Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Why yes, since you ask so nicely, and since you are so full of…um…assumptions. :stuck_out_tongue: Bush et al moved extremely aggressively, and there was some comment at the time as to the strategy they used. This consisted of basically getting light units into the area ASAP and relying on the local forces to carry the majority of the water, combat wise. I have serious doubts that without Rummy (and Bush to back him), this would have been the strategy Gore would have taken, instead doing something similar to what we did in the first Gulf War…i.e. build up our conventional forces, build international consensus and alliances, especially with regional powers, etc. This would have taken, IMO, several months…maybe 6 or more. It takes a LONG time to move large conventional formations AND their logistics and equipment into position for a forced entry assault on a country like Afghanistan. And I THINK (I don’t know mind you…just my opinion) thats what Gore et al would have done. Probably bombing the shit out of ground targets the whole while (again, like in the first Gulf War).
[/quote]

After 10 years of Soviet occupation and another 10 years of factional infighting there was precious little infrastructure left in Afghanistan. Kabul was still mostly rubble in many areas. That leaves few real ground targets for a major bombing campaign.

The point is that he wouldn’t have followed the exact same strategy as Bush. Not being Al Gore, I can’t say for certain, but he might have left the strategy up to generals and other people at the Pentagon, since it is their job. I doubt that Gore would have wasted six months seeking the support of every nation on the globe and then mounting a full frontal assault. Our military has evolved in both technology and logistics since 1945.

There was a huge outpouring of goodwill from Europe and Australia (not so much the Middle East) towards the US immediately following 9-11. I doubt that it would have taken 6 months to garner sufficient international support (once again, not necessary to have everyone in the world along for this) for an invasion of Afghanistan. And both the UN and NATO came along with us afterwards. I think the UN & NATO more numerous than Bush’s Coalition of the Willing.

Absolutely, since that is where most of them were to begin with. It might have been better to go after them where they were than go start another conflict somewhere else.

And the British before them. All the more reason to concentrate our efforts there instead of draining off personel & money into another conflict against a tinpot dictator whose regime was economically crippled and completely contained.

That’s pretty much my point, and the main argument against going into Iraq in the first place, never mind how badly it’s been mismanaged.

Like they’ve flocked to Iraq. That’s where diplomacy and normalizing relations with Iran come in. Diplomacy is far from this administration’s strong suit.

According to the Washington Post,

I don’t know that a thirty-seat pickup for the Democrats resulting in a majority of 2 (and that’s if you count Lieberman & Sanders, both independents, as Democrats) counts as a “sea change”, but I’m not the only one who remembers people saying that the Republican congress was corrupt.

82

[QUOTE=BMax]
After 10 years of Soviet occupation and another 10 years of factional infighting there was precious little infrastructure left in Afghanistan. Kabul was still mostly rubble in many areas. That leaves few real ground targets for a major bombing campaign.
[/QUOTE]

You are talking about strategic level bombing. I’m talking about tactical level bombing…and there were PLENTY of targets for that, since in fact we DID provide quite a bit of this during the Afghanistan campaign.

[QUOTE=BMax]
The point is that he wouldn’t have followed the exact same strategy as Bush. Not being Al Gore, I can’t say for certain, but he might have left the strategy up to generals and other people at the Pentagon, since it is their job. I doubt that Gore would have wasted six months seeking the support of every nation on the globe and then mounting a full frontal assault. Our military has evolved in both technology and logistics since 1945.
[/QUOTE]

Well then I’m a bit at a loss. Exactly what WOULD he have done if not follow Bush’s strategy of aggressive support using small units? You can’t have it both ways you know. Either he would have done essentially the same thing that Bush did (in essence anyway), and relied heavily on the local forces to do the majority of the fighting (which, BTW, I think was a very good strategy…just not the one I would expect Gore to use), or he would have had to build up conventional forces a la Gulf War I. The fact that our military has evolved in technology since WWII is irrelevant…your choices are limited to what you can realistically do. And if you are going to move in heavy forces, it takes time.

So…just what do YOU think he would have done? I’m curious btw, not looking for a fight. After all, the model of Gulf War I was a pretty good one…spend the time, build up our force, build consensus and alliance’s especially in the region (try and get nations like Syria and Jordan to commit at least token forces to the invasion, etc), and then hit them with overwhelming force. Why would Gore deviate from this winning formula…and what do you think he would have done differently that wasn’t what Bush et al did?

