Burden sharing in the Persian Gulf
Subtitle: lessons learned and implications for the future
By: Katsuaki L. Terasawa, and William R. Gates
Contributors: Gates, William R.; Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.). Dept. of Administrative Sciences
Publisher: Naval Postgraduate School; Available from National Technical Information Service
Published: 1992
Place of publication: Monterey, Calif; Springfield, Va
Language: eng
Number of pages: 41
Subjects: LOGISTICS; JOINT MILITARY ACTIVITIES
Other titles: NPS-AS-92-020.
Description: The United States was the dominant member of the coalition formed to counter Iraq's      annexation of Kuwait. This led to U.S. concerns that countries benefiting from the coalition      were contributing less than their fair share. This paper compares contributions and benefits for      the major coalition participants in Operation Desert Storm. The benefits include national      sovereignty and oil supply security. The contributions include defense resources and financial      and in-kind payments to the U.S. and other countries. The analysis concludes that national      sovereignty was the more significant of the two benefits and that the oil supply security benefit      may be larger for the U. S. than for countries completely dependent on imported oil (i.e.,      Japan and Germany). Thus, the Gulf countries may have under contributed to the coalition.      Japan and Germany may have over contributed, relative to these benefits, though they may      have received other benefits not measured here. Burden Sharing, Operation Desert Storm,      Alliances
Notes: Title from cover.

"NPS-AS-92-020."

"August 1992."

AD A255 903.

Includes bibliographical references (p. 31-41).

aq/  /aq cc:9116 11/06/97