Vic, what the coalition decided to do or not to do is not the issue here. The issue was GST's assertion that it would have been illegal to "finish the job" because the UN prohibited it and that the US or anyone else needs UN approval to take any military action against another country. The UN did no such thing and if "finishing the job" was necessary to defend Kuwait and ensure peace in the region, it was not only perfectly legal under long-established principles of international law, but was also explicitly authorized by the UN.
BTW, I wouldn't presume to "Monday morning quarterback" the decision made in 1991 to "stop at the border." At the time, I doubt anyone in Washington could have anticipated that Saddam would still be a threat today, that the UN would fail so miserably at disarming him, or that such well financed global terrorist organizations would exist that could, with Saddam's help, potentially threaten the US directly with his WMDs.
Many of those who ask "why didn't we finish the job then?" are only asking rhetorically so that they can then ask "if it wasn't a good idea then, why is it necessary now?"
The answer is that it didn't appear to be necessary then, but knowing then what we know now, it might have appeared differently and the choice might have been different. And since we can't go back and rewrite the conclusion of the Gulf War, we are left with the decision to make now - how can we render Saddam and his weapons harmless? |
