If only Dubya had listened to dear old Dad

[Alexander's Horse]

How is it a troll? Don't you find it remarkable?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
well let's hear you. You had a lot to say once.

mkay.


"Trying to eliminate Saddam... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible...We would have been forced to occuppy Baghdad...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles.

Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern of handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occuppying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, The United States could still conceivably be an occuppying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Correct analysis for 1991 time period. That was NOT the time to go into Iraq. A job unfinished? What? The UN mandate at that point was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Mission accomplished.

Now applying that logic after several additional UN resolutions, a decade of attacks on coalition aircraft, a plot to assasinate a US president, mass summary execution of civilians, overt offers of financial support to terrorist, tacit support of terrorist basing in Iraq, and multiple military manuveurs on the Kuwait boarder just doesn't make logical sense does it?

The "New World Order" of which Bush I envisioned was based on the rule of law. Escalating world pressure would be brought to bear on rogue states until they were eithier made irrelevant, changed their ways, or were disposed of. Bush II is on target with this.

"Bitterly hostile land"?? Some recent polls have put our approval ratings around 80% in Iraq. Ironically, that is higher than the most recent 62% support here in the states. The "quagmire" story is simply being created by a media establishment(both left and right) that see elections as entertainment and higher ratings. The truth is that the reconstruction of Iraq is proceeding faster than eithier the reconstruction of Japan or Germany in the post WWII error. Finally, the "bitterly hostile land" is being vastly augmented by imported fighters and has become the front line against terrorist (much better choice IMO than the NYC skyline).

In conclusion, you simply cannot assume a static circumstance. The situation drastically changed, but the Bush I doctrine did not. It was followed to its conclusion.

"You had a lot to say once" Still do. Just occasionally need to know someone is listening. Thanks!

[Urban Ranger]

If 80% of the Iraqis are supporting the US, while the US forces are suffering from daily attacks with increasing intensity, one can imagine what it would be like when 80% of the country opposes the US.

[Ned]

Plato, where did you get your info on how well things were going in Iraq? I watched Chris Matthew's whole week report last week where virtually every reporter and every politician who had been to Iraq said the same thing. When I reported what MSNBC had said in another thread, the usual suspects here on Apolyton wondered out loud how much weed I had been smoking.

What is clear that Bush I was too pessimistic about an overthrow of Saddam. He may have gotten UN backing for a march on Bagdad after the Shi'ite revolt and subsequent massacres began. But, he might have had world support regardless. Only a few years later, Clinton "unilaterally" declared war on Yugoslavia for much the same reasons over Kosovo; and everyone, except the Serbs and their friends, approved.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
What is clear that Bush I was too pessimistic about an overthrow of Saddam. He may have gotten UN backing for a march on Bagdad after the Shi'ite revolt and subsequent massacres began. But, he might have had world support regardless. Only a few years later, Clinton "unilaterally" declared war on Yugoslavia for much the same reasons over Kosovo; and everyone, except the Serbs and their friends, approved.

How much time did you spend on the ground in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait in the first gulf war?

You need to at least get your timeframe correct.

(1) No arab state, particularly the Saudis, supported any movement beyond the UN mandate. Without the Saudis, we no longer had access to supplies or base areas.

(2) A very large part of the pre-war logistics buildup was accomplished (over a period of some 60 days) to take our forces (Fr. 6th Div., US XVIII Airborne Corps, US VII Corps + Br. 1AD) out to the desert, away from roads. We would have had to spend an even greater time rearranging supply lines to allow those forces to do anything more useful than collapsing the Iraqi forces in the KTO from the read. The only US force positioned such that it was able to move on Baghdad was elements of 101 ABD.

(3) US forces were not supplied for, nor prepared for, long term occupation or garrison duties further north, and from the cease fire date on, preparations were already made for redeployment of units back to their home bases - we were already prepping heavy weapons for shipment out, the air force was well on it's way, and we were winding down our military presence very early on.

(4) We fundamentally distrusted the Shiite "leadership" such as it was, and their potential squirreliness vis-a-vis Iran. Bush I wanted the Iraqis as a whole, i.e. the good ol Sunni's that our Saudi and Kuwaiti buddies could deal with, to get rid of Saddam in lieu of a ground war, not as an add-on. We still wanted Iraq as a potential barrier to Iranian fundamentalism, we didn't want to help extend it from the Shatt al Arab to Karbala

(5) By the time the UN could have/would have acted, IF they would have acted (lots of arabs would be uncomfy with potenial Iranian fundy influence, as we were), the rebellion was already collapsing. We didn't knock off Iraq this time on a whim, this war was a done deal and in the works months in advance. Same thing last time - we didn't just go over there and kick ass - there was a months long buildup process.

It wasn't Bush I who was "pessimistic" (i.e. realistic) about the (non-) prospects of taking Saddam out, nobody wanted a disorganized Shiite regime to replace Saddam, nobody wanted into the occupation business, and nobody wanted to plow into a messy fight with new "allies" that were largely unknown, and old "allies" (the rest of the real coalition possibly aside from the UK) that refused to participate. What were we going to do, fight the Saudis for access to our supplies, to install an unknown Shiite regime next to Iran?

[Ramo]

"Bitterly hostile land"?? Some recent polls have put our approval ratings around 80% in Iraq.

Which poll exactly?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Probably find it at http://www.M4A1-M203Cpolls.com

[Ned]

MtG, You make good points about logistics and about Saudi Arabia. Still, they may have approved Coalition action if Bush had asked. Perhaps he did ask and was turned down. I found it strange that he would first call for a revolt and then stand bye and see it killed by the Republican Guard without raising a finger. Saudi Arabia may have been calling that shot.

But, a rescue action with respect to the Shi'ites would not have meant that the Shi'ites would automatically take over. Something like what we are seeing now would have happened then.

[Ramo]

Probably find it at http://www.M4A1-M203Cpolls.com