Watching the debates last night George Bush Jr. took the present administration to task for not sitting on Saddam Hussein hard enough (by allowing sanctions and inspections to lapse, etc.). VP Gore responded that they were left with the situation George Bush Sr. left them so it’s hardly all their fault.
I frequently run into people, especially military types, who think it was a HUGE mistake to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power. We were over there, we were kicking ass and the job was not finished without taking Saddam out.
For my part I wonder if this is too simplistic of a view. I agree that few people deserved a bomb dropped down their chimney more than Saddam did. The guy is an A-1 Asshole and the world would certainly be a better place without him. The US missed a prime opportunity to take out a foreign leader it hates when it had the chance. Lord knows what Saddam has cooking to get back at the US. I have no doubt the man holds grudges and I also have no doubt he’d lob a nuke/biological/chemical weapon at the US given the chance regardless of the cost to him, his country or the Middle East region.
All that siad I don’t know that George Bush Sr. made a mistake. In a way our military did TOO good a job. By kicking Saddam’s army out of Kuwait lickety-split it was hard to justify continuing the operation on into Iraq. We had achieved our stated goals and that did not (unfortunately) include removing Saddam from the scene. In addition, it’s important to remember the political situation. The other Arab states wanted Saddam stopped but it was one helluva pill for them to swallow to have the US come in and do it for them. To have the US continue on to whack Saddam and setup a ‘friendly’ government would have smacked of American imperialism and probably really cheesed off the other Arab nations. There’s no telling what might have happened in that scenario.
So, what do you think? Did the US screw-up or did it play the hand dealt it as best it could?
I have had this conversation before and I heard that his son(Sodamninsane) is crazier than his dad is. So if they were going to wack Sudam, they should have also whacked his son.
Not to mention that whacking Uncle Saddy would have left the United States with a potentially ugly power vacuum in Iraq. We could have either set up a quisling government, a course of action which isn’t real popular these days, or allowed the Iraqis to decide for themselves.
What most people don’t know about Iraqi politics is that Saddam is in fact a moderate. Eliminating him would have paved the way for an Islamic fundamentalist government, potentially even more intractable towards Israel and the west.
Of course, there’s always the moral issues to consider. Are we justified in deciding who can lead a foreign country simply by virtue of our military strength[sub]see Panama[/sub]?
Saddam has tried to make himself a rallying point for Arab unity, against US/Israeli imperialism. Martyred, he might very well have that effect. Alive, and effectively impotent, a subject of ridicule, he is much more useful.
BTW: Didn’t he get killed by Wild Boars?
Many good points have been brought up here. Another one is that Iran in 1991 (and today to a lesser extent) was a U.S. belligerant. It was to our advantage that Iran and Iraq were unfriendly to each other as well as to us; if we’d knocked off Saddam and replaced him with an empty-scabbard government, it would have destabilized the region.
In the ‘real’ world I consistently run into people who think Saddam, personally, should have been blown to bits. When I try to express my reasoning for why he was, and should have been, left alive I usually get the blank stare that says, “you’re an idiot” in return.
Regardless of whether or not I’m really an idiot I find it interesting that here, on this board, I find just the opposite. People who agree that Saddam was rightfully left in place.
I thought there’d be more disagreement over this. Oh well, at the very least I have a little more ammo for my argument belt if this topic comes up again.
There is a huge difference between just removing Saddam Hussein from power and actually killing him. While the former could be debated, the latter would set an extremely dangerous precedent. It would send the message to the world that assassination of foreign heads of state is a valid method of dealing with governments you have problems with. And if the U.S is not above such actions, why should anyone else be?
This would create enormous problems for world politics, for the United States in particular. The U.S. president is one of the most public people in the world, most notably during campaigning, and assassinating him would not be all that difficult. There have been plenty of assassinations already, and those were by “lone gunmen” (assuming conspiracy theorists are just fruitcakes). If these assassins had the resources of even the smallest foreign nation behind them, success would be almost guaranteed. Post-Bush U.S. presidents would be dodging bullets left and right.
Adding to this the nature of presidential campaigning in the U.S. where being seen among the people plays a significant role in the outcome of the election, candidates would not have the choice to simply stay behind locked doors. If they did they would lose the election. And the ultimate consequence of that would be that the presidency would be held by the person most willing to gamble with his own life, and In my humble opinion, “suicidal” is not on the list of qualities I look for in a political leader.
Personally, I think the Bush administration expected to be in power for another 4 years. (plus the one remaining) This would have given them 5 years where they would be dealing with Iraq.
I think that after Vietnam, and more specifically Afganistan, they wanted no part of occupying Iraq.
