Victor Davis Hanson: Bellum Interruptum

The American Legion Magazine ^ | April, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[BlueDragon]

"That said, the coalition's objective was to eject Saddam from Kuwait not to remove him from power or occupy Iraq."

Yes, and that was said to all, in the context of answer to the direct question of whether or not the U.S intended to [at that time] continue on to Baghdad, removing both Saddam, and his army.

Saddam had his chance, was given plenty of chances to chill out... He decided to play games instead, secretly plotting deadly WMD revenge. Once the U.N. 'oil-for-food' limitation on Iraq's exports were lifted, and all U.N. weapons inspectors permanently removed, it would have only been a matter of time until he handed off WMD of various sort to groups like Hamas or even Hezbollah.

The FreeRepublic contributor "jveritas" has posted translated Iraqi documents on this very board proving not only that this was recorded [by written means] to have been discussed by those in the highest levels of Iraqi government, but further, there was even a audio recording of Saddam responding [to one putting forth the idea of poisoning U.S. civilian water supplies] to which Saddam said, "aah, but it won't be Iraq that does it", in which context the plain meaning was that Iraq wouldn't have been caught doing it.

These third party, non-state actors, would be the delivery "vehicle". After which he could have smiled, saying "who, me?" as thousands, or millions, died here in the U.S.

This basic similar threat exists now from the fundamentalist Mullahs, and they are OPENLY on the way to creating a plutonium stockpile. But then, I'm certain you know this.

It simultaneously amazes and grieves me, that the democrat politicians and electorate both, cannot grasp the seriousness of the current situation.

[kabar]

Once the U.N. 'oil-for-food' limitation on Iraq's exports were lifted....

I don't believe that would have happened very quickly despite the cries by the French and Russians right up until 9/11 to lift the sanctions. The UN was making lots of money thru fees to administer the program [read cash cow] and there were plenty of others outside of Iraq benefiting as well. Saddam had enough money to get anything he wanted.

This basic similar threat exists now from the fundamentalist Mullahs, and they are OPENLY on the way to creating a plutonium stockpile. But then, I'm certain you know this.

They also have enough money to short circuit the whole procress and buy what they need from the cash starved North Koreans or rogue elements in Pakistan or disaffected Soviet scientists. The world is much more dangerous with the possibility of non-state actors running around with WMD. It makes the job of deterrence and retaliation much more difficult if well-neigh impossible. We are entering a very dangerous period in world history. The people who try to minimize the danger like Brzezinski did in his recent WP article, "Terrorized by 'War on Terror' How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America, fail to grasp the seriousness of the threat.

[BlueDragon]

Your probably right about the U.N sanctions. If not lifted, it would have continued to give Saddam something to complain about...which he could have used to help garner sympathy amongst other Arabs, while meanwhile justifying any and all smuggling around the sanctions. [not to mention things like "justifying" mass murder!]

[Jacquerie]

The coalition, including several Arab countries did what they were allied to do, end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. By the time of the cease fire, our attack pilots were increasingly uneasy at the killing of panicked, fleeing Iraqis along the road of death.

Regime change, however favorably viewed in hindsight by the keyboard warriors at FR was not to be. Further weakening of Hussein would have invited Iran.

President Bush x41 did the right thing, not nothing.

[PzLdr]

Failing to finish destroying the Republican Guard, and calling on the Kurds and Shia to rise without helping them was neither right, nor nothing.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Mr. Cheney needs to explain to the American people why he thought the U.S. would get "bogged down" in 1990-91 when it had 500,000 troops available for a military mission in Iraq, yet he thought it was a great idea to invade Iraq in 2002 with only 130,000+ troops.

The coalition G.H.W. Bush put together had certain definite goals in mind, not least of which that we would not overthrow Saddam. This was a sop so we could use Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia (they didn't want to be targeted) and other regional locations.

We made no such deal with the second half of the war, so we left Saudi Arabia prior to resumption of hostilities.

History is a fascinating subject. Especially if you pay attention.

[CyberAnt]

And .. this is just another of the reasons I never liked Colin Powell.

He never had the stomach for VICTORY! He was against going into Iraq .. and because Bush wouldn't listen to him and chose to side with Rummy and Cheney, Powell never got over it.

Just another stupid stinking liberal in a uniform.

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson 
            His website: http://victorhanson.com/    
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link!    http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[Alberta's Child]

Sounds like a perfectly rational explanation (though it has disgraceful implications from a political standpoint, when you think about it).

But if you go back and look at the quote I posted there, you want want to ask yourself WHY CHENEY DIDN'T OFFER THAT -- INSTEAD OF THE STATEMENT HE MADE -- AS A RESPONSE?!

Logic is a fascinating subject, too.