Top general warns against Iraq timetable

[STING2]

Top general warns against Iraq timetable
POSTED: 12:36 p.m. EST, November 15, 2006


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. general in Iraq, on Wednesday warned against setting timetables for withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Democrats -- who will take control of the House and Senate in January -- have criticized the war effort in Iraq and some have called for a phased reduction of U.S. troops to begin in as little as four months.

Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Abizaid said, "At this stage in the campaign we'll need flexibility to manage our force and to help manage the Iraqi force. Force caps and specific timetables limit that flexibility."

In opening remarks, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said responsibility for Iraq's future should be put "squarely where it belongs: on the Iraqis. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves.

"The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months," Levin said.

Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said he was encouraged by what he saw when he visited the region last month.

"I remain optimistic that we can stabilize Iraq," he said.

"While sectarian violence remains high and worrisome, it's certainly not as bad as the situation appeared back in August," he said.

"I wouldn't say that we have turned the corner in this regard, but it's not nearly as bad as it was back in August, and I was encouraged by that."

Abizaid's appearance before the Senate panel was the first congressional appearance by a commander since the midterm elections and the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. (Watch why Abizaid was walking into a political hornet's nest -- 1:54)

The last time Abizaid testified before Congress in August, he didn't mince words.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war," Abizaid said then.

Fueling this possibility, he said, was the combination of "sectarian violence, al Qaeda terrorists, insurgents and Shia militants."

As Abizaid appeared before the committees Wednesday, the news from Iraq was not encouraging.

Confusion surrounded the fate of dozens of Iraqis kidnapped from a research institute on Tuesday, and a car bomb killed eight people and wounded 32 in Baghdad. (Full story)

Earlier this week, Abizaid met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Baghdad and told him the Iraqi government must quickly take more responsibility for security.

In his August testimony, Abizaid warned that "failure to apply coordinated regional and international pressure ... will further extremism" and could lead to a widening and more perilous conflict.

That day, Abizaid was joined by Gen. Peter Pace, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Rumsfeld, whose exchanges with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, were polite but testy.

After the hearing, Clinton called for Rumsfeld's resignation, telling The Associated Press he had "lost credibility with the Congress and with the people."

Rumsfeld resigned on November 8, the day after the midterm elections shifted power in Congress to the Democrats, an outcome widely seen as a repudiation of the Iraq war policies of Rumsfeld and President Bush.

Also affecting the atmosphere as Abizaid testifies is anticipation of a report from the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan advisory group led by Republican and Bush family friend James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton that is assessing Iraq policy and options for the future. Its report is expected next month. (Full story)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/15/senate.abizaid/index.html

 

[Abomb-baby]

This is never going to get resolved until the Iraqies start taking responsibility for their country and acting like they want a democratic nation. I'm still not sure they do... Does anyone in Iraq actually think of themselves as Iraqi and not Sunni, shiia, or from some tribe? I think this is part of the big problem. No sense of national unity..

 

[Irvine511]

This is never going to get resolved until the Iraqies start taking responsibility for their country and acting like they want a democratic nation. I'm still not sure they do... Does anyone in Iraq actually think of themselves as Iraqi and not Sunni, shiia, or from some tribe? I think this is part of the big problem. No sense of national unity..

i know!

it's like they don't even *appreciate* the fact that we invaded without even being asked!

 

[Abomb-baby]

I'm not sure why the sarcasm is so necessary, Irvine. We could discuss all day whether we should have or not, but the reality is that we did and we need to figure out a way to get this country on its feet so we can leave. My opinion is that our IDEA of democracy doesn't translate very well in the middle east. Although I feel that many people were happy to vote in a democratic election, that was the easy part. The hard part is getting these factions to get along. Its a whole power struggle right now and I doubt we are gonna be able to get these people to cooperate with each other. I guess some would argue for Saddam to be reinstated as president, perhaps?

