Should America have gotten involved in the first gulf war?

[Underhill]

I voted yes (and evened the score at 4 all)

Though I think they should have kept going and finished it then, arguably the 1st Gulf war still continues, by virtue of the West repeatedly pulling back too early, and letting enemies regroup.

I think we should have left Saddam alone after sending him home with his tail between his legs. He was never a threat to us, and as long as he didn't mess with our allies, he isn't our problem. I suspect the middle east would be a lot different if we had.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think we should have left Saddam alone after sending him home with his tail between his legs. He was never a threat to us, and as long as he didn't mess with our allies, he isn't our problem. I suspect the middle east would be a lot different if we had.

Different yes, a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran perhaps? It's difficult to say-

'not a threat to us, not our problem' was the policy taken by the west towards Hitler. We could fight literally 100 Iraq wars, and if it prevented a single WWII- it would be a huge net gain in lives and treasure.

 

[Underhill]

Different yes, a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran perhaps? It's difficult to say-

'not a threat to us, not our problem' was the policy taken by the west towards Hitler. We could fight literally 100 Iraq wars, and if it prevented a single WWII- it would be a huge net gain in lives and treasure.

Oh come on. Comparing one of the most solid industrialized nations in Europe (in it's day) to Iraq in the 90's is a bit over the top.

It took us what? 20 minutes to take Baghdad? And remember, we didn't let Saddam move into his Poland.

I'm not saying do nothing. Only that overthrowing a major stabilizing force in the region has created havoc across the middle east that has heavily impacted allies all the way across Europe. All so we could depose a guy who probably had some chemical weapons (we gave him) a decade before and a military that folded like a cheap suit.

 

[esmith]

From what I have read and studied from various sources it was the right move, but the move should have been done during the first Iraq war (1990-91). We had Iraq basically defeated but stopped short. Now would the outcome have been the same? Probably since our military is excellent at war, it just can't handle the aftermath and neither can our politicians along with those in the State Dept. Those in charge of the military at that time were geared to fight a European war and their thinking was based on that strategy. Our military was also suffering from the debacle of the Vietnam War and the moral of the military was not what it should have been.
Now to the second Gulf War, again our military performed admirably and accomplished their mission; however the same military strategy of fighting a European war was still in place . After kicking the bad guys out it then started going downhill to the point that the military leaders were recommending we withdraw. It was then decided to take a serious gamble and surge troops into Iraq and use counter-insurgency methods to stabilize the country. It was working, but US losses were mounting and the politicians decided that we could then rely on Iraq forces to continue to stabilize the country. We pulled troops out and Iraq was not ready and we know the rest of the story.
Unfortunately you will see the same outcome today in Mosul. The Iraq army will leave and the terrorist will filter back in and we start all over again. No one seems to understand history. Yes you can kick the bad guys out but if you do not leave a large residual force in place To Protect The Population then you are going to lose.

 

[Underhill]

From what I have read and studied from various sources it was the right move, but the move should have been done during the first Iraq war (1990-91). We had Iraq basically defeated but stopped short. Now would the outcome have been the same? Probably since our military is excellent at war, it just can't handle the aftermath and neither can our politicians along with those in the State Dept. Those in charge of the military at that time were geared to fight a European war and their thinking was based on that strategy. Our military was also suffering from the debacle of the Vietnam War and the moral of the military was not what it should have been.
Now to the second Gulf War, again our military performed admirably and accomplished their mission; however the same military strategy of fighting a European war was still in place . After kicking the bad guys out it then started going downhill to the point that the military leaders were recommending we withdraw. It was then decided to take a serious gamble and surge troops into Iraq and use counter-insurgency methods to stabilize the country. It was working, but US losses were mounting and the politicians decided that we could then rely on Iraq forces to continue to stabilize the country. We pulled troops out and Iraq was not ready and we know the rest of the story.
Unfortunately you will see the same outcome today in Mosul. The Iraq army will leave and the terrorist will filter back in and we start all over again. No one seems to understand history. Yes you can kick the bad guys out but if you do not leave a large residual force in place To Protect The Population then you are going to lose.

That's why ousting Saddam was pointless.

He was the (albeit brutal) force that kept things stable.

 

[esmith]

That's why ousting Saddam was pointless.

He was the (albeit brutal) force that kept things stable.

Not necessarily. It is highly speculated that Saddam would be willing to continue on into Saudi Arabia after Kuwait fell if nothing was done. Now Saddam still had the desire to continue his ambitions even after the first Gulf war even though it would take a little longer to build his military back up. Now we have no absolute proof of this, but almost everything points to it. So, what do you think would happen if Saddam had invaded Saudi Arabia? The price of oil would have gone through the roof and economic turmoil would be rampant.
Of course this is all speculation but almost everything points to the possibility being quite high.

 

[Underhill]

Not necessarily. It is highly speculated that Saddam would be willing to continue on into Saudi Arabia after Kuwait fell if nothing was done. Now Saddam still had the desire to continue his ambitions even after the first Gulf war even though it would take a little longer to build his military back up. Now we have no absolute proof of this, but almost everything points to it. So, what do you think would happen if Saddam had invaded Saudi Arabia? The price of oil would have gone through the roof and economic turmoil would be rampant.
Of course this is all speculation but almost everything points to the possibility being quite high.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree that we did the right thing in Kuwait. I'm saying we should never have gone in during the second gulf war.

