defined as a simplified and coherent belief system, is rooted in the fundamental
norms, values, and orientations of a political system (political culture). Because an ideology
provides a simplified view of political reality. It inspires and guides domestic and international
political activity of a state. Whereas nationalism provides the no cognitive, emotional forces that
bind people together, an ideology provides political and moral values that direct and inspire
national goals.
Ideologies influence foreign policy decision making in a number of Specific ways, including:
influencing people's perceptions about international affairs: providing a framework for foreign
policy decision making, thereby constraining choices and enhancing continuity providing a means
for justifying foreign policy actions and enhancing national unity.
The Cuban Missile Crisis
The Cuban Missile Crisis, of October, 1962, was a conflict between the United States and the Soviet
Union during the Cold War. This crisis could have possibly lead to the first nuclear war. The Soviet Union
tailed the United States in the Arms Race and their missiles were not powerful enough to be launched
against the United States. President john F. Kennedy claimed that the United States had fewer missiles
than the Soviet Union, but Fidel Castro and Nikita Khrushchev still felt wary. As Premier of Cuba, Fidel
Castro. Searched for a way to keep his nation safe from a US attack. As a result, Castro approved
Khrushchev’s idea to station missile sites in Cuba. The Soviet Union secretly built these sites during the
summer of 1962.
On October 15, l962, photographs of the Soviet’s missile sites were revealed to the United States.
President Kennedy was be reefed on the missile installations the next day. He quickly called a meeting of
his twelve most important advisors to deal with the crisis. Over time they discussed possible ways to
handle the situation. These included:
1. Doing nothing.
2. Negotiate.
3. Invade.
4. Quarantine of Cuba.
5. Bomb missile bases
6. Nuclear weapons.

Khrushchev and Kennedy made negotiations amongst themselves and finally reached a decision. On
October 28, I962, they agreed to remove all missiles and put the crisis to rest.
CAUSES

The two main causes of the Cuban Missile Crisis were due to the Soviet Union. The felt insecure and the
feared losing Cuba in an attack. Before the United States presidential election John F. Kennedy
repeatedly spoke of a missile gap between the two nations. The Pentagon reported to the Soviet Union
that the US had more missiles but Kennedy stood behind his words. After Kennedy was elected
president, Nikita Khrushchev began to “test" him. In response to his actions. The Kennedy Administration
felt to reveal to Khrushchev that there was no missile gap. The Americans now knew that Khrushchev
had always known they had more missiles. Nikita Khrushchev felt as if he was surrounded by enemies.
Since the Soviet Union lost the arms race so badly. He worried of an attack by the US. This led him to
conceive the idea of placing missile sites in Cuba with hopes of countering the United States' lead in a
nuclear attack.
When Fidel Castro came into power the US made multiple attempts to rid of him. These attempts
included the Bay of Pigs Invasion, which failed, a military exercise in I962, and a mock invasion of a
Caribbean island. The United States also developed a plan to invade Cuba in order to make Castro
nervous. The CIA too tried to destroy Castro's government. As a result. Castro was assured the US was
serious about invading Cuba.

Conclusion

The Cuban Missile Crisis began to come to a halt on October 28, 1962. By this time, the United States
had not yet taken any military action. After discussions between the Soviet Union and Kennedy’s
advisors, an agreement was reached. President Kennedy agreed to dismantle all US missiles stationed in
Turkey. Khrushchev too agreed to remove all missiles in Cuba. Nikita Khrushchev also wanted Kennedy
to publicly announce to never invade Cuba. Because he did not announce it publicly, he was said to have
lost and become weakened. Khrushchev's announcement was made on the radio. He said:

“The Soviet government has issued a new order to the dismantling of the weapons which you
describe as ‘offensive’ and their crating and return to the Soviet Union.”

Since no military action was taken, there was no destruction. Khrushchev and Kennedy tried their best to
avoid war. The people in both Kennedy and Khrushchev's government did not completely agree with their
decisions not to take action. It did, however, keep the lives of their country‘s citizens of out of danger. By
November 21, all missiles had been completely removed.
The Persian Gulf War

The gulf war was a conflict with the new world order and Iraq over Kuwait. It included a total of thirty-two
coalitions. On august 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein shocked everyone by ordering his troops to invade
Kuwait. President Bush started to send over military to assist Kuwait so they can win back their freedom.
He urged other countries to do the same. Twelve countries joined together and they created the
operation dessert storm, and lead by Norman Schwarzkopf, they made their way through Iraqi forces and
into Kuwait within one hundred hours.

CAUSES
➢ Kuwait was selling a lot of oil and it was making the prices of oil go down so Iraq wasn’t making as
many profits as previously.
➢ Iraq always thought that Kuwait was a part of it, which led to hostilities.
➢ There were several oil mills along the border and Iraq claimed that Kuwait was illegally tapping
Iraq’s mines.

George Bush
George Bush was the popular president of the United States during the Gulf War. He was instrumental in
putting together the coalition that would eventually defeat the Iraqi forces, expelling them from Kuwait.
President Bush would not allow any nation to dominate the Persian Gulf and control most of the World‘s
oil supply. He reacted by creating Operation Desert Storm, the largest land operation since World War II.

Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein ruthlessly took power in Iraq in 1979. He led the Nation through the Iran/Iraq War and
the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq who ordered the takeover of Kuwait.
Hussein believed it to be his destiny to fight in the Gulf War. His invasion of Kuwait sparked operations
Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Hussein believed it to be his destiny to fight in the Gulf War.

General Schwarzkopf
General Schwarzkopf was the de facto allied commander during the Gulf War. He is credited with
orchestrating the plan that would efficiently destroy Iraqi war-making capacity in the Persian Gulf region
and would expell Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard from Kuwait. He ran the operation dessert storm.
Meeting before Invasion:

“On July 25, 1990, a week before Iraq launched its military invasion of Kuwait Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein held a meeting with April Glaspie, the US. ambassador to Iraq. This meeting marked the last
official high-level contact between the Iraqi and American governments before the invasion. During his
meeting with Glaspie, Hussein outlined a long list of complaints against Kuwait. He discussed the
ongoing border disputes between the two countries, for example, and also accused Kuwait of pursuing
policies that were intended to harm Iraq's economy. Glaspie listened to Hussein's concerns and
expressed sympathy for Iraq's financial problems. She also emphasized the US. government's wish to
maintain friendly relations with Iraq."

The end and the Consequences

• Iraq was defeated and Kuwait became its own country.

• there were no-fly zones made.
• There was a lot of structure damage, such as tha sewage plant destruction. This made these
wage overflow into the Tigris River, which is where civilians get drinking water, and caused a lot of
sickness.
• They suffered enormous property damages
• UN made it where Iraq couldn’t make weapons of destruction.
• The casualties are between 35000 and 60000