 

[trevster2k]

.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not sure why the sarcasm is so necessary, Irvine. We could discuss all day whether we should have or not, but the reality is that we did and we need to figure out a way to get this country on its feet so we can leave. My opinion is that our IDEA of democracy doesn't translate very well in the middle east. Although I feel that many people were happy to vote in a democratic election, that was the easy part. The hard part is getting these factions to get along. Its a whole power struggle right now and I doubt we are gonna be able to get these people to cooperate with each other. I guess some would argue for Saddam to be reinstated as president, perhaps?

but think about your original premise.

shouldn't we have known this to begin with?

isn't this just colonialism all over again? haven't we seen this movie before? several times?

can we just admit it: it was a bad, fucked up idea to begin with filled with magical thinking and wish fulfillment (not to mention a man-child who wanted to impress an overachieving daddy) and that we've reaped what we've sewn?

yes, the situation needs to be addressed, but many of us were protesting against this waaaaaay back in january of '03 and, honestly, it's kind of like: well, you've made your bed you neocon fools, now you've got to sleep in it.

can you at least understand not the satisfaction, not the schadenfreude, but the sort of shrug and look that says, "you see?"

other than the extreme sorrow i feel for the Iraqi people, just what do i owe to those who thought this whole mess was a good idea to begin with?

 

[A_Wanderer]

No I don't agree, the situation is dynamic and has changed and many the predictions made prior to the war did not come to fruition (Baghdadgrad etc.). I don't see how in 2006 having Saddam Hussein reacting to Irans nuclear program would be a better situation, I also think there should be recognition of what we know post-war about the state of the sanctions regime (rotten to the core) and the aspirations of rearmament by Saddam. The intelligence of WMD stockpiles was wrong - but only because Saddam could afford to bluff Iran in the 1990's; he retained the WMD programs and if kept in power would have no choice but to react against Irans nuclear ambitions.

But that is moot (although Libya and the breaking of the AQ Khan network are not) and the strategic situation is the current issue. All sides agree that keeping US forces in the country forever is not an option, that the solution is political and not military and hopefully that allowing a Talibanised state to emerge in central Iraq would have long term reprocussions. The redifinition away from having a democratic Iraq by this administration is disgusting and is unsurprising given the reluctance to support democratic activists in the region, I just hope that people bear in mind that abandoning Iraqis again would demonstrate that the US can be broken and that it's word is worthless. Pushing on the Iraqi government may need to be done, the time for empty words was over long ago.

 

[Abomb-baby]

isn't this just colonialism all over again? haven't we seen this movie before? several times?

can we just admit it: it was a bad, fucked up idea to begin with filled with magical thinking and wish fulfillment (not to mention a man-child who wanted to impress an overachieving daddy) and that we've reaped what we've sewn?

yes, the situation needs to be addressed, but many of us were protesting against this waaaaaay back in january of '03 and, honestly, it's kind of like: well, you've made your bed you neocon fools, now you've got to sleep in it.

can you at least understand not the satisfaction, not the schadenfreude, but the sort of shrug and look that says, "you see?"

other than the extreme sorrow i feel for the Iraqi people, just what do i owe to those who thought this whole mess was a good idea to begin with?

Do you honestly believe this is the same thing as colonialism? I guess our definitions are entirely different.

Yes I can admit that.

I honestly believe most people who spoke out against the war were speaking out for idealogical reasons, not because they thought we wouldn't be able to keep the peace.

Yes sort of gotta get that time in to gloat a little bit first.

I'm not saying you owe anyone anything. However, our politicians got us in this mess, and they need to get us out. And there were many from both sides of the aisle who voted in favor of it.

