Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Would it have been easier to go into Baghdad after the First Gulf War ?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:42 PM
Original message
Would it have been easier to go into Baghdad after the First Gulf War ?
For 12 years, we heard the right-wingers say that Bush Sr should have gone into Baghdad after the First Gulf War. Would it have been easier at that time than this last time? Considering that most of the troops simply withdrew in this last war, could it have been easier? Also, after 12 years of bombing and sanctions, they were much weaker this time around, one might assume. Also, after weapons inspectors had noted all weapons that Iraq had, it probably helped during the invasion.

But, wht would have happened if we had tried to go to Baghdad during the First Gulf War? Would it have been easier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. no
the other countries would have backed out. we would have less troops than we have now and even during the short war our equpment took a beating because of the sand. our war machine is slowly being buried in the sands of iraq and it`s going to cost billions to replace our ruined equipment...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. jeez, it was about as easy as it could be this time
I think that there would have been use of WMD in GW1 as well or at least the attempt.

But there was no support for it and Bush 1 was clear about where he would draw the line. Thats because he was sure that he had a plan for a coup to take care of the rest. That part didn't work out so well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. We Would Have Betrayed Our Allies by Doing So
This is what kills me about this argument. Promising NOT to conquer Iraq was one of the conditions Bush accepted for getting all those Arab allies.

Having said that, yes, it would have been militarily much easier, because they would not have been prepared at all. The emotion would have been all on the US side, and setting up a new government could have been done without getting into a quagmire.

JMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. No, at least Scharzkopf (sp?) had some sense
to keep out of a quagmire.

Most of the troops retiring and surrendering were conscripts. Saddam kept the core of the guard in Baghdad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptohere Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. a footnote
Schwartzkoff (sp?) was the mouthpiece for the war, Powell was the brains. For his role, Stormin' got to drag all the tanks and WWII tank theory into it. Needlessly slow and way more people than needed. Given that the Air Force had cleared out the warehouses of old munitions "softening up" the opposition for like a month, a slow possession style of attack was not really required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TennesseeWalker Donating Member (925 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. No.
All these years of neglect and punishment helped the cakewalk into Baghdad. If you think the occupation is going poorly now, it would have been much, much worse if Poppy had been so foolhardy. Iraq was totally demoralized when Shrubbie the Whistle Ass went in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Could have been easier.
Iraqi forces had probably less public opinion behind them, as evidenced by the Shia and Kurd struggles at the time. Neutrality was the best the invaders could get this time. I can't really postulate that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mddemo Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. first time around
If we had continued up the road to Basra, the result would of been the same, most people in iraq would of supported us, even the poor iraquis we took prisoner were hoping we would do a fight through, but we would still have had to deal with the fedyaeen. The arab allies would of backed out, but their contribution was neglible in any case, more symbolic than anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Remember we had
fairly large Syrian and Egyptian armies with us. The reason they were there was we promised we were not there to invade Iraq, but to liberate Kuwait.

If we would have "changed our minds" in the middle of the operation, at the least, we would have humiliated those Arab governments and caused their downfall, and at the worst, caused fighting between us and our Arab friends to our rear.

No, going against what we said we'd do could have been a true disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mddemo Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. i concur
We definetly couldnt go against what we had promised, unfortunatley the arab governments were happy with just humiliating Saddam and not removing him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. No, but they should have kept
focused on getting Saddam and the Baath Party out of power. I think we have to lay some blame on Clinton for this for not pursuing a plan with the UN and the Arab allies to eventually free Iraq from their dictator. I think it could have been done without a rocket being fired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC