The last few years do not tend to support your assertion. I’m not denying that Hussein was a bad man; I’m saying that GHWB saw that American power was not illimitable and decided that it was better to leave his successors a boring & frustrating fence to keep up than than to release hundreds of rabid wolverines into a residential neighbborhood.
This is one of the few times in history we got to see how both sides of a decision would work out. We didn’t occupy Iraq in 1991 and we did occupy Iraq in 2003. Most people comparing the two would think that occupation didn’t work as well as non-occupation.
It wouldn’t have been forever either. Saddam was 66 years old in 2003. How much longer did he have left? We had maintained the sanctions for twelve years already.
I apologize for the hijack and this will be my last word on this topic in this thread, however, in 1991 there were more options available than just (1) US only on to Baghdad or (2) no-fly-zone w/sanctions. Recall that there was a real international coalition in place back then, including some Arab countries and everything. An occupation wouldn’t have been nearly as long and bloody if the occupying power there was a real coalition with more than just Americans in charge. If the baby blue UN flag or the Canadian Maple Leaf flag flew in Baghdad and not the Stars Stripes I don’t think there would’ve been the same level of hostility from the natives. Saddam could’ve been exiled or imprisoned. If GHWB and Jim Baker were as skillful diplomats as they tell us they were then they could’ve made it happen. IMHO. YMMV.
"The Plot to Sieze the White House" (review by Dale Wharton) And this about Smedley Butler a real WW1 hero and general.
There was support for restoring the existing regime in Kuwait. But that support would have faded away if we had called for a regime change in Iraq. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt did not want to establish a precedent of overthrowing Middle Eastern dictatorships.
The blatant Neo-Conservatism of the crowd that Jr. ran with.
Bush Sr. was subtle where his son was brash. Bush Sr. wanted to encourage stability, not foment Democracy. He backed up Kuwait in order to show our allies and enemies in the middle-east that we had the stones to do so if our allies were attacked. He went in spanked Saddam and left. The ideological ground that the Bush administration tread was entirely too self-serving. They were so convinced of their being right that they missed key factors that led to their undoing. It’s not that these guys weren’t smart, it’s that they were arrogant. That sort of personality moves from the executive to those underneath him. The culture of power within the organization is impacted greatly by it’s chief executive. The Father was a much more calm and reserved man, not so brash as his son. He was much more of an intellectual. The son has a charm that the Father never had, so where the Father was driven to excel based upon his capability, the son was driven to surpass via his charm.