 

[Irvine511]

No I don't agree, the situation is dynamic and has changed and many the predictions made prior to the war did not come to fruition (Baghdadgrad etc.). I don't see how in 2006 having Saddam Hussein reacting to Irans nuclear program would be a better situation, I also think there should be recognition of what we know post-war about the state of the sanctions regime (rotten to the core) and the aspirations of rearmament by Saddam. The intelligence of WMD stockpiles was wrong - but only because Saddam could afford to bluff Iran in the 1990's; he retained the WMD programs and if kept in power would have no choice but to react against Irans nuclear ambitions.

this sets up another flase dichotomy -- either invade in preicsely the manner in which it was done, or Saddam gets nuclear weapons and the world ends, and the notion of "retaining" WMD programs is too vague to be meaningful. the fact remains that inspections were working, and carried with them a sense of legitimacy (something Bush has never, ever had in the eyes of the world) that might have made a far more effective coaliton possible, as opposed to a single man (Rumsfeld) who wanted to use this particular war to prove an idelogical point (the modern American army can overthrow regimes and occupy countries that will magically turn into democracies with less than 150,000 troops).

the Iranian nuclear question is interesting -- might a Saddam-ized Iraq have been more of a deterrant to Iran than the current failed state in which the Iranian regime has a considerable and growing amount of influence?

 

[Irvine511]

Do you honestly believe this is the same thing as colonialism? I guess our definitions are entirely different.

Yes I can admit that.

I honestly believe most people who spoke out against the war were speaking out for idealogical reasons, not because they thought we wouldn't be able to keep the peace.

Yes sort of gotta get that time in to gloat a little bit first.

I'm not saying you owe anyone anything. However, our politicians got us in this mess, and they need to get us out. And there were many from both sides of the aisle who voted in favor of it.

i think we agree that we both want a good ending to a bad situation.

 

[STING2]

the Iranian nuclear question is interesting -- might a Saddam-ized Iraq have been more of a deterrant to Iran than the current failed state in which the Iranian regime has a considerable and growing amount of influence?

Well, that was a popular way of thinking until August 1990. What happened in August 1990 led to the largest deployment of US military forces since World War II and the on going attempts at containment which failed and led to the removal of Saddam's regime in 2003.

Kuwait is actually safer now than it ever has been from foreign invasion and occupation, do to the absence of any hostile force in Iraq having the capabilities to engage in such a task.

But, Iraq must develop the ability to secure its own territory and defend itself. Because of Iraq's size, that will mean that it will once again, technically have the ability to overrun Kuwait, but that will not be an issue provided that Iraq has and maintains a government that is not hostile to its neighbors to the south.

Kuwait is a small country rich in important energy resources, but more importantly it is positioned only a few dozen miles from the largest oil fields in the world in Saudi Arabia. Defending that part of Saudia Arabia has been a central part of US defense planning for decades and is far more important now giving the planets rising demand for oil from that part of the world. Any idea's about future security in the region begin first with what is the best way to insure the security of Persian Gulf Oil Supply.

Any situation that would even marginally increase the probability of a repeat, in some way, of the crises of August 1990 is not an option and is the reason that Saddam had to go.

Iran is certainly a threat, but they have not actually invaded another country since 1856, unlike Saddam who invaded and attacked four different countries in the region in the space of only 10 years. If Iran does anything at all, its through proxies, which shows that they are unwilling to take major direct action, totally unlike Saddam. Ones behavior in this regard is actually more imortant than ones technical capabilities in making an assesment of the threat. While Iran has made great strides in the nuclear department, their military does not have many of the power projection capabilities that Saddam's military had in March 2003. Iran's military is still equiped with a large amount of equipment dating from the 1960s and 1970s from when the Shah was in power. Whats more, their key equipment holdings for important weapon systems are only about half of what Saddam had in 2003.

This will eventually change though as Iran gets stronger. It is vital to security in the region that Iraq have a government that does not threatens its neighbors and buiilds the capabilities to secure its domestic situation and defend itself from Iran.

This brings us back to the real topic of this thread which is US military strategy in Iraq and the deployment level of troops there in the future. It is obvious that "redeployment" or "withdrawal" from Iraq as most democrats propose does nothing to accomplish these objectives. If anything, National Guard Brigade deployments should be increased in order to allow the US military to maintain a larger total number of forces in Iraq. This can make it more difficult for insurgents to operate, and will allow for more training of Iraqi forces as well as imbedding US advisors in such forces.

