“The first President Bush’s decision, at Mr. Powell’s urging, not to topple Saddam Hussein but to halt the coalition forces at the gates of Baghdad sent the world a message about American purpose whose consequences we live with to this day.”
Obviously one of the greatest strategic mistakes that I have seen in my 64 years.
I just NEVER understood it.
Mark nails it.
Fairly simple. The UN and coalition war aim was to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. Had Saddam been dethroned, we would have had something similar to the insurgency of 2005 to 2007, just 15 years earlier.
This would have resulted in the immediate collapse of the coalition, and we would likely be talking today of how the overreach of Bush Senior was a great strategic mistake. We absolutely did not want to conquer and occupy Iraq at that time.
IOW, extremely limited war aims was a precondition of creating a large diverse coalition. If you don't want limited war aims and the consequent restrictions, avoid coalition warfare.
At last, my wife and I have always tried to figure who's decision that was or who suggested it that caused us to jump up from our chairs when they stopped short of killing that dictator screaming at the TV "Our youngest son will be fighting those people somewhere down the road you idiots!!"
And so it came to pass, he has fought almost 2 1/2 years in Iraq, now we know what POS started that. We no longer supported GHW Bush after that either.
And as a footnote, when "W" labeled that cult "the religion of peace" we immediately knew how flawed his thinking was, and we don't even have degrees from some Ivy League college, just working folks. Mark Steyn is outstanding.