The Highway of Death. It's a it's a phrase that
even if you weren't, you know, glued to CNN in
the early 90s, it probably conjures up a very
specific, very grim mental image for you. Oh,
absolutely. It's highly evocative and terrifying.
Honestly, in Arabic, it's actually known as Eric
Amalt. It is. Yeah. And for. For many people,
the images that came out of this specific event,
they didn't just document the war. They really
defined the end of the Gulf War. Right. Like
you're likely picturing miles of burned -out
vehicles, twisted metal, and just this absolute
devastation stretching out into the desert horizon.
Exactly. I mean, it's basically the visual shorthand
for total defeat. But today, on this deep dive,
we're going to move past just the scary nickname
and really look at what happened there. Because
there's a lot more to it than just the photos.
So much more. We're talking about the night of
February 26th and 27th, 1991. And this was a
massive attack by American, Canadian, British,
and French forces on Iraqi personnel who were,
well, they were retreating from Kuwait. And,
you know, that word you just used, retreating,
that is really the key to this entire discussion
today. How so? Because our mission today isn't
just to look at the military tactics, although...
Frankly, they were devastatingly effective. Our
goal is to understand the intersection of those
tactics with international law and also media
optics. Because this event sparked a huge debate,
a debate that is literally still going on in
military colleges today. Very much so. Was it
a Turkey shoot? Was it a war crime? Or was it
just a perfectly legitimate military victory?
We've pulled a stack of sources here to look
into this. We have historical records, witness
accounts from journalists who actually walked
the road, post -war studies. Yeah, we really
want to unpack the details behind those famous
photos for you. And I promise we will get to
the why regarding the controversies that followed.
But I think to understand the scale of this,
we first need to understand the geography. Let's
do it. We need to look at the trap itself. Because
this wasn't just a battle. It was a bottleneck.
OK, so let's set the scene for everyone. We are
looking at Highway 80. This is a massive six
-lane highway. A major piece of infrastructure.
Yeah. Running from Kuwait city up to the border
town of Safwan and then eventually on to Basra
in Iraq. Correct. And during the August 1990
invasion, this was the main artery the Iraqi
armor divisions used to get into Kuwait. So it's
their road of conquest. Exactly. Now, fast forward
to February in 1991. And the tables have turned
completely. The coalition air campaign has been
just hammering them. The ground war has started,
and now they're trying to get out. So it's the
night of February 26. The Iraqis are leaving.
And this is where the US Marine Corps' third
Marine aircraft wing comes in. And honestly,
looking at the sources, the tactic they used
sounds like something out of a movie script.
It does, but it's terrifyingly real when you
think about the physics of it. It's a classic,
if brutal, bottleneck maneuver. The Marines used
A -6 intruder attack jets and their specific
goal wasn't just to, you know, bomb the convoy
randomly to cause damage. All right, they had
a very specific target pattern. They intentionally
targeted the head and the tail of the column.
So they bombed the front vehicles to stop the
forward movement and the back vehicles to stop
the retreat. Exactly. They effectively put a
cork in the bottle at both ends and they did
this using Mk 20 Rock Eye 2nd cluster bombs.
actually explain what those are because cluster
bomb sounds bad on its own, but the mechanics
are really specific. Yeah, it's an anti -armor
weapon. The bomb casing opens up in midair and
scatters hundreds of smaller bomblets. Like grenades.
Think of them exactly like grenades. Yeah, scattered
over a wide area. It is incredibly effective
against soft targets like trucks, cars, and light
armor. So by destroying the vehicles at the very
front and the very back of this massive column
on Highway 80, they created an enormous, inescapable
traffic jam. They boxed the Iraqi forces in.
They did. Which is just a nightmare scenario.
You're on a highway, it's night, you can't move
forward, you can't move back, and you're fully
exposed on a massive six -lane road. And once
that box was closed... The barrage really began.
For the next 10 hours, you had a sustained attack.
10 hours? Yes. We're talking U .S. Navy aircraft
launching from the USS Ranger, the Air Force,
and the Marines, all converging on this stuck
column. It was a target -rich environment to
use the military euphemism. And reading through
the reports, it wasn't just air power either.
Eventually, coalition ground units arrived and
started engaging vehicles that had survived the
airstrikes. That's right. And for the vehicles
that did manage to evade the jam and somehow
drive off -road into the desert to head north,
they were targeted individually. Wow. But the
focal point, you know, the image that everyone
remembers, is near the Mutla Ridge Police Station.