All partial withdrawal of US forces does is make it more dangerous for US forces that remain, and decrease the amount of resources on hand with which to train Iraqi forces.

 

[Irvine511]

^ yeah, too bad you fucked the whole region up

 

[AEON]

^ yeah, too bad you fucked the whole region up

Yeah - it was so nice and peaceful before...

 

[Dreadsox]

I love how every fucking thread becomes the democrats want to cut and run.

Give me a break.

It does not excuse the mess we have created. It does not excuse the mess we will be leaving behind.

Amazing isn't it....that it appears the Baker team feels we MUST bring in the neighbors. Something that should have been done before the war started.

 

[Irvine511]

Yeah - it was so nice and peaceful before...

is it better now?

there was a reason Bush 1 didn't march into Baghdad in 1991.

there were different ways of dealing with the situation and it appears as if we've embraced the worst possible option both for Iraq, and for America (where now military action is a first resort, not a last resort).

i was against this war not necessarily because i thought the overthrow of Hussein was a bad idea, but i was against it because, 1) it was an Arab Yugoslavia, and 2) the current administration was in no way mature enough to do what needed to be done -- i called them out as blinkered ideologues and credulous fools way before 9-11, and i stand fully vindicated.

 

[Dreadsox]

Yeah - it was so nice and peaceful before...

If its not cut and run, its paste the dismay over the situation as not wanting to do anything.

For goodness sake, the democrats voted for war with the republicans.

 

[AEON]

If its not cut and run, its paste the dismay over the situation as not wanting to do anything.

For goodness sake, the democrats voted for war with the republicans.

I was being sarcastic. The Middle East hasn't been peaceful since...well...has it ever been peaceful?

 

[STING2]

I love how every fucking thread becomes the democrats want to cut and run.

Give me a break.

It does not excuse the mess we have created. It does not excuse the mess we will be leaving behind.

Amazing isn't it....that it appears the Baker team feels we MUST bring in the neighbors. Something that should have been done before the war started.

This is actually the first time the democrats and cut and run have been mentioned in this thread.

I don't see anyone in this thread attempting to excuse mistakes in Iraq. There will not be a mess left behind provided the coalition does not withdraw prematurely and stays long enough to complete the training of the Iraqi military and security services.

I don't think Baker is talking about the deployment of Iranian, Syrian or other neighboring countries troops on the ground in Iraq. In other ways, the neighbors are already there and may be unable to influence the situation anymore than they have already.

 

[STING2]

is it better now?

there was a reason Bush 1 didn't march into Baghdad in 1991.

there were different ways of dealing with the situation and it appears as if we've embraced the worst possible option both for Iraq, and for America (where now military action is a first resort, not a last resort).

i was against this war not necessarily because i thought the overthrow of Hussein was a bad idea, but i was against it because, 1) it was an Arab Yugoslavia, and 2) the current administration was in no way mature enough to do what needed to be done -- i called them out as blinkered ideologues and credulous fools way before 9-11, and i stand fully vindicated.

Bush 1 did not march to Baghdad in 1991 because it was felt that security in the region could be restored without overthrowing Saddam, given the huge military losses he would suffer in the war, and provided that Saddam agreed to verifiably disarm of all WMD, provide funds for rebuilding Kuwait, and be contained by one of the largest sanctions and weapons embargo regimes the world had ever seen. In addition, no one in the Bush 1 administration really thought Saddam would still be in power by 1996.

Saddam cooperated in the beginning, but had he not signed the ceacefire in March 1991 and continued to fight, US forces were only 100 miles from Baghdad with NO Iraqi forces between them and the capital which could have been taken in a short amount of time if needed in order to end the fighting. Saddam's signing of the ceacefire was the start of his classic cheat and retreat strategy which would in a few years make it increasingly difficult to accomplish anything in regards to disarmament.

