Sometime we could also discuss whether if, by
not going to Baghdad in 1991, Bush I made a fatal
mistake, that led inevitably to 9-11.
I agree it was a tactical mistake not to do that, though whether or not 9-11 would have been avoided is questionable, since I don't think Saddam was actually suporting al-Qaeda in any significant way. But if we had overturned Saddam then, we would not have had to base so many troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce the no fly zones and protect against future incursions, and it was those troops which were the nominal catalyst for Bin Laden's hatred, so maybe he would have focussed more on Israel than the US.
But at the time, I don't think the US public would have accepted the overthrow of Saddam, given that we were working under a UN mandate at the time and the UN was strongly against going beyond the liberation of Kuwait. And arguably at that time the balance of power and ability between US forces and the Republican Guard was much more equal, ten years of sanctions hadn't attrited their military equiment, we didn't have JDAMS, we had used many of our cruise missles up already, their air defenses were stronger (they shot down many more planes in Gulf War I than II), we hadn't developed the friendly fire protections or the coordinated strategies we have now (as I recall, our losses to friendly fire in Gulf I were more than our total losses in Gulf II, and that was just the easy fighting in the desert in Gulf I), we know that they had chemical weapons then and the willingness to use them and we were nowhere nearly as prepared for chems then as we are now.
So strategically, I don't think it was really a possible option to go to Baghdad in 1991.
Though I wish we had had that ability. |