The Mile of Death. Yes. That specific bottleneck
was reduced to a long uninterrupted line of more
than 300 stuck and abandoned vehicles. Because
of the ridge there, the vehicles physically couldn't
get off the road. And when we look at the wreckage
found there, it tells a really strange story
about exactly who was in this convoy. It definitely
complicates the narrative. Well, that's where
it gets so interesting to me. It wasn't just
military hardware. I mean, sure, there were at
least 28 T -54s and T -55s, mostly. Right. And
plenty of armored personnel carriers. But our
sources say there were also commandeered civilian
cars, limousines and literal city buses. And
many of those civilian vehicles were filled with
stolen Kuwaiti property. We're talking about
washing machines, VCRs, expensive rugs, jewelry.
I even read one report about a high -performance
speedboat being towed on a trailer in the middle
of a war zone retreat. I know. It paints a very
chaotic picture. This wasn't just a disciplined
military retreat. It was an occupation force
fleeing with loot. Right. And that detail becomes
very important later on when we discuss the justification
for the attack. General Norman Schwarzkopf pointed
to that loot specifically to argue that these
weren't innocent conscripts. They were looters
and criminals. OK, so that's Highway 80, the
loot, the traffic jam, the sheer panic. But I
was surprised to learn from our reading that
there wasn't just one highway involved here.
The Highway of Death label kind of gets applied
to everything. But there's a second sector. Precisely.
And this is a distinction that often gets lost
in the general history. There is Highway 80,
which we just discussed. But then there is Highway
8. OK. This is the continuation of the road deep
into Iraq. And the dynamic there was Quite different.
Who was on Highway 8? Was it more looters? No,
not at all. This was the elite force, the Iraqi
Republican Guard's first armored division known
as the Hammurabi Division. The heavy hitters.
Exactly. They weren't dragging washing machines
back to Baghdad. They were trying to redeploy
their heavy armor to defend the regime. And the
response to them was different than the traffic
jam on Highway 80. It was. This was a much larger
area of operation. They were engaged by U .S.
artillery and a battalion of age 60. for Apache
helicopters. This was under the command of General
Barry McCaffrey. The source described it as a
systematic destruction of vehicles over a 50
-mile stretch. And this leads us to an incident
that happened after the ceasefire, which I found
really shocking, the Battle of Rumaila. Yes,
and this is the event often referred to by critics
as a turkey shoot. This took place on March 2nd.
So days later. Right. The war had officially
paused. A cessation of hostilities had been declared,
but a large column of the remnants of that Hammurabi
division was attempting to withdraw toward the
Lake Hammer Causeway. So the war is technically
over, or at least paused, and they are still
fighting. Well, the U .S. forces argued that
the Iraqis moved into a threatening formation.
General McCaffrey's forces engaged them deep
inside Iraqi territory and essentially obliterated
the column. Obliterated is a strong word. It's
the accurate one based on the sources. Hundreds
of vehicles were destroyed. It was highly controversial
because it happened when everyone thought the
shooting had stopped. So we have these two massive
scenes of destruction. Highway 80, the traffic
jam near the border with the looters, and Highway
8, the artillery and helicopter assault on the
Republican Guard inside Iraq. Let's talk numbers
now. Yes, let's look at the data. Because when
you look at the photos, mile after mile of charred
metal, you just assume thousands upon thousands
of people died. And that is the aha moment for
many people digging into this deep dive. The
visuals. suggest a massacre of biblical proportions.
If you see 2 ,000 burned cars, you naturally
assume 2 ,000 to 5 ,000 bodies. Right. But when
you look at the actual body counts, the story
is much more complex. Let's break it down for
everyone. In terms of hardware, the destruction
was immense. We're talking between 1 ,400 and
2 ,000 vehicles hit or abandoned just north of
Al -Jarrah. The equipment loss was staggering.
It effectively de -mechanized a huge chunk of
the Iraqi army. Yeah. but the human toll. Yeah.
That is where the huge discrepancy lies. Well,
the British journalist Robert Fisk, who was one
of the first on the scene, he describes seeing
hundreds of corpses crammed into the wreckage
or slumped in the sand. Yes. And then photojournalist
Peter Turnley witnessed mass burials. He arrived
the morning the war stopped and saw US military
graves details burying bodies. He actually noted
that he didn't see many photos of that aspect
being published in the West. It's a grim picture.
However, we have to balance those eyewitness
accounts with the post -war forensic studies.
A 2003 study by the Project on Defense Alternatives
or PDA did a really deep dive into this data.
They estimated that fewer than 10 ,000 people
were actually in that main caravan on Highway
80 to begin with. And their estimated death toll
was surprisingly low compared to the visual destruction.
They estimated between 200 and 1 ,000 deaths.