Invading Iraq was indeed the worst option, but it was the only option left given that everything else had failed to bring Saddam into compliance and the fact that the containment regime was rapidly crumbling. Everything short of a full scale military invasion had been tried and failed. Inspections that were only supposed to take 2 to 3 years had still failed to insure Saddam was verifiably disarmed after 12 years. In the end, the inspections and disarmament process can only work with the full cooperation of whom ever is being inspected and disarmed.

Whether it be Afghanistan's multi-ethnic make up or Iraq's, its not in itself an excuse not to intervene when the country or the worlds needs require intervention.

 

[Irvine511]

[q](CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair provoked a storm Saturday after apparently admitting that the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain was "a disaster."

Blair gave the surprise assessment of his decision to go to war in an interview with David Frost on Al-Jazeera's new English-language channel.

British opposition MPs seized on the comment as evidence that Blair has finally accepted that his strategy in the Middle Eastern state had failed.

British newspapers carried the story on their front pages Saturday

"Iraq invasion a disaster, Blair admits on Arab TV," was the headline in the Daily Telegraph.

"PM Tony Blair last night sensationally admitted the Iraq War fallout has become 'disastrous,' reported Britain's biggest selling daily, The Sun.

Blair's remarks came after former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said he feared his country was on the verge of disintegration -- a situation he said he never anticipated.

"It's really quite alarming and dangerous, where Iraq is now. It's quite frightening," he told CNN.

"Iraq is slipping continuously into a chaotic level of violence. "To be honest, this is not something that I could have imagined when we fought Saddam's regime."

[/q]

 

[A_Wanderer]

Some just cant understand nuance

During the interview, Sir David suggested that the West’s intervention in Iraq had “so far been pretty much of a disaster”.

Blair replied: “It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It’s not difficult because of some accident in planning, it’s difficult because there’s a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/iraq-invasion-a-disaster-blair/2006/11/18/1163266825991.html

 

[Dreadsox]

Bush 1 did not march to Baghdad in 1991 because it was felt that security in the region could be restored without overthrowing Saddam, given the huge military losses he would suffer in the war, and provided that Saddam agreed to verifiably disarm of all WMD, provide funds for rebuilding Kuwait, and be contained by one of the largest sanctions and weapons embargo regimes the world had ever seen. In addition, no one in the Bush 1 administration really thought Saddam would still be in power by 1996.

Not exactly true.

On February 28, 1999, the former president was the honored guest at a gathering of some 200 Gulf War veterans at the Fort Meyer Army base, just across the Potomac River from Washington.

It had burned him up when people said they hadn't finished the job, he said. "Had we gone into Baghdad-We could have done it. You guys could have done it. You caould have been in there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergent, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerrilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? WHOSE LIFE WOULD BE ON MY HANDS AS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF BECAUSE I, UNILATERALLY, WENT BEYOND INTERNATIONAL LAW, WENT BEYOND THE STATED MISSION AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO SHOW OUR MACHO? WE'RE GOING INTO BAGHDAD. WE'RE GOING TO BE AN OCCUPYING POWER-AMERICA IN AN ARAB LAND-WITH NO ALLIES AT OUR SIDE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISASTEROUS."

Beyond the scope of international law? Hmmmmmmmmmm

Frontline Colin Powell:

[Q]Q: To draw back to the idea of the quick, decisive war, that at the end of it, America scurries back into itself and leaves a mess....

Powell: We didn't create the mess that exists within Iraq. We didn't create the difficulty between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites and the Kurds. We didn't draw the map that created Iraq in 1920, if I'm not mistaken I think it was done by British diplomats.

What we came to do, and what the UN authorized us to do, and what the American Congress authorized us to do, was to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, restore the legitimate government of Kuwait, bring about a new relationship in the region and please try to do it with minimum loss of life. All of that was accomplished.
[/Q]

Frontline James baker:

[Q]Q: What were the key factors that led you all to think 'Hey, it's time to finish this.'

