Bush says

[andrewducker]

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.

Of course, that was back in 1991, when there was a slightly saner Bush in the White House.

Comments

[autodidactic.livejournal.com]

Dude, don't look at our county's leader... it's embarrassing. It's like staring at someone's hairy mole.

A.

"Of course, that was back in 1991, when .."

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

When we could still harbor the illusion that tolerating evil in that part of the world wouldn't result in 3000+ dead in New York and Washington.

Re: "Of course, that was back in 1991, when .."

[andrewducker]

"that part of the world?"

Dude, we don't like the French, so we nuked London.

Re: "Of course, that was back in 1991, when .."

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

OK then change it to "thousands of miles away" if you want to split hairs. "That part of the world" as opposed to "this part of the world", not meaning "the area between the Mediterranean and India".

Namely: "When we could still harbor the illusion that tolerating evil [thousands of miles away] wouldn't result in 3000+ dead in New York and Washington."

Re: "Of course, that was back in 1991, when .."

[andrewducker]

I'm still not seeing the Saddam/9-11 link.

Re: "Of course, that was back in 1991, when .."

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying there is a direct one between the terrorist attack of 9/11 and Saddam himself.

Rather, it was a vivid wake-up call that self-defense both reactive and preemptive, whether that be killing bin Laden before planes hit buildings or removing Saddam before he unleashed WMD, has a prominent place in foreign policy considerations.

Bush Sr. doesn't address this at all. There's nothing said about Iraq remaining as a threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel and Turkey, never mind the US.

Re: "Of course, that was back in 1991, when .."

[andrewducker]

here's nothing said about Iraq remaining as a threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel and Turkey, never mind the US.

Isn't that because it wasn't?

removing Saddam before he unleashed WMD

I do wish they'd hurry up and find those darn WMDs.

Which isn't to say thatI don't think _something_ needs to be done about the Middle East, but I don't think that unilateral action of the kind that did occur was by any means the best route to take.

Re: "Of course, that was back in 1991, when .."

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Isn't that because it wasn't?

Certainly Colin Rumsfeld said it wasn't in 2001, as you can check for yourself on the White House .gov site.

I do wish they'd hurry up and find those darn WMDs.

Good grief - is Joe one of those people who hasn't realised Bush and Co were lying?
There were no WMD. And they knew it.

but I don't think that unilateral action of the kind that did occur was by any means the best route to take.

Quite.