[QUOTE=BMax]
There was a huge outpouring of goodwill from Europe and Australia (not so much the Middle East) towards the US immediately following 9-11. I doubt that it would have taken 6 months to garner sufficient international support (once again, not necessary to have everyone in the world along for this) for an invasion of Afghanistan. And both the UN and NATO came along with us afterwards. I think the UN & NATO more numerous than Bush’s Coalition of the Willing.
[/QUOTE]

Alliances take time to build…especially if we are talking about countries in the region that might or might not be very friendly to the US…and who’s populations are probably NOT very friendly, despite what the big guy at the top thinks. I have no doubt that NATO would have been on board. However, it takes TIME to get not just troops but beans and bullets to such a remote location as Afghanistan…and it would take NATO even longer than the US to move sufficient force to be more than token. Think how long it took US and the Brits to get ready for the invasion of Iraq …and by a lot of accounts we went in with lighter forces than we needed to really do the job right. Afghanistan, while not having the conventional forces we THOUGHT Iraq had, poses a whole host of even worse logistical problems trying to support troops…it would be a nightmare without careful and in depth preparation. IMHO, FWIW.

[QUOTE=BMax]
Absolutely, since that is where most of them were to begin with. It might have been better to go after them where they were than go start another conflict somewhere else.
[/QUOTE]

From your tone this might come as a shock to you…but I absolutely agree. I think we SHOULD have stayed in Afghanistan, and while I think the initial concept for Afghanistan by Bush et al was a good one (even brilliant IMHO), the follow-up sucked donkey dick. Even if we got bogged down in a seemingly endless insurgency in Afghanistan (which I now think likely in light of Iraq), it would have been the RIGHT thing to do. Bush et al fucked up big time in a lot of ways by losing focus and wandering off into Iraq.

[QUOTE=BMax]
And the British before them. All the more reason to concentrate our efforts there instead of draining off personel & money into another conflict against a tinpot dictator whose regime was economically crippled and completely contained.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[QUOTE=BMax]
That’s pretty much my point, and the main argument against going into Iraq in the first place, never mind how badly it’s been mismanaged.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[QUOTE=BMax]
Like they’ve flocked to Iraq. That’s where diplomacy and normalizing relations with Iran come in. Diplomacy is far from this administration’s strong suit.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I don’t believe that normalized relations with Iran was in the cards, no matter WHO was president. Just my own opinion. Personally, I think if we were bogged down in Afghanistan the effect would have been the same…except Iran would have had a harder time supporting the insurgency covertly in Afghanistan than they do in Iraq. Other than that, I have doubts that things would be markedly different between our two countries. Iran has its own agenda, and its own loonies to cater too, and I think what is driving it to a confrontation with the US and the West has little to do with our invasion of Iraq…except insofar as its a distraction to us and gives them the opportunity to do so. YMMV of course.

[QUOTE=BMax]
I don’t know that a thirty-seat pickup for the Democrats resulting in a majority of 2 (and that’s if you count Lieberman & Sanders, both independents, as Democrats) counts as a “sea change”, but I’m not the only one who remembers people saying that the Republican congress was corrupt.
[/QUOTE]

Well, again YMMV…I think it WAS a sea change, and I think it had more to do with Iraq and the average American’s dis-satisfaction with BUSH and the war than anything specific to congress. Since we don’t know what would have happened or the state of the war in Afghanistan in our alternative universe where Gore is president, we have to speculate. I speculate that the 'Pub’s would have been hammering away at Gore for ‘mis-managing’ the war, and any number of other things, and that the Dems would have been unlikely to pick up the seats to even have a slim majority. Another thing is, some of that corruption almost assuredly comes from the fact that the 'Pub’s held sole control of both the Presidency AND the House and Senate for those years…take the Presidency out of the equation and thing probably would have been different. I’ve become a real believer in keeping the government divided and no one party in control after 2000…

-XT

83

[QUOTE=Boo Boo Foo]
Not impressed by that arguement. There’s a reason why great leaders are great leaders, and it’s not because they pull their punches in case there’s a next time. They make the toughest decisions of all because only they ever have such burdens thrust upon them. Having to sacrifice hostages for the greater good, even if it means war, is one of those tough decisions you have to be prepared to make.
[/quote]
‘You’ who?

Were the American people prepared to sacrifice 3000 American civilians’ lives in order to return Kuwait to the Kuwaiti royal family? Of course not. Does ‘greatness’ in leadership mean ignoring the will of one’s own people? That seems to be a recurring conservative theme these days, but this IS a democracy.

So, Bush Sr. was a pussy? Because I don’t recall America attacking Iraq, or Iraqi forces in Kuwait, while Saddam still held those hostages.

