Bush Sr.: Should not march into Baghdad

[Wayne Grabert]

It seems like Sonny Boy either didn't read the book or didn't agree with it.
Another voice against the current action in Iraq comes from none other that President Bush's father, George Bush Senior.

"We should not march into Baghdad," he wrote in his 1998 book, A World Transformed.

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war.

"It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."


From that same article: (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12277085,00.html)
Former Prime Minister John Major says the imposition of a Western-style democracy In Iraq would be nearly impossible._

"I have never seen Iraq as a democracy of the Western sort," he said in a speech in Hong Kong.

"It is going to be very difficult to install a government. The thought of a grand coalition between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds is so improbable as to be dismissed as absurd almost from the outset," Major said.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
It seems like Sonny Boy either didn't read the book or didn't agree with it.



Well, he was right. Arab countries were a part of that coalition and they wouldnt have stood for it. It would have broken the coalition.

This is a worry we currently dont have.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx

This is a worry we currently dont have.
You didn't read the quote very carefully. He was talking about the future, not the past.

[Ian Osborne]

Got any other references for this? It's not that I have a problem with Sky News, but this quote seems too good to be true. Was the article definitely posted on 28th March as it says, and not April Fools' Day?

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Got any other references for this? It's not that I have a problem with Sky News, but this quote seems too good to be true. Was the article definitely posted on 28th March as it says, and not April Fools' Day?

From the article:

he (George Bush Sr.) wrote in his 1998 book, A World Transformed.

I don't have the book though. :)

[Wayne Grabert]

I just have to throw this in. Back on October 22, I stated the following on this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9144&perpage=40&highlight=guerilla%20thousands&pagenumber=1)
Consider also that it would not be over once Saddam was removed. Besides the costs and trouble of having to occupy Iraq for decades, Islamic fundamentalists would stream into Iraq by the tens of thousands to wage guerilla warfare against us as they did against the Soviets. They would be joined by some tribes within Iraq. Terrorism against the US would increase greatly.

I made the same point in other threads. The hawks disputed me. They called me Sylvia Browne. They asked for "proof" that something in the future would happen! :D Instead of proof, I offered reasons (a reaction to a foreign occupation similar to what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980's). They asked why fundamentalists weren't streaming into Afghanistan by the thousands now. I explained that we were not occupying Afghanistan, that our small military presence was part of an international force, that our reasons for being there were internationally seen as justified, that we had the support of the locals who did most of the fighting anyway. However, Iraq would be different.

Now this appears (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=278982&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y) in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Syria defies U.S.; more volunteers stream into Iraq
By Ze'ev Schiff and Nathan Guttman

Despite American warnings, in the last few days Damascus has expedited the passage of volunteers wishing to join the Iraqis in their war against the Americans. Thousands of volunteers, most of them Syrians, are thronging to the Mosul and Kirkuk regions in north Iraq.

I heard Newsweek's senior Middle Eastern correspondent (who I believe was in Jordan at the time) on NPR last Friday saying that there was no exodus out of Iraq, but Iraqis living in Jordan were returning to Iraq to defend their country. (Other reports I've heard say the same is true of Iraqis living in Iran and elsewhere.) He said that no one (and he emphasized "no one") in the region uses the words "liberation" or "liberators" when talking about the war in Iraq. They all use the words "invasion" and "invaders."

I don't know what portion of Iraqis see the US/UK troops as liberators and what portion as invaders, but if the latter portion is large, then this will be another Vietnam.

The lesson of Vietnam is that you cannot liberate a people who see you as the enemy (as most South Vietnamese saw the US).

You cannot go into Iraq with the objective of minimizing civilian casualties and expect to gain control of that country. Instead, you'd have to ruthlessly kill the people on whose behalf you're supposed to be fighting. To "win" in Iraq, you'd have to go in there like a bunch of Huns or Nazis and slaughter people into subjugation in order to conquer and plunder the country. However, that would be politically unpopular. Perhaps even a majority of Republicans would object. But unless we deliberately bomb civilian targets and kill Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands or millions with dumb bombs and other weapons, we are again asking our troops to win the unwinnable. We may still kill many more of them than they kill of us, but we can never win. The resistance will be too strong. The people will never accept us.

