Why? Because it was easier than anything else.

I'm currently taking a course on Ethics and Justice in International Relations, and we just finished going over the Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda situations. As you may know, in two of those there was next-to-no intervention by the West. In Kosovo, NATO only conducted bombing raids when they were certain no pilots could be killed. That meant that, as hundreds if not thousands of civilians died, NATO was unwilling to lose a single pilot or plane.

Now, that's an issue of their own self-interests, and the doctrine of an imperfect duty: people say we ought to intervene, but who ought to intervene is another question. And what kind of losses should they take?

But I digress; why did the Gulf War happen, when there was so little intervention in the Bosnian Civil War, Kosovo War, and Rwandan Civil War/Genocide?

Few reasons:

1. It was, as I said, easier. Here we saw an isolated nation fighting another nation, invading its sovereignty. There was no nitty-gritty case of civil war to get into, this was a clear-cut case: "here is the line, Iraq, and you crossed it". In a civil war, intervening is a lot more difficult and hairy of a situation, though that's not to say that the West shouldn't have. Some of the issues involving a civil war intervention involve lack of clarity who is on which side, the issue of civilians being in the forefront of fighting on an even smaller front than usual, cities being pitted against each other internally, etc. Iraq was in Kuwait, moving them out becomes a lot simpler of a job.

2. There was a veritable destruction of a nation going on. Ignoring the fact that Saddam was already engaged in a Kurd-killing capacity in the past (in his own nation), the annexation of a nation is entirely different from some of the examples I listed above. A civil war is a war of self-determination; a fight to determine what a nation is going to be defined as. This was not the same. This was a case, morally speaking in international terms, of violation of a nation's sovereignty with no reason. There was no casus belli, no cause of war, and that meant that according to pretty much every international treaty and moral doctrine at the time, this was a pretty justified place to intervene. Doing so satisfied outcry at home, and also satisfied the moral consciences of the world.

3. Let's pretend that morality had nothing to do with it, nor public outcry or anything like that. From purely strategic terms, Kuwait was and remains an oil-producing nation. Kuwait was producing more oil than OPEC quotas required, and that meant lower prices for much of the world during the oil glut. That, too, meant that strategically Kuwait would be a good country to preserve. Iraq was attempting to, on the other side, reduce the oil glut and raise prices again, so it only stands logically that the US wouldn't like that. Despite the other poster saying as much, Iraq moving troops into southern Kuwait was mostly a response to US buildup in Saudi Arabia. Even if it wasn't, however, the threat of an invasion of Saudi Arabia doesn't provide casus belli unless the threat is imminent and undeniable, and all diplomatic methods have been exhausted. That did, though, factor into the decision anyways. Saudi Arabia, too, was vital to oil interests in the Gulf.

4. Iraq was able to do far more than just attack Kuwait, which worried the US even more. Saddam had already demonstrated his willingness to use biological weapons, and it was believed he had a nuclear weapons program, and that was threatening to all nations in the Middle East. This aggressive behavior meant that Iraq was taking a leaf out of Hitler's book, almost looking for appeasement in the belief that they could get away with it. The US, and the West, didn't want to send that kind of message again. And they didn't.

Sources: Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer

Between Sovereignty and Global Governance, Jarvis Paolini

Redefining the National Interest, Luttwak

The reason why our intervention was important in 1990 because Saddam Hussein's occupation and annexation of Kuwait could mean future war with Saudi Arabia, our biggest oil trading partner, which happened to be next door to Iraq and Kuwait. If Saddam took the oil resources in Saudi Arabia, it would take a big massive dump on the U.S. economy, much like what happened when the Arab states embargoed the U.S. in 1973. Also, Saddam's annexation of Kuwait would mean Kuwait's membership in the United Nations would be eliminated. There is NO way in hell this is acceptable and since none of the middle east countries had the guts or capability to stand up against Iraq, they called upon the U.S. and its allies to help them. Other Western nations were also concerned because they too dependent on oil in the middle east.

In addition, the reason for our full deployment in Saudi Arabia was to deter Iraqi aggression against that country. Iraq was the 4th largest military in the world at the time with many of its troops being battle-hardened and experienced during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. It's not easy even if Iraq as a nation was a lot tinier compare to the United States. Their military was well experienced which means they could easily inflict heavy casualties on the Americans.

Follow up on this: apart from other considerations, was the fact that Iraq would gain significant port facilities in the Gulf a concern? Would Iraq become more difficult to manage with more/better port facilities?