Not that it matters. Achieving one’s aims in the world is a bit more complicated than just not doing things that would make you look like a ‘pussy.’ Our current President has what amounts to an ‘I’m the toughest guy in the bar’ foreign policy, and it’s worked sooooooo well.

84

I can’t see that Gore would have gone into Iraq. What did he have to say back in Oct '02 when the AUMF was being voted on-- does anyone know?

And if, by some weird chance, he wanted to… the GOP controlled Congress probabally would not have let him. Ironic, isn’t it?

85

[QUOTE=John Mace]
And if, by some weird chance, he wanted to… the GOP controlled Congress probabally would not have let him. Ironic, isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]

Weeelllll…I don’t know about that John. Remember, we are talking about shortly after 9/11. I think the same factors that allowed Bush to take us into Iraq would have allowed Gore the same latitude. I think the Pub’s, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, would have had to get behind the President in the same way.

I agree, Gore most likely would not have actually asked…but if he HAD, I don’t think the Pub’s in Congress would have dared get in the way at the time. They would have done basically what the Dem’s are doing today…when it went to shit they would have gone nuts and rightfully pointed at the President who took us there as to where the blame ultimately resides.

-XT

86

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Weeelllll…I don’t know about that John. Remember, we are talking about shortly after 9/11. I think the same factors that allowed Bush to take us into Iraq would have allowed Gore the same latitude. I think the Pub’s, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, would have had to get behind the President in the same way.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe. But the Republicans criticized Clinton pretty loudly when he bombed Iraq towards to the end of his term. It wasn’t that soon after 9/11, either-- it was more than a year. People seem to forget this, but the polls showed most Americans to be against the war back in Oct '02. It’s only as we got closer to the actual invasion that support went up. The Pubbies would have had a strong political motive to oppose a Democrat who wanted to start that war.

87

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Weeelllll…I don’t know about that John. Remember, we are talking about shortly after 9/11.
[/QUOTE]

The runup to the war began a year later. It was close enough that the GOP used the attacks very skillfully to build support for the war, but it was well after Afghanistan was supposed to be all taken care of.

88

No, Al Gore would not have. Even if he took the same steps as George Bush and had permission to invade Iraq for WMD’s with troops staged near the border. At the time the UN weapons inspectors had Bush pulling them out, they stated that not only did they doubt Saddam had any functioning nuclear program because of a lack of resources. They also cited broad skepticism that he had means to manufacture biological WMD’s again due to the paltry resources available because of sanctions. This was after 3 months, nevertheless making about 400 inspections at 300 sites.

And it turned out that was the case. I’m sure at that point Gore would have waited, not invading in March. The military did not want to go in during the summer heat so the next window of opportunity to invade was October or so. Unless something else occurred that was not seen under Bush Gore would have let the UN continue and then reconsider in what they’d do next. Not invade though. In fact we would have probably been on better terms with the UN making a coalition much more substantial without all the cowboy stuff. By fall it would be looking pretty evident that Saddam actually had nothing to hide. They could have probably drawn out the inspections for a while as the weaker they found Saddam.

I think because sanctions worked a case could have been made by that time that he had not distribute enough to the people. We may have threatened to increase them unless he distributed more aid to the people and less to his palaces.

All likely because once it was clear he was not a major military threat it would be easier to keep an even closer eye on him. Perhaps it would have eroded his base over time as would be the plan. We would have had lots of troops in Afghanistan to deploy throughout the region.

Besides we would have invested a huge effort to take bin Laden down and likely would have considered Saddam next too some extent. I would like to think that the Gore administration would have rallied the UN to inspect Iraq, one of the few things Bush has done that I praise him on, even though he did it hoping to create a smokescreen, not to eliminate doubt.

89

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Does ‘greatness’ in leadership mean ignoring the will of one’s own people? That seems to be a recurring conservative theme these days, but this IS a democracy.
[/QUOTE]
You can’t have it both ways. The democracy you’re so righteously reminding me of is the same democracy which voted President George W. Bush in for a second term. Suck it up.

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
So, Bush Sr. was a pussy? Because I don’t recall America attacking Iraq, or Iraqi forces in Kuwait, while Saddam still held those hostages.

Not that it matters. Achieving one’s aims in the world is a bit more complicated than just not doing things that would make you look like a ‘pussy.’ Our current President has what amounts to an ‘I’m the toughest guy in the bar’ foreign policy, and it’s worked sooooooo well.
[/QUOTE]
You’re making about as much sense as Farrah Fawcett on the Letterman Show. Are you SERIOUSLY, for even one moment, suggesting that if Gulf War 1991 had NOT gone ahead, that monsters like Milosevic in Serbia, and all the atrocities of Bosnia and Kosovo would ALSO not have happened? Coz that’s how ludicrous the dots you’re trying to join make you look, you know.