Right. And some estimates are even lower than
that. Journalist Michael Kelly wrote a famous
piece where he essentially walked the length
of the destruction. personally counted 37 bodies.
Only 37. Yeah. Now, obviously, he couldn't see
inside every tank or under every pile of debris,
but it highlights the huge gap between perception
and reality. The PDA suggests a minimum of 500
to 600 deaths is a plausible baseline. So the
big question you have to ask is, if 2000 vehicles
were destroyed, where did the people go? Why
weren't they in the cars? They ran. When the
bombing started, and remember this attack lasted
10 hours, most people didn't stay in their cars
waiting to be hit. Yeah, that's just basic human
instinct. Exactly. The moment the traffic stopped
and the jets came in, they abandoned their vehicles
and fled into the desert or into the nearby swamps.
It makes total sense. If you're in a traffic
jam and bombs start falling, you don't just stay
sitting in the Honda Civic. No, you get out.
And the sources say about 2000 of them were eventually
captured by ground forces. Many surrendered later.
Some died of wounds or exposure in the desert,
unfortunately. But the vast majority of the occupants
weren't vaporized in their seats. They scattered.
Which brings us to the core tension of this deep
dive, the controversy. We have a scene of absolute
devastation. Was this a legitimate military victory
or was it a war crime? This is a debate that
started almost immediately. On one side, you
had commentators and human rights organizations
arguing that this was a disproportionate use
of force. They pointed out that the Iraqis were
retreating. And they argued that by retreating,
they were complying with UN Resolution 660, which
had demanded they leave Kuwait. Exactly. The
argument essentially was, we told them to leave,
they are leaving, and we are shooting them in
the back. It felt to critics like a betrayal
of the diplomatic offer. There are also allegations
regarding the composition of the column itself.
Right, the civilian vehicles? As we mentioned,
there were civilian cars. Critics argued there
were Kuwaiti hostages and civilian refugees mixed
in there. I read something in the sources about
Palestinian families being in the convoy too.
Yes. Reports suggested the convoy included family
members of PLO -Lion Palestinian militants and
Kuwaiti collaborators. They were fleeing because
they feared retribution from the returning Kuwaiti
authorities. So the core argument against the
attack was that you had women and children mixed
in with the soldiers. And then you have the legal
argument. Former U .S. Attorney General Ramsey
Clark was very vocal about this. He argued it
violated the Third Geneva Convention. Specifically
Article 3. That prohibits killing soldiers who
are owed to combat. which is a French term meaning
out of combat. Okay. Clark argued that because
they were running away, they were functionally
out of the fight. But the military and other
legal experts strongly disagree with that interpretation.
This seems to be where the layman's view and
the legal view really clash. They clash heavily.
And this is a critical nuance in international
law. Under the Geneva Protocol 1, being in a
state of retreat is explicitly considered a military
action. It is a tactical maneuver. So strictly
speaking, running away doesn't mean you surrender.
Exactly. Think about it strategically. An army
retreats to regroup, to rearm, and to fight again
on better ground. Right. To be considered hors
de combat, you must be in the power of the adverse
party, express a clear intention to surrender,
or be incapacitated by wounds. Simply attempting
to escape retreating to fight another day does
not remove your status. as a legitimate target.
General Norman Schwarzkopf was pretty blunt about
this when he was asked about it later. Very blunt.
In 1995, he defended the decision rigorously.
He gave two main reasons. First, military necessity.
He pointed out that there was a massive amount
of military equipment on that highway. Tanks,
artillery, things that win wars. Right. And his
orders were to destroy every piece of Iraqi equipment
possible so it couldn't be used to threaten Kuwait
or Saudi Arabia again. Basically, if you let
them go today, You have to fight those exact
same tanks again in six months. Precisely. And
the second reason he gave. He pushed back hard
on the innocent victim narrative. He called them
a bunch of rapists, murderers and thugs who had
pillaged Kuwait city and were just trying to
escape justice. He pointed to all that loot on
the trucks as proof that this wasn't just a sad
group of conscripts, but criminals. So on one
hand, you have the compliance argument. They
were leaving, as told. On the other, you have
the military necessity argument. You simply don't
let an enemy army escape with their tanks. It's
a brutal logic, but is the logic of war. However,
beyond the airstrikes themselves, There are darker
allegations we have to mention, specifically
the reporting by Seymour Hirsch. Right. I saw
this in the notes. This was a specific incident
involving a U .S. Bradley fighting vehicle platoon.
