Replies

But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.

Nope. Bush Senior's plan was perfect. The Kurds later fought a pitched battle and would have defeated Iraq, were it not for one thing: Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton failed to give them critical air support at a critical moment. Bill Clinton most likely dropped the ball with the Kurds in other ways as well.

As I recall, there was an Oval Office meeting where Powell argued and won against the others that it would be inhumane for us to continue the war. Bush finally agreed and let them sign a peace agreement the next day or so. There was an article on this meeting which contained a transcript. Does anyone remember the article or can post a link?

Excuse me, but the people of the United States were led to believe, by President George Bush I, that the military forces of Iraq were to be destroyed to the extent that they would no longer threaten anybody except by self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

The war did not "wind down." Instead, its halt and ceace-fire were ordered by President Bush, stopping the allies from seizing much, much more of the Iraq military forces.

We had anticipated an Easter No-Fly Zone, a Western No-Fly Zone, and containment of Saddam Hussein into a Baghdad canton.

Bush stopped all this.

The Time story leaves much unstated about Bush's fear of losing political capital by being portrayed as a "war monger" at home; thus leaving Saddam a sanctuary.

Is why some people Didn't Vote for George Bush; not merely because of "the economy" or "no new taxes."

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state.

Herein lies the setup for the next war. Taking Baghdad would have been a mistake..for the reasons they mentioned and for the loss of American life that probably would of ensued in the bunker-hunker and occupation. However, not permitting those that were willing to take Iraq to do so was a HUGE mistake, and they do not exactly reveal their role in that (like the redefinition of "no-fly-zone" to not include helicopters).

It does reveal that when you form a coalition to be honorable you must agree to the wishes of the coalition.(which meant the Arab states got to end the war when they wanted, and probably had a large say in how things were to be after that), and that this is a mistake if you want to guarantee total victory.

Hopefully this is a mistake that the 'W' administration will not make. Ask them to come along, but make sure they understand we will decide the ending to this story. Especially, when the resources used are ours. That is, of course, an ugly Self-Centered-American view. It also wins wars.

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect.

They were hopeful but misled by allies. The key point was in 1991 it was felt Saddam was in a box. They thought he'd stay in that box and maybe even fall from internal decay. His 10 years of defiance of UN resolutions and his continued WMD program disabused that notion, but our policiy didnt likewise evolve.

What comes across perfectly clearly is how much was wasted in the 8 years of the Clinton administration ... we intervened hither and yon from Haiti to Kosovo, where our strategic interests were *not* involved, but we declined to resolve key problems like Saddam ... and Osama ... when we should have. In particular, the USA rattled sabres and fired off missiles in 1998, but effectively did nothing to *really* stop Saddam. we didnt rally UN support for decisive action, we let the UN inspection program die without forcing the issue like Bush is doing now, we didnt insist on positive outcome, and we didnt back our words with sincere intent, including the option of focring Regime Change on Iraq. Instead we had a President - Clinton - who didnt say what he meant and cared for political expediency over national security. Instead we reaped a whirlwind.

Thankfully, we have G.W. Bush at the helm now. Saddam's days are _ finally - numbered.

We didn't remove Saddam in 1991 because he had WMD. Nobody has ever taken down a regime armed with WMD, for obvious reasons. Now, Saddam's WMD can reach the US, not just Israel, but the provocation -- his destruction of the WTC and attempted destruction of the Capitol -- is too great to let pass. Which puts us in a pretty pickle, doesn't it?