Replies

I believe it was because #41 bowed to pressure of the Arabs in the alliance. The nation felt, from my own recon and what I have read / talked with others about, that we failed in our full mission when we stopped short of Baghdad. Yes, Kuwait was liberated and atrocities there ceased. Yes, saddam's army was significantly reduced and his power to aggress was cut down. But he was left in power to do God knows how much mischief and evil. I am just extremely thankful that #43 has a better coalition under better terms and with a better end goal.

Why didn`t we take out Saddam back in `91 when we on his back doorstep?

Most people, even on this forum, seem to have forgotten what happened in 91.

The failure to act against Saddam usually is justified by saying
the alliance had no UN mandate to depose Saddam
only to liberate Kuwait.

Furthermore, it is argued, taking Baghdad would be a difficult and costly operation.

However, it probably was unnecessary to take Baghdad,
all that probably was required was
to annihilate Saddam’s elite Republican guard,
his ‘personal bodyguard’ so to speak
while it was in flight,

However, not even this was attempted,
even though everyone expected it and welcomed it

The business of the ‘lack of mandate’ does not hold water
because the alliance had even less of a mandate to annihilate non-combatants
who were fleeing Kuwait on the ‘Highway of Death’

No, the real reason, was that the alliance, the USA included,
did not want to destabilize Iraq!!!!

Quite a joke that seems in retrospect.

Boy, we really have stability now, don’t we!

The biggest reason would have been insufficient public support for such an undertaking. You don't get into a war without determined public support... long term support.

We had not been attacked and it would have been difficult to carry out a such a war- which would have teken civilian lives and would have been waged against a foe who is a considerably better propagandist than Al~Qaeds and Osama. Half the country and all of the Democrats would have been crying over the spilt 'baby milk' and so forth, and begging for an end to it, jsut as the furor was kicked up over the highway of death.

9/11 showed people what the rest of us knew all along- that if you don't relentlessly pursue your enemies you will hear from them again at a time of their choosing. But without that loss of life so close at home, Americans would still believe we are impervious to harm and would be unwilling to destroy the scum who do that sort of thing.

Why didn`t we take out Saddam back in `91 when we on his back doorstep?

One often cited reason is the assurance GBI got from the Arab leaders and the CIA that the Bath Party regime would collapse in the wake of the Kuwait rout. This is not an excuse. Indeed, President Bush's words at the time were widely viewed as encouraging rebellion against Baghdad. More aid should have been provided to the Shiites and Kurds. However, Dubya will come through for the Iraqi people.