I would have opposed the First Gulf War. I could care less about Kuwait, it was just another Arab Muslim country, why were they any of our business? We were there for the Saudis, who believe in keeping their friends close and their enemies even closer, and have been the biggest sponsors of terrorism, they just do a good job of pretending to be our friends.
Now, having said that. It was stupid not to take out Saddam once we did go over there. It just left him to plot his revenge. Would we have left Hitler in power in a similar situation. It just guaranteed we would have to go back in again, as Saddam would be even more radicalized than before.
Then stupidity #2 courtesy of the Bushes. You cannot simply go into a country in the Arab world, remove a leader, and leave. It would have required at 10-20 years of occupation, if you wanted to ensure that the country wouldn’t fall straight back to crap. And frankly I would have made Iraq a US protectorate, taken their oil, and told the Saudis to take a flying leap.
And that should have been made clear DAY ONE, that an invasion of Iraq was a done deal. If the will was not there to stay there for that length of time, it should have never been done.
dfwgator:
Well, I think part of the issue with Gulf war 1 was Saddam starting shooting at Israel with the skuds. My guess is had the US not jumped in, Israel would have, and that could have led to a larger middle east war. I agree, the Saudi influence with the Bushes was a part of it. The US is far less dependent on foreign oil today than we were back then, in fact, we are now well over 50% domestic. At that time, more lie 60 or so foreign. Saddam controlling that much oil and wealth by overrunning Kuwait [and he would not have stopped] was a factor for Gulf 1.
Hitler and Saddam is not a valid comparison. Hitler’s Germany had overrun Europe and had an army and weaponry that could have imposed serious damage on the world [even more so than they did] as they were not to far off from obtaining atomic weapons and had already before the end of the war developed early missile and Jet fighter technology.
Now, having said that. It was stupid not to take out Saddam once we did go over there. It just left him to plot his revenge. Would we have left Hitler in power in a similar situation. It just guaranteed we would have to go back in again, as Saddam would be even more radicalized than before.
Then stupidity #2 courtesy of the Bushes. You cannot simply go into a country in the Arab world, remove a leader, and leave. It would have required at 10-20 years of occupation, if you wanted to ensure that the country wouldn’t fall straight back to crap. And frankly I would have made Iraq a US protectorate, taken their oil, and told the Saudis to take a flying leap.
I agree with your point about the Saudis and the Bush's coddling of them over the years (rather ironic to claim to wage a war against radical Islam by while currying favor with radical Islam's biggest sponsors). And like you, I thought that the first Gulf War was something of a waste, though not on the same scale as the second one.
However, you seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand, you correctly point out the stupidity of overthrowing a dictator and leaving behind a power vacuum that will either be filled by worse dictators, religious fanatics, or endless sectarian/tribal wars. Then you go on to say that Bush I's biggest mistake was not to take out Saddam at the end of Gulf War I. Wouldn't that leave precisely the same power vacuum that Gulf War II created? That was probably the reason why Bush and Baker decided to leave him alive and in power.