Should we have removed Saddam in 1991?

[redman]

Pick the 1-3 best answers (you can choose more than one) and explain your answer.

[Henry]

At the time I said no, because the coalition didn't want us to.

With my perfect hindsight vision I'd say yes, because it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission ...

[Jagsbch]

Strike while the Iron is hot... now we are trying to strike and the iron is cold and so to is to worlds flames toward Iraq at the moment.

[tex]

No.

We needed a future excuse to move troops into the region. Leaving Saddam in power a few more years was simply strategic planning.

[Tarhog]

We made the same mistake in 1991 that we are making now. We went through the UN which meant our mission was a narrow restriced one. Expel Hussein's forces from Kuwait. Period. In that context, of course we did the right thing, we followed our UN mandate and did EXACTLY what we were charged to do.

What we should have done is totally bypass the UN (which will never represent US interests), expel the Iraqis from Kuwait and then head north, seizing their oil assets and encircling Bagdad and other key cities. At that point we could have demanded Hussein's head on a stick, and waited for the Republican Guard or the Kurds to take his regime out.

What really burns me about these discussions is that these 'why didn't we' arguments are often made by the same folks that preached doom and gloom in 1991 and would have howled bloody murder if we'd gone beyond liberating Kuwait. We also need to remember that HAD Iraq COMPLIED with UN Resolutions and the cease-fire agreements and totally disarmed, the 1991 Gulf War would be viewed as the most successful US military campaign in history. It is incredibly ironic that the same faulty logic that kept us from taking care of the problem in 1991 (an insistence on a multilateral UN solution and trusting Hussein to comply and cooperate truthfully) is now being used to insist we must continue with the UN and 'more inspections'. The sooner the US realizes our interests are not necessarily the world's interests, the better off we will be. We should turn our back on the UN and NATO if they won't live up to their stated obligations.

[inmate running the asylum]

At the point where I'm voting now on this poll, 17 people have cast votes. I see we have great poll participation as usual from the board -- like 17 out of 2200+ :laugh:

Of this number, 5 people have voted that removing Sadam fell outside the U.N. mandate and 12 people have voted for other reasons why he should or should not have been removed.

What this tells me is that there are a lot of misinformed people or at least 12 of 17. :laugh:

The U.N. mandate which allowed the U.S. to put together a large

coalition of nations [even Arab states like Egypt and Syria], only called for the Iraqi army to be ejected from Kuwait. As a coalition force the U.S. working within the U.N. mandate, had no authority or mandate for regime change or to go to Baghdad to remove Sadam Hussein. It was not a U.S. option and that is why the ground war ended after about 3 days, when the Iraqi army had been ejected from Kuwait. Although personally I would have liked to have seen us go after that S.O.B. anyway.

This time it will be different, because this time its PERSONAL.

[Chief skin]

We were their, we knew he was an on going menace to the region and we let him off the hook. The way the arabs think is if he would have been in our position he would have taken out his enemy so when we did not take him out he considered it American weakness, that is percisely why he thumbs his nose at 17 UN resolutions and the USA. At the time I thought it was a mistake and here we still playing games with this madman

[Brave]

I recall at the time feeling glad that we didn't overstep the goals of simply liberating Kuwait. With hindsight, however, I've definately changed my mind and can now see the logic of those "hawks" who wanted to continue on to Bahgdad.

I'm much less worried about what the world will think of us anymore. It seems many will hate us no matter what we do so it wouldn't bother me to set up shop permanently over there. Remove Saddam, take over his oil, keep what we need and sell the rest. It would probably start a World War, but we seem to be slowly moving in that direction anyway. Might as well get it over with before any more of these 3rd-rate countries have the scary weapons.

[redskin56]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda if it wasn't for the media depiction of the "Road of Death" leading out of Kuwait.

[Kilmer17]

Hindsight is always 20/20. We should have let Patton drive to Moscow too.

[Riggo-toni]

We made the only decision possible, though we probably should've taken out more of his forces as they were retreating.

Bush promised both the Soviet Union and Turkey (and also Syria, but who gives a ****e about Hafez Al Assad, may he rot in helll) that he would not march into Iraq. Turkey is one of our best allies, and is terrified about the potential ramifications of an independent Kurdish state. Likewise, the Soviet Union was worried that the subsequent power vacuum in Iraq could lead to its dismemberment, thus encouraging its own republics to seek independence (which of course, they did anyway). The point is, you do not make promises to your allies to gain their support, then turn right around and screw them because it's convenient. This is what Nixon did to King Faisal in '73, and was largely the beginning of Arab hatred for the U.S. The fact that we kept our promises in the Gulf War is one reason why we are getting so much cooperation from Arab governments now, even though a strike against Iraq is violently unpopular among their subjects.

[codeorama]

I always wondered why he wasn't taken out then. At the time it didn't make much sense to me, you could see there would be trouble in the future.

But I'm not privvy to all consequences that may have resulted, so I find it hard to criticize to heavily.

[redman]

I'm fascinated by an apparent anachronism in this poll which was the reason why I started it - only one person (me) indicated that they believed a reason in 1991 NOT to "drive to Baghdad" was that Saddam would have used WMD's to survive.

