No subject

Hank Stanley arjohns at ADNC.COM
Sun Feb 1 21:07:50 MST 1998


At 13:57 2/1/98 -0800, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

>
>And no one would have to deal with this problem today had it been handled
>during the initial battle.
>
>I don't like Mr.Clinton any  more than anyone else around here.  But the
>crisis in Iraq goes back to Mr. Bush's refusal to let the military do it's
>job the first time we were there.  The present administration and congress
>are now left to clean up that mess - not one of their own making.
>

I don't know where you came that.  Second to its one-sideness, the most
remarkable aspect of the Gulf War was the virtually total delegation of how
it was to be conducted to Dick Cheney and Collin Powell.  And, they allowed
Schwartzkopf to call the shots on-scene.  All we heard from the military
commanders afterwards was how appreciative they were that the
Administration let them do their jobs the way they needed to be done.

After the Iraqis were removed from Kuwait, the Allied objective was met.
Had we gone on to Baghdad we would have lost the support of the Arabs and,
worse, we would have run the risk of subjecting ourselves to a long-term,
likely unilateral and messy occupation of the country.  At the time, it
looked as if the entire Iraqi army had been vanquished, requiring no
further attention (later proving untrue, of course).

Now, you can argue the efficacy of not following up based on the judgments
made in the field at the time, but Bush micromanaging the war isn't a
reason because it never happened.  We can Monday morning quarterback 8
years later because Saddam is still a nuisance, but at the time, it was the
correct call, particularly when the objectives were met with less than 200
American deaths.  That number would have risen had we gone to Baghdad.




Revival or Rapture

Hank



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list