Gulf War I - A Failure and A Disgrace

[Sultan Bhargash]

I want to state up front that if you served in the Gulf War this is not meant disrespectfully. The great people who make up our American armed forces risk their lives out of a selflessness that the civilian cannot possibly fathom. I am about to rant, because I am very angry, but I mean no disrespect to those who served when I say...

THE GULF WAR WAS A FAILURE AND A DISGRACE!

With today's probable capture of the sniper, a mechanic during the Gulf War, we can add his victims to America's grim toll of direct consequences of the war:

1. Tim McVeigh, another Gulf War vet, fingered for the Oklahoma City bombing, felt "lied to" during the war...

2. bin Laden, angered by US involvement and troop placement after the war, began his crusade of terror that led to over three thousand deaths on our soil.

3. Saddam Hussein, left in power, rearmed by Schwartzkopf, began terrorizing his own people the day after the Gulf War ended and continues in place through now, when we consider risking more American lives to take him out.

In short, the only people who profited from the Gulf War were the Kuwaitis (whoop dee doo!) and those people, such as Dick Cheney, who used the war to fuel later business ventures (specifically selling Saddam new oil pumping equipment).

So what is my point? No point. Just angry. And I want the Gulf War put into proper context before we embark on another one. I want better, more sensitive handling of our soldiers in the field and our veterans who come home. I want America to prove in Afghanistan that our bombs are freedom's blessing and not just vengeance's ever festering cesspit, and to prove it again if we take out Saddam. I want the media to keep a laser focus on the people who urge us to war and what they do with the spoils of that war. And I want to feel that ten years from our next invasion of Iraq we aren't going to face terror at the hands of our own soldiers who came back disilusioned, regional fanatics who can inspire the hopeless to give their lives to spite us, and our own enemies who remain, inexplicably, business partners. I want to understand why we are any better off doing this again eleven years and one Bush generation later.

There isn't much point in anyone responding to this thread. I am inconsolable. And I already know what you are all going to say.

 

[God]

It saved Arab oil so we can all use it still. Imagine not being able to drive around as much as before!

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
In short, the only people who profited from the Gulf War were the Kuwaitis (whoop dee doo!)

Only the Kwaite "Royal" Family benefited , the rest of them got one dictatorship back instead of another . (whoop dee doo!)

 

[Heffalump]

You cite 3 people who didn't benefit, and then claim the only people who did benefit where "the Kuwaitis".

Hmm, you do the math.......

 

[Heffalump]

Originally posted by Ozz
Only the Kwaite "Royal" Family benefited , the rest of them got one dictatorship back instead of another . (whoop dee doo!)

I doubt the Kuwaiti people would agree.

 

[nixon]

No, Sultan one cannot agree with the points ye make. Militarily, the Gulf War was a massive success of unprecedented proportions, which provided us with many, indeed valuable, lessons which will be deployed when we embark upon another Gulf War.

At this time, 11 years later, it may seem deeply frustrating and pusillanimous that we didn't choose to remove Saddam when we stood with 500,000 soldiers in the region. Obviously, Bush wanted no further military engagement than just kick Saddam out of Kuwait, which left 3/4 of his forces in total devastation. But we also have to consider that we had no immediate plan for the reconstruction of Iraq and foremost a replacement for Saddam, ironically, it sure doesn't seem like we have one now. But now we have committed ourselves to the removal of Saddam; we are under severe time pressure, so it's now or never, all or nothing.

I agree, nothing would have stopped us from continuing into Iraq, removing Saddam and then set up an interim government like we did in Afghanistan, when ye look simply on the matter. Probably the same post-war commotion and the same results, as we will see when our assault is over. The war would probably have looked less "aggressive" like the Gulf War II is presented. But another important factor is that by intervening in Iraq militarily at that time, we would have abused Saudi hospitality, hereby saying that they never wanted us to continue, it was not a part of the plan. They would never make their bases and soil available to us, i.e. it would've impeded our mission severely.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

So, Heffalump, if you could have a world where Kuwait was annexed by Saddam but September 11, Oklahoma City, the Sniper didn't happen, what would you pick?

Three people who didn't benefit? DO the READING! Every citizen of Iraq didn't benefit, everyone who mourns the 9/11, sniper, and Oklahoma city victims didn't benefit.

Hey, I like Kuwait as much as the NEXT AMERICAN, but the "war" (really just a battle, now that we look at it) that ousted Saddam, told his people to rise up, then left them to get caught and tortured when we left him in power was bad news for America. Bad news for Saddam's neighbors too if we can believe he is accumulating any weapons.

