Request for Question Clarification by
endo-ga
on
17 Nov 2003 10:11 PST
Hi,
The short answer is that allied forces went there with a UN mandate,
which did not allow them to go to Baghdad and remove regime. This was
a time when such things were respected.
Without the mandate, Schwarzkopf did not want to send troops to kill
Saddam or siege Baghdad, because they felt bad choosing a group of
soldiers to carry out such a mission.
Here are some quotes from:
SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE GULF WAR
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch36.htm
"Bush too had been moved by the sight of the Highway of Death. He too
was of the opinion that U.S. forces did not kill wantonly -- soldiers
or civilians. He asked General Powell, his military advisor, "Why not
end it now?" Powell called Schwartzkopf and asked his opinion, and
Schwartzkopf is reported by Powell to have said something to the
effect that it was probably the right thing to do but that first he
wanted first to have a look around. Bush and Cheney also spoke to
Schwartzkopf, and they all agreed that it was time to end the
fighting.
They agreed to end the war 100 hours after the ground war had begun --
at 8 a.m., Saudi time, on the 28th. "
[...]
"The Bush administration's declared goal was to liberate Kuwait from
the Iraqis. That was the mandate provided by the United Nations. And
that was all that the Muslim members of the coalition desired. Bush
ended the Gulf War with Saudi Arabia and Egypt calling for its quick
end. King Faud of Saudi Arabia was unconcerned about the welfare of
the Shi'ite minority living in the south of Iraq and close to his
border. Nor was he concerned about the Kurds in the north of Iraq.
Faud and Mubarak of Egypt wanted an Iraq as big as it was before the
Gulf War began, and they wanted an Iraq ruled by another Sunni Muslim,
and if this were Saddam Hussein so be it."
[...]
President Bush and some others assumed that Hussein would not survive
politically in the wake of Iraq's defeat.3 Intelligence agencies and
analysts with information available to the Bush administration had
seen in Hussein a special danger and had questioned whether a mere
Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait would suffice to pacify the region. The
U.S. could have pushed on to Baghdad and parked outside of that city,
trying a siege for at least a couple of months while sniping at the
remainder of Saddam's forces, until an Iraqi force, fearing for
itself, delivered Hussein to the allies for trial, or at least
overthrew and -- heaven forbid -- killed him. This strategy may have
failed, but it was not tried. The United Nations might have
intervened, demanding that the U.S., and any allied nation with it,
withdraw. More protest might have come from Muslims. U.S. ground
forces may have had to stay in Iraq a little while longer.
[...]
"Some people criticized Bush's comment that he was reluctant to risk
the life of one more American in going after Saddam Hussein. Bush's
supporters, including Norman Schwartzkopf, spoke of the difficulty
that would have been involved in moving against Baghdad in a last
phase of the Gulf War.6 Some said that the U.S. was too cautious and
too willing to kill others without risking the lives of their own
troops. Some others argued that the U.S. should not have started the
war against Iraq. "
Have a look at this webpage and the following question:
Oral History: Norman Schwarzkopf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/schwarzkopf/6.html
Q: Let me rephrase this to you..... just for the record I'm trying to
establish, did you feel that the driving force was coming from the
White House or was it a matter of you saying "No no, we've done
everything, let's finish it" or was it, as others have told me who
were close to you, that you felt that the White House was saying "Hey,
we'd really like to stop this".
Do you want me to find more information or are you satisfied with such an answer?
Thanks.
endo
