How Bremer screwed up in Iraq

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm sure that Cheny quote was post 1991 but pre-2000.

But of course.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boshko
*points to sig*
*cough*

Bosko, maybe.

But the conventional wisdom is that Bush could not persuade the UN to authorize more than ejection from Kuwait. Immediately after the war, Bush called for Saddam's overthrow, indicating what he truly wanted.

[Ned]

The Cheney quote also shows that statements made to camouflage what really is going on can come back to haunt one.

[DanS]

Cheney and the most of the Gulf War I crew regretted that they didn't take Saddam out. It's virtually the same group running Gulf War II versus Gulf War I.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ned


Berz, you are obviously an intelligent man as you are leading the Lombardi contest by 4 over all competition. Now, I ask you this. Why did Bush I not finish Iraq off in 1991, but rather left it to UN sanctions to deal with the WMD? Let me give you two possible choices.

1) He was weak, as exhibited by the fact that he went to war against Saddam while Kerry voted against.

2) He had to limit his objectives to keep the coalition together. France, for one, would have vetoed any move on Saddam.

Don't forget the UN and the legalities of war:
(and by UN I mean the whole wide scope of the organisation, including the security counsel)

Invading a souvereign nation and member of the UN by Iraq could call for the use of force to get Saddam out of Kuwait. And so, after some failed diplomacy, the UN authorized this.

Invading Iraq was, and is, a different matter. The UN thought they had better tools at hand to deal with the remaining threat that Iraq and its chemical weapons posed, and the cease-fire was signed.

IMO, certainly with hindsight, the threat of Saddam was effectively curtailed. There has not been a reason to invade Iraq. Not in 1991, and not now.

[Ned]

germanos, you do support my point. Bush I could not go after Saddam because the UNSC would not support it.

[Ned]

And this is why Berz was wrong to say that Bush I did not go after Saddam because Bush I was "weak."

[Ned]

Which is why, any president that requires UNSC approval to defend American interests is "weak," as most UN Members, including the majority of the permanent members, see the weakening of the US as their primary foreign policy objective.

[Ned]

Which is why Kerry will be weak president incapable of defending American interests.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
He appears to have been overruled or undermined by State.

State had no say in the number of troops.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
Cheney and the most of the Gulf War I crew regretted that they didn't take Saddam out. It's virtually the same group running Gulf War II versus Gulf War I.

They regretted not having watched a Shja revolt overthrow him, but Powell and most people actually in power at the time, as opposed to lower level apparatchiks did not show much contrition after the fact.

Only Powell and Cheney were in positions of power in 1991, and Powell has been reluctant from day one.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ned
germanos, you do support my point. Bush I could not go after Saddam because the UNSC would not support it.

I have no problem supporting your point .

However, I have the feeling your point is the UN wouldn't support an invasion of Iraq because France is an ass, while in fact the UN wouldn't have supported such an invasion since it is against the UN-charter itself.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by germanos
However, I have the feeling your point is the UN wouldn't support an invasion of Iraq because France is an ass, while in fact the UN wouldn't have supported such an invasion since it is against the UN-charter itself.

Given that the reason for the war was to support the rule of international law, we couldn't conclude that same war by violating it. The problem was less France than it was our Arab allies, who did not want to see Hussein toppled. A weakened Hussein was better for them than a democratic Iraq.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ned
Which is why, any president that requires UNSC approval to defend American interests is "weak," as most UN Members, including the majority of the permanent members, see the weakening of the US as their primary foreign policy objective.

All UN member see looking after their own interests as their primary foriegn policy objective.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Which is why, any president that requires UNSC approval to defend American interests is "weak," as most UN Members, including the majority of the permanent members, see the weakening of the US as their primary foreign policy objective.

Who's proposing to do that?