I’ve been pondering lately the end of the Gulf War 91’ and really wondering why Bush allowed Saddam to remain in power. Let’s be honest here, if Bush wanted to, Saddam would’ve been gone in 91’. Don’t tell me the nation was unwilling to do the dirty work and see our military march into Bahgdad, because I don’t think that was even necessary. Large segments of the Iraqi population were plotting and executing plans to overthrow Saddam. Yet, Bush, in what I consider one of this countries most shameful actions, literally allowed Saddam 1) to massacre people we had promised to support (Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south) 2) to quell the rebellion, and stay in power. Unless Bush Sr. is a total idiot, and I know he is not, why didn’t he reject Saddam’s request to use helicopter gunships and allow the rebellion to follow its course and perhaps with minimal support, to rid the world of this tyrant? I don’t mean to sound overly idealistic, pure, and a bleeding heart, but sometimes after being reminded of that episode, via reading or a documentary, it keeps me up at night. How could our leaders have been so shortsighted, so shallow, and so empty? I think of all those people slaughtered for trusting in the US, and it bothers me, it disgusts me, it revolts me, and makes me ashamed. Mind you, this isn’t the only episode that makes me feel disgusted with our leaders. (Panama is another one among others) So why did he do it? Why did Bush, literally, allow Saddam to remain in power? Because that is the only way I see it. Bush gave him a pass a 'get out of jail' card. I know you’ll probably reject this outright, but could there have been some secret deal that Saddam throw out there? ‘Let me stay in power, I’ll follow the rules, be good and reward the US with cheap oil in the future’. What else could it of been? I know the US troops couldn’t have done it, due to domestic tensions. But, for God’s sake, we didn’t need to get our hands dirty. And then we have to listen to conservatives say, ‘the only person at fault for children starving and dying in Iraq because of economic sanction, is Saddam’. I don’t understand how average Americans aren’t outraged. Why are so many of our fellow citizens so callous, uncaring, and selfish? Why don’t they care that because of our leaders, innocent children starve? Your reaction? PS I'm not a left-winger.
the use of helicopters was origianlly allowed by norman schwarzkopf during the cease fire agreement between iraq and the allied forces. during the cease fire meeting iraqi generals asked if they could still fly their helicopters and seeing as how it was not in the agreement norman felt no reason not to allow them to fly their helicopters. the problems were that the cease fire was thrown together rather quickly, and poorly worded b/c bush sr. wanted the war to be over before it got 'too' ugly and american forces were seen killing iraqi forces like 'fish in a barrel' many american generals still wanted another 24 hours before the ground war was ended...but bush ended it sooner. i think, this is kinda what i remember about the situation; the united states government was worried that if the war continued all the way to baghdad and we went in to baghdad to search for saddam then we would lose the possible greatest alliance of countries ever assembled. bush was worried that all the 'warm and fuzzy' feelings we, as a country, obtained through the alliance would be ruined.
If I'm Bush, I stay true to my word and let Iraq have Kuwait. Irritating little autocratic oil barons in an artificial country treating the Palestinians about as well as Ariel Sharon with PMS. I make sure that American interests get to wet their beak in the new province's oil interests, the Kuwaitis enjoy their new and fulfilling lives as slaves, Saudi Arabia and Iran stay nice and scared, and no one ever hears the words "Gulf War Syndrome." Best of all, I don't even get impeached! What are they going to do, put effin' QUAYLE in the White House? Hell, Saddam, make the checks out to me personally! I got my kid's rehab to pay for! HOT-CHA!
Re: Re: Reconsidering the end of Gulf War 91' This certainly was part of the rationalization. Also: 1) We underestimated his ability to hang onto power. (I think they were thinking, "let the opposition do the dirty work...just a matter of time till Saddam is ousted anyway). 2) It was going to cost more U.S. lives to actually get Saddam. And since so much of that war was about getting the Vietnam monkey off the U.S. military's back, I think they really really wanted to stop before bodybags began appearing on CNN. [Note: that this was a major consideration is confirmed if you check back on the absurd journalist restrictions the Admin put in place, including making the Dover Air Force base off limits to the press. Specifically, reporters were restricted from photographing the bodybags coming home]
Then there's the reason that killing saddam would create a power vacuum which might destabilize the region and harm American interests. Fascinating that this is common knowledge here but none of you named it so far. And there's also the BS story about not having a UN mandate to do so.
Re: Re: Re: Reconsidering the end of Gulf War 91' Exactly. Also, AFCA is wrong...the coalition was to expel Iraq from Kuwait. I'll never criticize Bush I for not going to Baghdad. But the calls for uprising and then shameful lack of support for same, that was a bad idea, and an immoral idea.