You could read this to say I support taking him out now, and I certainly do want to see him finished with. But the same guys who led the Gulf War are now leading the United States and they bungled that last Gulf War, they blew it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well, you can't get fooled again.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Heffalump
I doubt the Kuwaiti people would agree.

I made the comment due to the complains on the return of the
Royals i remember by the kuwaites on the news following the liberation of Kuwaite. Should have at least held a referendum
then we'd know.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Nixon- I expect you would support the old Gulf War, you were the president who abandoned the Vietnamese we had so filled with hope.

You have two good points: 1. no plans for reconstructing Iraq were in place. 2. we could have been seen as abusing Saudi hospitality.

To answer them:
1. That just isn't an excuse. At GW1 we had a worlwide coalition that included lil muslim helpers like Turkey and, uh, Kuwait. The odds of getting something good established in Iraq were much better then than they are now.

2. If you want to call Khobar towers hospitality, fine, but the fact is the Saudis are balking at letting us invade again from their soil.
Knowing as I do as a fact that Saddam was set up by Reagan/Bush to fight Iran, and that our ambassador gave Iraq the signal that we would not oppose an invasion of Kuwait, you can never convince me that the Gulf War was anything other than a sham, done, perhaps to impress our enemies as God has suggested in another thread, certainly to firm our foothold in the region military by making it clear to the Saudis they needed our protection, and undeniably to create those business opportunities for the Texas oil industry.

 

[Heffalump]

originally posted by Sultan
So, Heffalump, if you could have a world where Kuwait was annexed by Saddam but September 11, Oklahoma City, the Sniper didn't happen, what would you pick?

Your argument is based on hypotheticals.

And how would you extrapolate that forward anyway? Bush I is planning the liberation of Kuwait and thinks, hmm, what if some disaffected Saudi flies a jet into the World Trade Center??

You can only make your decisions on the basis of what's right at the time. No one knows the consequences of a timeline. You're whole argument is rather ludicrous. No offense intended.

 

[Heffalump]

Originally posted by Ozz
I made the comment due to the complains on the return of the
Royals i remember by the kuwaites on the news following the liberation of Kuwaite. Should have at least held a referendum
then we'd know.

I would agree that Kuwait would be better off if more democratic. But there's a big difference between Saddam and the royals.

Did you know there are still Kuwaiti citizens missing? Kidnapped by Saddam's forces?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by nixon
No, Sultan one cannot agree with the points ye make. Militarily, the Gulf War was a massive success of unprecedented proportions, which provided us with many, indeed valuable, lessons which will be deployed when we embark upon another Gulf War.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

No offense taken. Like I said, I knew what I was going to hear from the posters. I knew that any sensible argument against what I am saying would be based on "well, they just couldn't see the future."

After a guy invades his neighbor and trashes their infrastructure (more Halliburton contracts!), you can't see far enough in the future not to give him back his gas-deploying helicopters?

No, I don't think we could have predicted the American veteran terrorists or the Al Qaeda terrorists with any precision, but I do think that, had we finished Saddam then and built a prosperous Iraq we would have a lot less to worry about.

And if we do it again, I want it done right. I am not convinced we have honored our commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan yet (in fact I saw a reporter there conclude we have abandoned them already) and I am not convinced that the administration that CANT HANDLE REBUILDING AMERICA's ECONOMY is going to do any better for a hated foe. Maybe we couldn't predict the future in 1991 (odd with the intellegence budget of the Reagan Bush years) but we can see the future now. Trash the Middle East and you will have murderers coming out of the mudwork bent on revenge, apparently you will even get some vets to believe in their cause. I am admonishing that we DO IT RIGHT THIS TIME, something I have no faith our current leaders can handle. That is why it IS important to have France, China and Russia bringing a sense of calm to a hyped up US, that is why it is rude when I hear that "the UN risks irrelevance"; the UN is the only body which can validate this action in a few more Muslim minds, maybe stop another crop of terrorists.

 

[Heffalump]

There are two conflicting strands in your argument.

You seem to believe the Gulf War was a failure because we "didn't do it right" and finish the job. But preserving Saddam wasn't solely an American decision .... our allies would have abandoned us had we moved the stated goal of war beyond that of liberating Kuwait. To have not listened to them would have been to act "unilaterally". A big, bad word to some of the posters around here.

And yet now you invest in these same allies a moral legitimacy that is needed to act.