That's an apparant anachronism because it's now being argued that his posession of WMD's is the reason to attack and remove him from power.

The other thing that's interesting to me is that that point has been largely missed as a historical point. There is good evidence to support the idea that our limited objectives during Gulf War I (removal from Kuwait) and not James Baker's cryptic, behind-the-scenes threat to use nukes, prevented Saddam from using WMD's.

[Tarhog]

I think the key difference now is that we never realistically imagined (prior to 9/11) a rogue state exporting WMD's for use beyond their borders. Now we not only imagine it, we expect it to happen at some point. I don't personally believe the threat of WMD's kept us from driving on Bagdad in Gulf War I. I think it was a fear of looking just like the unilateralist bullying imperialist nation we are accused of being nowadays....now thats ironic.

[redman]

I agree with everything you said, Tarhog. I'm still amazed that this has not been talked about more. Even if you ignore the "exportation" of WMD's to terror groups that would use them aganst the U.S. domestically, the in-theater use of WMD's in 1991 would have been a HUGE consideration and yet it's not talked about.

Hindsight and the failures of the free world to follow up on the coalition's military success now bring us pangs of regret, but I still think we did the right thing 12 years ago in not driving to Baghdad. We're just all too easily ignoring a significant downside to that decision had we made it back then.

[Tarhog]

I think you are right that we did the correct thing, although it graphically illustrates the downside of tying your horse to a multilateral wagon. We had no choice. We either lived up to the bargain we made, or flouted our agreements and did what was in our longterm interests.

The more interesting issue you raise is the prospect of Hussein using WMD's this time around. He certainly has less to lose as his survival is at risk (if not a foregone conclusion) this time around. I don't think the likelihood of his using chem/bio weapons on us this time is a reason not to act. To the contrary, at some point we're going to have to show that we will confront an evil tyrant at any cost (paying attention N. Korea?), and the earlier the better.

[redman]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I don't think the likelihood of his using chem/bio weapons on us this time is a reason not to act. To the contrary, at some point we're going to have to show that we will confront an evil tyrant at any cost (paying attention N. Korea?), and the earlier the better.

I totally agree. The dispute before was based around 1) removing him from Kuwait, and 2) destroying his conventional military such that he couldn't feasibly replicate the Kuwaiti invasion any time soon. We assumed that an aggressive U.N. sanctions program backed by inspections could succeed in both containing him thereafter, and divesting him of his WMD's.

Both assumptions failed because we ignored the inability to contain them when they use terrorist proxies to project violence to other countries, and because we underestimated their dogged determination to build and protect their WMD programs. We've learned because of the failures of UNSCOM in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 that the host nation must cooperate for a WMD inspection regime to be successful.

As for the "paying attention N Korea" comment, not only are they very much paying attention, it also will not be lost on the Iranians that in the span of 18 months or so we've managed to topple two of the more entrenched enemy regimes in the world on either side of their country!

As many were saying defiantly after 9/11, "Here comes the pain!"

[Glenn X]

As others here have already noted, hindsight is always 20/20. However, one must consider that we're at a very different place in this country, socially and politically (thanks to Sept. 11th), than we were back in the early '90s.

As I said in another thread on this message board, one of the most important enduring political legacies in late 20th century America was the extremely bitter taste left in this nation's mouth over the Vietnam War. This bitterness led to a deep fear on the part of many Americans, including those in charge in Washington, of finding ourselves hopelessly bogged down again in another long, bloody military quagmire someplace overseas.

I vividly recall watching an hour-long documentary on CNN not long after Saddam had been ousted from Kuwait in which the program's host, Bernard Shaw, enumerated all the ways in which the Gulf War was NOT like Vietnam (e.g. the Gulf War was clearly much shorter in duration, with clearly defined goals and a clear exit strategy; while military equipment in Vietnam, from certain types of heavy machinery to the then-new M-16 assault rifle, suffered from operational problems and malfunctions related the swampy jungle environs in which they were employed, most of the Armed Service's stuff worked almost perfectly in the less-than-hospitable Arabian desert). There was almost a sense of relief on the part of Shaw and those U.S. officials he interviewed concerning these differences.

"We may have screwed up royally back in Vietnam," the general underlying sentiment of the program's participants seemed to be, "but we damn sure got it right this time. Thank goodness for that!"

Seeing as how a good many Americans seemed to share this view back in 1991, the idea of getting in and then getting out of the Persian Gulf ASAP (with Saddam's head on a stick or not) probably struck many, both inside and outside the Beltway, as the most prudent course of action.

Hindsight, indeed.

[redman]

Good post, Glenn. I agree with your analysis.

[NavyDave]

Not only the UN Mandate at the time but if we destroyed their military at the time a larger danger loomed which was IRAN.

IRAN would have swept thru Iraq and been on the border of Kuwait/Saudi Arabia which they considered at that time to be godless and too liberal for their taste.

[redman]

Originally posted by NavyDave

Not only the UN Mandate at the time but if we destroyed their military at the time a larger danger loomed which was IRAN.

