I think you exaggerate the military might of Saddam as have others who vigorously supported that military campaign....I have heard observations from more neutral military experts, however, that say we fought a second rate army from a third world country. Having said that, why this issue is so important to you and others is beyond me.
It IS important, and I'll tell you why: This is history, and there has, over the last 50 or so years, developed a tendency for history to get revised so it is no longer the truth. This is a natural result of the fact that American colleges and universities are jam-packed with liberals who write their own versions of history, the way THEY want it to be. This is a fact. And it permanently distorts the record of what actually happened.
One of the best examples of this Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States". This highly-touted "masterpiece" gives a totally biased perspective -- history the way a liberal sees it -- where every non-white-male is a victim of the white, New America. The blacks, the women, the Mexicans, Jeez, just about everyone was victimized. Is some of it true? Surely. Is all of it true? Hardly. However, it has now become a frequently cited resource -- indeed, a supposed treatise, instead of the masterpiece of biased opinion it really is. The process is sickening.
Back to the point at hand. It is important that we remember what actually happened in the Gulf War so that history doesn't distort things. If you doubt anything I say in this respect, I urge you to go back and read what was written contemporaneously. Saddam's military was referred to frequently as the 4th largest military in the world. We can argue about whether it was, but the reality is that we were told it was. Military experts (and Congress) told us to "wait until the body bags start coming home". The term "meatgrinder" was often mentioned in connection with what the ground war would be like. We were told the air war could only do so much, but eventually, there would have to be a deadly ground war, with thousands of American casualties.
Bush had the fortitude to move forward with what he believed was a righteous cause -- EVEN THOUGH, in Congress, it was mightily unpopular. If you've read the book, "Profiles in Courage", this is precisely what the subject of that fine book was. Now, ten short years later, we have all these people, some Republicans, but mostly liberals, banging the "we should have gotten him the first time" drum, slowly, surely, persistently.
We should NOT have gotten him the first time. We did precisely what we should have, nothing more, nothing less. I have never, not now, not ever, exaggerated what the military threat was alleged to have been prior to Bush's trampling of Saddam. But it is easy, after the fact, for people to revise the history, and that's my complaint.
The REAL STORY is Clinton's foolish acceptance of the explusion of the weapons inspectors. Had we had a competent president, Saddam would never have attempted this. But because Clinton was viewed not only as a liberal, but as a much-weakened liberal, Saddam knew it would go unchallenged. Now, Bush, and his stellar foreign policy team, have begun the process of righting this horrible error in presidential judgment. |