I don't disagree that working through the UN is the best approach to the situation. Although I view the advantages in practical terms, not moral.

As far as Afghanistan, the jury is still out. But they're a lot better off than they were under the Taliban.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
1. Tim McVeigh, another Gulf War vet, fingered for the Oklahoma City bombing, felt "lied to" during the war...

2. bin Laden, angered by US involvement and troop placement after the war, began his crusade of terror that led to over three thousand deaths on our soil.

I'm afraid I must disagree with both of these points.

For starters, crazies are always looking for an excuse to blow stuff/people up. If it hadn't been the US government who made McVeigh feel "lied to", it would have probably been his kindergarten teacher or some other crap. When you're nuts/sociopathic, you don't really need much of an excuse.

Second, there have been Muslim (and other) extremists pissed off royally at the US far longer than you are implying. Something about a hostage situation in Iran a couple of decades ago rings a bell... America has been the 'great satan' for a long time.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by Heffalump
There are two conflicting strands in your argument.

You seem to believe the Gulf War was a failure because we "didn't do it right" and finish the job. But preserving Saddam wasn't solely an American decision .... our allies would have abandoned us had we moved the stated goal of war beyond that of liberating Kuwait. To have not listened to them would have been to act "unilaterally". A big, bad word to some of the posters around here.
And yet now you invest in these same allies a moral legitimacy that is needed to act.

Well, I don't have an "argument" I am just complaining.

I don't see it as moral legitimacy, and I dont think we have the same allies now as we did then. It is practical: if the whole world agrees to do it, then anybody who is going to fester later on has the whole world to vent their rage at. If America moves unilaterally, we take the terrible brunt of the revenge.

I don't have any real impact on world politics, and I don't have a time machine, so there is little I can really do. I am venting my anger here, a reaction brought on specifically by the sniper, and am just happy to have a place to vent my anger.

I suggest this thread be closed. There are enough threads on the Iraq debate already.

 

[joespaniel]

The First Persian Gulf War had a larger impact that you do not realize.

It set a precedent to all the warmongering dictators of the world, agression will not be tolerated.

Almost the entire world stood behind the United Nations and spoke with one voice. Withdraw.

Yes, there is terrorism, civil and brushfire wars, but there has not been another large scale invasion by one state of another since.

I would call that some progress, considering the history of the world up to now. Lets hope we continue down that road, but remeber change is a process, and a slow one at that.

btw - everyone has to vent sometimes.

 

[Cloudyvortex]

A country without enemies hasn't tried hard enough.

Whatever I meant by that aside, the Gulf War was a mistake. Yeah, the Kuwaitis would have been worse off under Saddam. But what should we care? The Ba'athists are at least Arabs who got to power on their own evil merits. The royal families of the Mideast were placed there by the British. The British promised a united Arab republic (as they promised a homeland to the Jews, the fools should have at least kept track of their promises before they made them). They didn't even try to help the Arabs. That is the first and foremost reason most Arabs want the West (not just US, we're just the biggest and easiest target) destroyed. We betrayed their trust, so they turned to lunatic imams and muftis. Not that Wilson showed Arabia any attention at all, either.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by joespaniel

It set a precedent to all the warmongering dictators of the world, agression will not be tolerated.

Yes, there is terrorism, civil and brushfire wars, but there has not been another large scale invasion by one state of another since.

I would call that some progress, considering the history of the world up to now. Lets hope we continue down that road, but remeber change is a process, and a slow one at that.

btw - everyone has to vent sometimes.

Well, Joespaniel, you are the first person to give an answer that makes sense. I hadn't thought of the agression angle. You are right about that one. From that light, maybe even a "set up" scenario served some purpose if it kept whole nations from invading other whole nations.

Ah, starting to feel better.

 

[etj4Eagle]

On the idea that the gulf war lead to september 11th, I have a feeling that the US would have still been hated by Bin Laden. Instead of kicking Iraq out of Kuwait we would have sent troops for a long term deployment in Saudia Arabia (maintaing the Desert Shield numbers longer), as there was significant fear that Iraq would attack Saudia Arabia. I have a feeling that Bin Laden would have been even more bolden by the even larger contigent of US troops on Saudia Arabia territory.

Now while the military part of the first war was well executed its the after part that is not too good. We had Bush senior telling the Iraqi's to rise up against Saddam, but did not provide them any support. So in effect he just did Saddam a favor by allowing him to take out the most dangerous resistance groups.