Tweet
"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome. ...
Iraqi soldiers and civilians could be expected to resist an enemy seizure of their own country with a ferocity not previously demonstrated on the battlefield in Kuwait. Even if Hussein were captured and his regime toppled, U.S. forces would still have been confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify the country and sustain a new government in power. Removing him from power might well have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order. ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq, [with] incalculable human and political costs."
Iraqi soldiers and civilians could be expected to resist an enemy seizure of their own country with a ferocity not previously demonstrated on the battlefield in Kuwait. Even if Hussein were captured and his regime toppled, U.S. forces would still have been confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify the country and sustain a new government in power. Removing him from power might well have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order. ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq, [with] incalculable human and political costs."
Oddly prophetic, eh? Perhaps W should have listened to Dad and at least developed a strategy to address some of these (now obviously legitimate) concerns.
Comment