Centerfield

C'mon Scott, these are just guesses. It would be a simple matter for me to imagine positives just as easily, because all I'd be doing is imagining, just like you.

For example, suppose we had deposed/arrested/tried Hussein in 1991 in the aftermath of going to Baghdad. Then he would not have still been around for us to make a focal point of our post 9/11 rage when Afghanistan proved insufficient to sate it. We don't even know if 9/11 would have happened. It could have been on a Thursday for example, or in the afternoon, or not at all.

And why not question Bush for intervening at all? He might have annexed Kuwait and used the revenue to "solve" Iran for us, right?

See how quick it gets silly? I don't see much point in going any further than just noting that if Bush I had made different choices in Iraq in1991, the world would be at least a marginally different place, the middle east a somewhat different place, and Iraq probably a markedly different place.

But IMO, as soon as one gets into "diffferent better" versus "different worse," one ought to be worried that one's hand may have slid a bit too far up one's rectum. Bottom line? We'll never know the what if answer, and it doesn't matter anyway. We're all stuck with the choice that was made, for better or for worse. IMO It's too easy to just pat GB1 on the back for his 1991 reticence.

What's the point, to make GB2 look the worse for his foolhardy bloodthirstiness? Another thing we'll never know is what would have happened if GB2 had foregone invading Iraq. But that won't stop ardent war supporters from insisting he was right to invoke the specter of the mushroom cloud, nor will it stop equally ardent anti-war folk from imagining what, a spontaneous Iraqi woodstock where we all got together and talked and had a big back-slapping party and beat our swords into ploughs.

We'll never know. We'll never know. We'll never know. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Aaawww.......but what if is so much FUN!

It would've been harder than it looks in hindsight to get US political support, because Desert Storm was the first large military operation since Vietnam, and people were inclined to rather more conservatism.

OTOH, would Bush I have done a better job managing the occupation?

OTOH, would Bush I have done a better job managing the occupation?

Would Clinton? As long as we're having fun with it.

Since it seems OK to pile on...

Would Clinton have even gotten elected if Bush 41 had gone on to Baghdad? If he did, who would have run in 96? Quayle? McCain? Clinton? Gore? Dole?

Would the coalition that fought Gulf War I had stayed together (what was it 60 countries involved, as opposed to 20 or fewer this time) and made an occupation easier?

I have to agree with Jon Kay, What Ifs are a lot of fun...

C'mon Scott, these are just guesses. It would be a simple matter for me to imagine positives just as easily, because all I'd be doing is imagining, just like you.

I thought it would be obvious that none of those examples were remotely possible then, let alone likely to happen. All of the examples I listed were forces that did not exist and had no analogs back then. Apparently, I don't do sarcasm well. Anyway, thanks to all of you for getting at what I actually believe.

OTOH, would Bush I have done a better job managing the occupation?

Would Clinton? As long as we're having fun with it.

Or Dean.

As long as we're having fun, which Clinton? How will Hillary or Obama manage it? Or Guiliani?

Scott, don't you think that 99% of the popularity of the theme that Bush was wise to pull up can be simply attributed to the simple fact that whatever the other merits or demerits, his choice did manage to leave us free from the now obvious difficulties of birthing a democracy from a fractious group of muslims with questionable interest in it?

So what do you think of GB1's choice? Ought we to have undertaken the nation-building job 15 years ago?

So what do you think of GB1's choice? Ought we to have undertaken the nation-building job 15 years ago?

I think that we should have at least given air support to the Shia and Kurds. That would have given both of them a chance repel Saddam's attacks and probably would have given the Shia an opportunity to do in the south what the Kurds did in the north.

"Remotely" supporting the Shia in the south and east with air support would have meant fairly directly supporting Iran and Hezbollah. They were the only agents close enough that could (or would) have provided the logistics support for the Shia on the ground. Without that ground support, it would have been pointless.

The Kurds in the north were already organized and doing a fair job of holding off the Iraqi army. They had (have) support from fellow Kurds in Turkey and Syria and Iran, even Armenia and Azerbijan. They have rough terrain and places to run and deep over-the-border tribal/ethnic support.

The Shia had (have) nowhere but Iran to turn for ground support. Their geographical neighbors are mostly Sunni, save for Iran. And the only directions they could run are to the Sunnis in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, or to the Iranian Shia in the south. That's before getting into the tribal/ethnic divisions.

To give the Iraqi Shia in the south the support they required would have meant us occupying southern Iraq. Air support wouldn't do it without Iranian involvement. Devil, supper, long spoon, and so on.

I am in no position to offer military analysis. All I know is that the Shia were in a reasonable position before Saddam brought in the attack helicopters (though ground reinforcement may have been sufficient for Saddam if he were forced to rely on them) and that the marshlands provided help to some of the Shia in the south like the moutains did for the Kurds in the north to the extent that Saddam destroyed them in the years afterwards. That said, even if ground assistance did prove necessary, it would have been a lot more credible to say that supporting a popular uprising was for the benefit of the people than to say that an invasion with no clear invitation (even though I may believe that there was an unclear one) was on their behalf.

Hey, I thought at the time that we should have supported the Shia uprising in the south with ground troops, and taken and held the territory while putting on pressure for a coup. But no one put me in charge.

I guess there is no point arguing that taking Baghdad would have been beyond the scope of the UN recognition since no one here gives a damn about UN resolutions. Or that it would have alienated the Arab members of the coalition since we all know now that we can take such support fro granted. We know that the only thing that counts is the right of the United States to do whatever we damn well please on behalf of humanity even if the rest of humanity opposes it.

But, yes, we should not have stirred up the Kurds and then abandoned them.

The future of conflict and back to reality.