Baker: The key factors were that we had ejected Iraq from Kuwait which is what was required by the uh UN Security Council resolution. That if we kept going a whole lot longer we would be acting beyond the resolution. The war aims had been achieved. The political aims had been achieved. A lot of people trying to flee were being killed literally thousands and the military advised the President that it was time to wrap it up in terms of our war aims and I think the President's decision was absolutely the right one. All the second guessing about going to Baghdad and all of that, people that make those kinds of suggestions are not taking into consideration a whole host of factors. How many more American lives would have been lost? How far beyond our authority from the UN would we have been acting if we had prolonged the war further, if we had occupied Southern Iraq, if we had gone to Baghdad? How long would we have to fight a guerrilla war in Iraq if we'd occupied any of the territory? A whole host of factors. People also forget that it was never a war aim or a political aim of the United States to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime.

Was it something we would like to see happen? Was it something that most of us felt probably would happen in the aftermath of such a significant defeat? Yes. But it was never something that was authorised that we'd do by the United Nations Security Council. We would have lost our coalition. The Arab elements I think would have left for sure. There would be no peace process in the Middle East today. So people don't focus on those things.

[/Q]

It would have been illegal in the eyes of INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

[STING2]

Not exactly true.

On February 28, 1999, the former president was the honored guest at a gathering of some 200 Gulf War veterans at the Fort Meyer Army base, just across the Potomac River from Washington.

It had burned him up when people said they hadn't finished the job, he said. "Had we gone into Baghdad-We could have done it. You guys could have done it. You caould have been in there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergent, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerrilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? WHOSE LIFE WOULD BE ON MY HANDS AS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF BECAUSE I, UNILATERALLY, WENT BEYOND INTERNATIONAL LAW, WENT BEYOND THE STATED MISSION AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO SHOW OUR MACHO? WE'RE GOING INTO BAGHDAD. WE'RE GOING TO BE AN OCCUPYING POWER-AMERICA IN AN ARAB LAND-WITH NO ALLIES AT OUR SIDE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISASTEROUS."

Beyond the scope of international law? Hmmmmmmmmmm

Frontline Colin Powell:

[Q]Q: To draw back to the idea of the quick, decisive war, that at the end of it, America scurries back into itself and leaves a mess....

Powell: We didn't create the mess that exists within Iraq. We didn't create the difficulty between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites and the Kurds. We didn't draw the map that created Iraq in 1920, if I'm not mistaken I think it was done by British diplomats.

What we came to do, and what the UN authorized us to do, and what the American Congress authorized us to do, was to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, restore the legitimate government of Kuwait, bring about a new relationship in the region and please try to do it with minimum loss of life. All of that was accomplished.
[/Q]

Frontline James baker:

[Q]Q: What were the key factors that led you all to think 'Hey, it's time to finish this.'

Baker: The key factors were that we had ejected Iraq from Kuwait which is what was required by the uh UN Security Council resolution. That if we kept going a whole lot longer we would be acting beyond the resolution. The war aims had been achieved. The political aims had been achieved. A lot of people trying to flee were being killed literally thousands and the military advised the President that it was time to wrap it up in terms of our war aims and I think the President's decision was absolutely the right one. All the second guessing about going to Baghdad and all of that, people that make those kinds of suggestions are not taking into consideration a whole host of factors. How many more American lives would have been lost? How far beyond our authority from the UN would we have been acting if we had prolonged the war further, if we had occupied Southern Iraq, if we had gone to Baghdad? How long would we have to fight a guerrilla war in Iraq if we'd occupied any of the territory? A whole host of factors. People also forget that it was never a war aim or a political aim of the United States to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime.

Was it something we would like to see happen? Was it something that most of us felt probably would happen in the aftermath of such a significant defeat? Yes. But it was never something that was authorised that we'd do by the United Nations Security Council. We would have lost our coalition. The Arab elements I think would have left for sure. There would be no peace process in the Middle East today. So people don't focus on those things.

[/Q]

It would have been illegal in the eyes of INTERNATIONAL LAW.

