Are you referring to the 9-11 Congressional votes? To the Gulf War votes? Or to something else?
I'm referring to the terms of the Gulf War armistice, which did not say, "ok we've beaten you up enough, you're free to go," but which imposed certain harsh conditions on the Iraqi regime -- no fly zones, weapons inspections, sanctions -- upon pain of resuming the war. I can look up the exact terms if you'd like, but is there any question that Saddam has repudiated the armistice terms? As stratfor explained in this piece in 1998,
Saddam is shrewd and he is patient. He has now posed a terrific problem for Washington. He has simply repudiated his agreements from the armistice of 1991. Technically, the war should resume. Technically, the U.S. is not only free, but pledged, to resume military operations against Iraq. But the United States has big problems. U.S. military leaders have been making it publicly known that the tempo of operations imposed on them by the Clinton Administration, coupled with massive budget cuts, has severely limited the U.S. military's effectiveness. In our judgement, this is not simply posturing for more budget dollars. U.S. forces are quite weak. The logistical demands of simultaneous operations in Kosovo and the Persian Gulf on the scale required in both cases may simply be beyond the capacity of U.S. forces. It can be done, but it will be rough. Diplomatically, the U.S. is pretty much alone.
ariga.com |