IRAN would have swept thru Iraq and been on the border of Kuwait/Saudi Arabia which they considered at that time to be godless and too liberal for their taste.

You're right about there being concerns about creating a power vacuum. However, that's no less an issue right now, although we're probably in less of a mood to appease these kinds of Iranian power-play sentiments now than we were ten years ago.

[inmate running the asylum]

I think there is another thing at play here and that is what I call "the balance of terror" in the world changed in only 12 years since the 1991 Gulf War. Up until 9/11 the U.S. had generally felt secure from a major attack on the homeland -- except in the unlikely event of an ICBM attack -- because of its deterence to retaliate militarily and historically by being protected by two oceans. No country dared attack us on our homeland as Japan did at Pearl Harbor, without risking total annihilation by us in a worse case scenario.

But 9/11 changed all that. The oceans no longer afforded us the same protection as in the past, and "the balance of terror" of mutual nuclear annihilation between us and say Russia, suddenly needed to be a re-thought. For suddenly the realization dawned on our policy makers after 9/11 -- with the terrorists committing suicide and originating from "friendly" and different countries -- now what country or to whom do we retaliate against?

But it was not only the event of 9/11. Excluding nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction have been around from at least WWI. But they were never put to use again after WWI, until Saddam Hussein used them against the Iraqi Kurds. During WWI mustard and chlorine gas were used first by the Germans and then by the Allies, but were discontinued by a "gentlemen's agreement" when neither side no longer saw any advantage in their use. Even Hitler and Stalin never considered their use in WWII.

But just like nuclear weapons changed the world playing field -- allowing a small or undeveloped nation which possessed them to challege a superpower -- WMD had the same dangerous potential. Now a small or undeveloped nation or even individuals could wreak havoc on a superpower nation. If one doesn't believe this, then consider what only 6 mailed anthrax letters did to the East coast in disrupting the government. Then consider what would have occurred if hostile individuals had mailed out thousands of anthrax letters simultaneously around the entire country? Or what might occur if a disease were spread in the population, for which there is no cure. As an example, a virulent flu virus spread around the world around 1914 that killed 20 million people in a matter of months. :doh:

Redman asked the question: why were WMD not the issue then with Iraq or of the same importance during 1991? The main reasons are the situation is different now and "the balance of terror" or the "mutual destruction" concept has changed. The Gulf War was before 9/11, but what 9/11 showed was the enormous devastation a few individuals could wreak if they possessed the right weapons. In 9/11 the terrorists improvised by using "flying bombs" but what if they also possessed WMD? As Tony Blair said: The terrorists murdered 3,000 people, but does anyone doubt they would not have murdered 30,000 or 300,000 if they had been able?"

Terrorists have been around since the beginning of recorded history, but previously they had always been relatively small organizations and just about always underfunded. Never have they been as large; well organized; or as suicidal worldwide as Al-Quada; and also possessing hundreds of millions of dollars to finance their activities and buy weapons.

Hussein had previously used poison gas on the Kurds around 1986 [because it was to his advantage then], but in 1991 it was not to his advantage and a so-called "mutual destruction" doctrine was thought to still be a deterent by U.S. policy makers. After all Hussein would never use WMD against U.S. troops it was thought in 1991 -- because we were not going after him personally -- and even Hitler and Stalin had never seen any advantage to their use. For the U.S. had the option of retaliating with its own WMD or even nuclear weapons. As General Schwartzkoff said: "We told the Iraqis that if they used WMD against us, we would also use them, and we had a lot more of them then they did." And after the Nuremberg trials, there was always the deterent of Iraqi generals being prosecuted as war criminals.

But times have changed in only 12 years, from 1991 to 2003. For of what deterrence now is there in mutual destruction in 2003, when terrorists are perfectly willing to commit suicide anyway, if they can only get ahold of WMD? Al-Quada was a relatively fragmented and underfunded terrorist organization prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Although the Muslims had gained confidence from defeating the Russian superpower in Afghanistan, it was not until the rise of Al-Quada's leadership and the success of 9/11 -- that they turned their attention to the only remaining superpower.

Suddenly it became clear that if Hussein were to give WMD to terrorists to use against their mutual enemies in the West, we could see the enormous potential for death and destruction. Couple this with the fact that WMD are relatively cheap to make; easy to hide; and have more-bang-for-the-buck, and you have the potential for national disaster.

The 64-dollar question now is: Will Hussein use WMD against U.S. troops this time and can we prevent his WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists even if Hussein is removed from power? For what is to prevent Hussein from giving Al-Quada a truck full of say anthrax or smallpox before he is removed from power? I mean do the anti-war protesters really expect the U.S. to find proof of imminent danger beforehand, in the form of a requisition for anthrax connecting these two enemies? Of course Hussein could give WMD to terrorists whether we attack Iraq or not, and that is the problem. :doh:

I think I'll knock off here -- I didn't realize I was starting a book. :laugh:

[NavyDave]

A smoking gun means that it was fired so I still dont get what these idiots are talking about.

Do they want us to have him on tape before he pulls the trigger?

This is like the judge ignoring a woman's plea for help from a deranged stalker who in the end kills her.