So this wasn't about bombs from the sky. This
was down at ground level. Yes. Hirsch alleged,
citing American witnesses, that on February 27th,
A platoon opened fire on a group of more than
350 disarmed Iraqi soldiers who had actually
surrendered at a makeshift checkpoint. Now, that
would definitely be a war crime, if true. Shooting
surrendered prisoners is a clear red line. If
true, absolutely. But we have to clearly note
that this was heavily disputed. The U .S. military
intelligence personnel who were there claimed
they were fired upon by the Iraqis first, and
the Bradleys simply returned fire. And journalist
Georgi Angeir heavily criticized Hirsch's article,
stating there was no real proof and that official
military investigations completely dismissed
the charges. It really shows how the fog of war
isn't just about what happens on the battlefield.
It's about how history gets written afterwards.
It's incredibly hard to know the absolute truth
of a specific skirmish 30 years later. Speaking
of how history is written, we really can't ignore
the political impact of these images. We talked
earlier about the highway of death becoming a
powerful symbol. Yeah, sources suggest that those
very scenes of devastation were a major factor
in President George H .W. Bush's decision to
declare a cessation of hostilities the very next
day. It's what's often called the CNN effect.
Time magazine noted that while polls showed American
support for the war remained high, the pictures
were sickening to many people. Right. There was
a genuine fear in the White House that if the
slaughter continued to be broadcast, public support
would crumble. and the international coalition
would fracture. It's fascinating to think that
the appearance of the victory, the sheer visual
brutality of it captured on film, might have
actually stopped the war sooner than the tactical
situation dictated. They easily could have kept
going to Baghdad, but the optics were just too
bad. Exactly. And that leads us to how this event
has permeated pop culture. It's not just debated
in history books. It's all over our media. Oh,
totally. If you've seen the movie Jarhead, there's
that incredibly haunting scene where the Marines
are walking through the destruction. oil wells,
the charred bodies in the cars. That is explicitly
the highway of death. And in literature too,
Ayn Banks's novel Complicity uses the imagery
of the Basra Road. It became this touchstone
for modern mechanized destruction, a stark look
at what happens when advanced technology meets
a trapped enemy. But here's where it gets really
interesting and controversial in the gaming world.
Did you hear about the Call of Duty controversy?
The 2019 game Modern Warfare. Yes, this is a
huge issue. So for you listening who might not
be gamers in that game, there is a level literally
called the Highway of Death. It depicts a strikingly
similar event in a fictional Middle Eastern country.
And the visual fidelity is incredible. It looks
exactly like the 1991 photos. But and this is
a huge. but the game attributes the attack to
Russian forces. Right. They took a distinct historical
event carried out by American and coalition forces
and in the game's narrative pinned it on the
Russians to make them the clear villains. That
caused a massive backlash. Unsurprisingly so.
It was widely accused of historical revisionism.
You had players and critics pointing out that
it was rewriting history to blame Russia for
a highly controversial U .S. attack. Just goes
to show how powerful the name and the imagery
of the Highway of Death still are. Decades later,
it's still an active battleground for narrative.
It's wild. We've gone from a tactical traffic
jam in 1991 to a political flash point all the
way to a video game controversy almost 30 years
later. It connects right back to what we established
at the start. This event is entirely about the
intersection of tactics, law, and optics. So
let's wrap this up. Looking at all the sources,
what are the key takeaways here? Well, tactically,
it was a devastating success. The coalition forces
effectively trapped and neutralized a significant
portion of the Iraqi military's equipment. They
stopped the Republican Guard from escaping with
their heavy armor, which likely made the entire
region safer in the short term. But visually
and morally, it created a situation that looked
indistinguishable from a massacre, raising serious
questions about proportionality that we are still
debating today. Exactly. It perfectly highlights
the tension between the cold logic of war, which
is destroying the enemy's capacity to fight,
and the visceral horror of seeing the actual
results of that logic piled up on a six -lane
highway. And it serves as a stark reminder that
retreat doesn't always mean safe. That is the
hard lesson. In modern warfare, until you have
formally and clearly surrendered, you are an
active target. I want to leave you all with a
thought to mull over. We live in an era where
images of war are broadcast instantly, even faster
than they were on CNN in 1991. The highway of
death might have hastened the end of the Gulf
War simply because the images were too much for
the public to stomach. So the real question moving
forward is this. In modern warfare, how much
does the appearance of a victory matter compared
to the military reality of it? If a tactic is
entirely legal and highly effective, but looks
horrific on Instagram or TikTok, can a modern
military actually afford to use it? Or did the
camera ultimately decide when the war ends? It's
definitely something to think about next time
you scroll through your news feed. Thanks for
joining us on this deep dive into the real story
behind the Highway of Death. We'll catch you
on the next one.