Why We Didn't Stay in Iraq After the Gulf War

[joemurphy]

February 1991 – The Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and arms inspections. (BBC) The U.S. elects not to proceed on to Baghdad to oust Saddam_Hussein. As then U.S. President George H. W. Bush explained:

"...We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. "

[havocmom]

1. PNACers picked the shrub because he has a sick relationship with Poppy

and they could make him do daddy one better without much trouble.

Amazing the trouble bad parenting can set the stage for.

[Not_Giving_Up]

2. They knew it was a bad idea

I think they're finally figuring out that it was still a bad idea when they did it this time.

[joemurphy]

3. The PNAC People and Iraq

Oddly, the PNAC types still keep kicking around on Cable TV in their role as pundits. Bill Kristol comments regularly on NPR. Richard Perle and Jim Woolsey are frequent guest commentators. Dick Cheney's still our esteemed vice-president. Wolfowitz now runs the World Bank. And, of course, Bolton's still Bush's prime candidate for UN Ambassador.

George Tenet gets a medal. Bush is our Prez for the next 3 1/2 years.

What does it take to get discredited in America?

[happyslug]

4. When Bush Sr set up the First Gulf War

All of our Allies (Remember even the French showed up with at least an Armored DIVISION), and supporters (The Turks, and the Gulf Arab States) only supported the War to liberate Kuwait, the last thing anyone wanted at the time was for a popular revolt of the Iraqi people.

Basically Eastern Arabia and the Gulf States are like Iraq under Saddam, majority Shiite Moslems being ruled by a small Sunni Moslem elite. Saddam actually had more Sunni Moslems in his country than any of the Gulf States. In 1991 the Iranian Revolution less than 12 years old, the last thing any of the Gulf States wanted was a popular revolt. Such a Revolt would been good for Iran, being Shiite Moslem, bad bad for the Gulf States for they would be next for a revolt.

Furthermore the Turks (Who borders Iraq on the North) did NOT want the Kurds to have any independence. In fact in the 1980s while IRaq was fighting the Iranians, the Turks had invaded Kurdistan to chase some of the Kurds fighting a guerrilla war in Turkish Kurdistan (and such attacks escalated during the time period between the first and second Gulf Wars). Thus the Turks opposed any break up of Iraq.

Thus, except for Iran, no one wanted Iraq to be anything more than a Sunni Moslem run dictatorship. Bush Senior would have liked Saddam out, but only to be replaced by another Dictator like Saddam, thus we stood aside while Saddam put down two rebellions (The Iraqi Army was even given permission by the Coalition Forces, i.e. the US, to fly Helicopters to crush these rebellions). The official line was that the US was fooled by the Iraqi Generals who lied to the US that the Helicopters were to be used to overthrow Saddam, but the Revolt was in SOUTHERN IRAQ while Saddam was in CENTRAL Iraq. Anyone looking at a Radar Screen could see where the helicopters were going, and they were NOT going to Baghdad.

Thus as far as out Allies and supporters were concerned the sole purpose of the War was to remove Iraqi Forces from Kuwait and once that was done THE REASON THEY SIGNED UP FOR THE WAR WAS OVER. They was NOT consensus to march on Baghdad. We could have, there was nothing stopping the US EXCEPT THE US COMMITMENTS TO ITS ALLIES NOT TO ANYTHING EXCEPT LIBERATE KUWAIT.

The commitments Bush Senior made to do his wars, restricted the US from doing more than it did. Bush jr made no such commitments and is in Iraq alone. The First Gulf War was over in days, the second is festering for years and you wonder why our Allies and Supporters insisted that the First Gulf war be restricted to liberating Kuwait as opposed to overthrowing Saddam.

Thus the coalition had restrictions from day one

[LynnTheDem]

5. Too bad dumbya didn't bother listening to his Much Betters

President GHW Bush, 1998;

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
http://www.rense.com/general43/quote.htm

[LynnTheDem]

6. Or even his Not So Very Betters

Dick Cheney in April 1991, then Defense Secretary:

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists?

How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072479