The trouble with that is, if it had been complete error for G.H.W. Bush (with assistance from allies, such as Britain) to have driven Saddam's military from Kuwait, that would have effectively allowed theft of an entire nation to occur unopposed.
There may have been an option to do so, then, and my own first initial instincts at that time did have me recoiling from idea of the U.S. intervening militarily.
The fact is though, the decision to do so was made, and the task was carried out effectively, though not entirely lacking loss of lives of U.S. military. More than a few Iraqi soldiers died also, along with some number of Iraqi civilians, but that's what happens when leaders like Saddam refuse to back down and abandon continuation of their own criminality, when that criminality is blown up to nation-sized scale of measurement.
After Saddam's Iraqi military (and assorted Iraqi out-rider thieves and cut-throats) were forced out of Kuwait, and G.H.W. Bush (Bush 41) lost election to "the man from Hope" William Jefferson Clinton, during the entire 8 years of that succeeding U.S. presidential administration, there were so-called "no fly zones" within Iraq, policed by U.S. forces...
After some years of that, it began to be more painfully obvious to myself (and more than a few others who were paying attention, I take it) that United States military forces would eventually invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.
The Clinton administration not only did nothing which would serve to prevent that eventuality, but were themselves major players in setting stage further for that to be inevitable outcome.
Does no one recall the nuclear weapons inspectors, the sanctions which were in place against Saddam, and all the game-playing Saddam indulged himself with, which also helped make eventual invasion of U'S. military forces be all but entirely inevitable?
Saddam had nuclear capabilities in the early 1980's. In 1981, the Israeli's bombed the hell out of a functional nuclear reactor within Iraq. Osirak.
Should the world blame Israelis? Should we condemn them for recognizing the threat a nuclear weaponized Saddam Hussein would have presented them?
Nearly two decades later, in December 1998, after years of "no fly zone" enforcement under Clinton, including more than a few air-to-ground military engagements in which the U.S. military struck ground radar sites and anti-aircraft weaponry within Iraq, Billy Jeff Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox.
http://www.afhso.af.mil/topics/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=18632 "Fact sheet" recounting of particulars of the event, written by Capt Gregory Ball, USAFR, Ph.D.
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
If people are going to lay blame at the feet of George H.W. Bush, there are logical reasons to lay just as much (and possibly even more) at the feet of Bill Clinton.
Those who may have bought into the Zippy-head from Kenya argument's (who used to say he was born in Kenya until he said he wasn't) that the George W. presidential administration had left a mess that he and his own people had to deal with, by the same logic that was asserted, would have to extend that same to apply to the "mess" which Clinton had left, and that W had to deal with, in ending results leaving what U.S. involvements with the nation known as Iraq to be as much or more the Democrat Party's "fault" as it is Republicans.
I can just hear the jaws drop (among the Democrats who have been taught to hate conservatives and Republicans, blaming all ills of the nation upon the latter pair of political categories) but it is true that after becoming elected, and then well into his second term in office -- if it be solely the fault of U.S. presidential administrations for how they do eventually react to world events, then it can be argued that Clinton, by his own acts (acts which he authorized) left the world and George W. Bush little to no choice in the matter, the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001 also playing part in how the U.S. would react, and do so "badly".
The Clinton Administration had near-totally ignored what was going on within Afghanistan (after the U.S. had afforded some assistance to Afghani nationals, to fight the Russians long enough and hard enough to help convince the Russians (Soviets) to leave) other than to occasionally take note of it. The in-fighting and slaughter that went on among the Afghans being something of a daily news feature during the Clinton Administration...
We may as well blame Reagan (and Charlie Wilson and Gust Avrakotos) for opposing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. We could point to that for having as an unintended, but possibly even then predictable by-product, an effect of strengthening Islamic religious radicalism (which often translates quite immediately & directly into secular, worldly realm effects).
Yet if we were to re-think and second-guess that entire affair, if we had not assisted the so-called mujahideen in Afghanistan, would the setting and background been in place (within the Soviet Union) for one of Reagan's most decisively influential historical moments; "Mr. Gorbechev, open this gate, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" ?
Sort of like it has been said about "capitalism", I will say at this point that the United States has the worst political system and philosophy in the world -- EXCEPT FOR everybody else!
Well we really shouldn’t be resting on our laurels, not even those of “least bad.”