Desert Shield to Desert Storm: The Second Gulf War, Research Paper Example

Three of the specific negotiation skills that President H.W. Bush uses in his one-way negotiation with Saddam Hussein include building rapport, decision making, and assertiveness (Greenstone, 2006). One way that President Bush builds rapport with the audience is by demonstrating his own support for the troops, stating that they are protecting the United States of America and are doing an excellent job. Evidence for the efficacy of this statement is demonstrated by the fact that the audience responds with a long applause. It is necessary to appeal to the audience when giving an effective speech because it allows them to connect with the speaker on a deeper level. Many of the individuals in the audience likely were related to or knew of someone who served in the army during this time, and Bush’s acknowledgement of their hard work felt personal to the audience members.

Bush demonstrates his decision making ability by showing that involvement in the Middle East is necessary to achieve peace. He stands by his decision to send the troops abroad by asking people to put “country before self” and support the armed forced in their mission. In doing so, he supports his objectives for remaining in the Persian Gulf, stating that doing so will bring economic and political benefits. He does so to counter opinions to the contrary. He firmly states that Iraq must leave Kuwait, which is also not providing Iraq with an option; a failure to do so would mean military conflict. This final statement is also an example of Bush’s assertiveness. He does not leave an option for Saddam Hussein. He is providing him with an ultimatum; withdraw from Kuwait, or deal with American armed forces.

President Bush’s approach to the negotiation process, however, could not be considered effective because he did not provide Saddam with an option. Thus, the conflict in the Persian Gulf continued to persist and there is still a military presence in the Middle East today. If Bush had provided the leader of Iraq with another option, it is possible that there would be no need for American soldiers to be present in the Middle East today (Munro, 2006). In particular, the weakness of this argument was that there wasn’t room for debate; it was a one-sided announcement rather than a negotiation. Thus, it is more beneficial for individuals to discuss major decisions instead of selecting an ultimatum.

Because Bush provided Saddam with an ultimatum, Saddam only had two options to choose from: leave Kuwait and avoid military conflict in the United States or stay in Kuwait and avoid military conflict in the United States (Hiro, 1992). Ultimately, the Middle East continues to remain in political disarray as a consequence of the Gulf War, so it could be said that neither Bush nor Saddam won. However, Saddam was able to persuade the United States to waste resources on fighting a war that is not possible to win, so in a sense, he won. In addition, the conflict resulted in many weapons being brought to the area that are now in use by individuals still fighting in the terrain. Not all of these individuals are still our allies. In this context, therefore, it could be said that Saddam won because he had this situation in his control the whole time. However, it could have been avoided if Bush had discussed the matter with him further and they came to terms that were in between both of their objectives.

References

Greenstone, J.L.(2005). The elements of police hostage and crisis negotiations: Critical incidents and how to respond to them. Binghamton, New York: The Haworth Press.

Hiro, Dilip. (1992). Desert Shield to Desert Storm: The Second Gulf War. Routledge.

Munro, Alan (2006). Arab Storm: Politics and Diplomacy Behind the Gulf War. I.B. Tauris