Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch
Bush should not have made promises that he did not intend to keep, and could not have kept. And for all the times that I've heard people say "he should have prevented Hussein from crushing the Shiite uprising," no one -- particularly Wolfie -- has given a credible analysis of what would have happened next.
I realize that it is cold-hearted as hell to say what I am, in essence, saying: That we should have let Iraqis deal with their own problems, even if that meant a lot of them died, so long as those problems didn't cross their borders. But unless we were prepared to do a hell of a lot more than just shoot down some helicopters, that is actually what we should have done.
|
But that's pretty much what we did do a little bit later - the no-fly zones in Northern Iraq allowed the Kurds to essentially set up their own little autonomous region. And we didn't have to occupy Baghdad or mediate between tribes and factions and sectarian groups.
And it's ok to use pre-limited military means - it sometimes even works. See e.g. the former Yugoslavia (bombing and cruise missiles got the Serbs to the table, not the 82nd Airborne). But even if shooting down Saddam's helicopters ended up not working, it would have been worth it. Maybe GHWB shouldn't have encouraged the Shiites to rise, but once he did, a no-fly zone was really a no-brainer.
Sometimes we have to make a gesture towards preventing slaughter. I mean, could Clinton have stopped the massacres in Rwanda? No, but he could have (and I think has said that he *should* have) taken doable military action - supporting the French with logistics and transport, jamming the airwaves to prevent the government's radio station inciting and directing the mobs. And I realize that our interests prevent us from doing this (too many examples to list, but let's include our current unwillingness to even mention our objections to ethnic cleansing to the newly democratic government in Burma), but in Iraq it was in our interest, and in Rwanda it was not against our interest to do something.
I'm fine with recognizing the limits of our power and the need to not put American lives at risk unless necessary. I just think it's a sliding scale - logistical support is low risk, smart bombs and cruise misses a little more risk, shooting down helicopters a little more (though Iraq's air defenses had been wiped out at that point) - and all are far less risky than sending in ground troops, which really should be avoided as much as possible. Afghanistan 2001? Absolutely. Kuwait/Iraq 1990? Strong yes. Peacekeeping in Bosnia 1996? Probably (it ended up not requiring combat, but that's ex post facto). Panama 1989? Maybe other options, but I thought it was a reasonable decision. Grenada 1983? Um, post-Vietnam muscle flexing, but at least the medical students were happy to see the USMC. Iraq 2003? Nope.
