Well, who put Saddam in power in the first place?

When he seized de facto power in the 1970s, Iran was still under the Shah, and we wouldn’t touch Iraq with a ten-foot pole. Nice try, though.

Operation Desert Storm had clear objectives—-to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Those objectives were met.

In the meantime, the groundwork was laid for our subsequent wars. Iraq with Saddam meant unfinished business and Al Qaeda was formed in response to our intervention and continued presence in Arabia. (Maybe it or another movement would have been formed anyway, but it’s pretty clear Al Qaeda wasn’t about “Palestine” or “hating our freedoms,” but about the U.S. presence in the Peninsula.) Perhaps it was worth it to stop Saddam and illustrate that one country can’t militarily annex another without consequences (although, in exchange for their support in the Gulf War, we pretty much let Syria control Lebanon). But, in 1991, it seemed like the war would have little if any blowback (if I may use the term for overt operations), and that turned out to be wrong.

So you thought …

sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Excellent takedown.

blink on January 2, 2013 at 1:53 AM

The Blame America First crowd are nothing if not consistent in their loathing of their own.

So you thought …

sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Excellent takedown.

Yeah, I’m sure that the NYT would have been fully on board a US military push to Baghdad and occupation of Iraq in 1991.

Mark1971 on January 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM

This.

And if the US had gone beyond the UN mandate to remove Saddaam from Kuwait the first people calling for impeachment of Bush would have been the traitors at the NYT.

Ted Torgerson on January 1, 2013 at 9:55 PM

And this.

India?

lexhamfox on January 1, 2013 at 11:00 PM

More community based and syndicates than actual Democracy. Iraq voted as well, but that doesn’t make it a democracy.

It didn’t work for the British either. None of the conquered peoples embraced Democracy after the end of colonialism. The Anglo-Saxon colonies did, but not those lacking British culture.

sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM

India?

Try to piss on the legacy of the only American General to execute a successful ground war in 100 hours, expel an invading army, and gain a cease fire in record time.

I’m sure Stormin’ Norman wasn’t perfect, but leading up the ground war and the execution of the same, he was darn close. He saved a lot of American lives, and that cannot be understated.

Besides, that war was run from the Oval Office, and Schwarzkopf found a way to be spectacular even with that obstacle. That, and our muslim “allies” refused to advance ahead of American troops.

If you read the NYT, you would believe the muslim troops liberated Kuwait City. Nope. American troops did, without a reporter in sight, and then ordered to pull back so the muslim troops with a reporting pool escort could take credit.

What we’re trying to do is skip the civilizing because it’s hard and un-PC and instead just go straight to “one person, one vote” democracy. And it ain’t working.

It didn’t work for the British either. None of the conquered peoples embraced Democracy after the end of colonialism. The Anglo-Saxon colonies did, but not those lacking British culture.

Until the supposedly ‘conquered’ barbarians are actually afraid to sneer at you behind your back, wet their pants at the thought of taking up arms against you, and at least one generation has grown up under at least something approaching civilization, any gains made will be temporary.

MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Culture is stronger than most people believe. It can change given time, but it requires a great deal of time and is very slow to shift even on the most basic of things. You can rule a country with force, but altering their cultural heritage is a far larger task, and one not wisely engaged in by the faint of heart.

Actually, that is where I think the Democracy crusading came from. The British ideal was to spread civilization, dress the savages, and teach them to be good Christians. The modern version centers around democracy, womens schools, and purple thumbs, but isn’t all that much different in spirit.

sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 10:16 PM

A bit more than you might think. While the British version was at times harsh and cruel, it was effective because they had the spine to make the barbarians bow to civilization. They had no Disney Pocahontas fantasies of how unwashed pagans lived and treated each other, particularly their women.

What we’re trying to do is skip the civilizing because it’s hard and un-PC and instead just go straight to “one person, one vote” democracy. And it ain’t working. It is not physically possible to bring democracy to a people who A: have not been anywhere near subjugated and B: have lived their entire lives under utter savagery.

Until the supposedly ‘conquered’ barbarians are actually afraid to sneer at you behind your back, wet their pants at the thought of taking up arms against you, and at least one generation has grown up under at least something approaching civilization, any gains made will be temporary.

May I assume you meant the British ideal of spreading civilization?

MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Actually, that is where I think the Democracy crusading came from. The British ideal was to spread civilization, dress the savages, and teach them to be good Christians. The modern version centers around democracy, womens schools, and purple thumbs, but isn’t all that much different in spirit.