President Bush was right
Irony of the day:
President Bush (senior) was right about Iraq. In his memoir from 1998, "A World Transformed," he explained that he decided against marching to Baghdad at the end of Operation Desert Storm because it would involve "incalculable human and political costs." Here is what he wrote:
BEGIN QUOTE: Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome. END QUOTE.
Pretty prophetic stuff. Except of course for the part about "apprehending [Saddam] was probably impossible."
I like George W. Bush. I even voted for him once (in 2000). But I'm afraid his father was right on this score.
I admire and value the job our men and women are doing overseas. They are not dying in vain. That said, I have to agree with President Bush, Sr., that we are now an "occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
It's a shame that this debate is so polarizing. I've tried to find a middle ground between Red and Blue; something "maroon."
The attack of 9/11 made our administration (and our nation) forget about the need for an "exit strategy." Somtimes I think that we just wanted to kick some (Arab/Islamic) ass so badly . . . and Saddam was a willing and convenient whipping boy. But at what cost? And where does it end?
President Bush (senior) was right about Iraq. In his memoir from 1998, "A World Transformed," he explained that he decided against marching to Baghdad at the end of Operation Desert Storm because it would involve "incalculable human and political costs." Here is what he wrote:
BEGIN QUOTE: Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome. END QUOTE.
Pretty prophetic stuff. Except of course for the part about "apprehending [Saddam] was probably impossible."
I like George W. Bush. I even voted for him once (in 2000). But I'm afraid his father was right on this score.
I admire and value the job our men and women are doing overseas. They are not dying in vain. That said, I have to agree with President Bush, Sr., that we are now an "occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
It's a shame that this debate is so polarizing. I've tried to find a middle ground between Red and Blue; something "maroon."
The attack of 9/11 made our administration (and our nation) forget about the need for an "exit strategy." Somtimes I think that we just wanted to kick some (Arab/Islamic) ass so badly . . . and Saddam was a willing and convenient whipping boy. But at what cost? And where does it end?
posted by Neil Chapman at 10:37 PM
2 Comments:
I'm all for more marines blogging about their worldviews (though I'm not one myself). And I respect the armed services, but I think it would be dishonest to make a call on whether or not service members are dying in vain. It is too early to make that call. I personally think that this is all a disconnected prelude. Constitution or not in Iraq, in a few years (maximum) after we've pulled out, that country is going to break up on lines which we don't know yet. I don't know what that means. If we've got closer ties to the party with the most oil or at least better ties than China, does that mean they died for a good cause? I don't know where I stand on the issue, I don't want to make that call. But as much as I want to support the men and women in uniform, you've got to resist the temptation to make those hard vain judgements.
Too bad Bush 43 didn't listen to Bush 41.
It was personal for Bush 43, and that is the great shame. He brought personal vendetta's to Washington with him and drove his case to wage war in Iraq. Am I glad we went in there? seeing the bombings over and over, Bin Laden still on the loose, London bombings, now almost 2,000 service Men and Women killed, Not really. Sadam wasn't harming his neighbors, and the inspectors should have been in there looking for WMD. Al Queda is emboldened to strike in Bali or wherever they like. Katrina tells me the Government is not prepared. I hate guns, but after Katrina, I'm buying one so I can protect my family. The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach - that we bought two helpings of Bush - that the country was scared into voting for him twice. I never really considered myself overly political, but after the last 5+ years of Bush, I'm ready for a change, and I really hope with all my heart that we get a strong leader with some sense in the White House in 2008.
Post a Comment
<< Home