Left & Right Wing Preoccupation

[happygrump]

I would have finished Saddam during Desert Storm... If they wanted him, he was there for the taking.

I would have done the same, but the 1991 coalition did not have a mandate to neutralize Saddam. Schwartzkopf (sp?) wanted to march to Baghdad too, but Bush Sr. denied permission. The coalition's mandate was restricted to the liberation of Kuwait and to provide security in the clean up the oil fires that resulted (thanks to firefighting gear and expertise mostly from Alberta and the gloriously-moustachioed Mike Miller of Safety Boss).

Another one of those situations where the wrong thing was done for the right reasons.

 

[someone]

I would have finished Saddam during Desert Storm. Leadership involves recognizing a rare opportunity and acting on it decisively. Anyone with a bit of experience knows you won't often get a shot at Saddam like the one they had then. I supported the UN coalition kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. It was a worthwhile mission because Saddam had invaded his neighbour. The coalition had Iraq on a platter, with most of their troops getting creamed out in the open desert north of Kuwait, and Saddam minding the store all by himself back in Baghdad. If they wanted him, he was there for the taking. If they'd taken advantage of that opportunity, sanctions would have been unnecessary and the infrastructure would've remained intact. Democratizing Iraq would have been a piece of cake compared to what is happening now. You can say hindsight is always 20/20 but I clearly remember thinking at the time that they should have taken out Saddam right then and there.

I completely agree that if they had invaded then, it would have been justified. There was a problem in getting a UN resolution but if the U.S. was going to end up breaking international law by invading Iraq without a UN resolution anyway, they could have at least done it when there was some justification. I have to wonder why there was such a change in the U.S position. Is it just the case of different administrations seeing the world differently? Alternatively, at the time did the U.S. really believe that sanctions would topple the government, making an invasion unnecessary (I can’t think of an example of sanctions actually having that effect anywhere)

 

[happygrump]

I can’t think of an example of sanctions actually having that effect anywhere

Just one that I can think of: South Africa (though there was never discussion about invasion as far as I know), despite Maggie Thatcher's refusal to enact sanctions from the UK, probably because her family had investments there. Better to take the money and ignore the injustice, I suppose...

 

[someone]

Just one that I can think of: South Africa (though there was never discussion about invasion as far as I know), despite Maggie Thatcher's refusal to enact sanctions from the UK, probably because her family had investments there. Better to take the money and ignore the injustice, I suppose...

But were sanctions really decisive in that case?

 

[slowpoke]

I would have done the same, but the 1991 coalition did not have a mandate to neutralize Saddam. Schwartzkopf (sp?) wanted to march to Baghdad too, but Bush Sr. denied permission. The coalition's mandate was restricted to the liberation of Kuwait and to provide security in the clean up the oil fires that resulted (thanks to firefighting gear and expertise mostly from Alberta and the gloriously-moustachioed Mike Miller of Safety Boss).

Another one of those situations where the wrong thing was done for the right reasons.

I knew there were nagging technicalities but, with enough pressure on the UN, they might have been able to arrange something. I think Bush Sr. was afraid to take US casualties so he refused to even push for anything more than the usual air strikes. He sure as hell didn't make as big a pitch to sell an assault on Baghdad as his son did a decade or so later.