I am not suggesting that we deliberately kill Iraqi citizens. I am suggesting we end this folly before the damage to our interests becomes greater. That would mean ending it as soon as possible.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

You didn't read the quote very carefully. He was talking about the future, not the past.

What part of "we dont have an arab coalition" do you not understand?

In short, the quote you mentioned from a book in 1998 has a different set of circumstances and assumptions.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx


What part of "we dont have an arab coalition" do you not understand?

In short, the quote you mentioned from a book in 1998 has a different set of circumstances and assumptions.
Of course we don't have an Arab coalition. We lost it when we invaded Iraq.

What parts of "turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability" don't you understand?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Of course we don't have an Arab coalition. We lost it when we invaded Iraq.


We "lost" it? Since we started the war on terror I doubt we have really had an arab coalition.

In any case, the guerilla warfare comment is obviously true. We are seeing it now. However, we have learned since 1998 that we can't leave terrorists like Bin Laden, Saddam, etc be. Like I said, a totally different set of circumstances and assumptions.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx


We "lost" it? Since we started the war on terror I doubt we have really had an arab coalition.

Not true. After 9/11 we had the sympathy and support of most of the Arab world. Prior to 9/11 and since, Egypt was/has been sharing intelligence on terrorists with the United States. If you read the article from Haaretz, it says that Syria prior to the Iraqi invasion was giving the U.S. intelligence on al Qaida.

Whether you want to call it a coalition or not is up to you, but we have allies in the Arab world that are not supporting the invasion (at least not openly) of Iraq.

[Crossbow]

Just to throw in my two cents.

In the aforementioned book by the elder GB, he was explaining why he (the elder GB) did not order an invasion of Iraq.

True, the forces were in position;
True, the forces would have been able to actually do the job;
True, the Iraq military was substainally damaged;

But, that was not the deal!

The deal was to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and then stop.

The deal was not to get rid of Iraq itself and doing so would have destroyed the coalition that was built for a much more limited purpose.

By the way, the elder GB said as much in his first address just after the shooting started. Am I the only one who watches TV around here?

I hope this helps!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I hope this helps!
It does. The quotes as cited make it seem like GHWB was talking about a future invasion, but, on the information you've given, he was writing in 1998 about his thought process in 1990. Still, it seems to me that so much of what was valid then is still valid today.

[Crossbow]

Thanks for the acknowledgement Wayne Grabert!

However, I would like to add that I do think that the elder GB would have ordered an invasion of Iraq if he had the power to do so.

He gave a series of interviews back in 2001 (ten-year mark of the first Gulf War) where he basically said that he regretted the fact that Iraq never really made a formal surrender as was done by the Japanese in 1945. They came aboard a US battleship, laid down their swords on a table, and signed the documentation.

It was very clear who was the victor and who was the vanquished, and the elder GB would have liked to see a similar demonstration.

[dsm]

Does the book say anything about GHWB's original goals when he heard Iraq had invaded Kuwait? That is, did he always think that the goal would be to simply kick Iraq out of Kuwait? Or did he think that the goal should be the removal of Saddam which he then softened in order to build the coalition? Also, was Cheney being hawkish about war with Iraq like he is today?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Thanks for the acknowledgement Wayne Grabert!

You're welcome. Your insightful and informed posts are always welcome. Hmm. I watch television, but they never mention these things on "The Anna Nicole Show."

I was LOL at the quotes from JK in your signature. The Weekly World News (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/) ought to make him a regular political columnist! :D The truth is out there!

[Tmy]

Until recently the goal was still not to remove Saddam (wink-wink) it was to disarm him of WMD. At least thats what the TV told me.