That would be true ONLY if the United States continued into Iraq despite Saddam's willingness to comply with UN resolutions and the ceacefire in the February/March 1991 time frame. If Saddam did not comply and had continued to fight the war, the coalition would have continued into Iraq to include removing Saddam if need be. There is nothing in the resolution 678 which says the coalition would be barred from taking such action if it became necessary to ENFORCE the resolution. The "Use Of All Necessary Means" was authorized to bring about enforcement of resolution 678.

Of course, there was a long period of time during the 1990s when people, often Democrats unusually, spent time second guessing and criticizing Bush's reasons for stopping instead of simply overthrowing Saddam, regardless of whether Saddam was suddenly willing to comply with the demands of the international community.

The above statements by Bush administration officials are given in the context that the initial war aims had been achieved and Saddam was willing to stop fighting and agree to the demands of the international community and the signing of the ceacefire agreement. They do not consider what would have happened if Saddam had continue to fight on, including launching missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia, and simply not complying with any demands. Under such conditions, UN Security Council Resolution 678 could not be fully enforced, and the advance into Iraq would have to continue until Saddam and his military stopped fighting, or were captured or killed.

 

[Dreadsox]

Ummmm....how can it only be true when they are speaking after the war???

It is true!!!!

Or maybe I live in an alternate reality.....

 

[STING2]

Ummmm....how can it only be true when they are speaking after the war???

It is true!!!!

Or maybe I live in an alternate reality.....

The statements made after the war which you quoted are in the context of if the United States had continued into Iraq despite Saddam's compliance with and the achievement of the resolutions objectives. Under those circumstances, further military action would have been going beyond what the resolution had called for. But, if Saddam had continued to fight in March of 1991 and did not agree to any of the demands made against him, US and coalition forces would have had no choice but to continue into Iraq because resolution 678 would not have been fully enforced under such conditions. There was never any explicit limit to military action necessary for the enforcement of resolution 678. The "use of all necessary means" was authorized to enforce resolution 678 as well as all subsequent UN resolutions in regards to the issue.

 

[Dreadsox]

Can somebody translate for me how this is relevant to the point?

I almost think you no longer read what people type, and are on auto pilot.

I have quoted reasons why they did not continue. Loss of American lives was there, but there were other reasons. Including reality....

 

[STING2]

Can somebody translate for me how this is relevant to the point?

I almost think you no longer read what people type, and are on auto pilot.

What exactly do you not understand? Your listing statements made by Bush 1 and others after the war that going after Saddam would have been going beyond what the resolution called for and that would be true given Saddam's compliance and signing of the ceacefire agreement. But if Saddam had not complied at all and continued the fight at that point, US and coalition troops would have had no choice but to continue into Iraq in order to end the fighting, removing Saddam if necessary, in order to fully enforce the resolutions. The qoutes you site though do not handle the issue of what would have happened if Saddam had continued to fight in March 1991. They only refer to what did happen and in that sense they are correct because Saddam at the time complied and agreed to the demands he was presented with.

While were at it, do you plan to actually make a comment about the topic of the thread?

 

[Dreadsox]

While were at it, do you plan to actually make a comment about the topic of the thread?

Get your head out of your fourth point of contact.

While you are so fucking willing to keep American soldiers there in Iraq sacraficing their lives, why don't you enlist instead of being such the brave armchair quarterback.

 

[Dreadsox]

What exactly do you not understand?

I understand my quotes...

Do you understand them armchair general?

What I do not understand is your continuous babble over the last few years, while not stepping up to the plate yourself. Go rebuild Iraq.

 

[STING2]

I have quoted reasons why they did not continue. Loss of American lives was there, but there were other reasons. Including reality....

Um, its really the fact that in March 1991, they succeeded in achieving the stated objectives, at that time, and Saddam agreed to the demands he was presented with. No one believed Saddam would still be around in 5 years, or that the inspections process would prove to be so difficult, and the containment regime would start to crumble. What the administration believed would happen later back in March 1991 and the "reality" of what did happen in the years since then are two very different things.

Regardless, it never stopped the US military and State Department from preparing extensively for the day they might be called on to invade and occupy the country as Marine Corp General Anthony Zinni has said.