- Thread starter
- #361
You know.....speaking as someone who was actually over there in 1991 for Desert Storm, it was Bush Sr. that fucked up by stopping at the gates of Bagdad.
Oh yeah........Jr. saw an opportunity to attack Iraq after the WTC went down. And, because his father had fucked up previously, he saw a way to make up for it.
That is why OBL is still running around. Shit.......after he left Tora Bora he was living fat and happy in the Swat valley. If we'd actually paid attention, we'd have known that several years ago.
Question Uncensored, exactly how many years have YOU served in the military?
I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama. I was not happy with the decision to stop at liberation at the time, but the cost didn't justify the potential advantage in 1991. Bush Jr. had two additional advantages in going in when he did that made it much more critical and reasonable.
1st, the Iraqi military was non-existent and the completion could be extremely fast and allow for change of leadership almost immediately. The risk was less therefore making the action more attractive and making the costs less. In 1991 there were still significant military resources to overcome which would have been much slower and more costly in treasure and life. The change of power would also have been even more difficult.
Consider estimates of an invasion of forces in 1991 would have surpassed the casualty counts for Iraq and Afghanistan to date, in total. Just on the initial conquest of the capital. That would have then touched off a power vacuum at a point when all groups were better armed and prepared.
2nd, When W went in, we needed a battlefield, in 1991 we didn't. After Afghanistan drew almost no visible external support and proved to be inadequate, the idea of a battlefield in Iraq became extremely attractive and valuable. Iraq is a nation that has geographic significance, wealthy resources and an unpopular secular king that was unlikely to justify a mainstream reaction, while almost guaranteeing extremist attention. We chose to fight them there and not here; and Iraq was ideal for that end.
Despite the numerous accused motives, this was the most important motive for the Iraq war. We obviously couldnt state this as a motive, but it is counter-intuitive not to see that this was a highly desirable option given the likelihood of additional foreign attacks.
Of course we would rebuild and establish democratic process and that would have a long term potential benefit for both the U.S. and the theatre, but forcing the bloodshed out of our streets and into another venue was paramount and agree or disagree that was a prime directive for going to war in Iraq that wasn't of consequence in 1991.
When you refer to a battlefield I assume you mean a place to have it out with the bad guys
I have all ways felt that along with having Iran on both sides, Syria, and The Saudis right next door as part of the reason also
It has great strategic reasons to be there
Good thread