|
|
In George H. W. Bush's post-presidential book, "A World Transformed,"
written with his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, they describe
why Saddam was left in "power" after the Gulf War and instead thwarted by
international scrutiny and embargo. To eliminate him would have incurred:
"incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy
Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq. The coalition would have instantly
collapsed, the Arabs deserted it in anger and other allies pulling out as
well....Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern
for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying
Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nation's mandate, would have
destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to
establish. 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."
Too bad his son George W. doesn't read, and listened instead to others who
were essentially shut down by George One's more global sensibilities on the
subject.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20040809/46f0073e/attachment.htm
|
Locked
