NationStates Jolt Archive

From April 29, 1991 at the Soref Symposium. A speech by Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm)

Did We Go Far Enough?

There have been significant discussions since the war ended about the proposition of whether or not we went far enough. Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding "no."

One of the reasons we were successful from a military perspective was because we had very clear-cut military objectives. The President gave us an assignment that could be achieved by the application of military force. He said, "Liberate Kuwait." He said, "Destroy Saddam Hussein's offensive capability," his capacity to threaten his neighbors -- both definable military objectives. You give me that kind of an assignment, I can go put together, as the Chiefs, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf masterfully did, a battle plan to do exactly that. And as soon as we had achieved those objectives, we stopped hostilities, on the grounds that we had in fact fulfilled our objective.

Now, the notion that we should have somehow continued for another day to two is, I think, fallacious. At the time that we made the decision to stop hostilities, it was the unanimous recommendation of the President's military advisors, senior advisors, that we had indeed achieved our objectives, and therefore it was time to stop the killing and the destruction.
Personal note: Why didn't Cheney listen to those advisors this time around?

snip

Some have suggested that if we had gotten involved just a little bit -- for example, if we had shot down a few helicopters -- it would have changed the outcome of the conflict. Again, I think that is a misguided notion. One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage "a little bit" in a war. If you are going to go to war, let's send the whole group; let's make certain that we've got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary.

Personal note: So why did we try to fight this war on the cheap?

Now, if you're going to deal with the effort to change the military balance inside Iraq, if you want to really neutralize the Iraqi Army, you have to deal not only with helicopters but also with artillery, with tanks and armored personnel carriers, and with the infantry units that clearly make the Iraqi government -- even today with a two-thirds smaller army than they had a few months ago -- significantly an overwhelming presence vis-a-vis the insurgents that exist inside the country.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

Personal note: Shouldn't Cheney have asked himself those questions again about two years ago?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

So what changed between 1991 and 2002? Did Saddam Hussein suddenly get stronger during the time the sanctions were in place? Did he become more of a threat than he was prior to the 1991 invasion?

So what changed between 1991 and 2002? Did Saddam Hussein suddenly get stronger during the time the sanctions were in place? Did he become more of a threat than he was prior to the 1991 invasion?

Yes to both. At least thats what most first world intelligence agencies and the Clinton Administration thought. Remember that many first world nations violated the sanctions, including major arms dealers like Russia and France. Iraq used French "Exocet" missles during the second gulf war that they didnt have in the first, didnt they? The situation leading to the second gulf war was very diffrent from the one ending the first. Also, the objective was quite diffrent as well as the type of US involvement.

Funny--that's not what Colin Powellsaid in early 2001 when asked about the threat that Hussein posed. In fact, he said exactly the opposite--that Hussein was unable to project even conventional power against his neighbors, that he was contained. So which is it again? Greater threat or weakened tyrant? Seems to me that the official stance of the Bush administration as of early 2001 was that of weakened tyrant.

Yes to both. At least thats what most first world intelligence agencies and the Clinton Administration thought. Remember that many first world nations violated the sanctions, including major arms dealers like Russia and France. Iraq used French "Exocet" missles during the second gulf war that they didnt have in the first, didnt they? The situation leading to the second gulf war was very diffrent from the one ending the first. Also, the objective was quite diffrent as well as the type of US involvement.

Iraq's army at the start of the Gulf War was 550 000 strong. We killed 30 000. This time there were only around 300 000. And second, they used 0 Exocets. An Exocet missile is anti-ship. It hits the water and detonates against the hull underwater. They are essentially impossible to shoot down as they are very small and fast, and they are almost guaranteed to sink anything they hit. If Iraq had had Exocets, we would have lost aircraft carriers.

I'm going to keep bumping this until one of the hard core Bush followers takes it on. I'd like a reaction.

Of course, in my opinion, every member of the Bush Administration is a big flip-flopper. A more apt name would be the "Sandle Administration." :p

That is utterly preposterous. I would never flip-flop on anything. Good Lord.

Cheney is a lying snake.

As many have probably stated by now, including Clarke, the administration saw its opportunity when the US wanted/needed blood over the towers, and they followed through with the implementation of PNAC protocol. He's stated publicly that deficits don't matter, although a great number of other people in the world are seriously second-guessing the themes of US dollar support on the market at the cost of their own currency values.
The administration doesn't seem to care about the consequences, they only feel that action/reaction are of any significant import. I don't think he cares that anyone is going to fact check him for anything he said that far back. He's likely to just tell people to go f*ck themselves over it.

Doesn't look like too many people are very eager to defend him.