90

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:confused: First I’ve heard of that.
[/QUOTE]

Accidentally I happen to be aware that the Dutch are keen on an intelligence led approach. Just something I picked up first hand.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:confused: Ghurkali?
[/QUOTE]

The Ghurkas are mountain people from Nepal. In the early 19th century the British had a heck of a problem with them, and landed up recruiting them into an elite regiment. Here is some background.

Incidentally the Pakistan/Afghan borders are guarded by locally raised regiments, originally formed by the British and inherited intact with traditions by Pakistan proper.

I can’t help seeing the parallels - and although the Taliban are primitive, they are ‘Nationalist’ rather than ‘Internationalist’ - which makes them unreliable allies for Al Qaeda.

91

[QUOTE=Boo Boo Foo]
You can’t have it both ways. The democracy you’re so righteously reminding me of is the same democracy which voted President George W. Bush in for a second term. Suck it up.
[/quote]
If you’re saying we elect a dictator in four-year increments, I should remind you that the Constitution says otherwise.

I am racking my brains to figure out how you get any of this from what I’m saying.

92

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
If you’re saying we elect a dictator in four-year increments, I should remind you that the Constitution says otherwise.
[/QUOTE]

Everything George W. Bush has done has been with the approval of Congress. Who are also, by the way, elected by the American people.

93

Or, at least, that is what Diebold tells us.

  • ::: d & r :::*
94

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Or, at least, that is what Diebold tells us.
[/QUOTE]

:stuck_out_tongue: Just you wait until the local overlord of your district finds out what you’ve been posting…

-XT

95

[QUOTE=h.ergaster]
Would Al gore have invaded Afghanistan?
[/QUOTE]

Almost certainly. Remember (and you have to think hard) - when we took on the Taliban just about the whole damn world was behind us, we went in with genral acclaim and support. One reason is that we did not “invade Afghanistan”- we went into a nation with an unstable government that did not have control and no significant outside recognized, and one that was super unpopular with their own people. Not to mention they were openly supporting terrorism and Al-Quada. I assume for this that 9/11 still occured.

But as for Iraq- NO, assuming SH did let Blix in (as he did for GWB) for the Inspections.

96

[QUOTE=mstay]

Take the Iraqi sanctions. I have the feeling you agreed with them but that’s beside the point – their effect on the country of Iraq can not be understated. They were the most comprehensive sanctions in history, across the board. The current administration was shocked at the advanced decay of basic infrastructure after the invasion. Basic services were in disarray, on the verge of collapse.

Most importantly, depending on the source, anywhere from 800,000 to 1.5 million people died, most of them children.
[/QUOTE]

The effect on the country was entirely and 100% SH fault. You’re like ing pathe bleeding heart that blames the cop for arresting the drunk driver- for the third time- because now the DD can’t support his family. :rolleyes: SH could have ended the sanctions in a minute, but refused to cooperate.

Anyway, the sanctions had plenty of leeway for humanitarian purchase, but SH kept buying palaces and more weapons for his army- even though buying those weaposn was illegal.

97

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
One reason is that we did not “invade Afghanistan”- we went into a nation with an unstable government that did not have control and no significant outside recognized, and one that was super unpopular with their own people.
[/QUOTE]

That’s still an invasion. In June 1944, the Allies invaded Normandy; I’ve never encountered any objection to the use of the word in that context.

In the case of Afghanistan, it wasn’t much of an invasion because the U.S. forces were there mainly to provide supplies and ammunition to the Northern Alliance, which did most of the fighting. But, an invasion nevertheless.

98

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
SH could have ended the sanctions in a minute, but refused to cooperate.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: Sure, if he had resigned and left the country and taken his sons with him (which is really too much to expect of any self-respecting dictator). I very much doubt anything else he could have done would have ended the sanctions.

99

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:dubious: Sure, if he had resigned and left the country and taken his sons with him (which is really too much to expect of any self-respecting dictator). I very much doubt anything else he could have done would have ended the sanctions.
[/QUOTE]

Allowing the UN Inspectors back in would have been a start. Stopping the buying of palaces and weapons would have been a nice second step. Either is doable, in fact SH *did *allow Blix back in- too late.

100

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Allowing the UN Inspectors back in…
[/QUOTE]
You mispelled American spies.