Al Re...Bush Sr is a wisker away from ousting Saddam from within with little capital, and lets it slip away because a) he either fails to capitalize on the internal revolt or b) reasons that saddam in power is preferable to an Iraq splintered among factions.
In your dreams maybe, but in real life, American and coalition troops were less than 50 miles into Iraq. Plus our supply depots came out of SA instead of Kuwait, making them that much longer. Could the war have been won in 91 easier than in 03. Possibly. However, it certainly wasn't that tough in 03 either, so the differences would have been minimal. The real problem in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the peace afterward. Lets examine that aspect.
The shite population was much stronger, and the clerics more radical back in 91. While Khomeni had just died 2 yrs earlier, his revolution was still strong and represented a real threat. Also, while Russia did vote on the UN for the resolution to oust Saddam from Kuwait, Russia was adamantly against going after Saddam and the Baath party, bacause Russia need an influence in the middle east. Thirdly, the Kurds were far weaker then. Which means, if the US would have taken Iraq in 91, it is very likely secretarian strife would have ensued. Also,it is likely Russia would have fed the Shites arms, and Iran would have sent in troops, to destabilize Iraq, and turn Iraq into a radical Islamic fundamentalist state, in the same line as Iran was then. While it is true, the Shite population could still turn nasty, it is far more likely, at this point, that a federal government, with states, parliaments, and a president will be established and have power, not the clerics through a governing council such as there is in Iran. All in all, I think the delay helped us, and made a democratic government a possibility.
Either way he is the hypocrite, hell bent of liberating Kuwaiti people "whose children are being taken out of incubators and dropped on the floor" but unable/unwilling to make a similar case to the world to save Kurds and Shia in full retreat. Worse, he times the surrender so well that the Iraqi army goes back and has more than enough strenght to squash the revolt
You are trying to say here that GB senior made the decision to stop with liberating Kuwait. AFAIK the US argued that the coalition should go to baghdad and finish the job, but they were overruled by Russia and several Arab states. Why not blame the real culprits, the Russians ,who could easily have kept us from winning an easy war in Iraq, if they wanted to, and most certainly could have turned Iraq into another Vietnam, as a payback for Afghanistan, plus Russia would have blocked UN approval to recapture Kuwait. The revolt by the Shites in the south didn't happen until after the Gulf war, so quit blaming GB for not forseeing the killing.
So now his son (Cheney) with little of the regard his father claims to have used as reason to stop at the border for the opinion of the world <<gg>>
Do you really think that not having UN approval, (the stated reason for not getting involved), was the main reason the US stopped when they did. Think about it. Iraq was an ally of Russia. Russia was willing to let us drive Saddam out of Iraq, if Russia herself, couldn't convince Saddam to leave Kuwait. Russia wouldn't allow us to take over Iraq, as Russia didn't want the US, to have bases on their border, and Russia was willing to use the pretense of coming to the aid of an ally to get involved. By 03, Russia had broken up, Ubekizstan and Tarzekistan were broken off , the bases in Iraq ceased to be a threat,compared to Russias other problems, and the USSR had little influence with Saddam anymore. That is the main reason we couldn't go further.
So now his son (Cheney) with little of the regard his father claims to have used as reason to stop at the border for the opinion of the world <<gg>> attacks practically unilaterally and hopscocthes his way from one justification for the invasion to the next, as each of the reasons for the war turn out to be bull or exagerations. So now he claims the humanitarian high ground his father repudiated...well, cause he's got little left.
Come off it. We both knew, (as we discussed this extensively last winter before the invasion), that getting rid of the WMD, was not the main reason for the invasion of Iraq. It is all politics, or in this case, geo-politics. The WMD was used because the UN had 17 resolutions ordering Saddam to comply, or else, and the US wanted UN approval. The main reason had to do with SA and oil. For years, the US had an influence in two big oil producing countries in the middle east, SA and Iran. Russia had more influence in Iraq. After the Iranian revolution, we had to depend more on SA, Kuwait, and the smaller states of Qatar, and Bahrain. In the mid to late 90's, especially after 9/11, SA started to look shaky. Without the SA bases, we couldn't continue the overflights over Iraq, or have a presence good enough to keep OBL out of SA. So the question became, what to do to stabilize the middle east; so the US and the west can be guaranteed adequate supplies of oil. And the answer was,get rid of Saddam, eliminate the need for overflights, and bases in SA, establish a democracy in Iraq, build up its oilfields, and the Iraqi infrastructure, so the Iraqi people prosper, and we have big time influence in the middle east, and an adequate supply of oil, even if SA is taken over by the extremists. Just as important, if the US had bases in Kuwait or Iraq, we could deter a takeover of SA by OBL, cutting off a potential major source of money for the terrorists. As much as we hate the wealthy princes and kings in SA, a takeover by OBL would have been a disaster. That would have given OBL tremendous influence over the region and our allies, who depended upon the oil, and huge amounts of money.
In the end, it was geo politics both times, in 91 and 03. The more things change, the more they stay the same. |
