Puritan1648 nailed it with his citation from The Prince.

I wasn’t so sure in 1991, but I am sure now that had Bush 41 continued the war and taken Baghdad, much of the Jihadist activity that we suffered through in the 90’s might not have come to pass.

Abso-freakin’-lutely. Crushing the Baathists and forcefully removing Saddam in 1991 would have sent a very strong message around the world that we are not to be messed with. Had we done so then, there would likely have been no Mogadishu, no embassy bombings, and no 9/11. Instead, we took the exact opposite course suggested by the dead-on Machiavelli quote as we put off the larger war to our enemy’s advantage. We did the same thing in Korea back in the 1950′s. Look where it’s gotten us in both cases.

Hitch is on the money with his assessment of Baker. James Baker is a perfect example of someone that would sacrifice others and his own principles to political expediency and then dress it up with the term “realism” to cover his sorry ass. The fact that he will have influence over our present Iraq policy can only mean bad things and more conflict in the future.

What made the jihadist movement strong in the 1990s? Partial answer, American “occupation” of Saudi Arabia and the blockade / air bombardment of Iraq. If we’d gone into Iraq in 1991, the jihadis would have been even more fired up. Furthermore, the jihadis also got all fired up over the defeat of America in Somalia. Assuming Clinton still wins in 1992, can anyone doubt that when we started taking casualties in occupied Iraq, he’d start spinelessly looking for a way out?

Hitchens is absolutely correct in that Baker and Gates are Kissinger’s lackeys. We can expect the same formula for Iraq from them that Kissinger applied to South Vietnam – throw it to the wolves and let it become a Russian puppet state.

I wasn’t so sure in 1991, but I am sure now that had Bush 41 continued the war and taken Baghdad, much of the Jihadist activity that we suffered through in the 90′s might not have come to pass.

In addition, the Shiia militias would have been non-existent, leaving only the Sunni/Ba’athists to deal with.

Coupled with the fact that our military was at least 60% stronger in 1991 than today, I believe that had we occupied Iraq then, most of the “insurgency” could have been suppressed quickly because of the larger number of US Troops.

All Bush 41 (and Baker) did was “kick the can” down the road a bit. Hence Baker really doesn’t have much credibility AFAIC.

A lesson form Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter III:

Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others…

…I’ve posted this here before, but you can never guarentee that what you’ve written has ever been read…and this bit bears rereading.

Ol’ Nick didn’t know much about political correctness, but he *KNEW* politics.

Ol’ Hitch knows a thing or three about politics, history and bad politics that comes from not learning from bad history. He’s got this one nailed. The funny thing is that another player was heavily in the “end the war now” scenario back then: Colin Powell.

There’re too many polish, accomplished and established men in fine suits and linens, well educated and well thought of, messing up our government and advising it into oblivion. We need a few of the unpolished, unschooled, un-established, perhaps, putting an oar in right about now.

It matters little how they posture at the cocktail soiree. At the Duchess of Richmond’s ball before Waterloo, Wellington praised a general was not for attire or his dancing, but for how he “danced with the French”. A lady, making light, observed that one dances with them “in a field”.

That’s just the sort of fellows we need in Washington today…those adept at dancing a jig with the enemy, and at making him dance to a merry tune.

I was against occupying Iraq back then but then I did not imagine that Islamists would run a terrorist operation which would bring down the WTC and kill thousands.

I have never liked Baker because he has always stood for the status quo even when that meant molifying our communist enemies in the name of stability. This is why Bush 1 was caught flat footed by the fall of the Soviet Union. Does anyone remember the deafening silence from them when the east Germans were crossing the border en masse.

Just think, we could have avoided that if Reagan had chosen Phil Crane. Damn.

Give Iraq back, Jack. But don’t ask our military to save your a.. when they come to take off your scrawny little neck or Rangel’s fat one either.

Sorry, BUT I AM P….d!!

Alex,

Read what Hitch wrote. We had not only the troops, but world opinion, a weak Iran and a weak Syria.

With regards to world opinion, the French abstained from the UN Security Counsel Resolution authorizing military action, which I believe the resolution is what everybody means when they say “world opinion,” only to protect their oil interests. Had Bush pushed for regime change, world opinion would have turned quickly.

As for the assumption, spoken by others posting, that it would have been easier, and hence, succeeded if the regime change had been undertaken in 1991, I can only say that you’re dreaming. It is never “easy” to build a democracy from scratch. And to believe that a society of tribal and sectarian loyalties, despite the appearance of a unified nation, could be built into a democracy by simply removing the dictator 10 years earlier is delusional.

The only problem seems to have been that we waited too long. Clinton should have gone for the take-down at the end of 1998. That would have been before al Qaida and bin Laden had built themselves up to the enterprise they were in 2001.

But we could play the hindsight game all night. I don’t think Hitch is being all that wise in claiming we should have taken the road to Baghdad in 1991, though.

such as lack of trust between Sunni and Shia and between clans within those larger groups.

Or, you know, Islam in general. ‘Course, the moderates would probably prove me wrong.

Read what Hitch wrote. We had not only the troops, but world opinion, a weak Iran and a weak Syria.

I’m not saying it would’ve been roses and hummus for all, but it sure would’ve been easier than a Saddam who had the UN and a Brit MP in his pockets.

Yes… it would have worked.

The Jihadist movement was MUCH smaller back then. The Madrasas had not indoctrinated the entire generation between then and now with the Anti American hatred we see.

Rememeber, someone born a year or three befoe 1991 would not be 16-18 years old… and those who were entering Madrasas at that time would be about 20 or so…. prime age for a fanatic.

Also remember that the Middle East in general is having much larger families than we do… the average age in Palestine is like 18 years old right now….

So yes… we could have done it easier back then….

and yes… I was there, and truly believe this to be true… I’ll never forget when we were suddenly told to stop… we were all going “WHAT???”!!!

We’ve been told Bush 41 “didn’t want to stay for five years” and we’ve been counter-told that that would have been great, considering we’d then have been out by ’96 and with a fresh new Iraq inspiring a new Middle East to boot.

But would we have? Was the only problem a five year nation-building hassle or would it have been worth it because we’d have had that New Iraq by Clinton’s second term (or perhaps Quayle’s first, if 41′s ongoing war in Iraq had won him a second)?

Or would the sectarian nightmare we’ve seen in the last few years have likewise existed in 1991?