 

[esmith]

I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree that we did the right thing in Kuwait. I'm saying we should never have gone in during the second gulf war.

Now this is just speculation that I have garnered from may sources that indicate that even though Saddam was pushed back he still had the means and desire to expand his dominance over as much as the area that he could. Now there is no proof that he would have attacked and attempted to overrun Saudi Arabia if we had not gone in but the likelihood is he would have. We could have waited and seen what he would or would not do, but that in itself would have been dangerous. Look how long it took us to assemble the necessary forces to begin the second Gulf war. How far could have Saddam's military advanced during that time frame. Now I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the decision to go in, I don't have all of the facts. What I am saying is that the tactics. strategy, and political decisions made between the time we defeated Iraq and the onset of the surge was wrong. I also think that the decision to pull all troops out of Iraq was wrong. We knew that Iraq was not ready and not willing to continue what we started. We can see this after the purge by Nouri al-Maliki of the Sunni from any position of influence, which drove them, either reluctantly or not into accepting what became ISIS.

 

[Underhill]

Now this is just speculation that I have garnered from may sources that indicate that even though Saddam was pushed back he still had the means and desire to expand his dominance over as much as the area that he could. Now there is no proof that he would have attacked and attempted to overrun Saudi Arabia if we had not gone in but the likelihood is he would have. We could have waited and seen what he would or would not do, but that in itself would have been dangerous. Look how long it took us to assemble the necessary forces to begin the second Gulf war. How far could have Saddam's military advanced during that time frame. Now I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the decision to go in, I don't have all of the facts. What I am saying is that the tactics. strategy, and political decisions made between the time we defeated Iraq and the onset of the surge was wrong. I also think that the decision to pull all troops out of Iraq was wrong. We knew that Iraq was not ready and not willing to continue what we started. We can see this after the purge by Nouri al-Maliki of the Sunni from any position of influence, which drove them, either reluctantly or not into accepting what became ISIS.

I understand. However, I still have a hard time believing Saddam would go in to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's had roughly the same size military force as Iraq and, thanks to us, were much better equipped.

 

[esmith]

I understand. However, I still have a hard time believing Saddam would go in to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's had roughly the same size military force as Iraq and, thanks to us, were much better equipped.

One could never tell what Saddam would or would not do. If he had, it would probably have been the complete destruction of the Iraqi military and the downfall of Saddam. We will never know if he would have or not.
My biggest issue was in the handling of the second Gulf war and what took place after the defeat of Iraq.
If you want my honest opinion it is no we should have never invaded Iraq. However, we broke it and as far as I'm concerned we owned it and still do.

 

[Underhill]

One could never tell what Saddam would or would not do. If he had, it would probably have been the complete destruction of the Iraqi military and the downfall of Saddam. We will never know if he would have or not.
My biggest issue was in the handling of the second Gulf war and what took place after the defeat of Iraq.
If you want my honest opinion it is no we should have never invaded Iraq. However, we broke it and as far as I'm concerned we owned it and still do.

So basically we agree on that much. That is something.

 

[esmith]

So basically we agree on that much. That is something.

Sometimes I can be agreeable and respect other peoples views as long as the discussion doesn't get out of hand

 

[Aquitaine]

First let's identify WMD's
A weapon of mass destruction is any weapon that will cause mass casualties. Now this includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. We know that Saddam had and used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. We also know that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds (Halabja)
Now do any of you dispute any of the above?

Now let's move to the gulf war. I am providing one article out of many that relates to Saddam having WMD. If you want more just search for "Saddam had biological and chemical weapons"

U.S. Nerve Gas Hit Our Own Troops in Iraq

Is this enough evidence for you?

US troops were exposed by fumes when destroying stockpiles of Iraqi chemical weapons. . . which the US helped Saddam develop.

 

[esmith]

US troops were exposed by fumes when destroying stockpiles of Iraqi chemical weapons. . . which the US helped Saddam develop.

That does not negate the fact that Saddam had WMD's does it?

 

[Aquitaine]

That does not negate the fact that Saddam had WMD's does it?

He didn't have any in the sense that we were told he did: dirty ICBMs which could be launched "in 45 minutes".

I never understand how someone who is normally so happy to trash and distrust the government on domestic issues - such as regulation or healthcare - is so willing to play along with their disasterous foreign policy.

 

[esmith]

He didn't have any in the sense that we were told he did: dirty ICBMs which could be launched "in 45 minutes".

I never understand how someone who is normally so happy to trash and distrust the government on domestic issues - such as regulation or healthcare - is so willing to play along with their disasterous foreign policy.

Would you please explain where you obtained the facts that he, Saddam, was supposed to have ICMB's.

However, I'll give you a head start to disprove you assumption

Here's the full version of the CIA's 2002 intelligence assessment on WMD in Iraq

Now after reading that please provide your source. Oh by the way a ICBM is an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. A ICBM has to reach beyond the earths atmosphere and any dummy would be able to detect test of such vehicles.