My guess would be that the people most likely to bring it up are the ones with the “We’re the U.S. and we kick a**” attitude. The concept of thinking that the U.S shouldn’t and doesn’t rule the world is foreign to them.
I found it interesting that in the debate last night, it was the REPUBLICAN who had this point of view and the Democrat that wanted to send troops all over. It made me think how much things have changed in 20 years.
Um, I think plans were put forward but never carried out.
As for ‘dropping a bomb down Saddam’s chimney’ - which chimney did you have in mind? Saddam has so many palaces etc and no one, not even his closest advisers, know where he will be next, so it would be very difficult to kill him that way. Plus, what about his underground bunker? This was built under the hotel in which international journalists were staying during the war, and so they could not bomb it. The fact is that Saddam is very difficult to kill, even for the US army. You Americans seem to think that your army is all powerful and invincible, but its not.
In general you are right. Knocking off foreign leaders is a no-no and even the most brain-dead dictator understands the concept. Any leader is easy pickings if a foreign nation wants to pick them off…just a matter of time really (although Castro seemed to have more lives than a cat avoiding the CIA).
However, I think when you are at war all bets are off. Your enemy’s leader becomes a fair target. Indeed that, or capturing the enemy’s capital, seems to be the most common goal for ending the war (checkmate).
Also, I’m not sure we would want Saddam alive and in a US prison. Imagine the incessant clamor for his release. Imagine what would happen if some redneck, skinhead or homeboy in prison decided to take him out…there’d be riots somewhere. I figure that the US, if they went for Hussein at all, would prefer him dead rather than alive. The US could always feign innocence. “Gee, we targeted 50 cruise missiles at the palace because we suspected there were weapons there…we had no idea Saddam was in residence…honest!”
You are absolutely correct that the US military is not indestructible or infallible. I also admit that Saddam is a hard target. Not only does he have all the different places he stays (seemingly randomly) he also has something like 30 Mercedes, each filled with a lookalike, caravan around with him wherever he goes. It makes it very difficult to decide which car he’s in.
Nevertheless I believe, if the US military and CIA REALLY REALLY wanted to they’d probably be able to get Saddam. If they couldn’t they’d effectively send Saddam to ground making him much less effective at maintaining control of and running his country.
Read some stories about SAS or US Ranger snipers. It’s flat out scary how long they will wait for their target (days to weeks). The cannon of a rifle they carry can zap someone from 2 kilometers away. Those guys alone might be able to pull such a feat off.
Good points have been made about why we shouldn’t just blow the sucker away like a coke bottle at a plinking match, but I’m still amazed that:
[li]Mossad hasn’t done us the favor.[/li]
[li]He has any family left alive that can or wants to succeed him.[/li]
[li]His own military hasn’t staged a coup.[/li]
[li]His own people haven’t rioted out of control.[/li]
I’m sure that most of the above scenarios are limited by the fact of his iron grip upon his nation. You just have to figure that someone, somehow is going to bust a cap off in his ass soon. I mean, what a stud. He’s willing to let his country starve just because he’s comfortable in his own palace with plenty of food. Ah, the trappings of power.
I find it interesting that you listened to the debate and still drew this conclusion.
Bush objected to the action in Haiti. Gore objected to the action in Lebanon. Both expressed concerns about the escalation of mission in Somalia. You might want to check out the transcript if you have trouble remembering the details.
…than the one you don’t. George Bush acted wisely in not trying to oust Saddam Hussein. To have done so would have opened a power vacuum in the Persian Gulf. Additionaly, the US would have been responsible for administering a hostile country. All in all, an impossible situation.
look what happened to the Russians when they occuoied Afghanistan.
Whether or not we should have, since the 1970’s there has been an executive order on the books that swears off the practice of assassinating foreign leaders.
Supposedly, we’ve adhered pretty well to this, although some of my Pakistani friends are convinced that we had Zia al-Haq offed. (One guy told me that the evidence for this was obvious–our ambassador was aboard the same plane.)
Stormin’ Norman Schwartzkopf once recounted an interesting story. He said that Hussein was traveling about at night in an escorted convoy of RVs, and the U.S. was tracking the movements of the convoy.
One night they caught them, in the open, with attack craft nearby. Schwartzkopf rather coyly explained that the RVs directly in front and behind Hussein were vaporized. “We came that close,” he said while smiling (I think this was on the History Channel).
I think that they knew exactly what they were doing–even knew which truck Saddam was riding in. Precedent, and the presence of that executive order (which, IIRC, must be overtly amended in order to make assassination a legal act again) required that Saddam be spared, but that didn’t keep us from rattling his cage mighty hard.
