10
10
0
I know we all have thoughts on this, but as a Soldier, of course no one ever asks whether we think we should, or should not go... They just say go!!!!, and we do our duty. I was personally involved with Saddam Hussein, so I am particularly interested in this topic. I will save my opinions for now, so as not to taint the discussion.
BROOKLYN — Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul told a group of Jewish community leaders here Monday he thinks the United States made an error ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2003.
While insisting he is not an isolationist, Paul said, “I think it was a mistake to topple Hussein. Hussein was the bulwark against Iran.” He told the group assembled here at the headquarters of Torah Umesorah, the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools that now, “Iraq is a vassal state for Iran.”
http://atr.rollcall.com/rand-paul-2016-saddam-hussein-iran-brooklyn/
BROOKLYN — Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul told a group of Jewish community leaders here Monday he thinks the United States made an error ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2003.
While insisting he is not an isolationist, Paul said, “I think it was a mistake to topple Hussein. Hussein was the bulwark against Iran.” He told the group assembled here at the headquarters of Torah Umesorah, the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools that now, “Iraq is a vassal state for Iran.”
http://atr.rollcall.com/rand-paul-2016-saddam-hussein-iran-brooklyn/
Posted in these groups: 
IraqStrategic Leadership
IraqStrategic Leadership
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 21
5
5
0
Oh, it's a good thing that I am responding before work, as I could write a book on this topic.... Yes, but handled poorly.
First, He should have been ousted as part of Desert Storm. Yes, I know our mission was to restore the Kuwait border. Our mission was too restricted. Rather than the cease fire/no-fly decade, we should have insisted on victory. Wearing my IO hat, make no mistake, if I am an Iraqi, I count the U.S. failing to overthrow my government to be a huge victory, despite any alleged "objectives" on the part of the U.S. - We fought the Great Satan and are still standing. That's one-nothing. Kicking the can down the road is rarely a good thing.
Second, when we did decide (way late, but still...) to oust Saddam, we should have done that WITHOUT destroying all of the institutions of government and civil society. Wholesaled De-Bathification (yes, I misspelled that, I'm sure) was a bad idea, poorly executed. It not only removed everyone who had knowledge and experience in running a nation or holding civil society together from the positive side of the equation, but deposited them on the negative side. Were there horrid people who needed to be weeded out? Yup. But to toss out everyone who belonged to the party that you needed to belong to to have a shot at a decent life, education, or success was throwing the baby out with the bath water. Reconstruction would have been a lot easier if we hadn't had to recreate everything from scratch for no good reason. Same goes for the military. Would it have had an Iraqi flavor, and not been the state the U.S. would prefer in a perfect world? Yes. But it would have been functional and had more Iraqi buy in. As Lawrence said way back when, if the Arab (or other local national) CAN do it, it is better that they should. (too lazy to get the exact quote this morning.)
First, He should have been ousted as part of Desert Storm. Yes, I know our mission was to restore the Kuwait border. Our mission was too restricted. Rather than the cease fire/no-fly decade, we should have insisted on victory. Wearing my IO hat, make no mistake, if I am an Iraqi, I count the U.S. failing to overthrow my government to be a huge victory, despite any alleged "objectives" on the part of the U.S. - We fought the Great Satan and are still standing. That's one-nothing. Kicking the can down the road is rarely a good thing.
Second, when we did decide (way late, but still...) to oust Saddam, we should have done that WITHOUT destroying all of the institutions of government and civil society. Wholesaled De-Bathification (yes, I misspelled that, I'm sure) was a bad idea, poorly executed. It not only removed everyone who had knowledge and experience in running a nation or holding civil society together from the positive side of the equation, but deposited them on the negative side. Were there horrid people who needed to be weeded out? Yup. But to toss out everyone who belonged to the party that you needed to belong to to have a shot at a decent life, education, or success was throwing the baby out with the bath water. Reconstruction would have been a lot easier if we hadn't had to recreate everything from scratch for no good reason. Same goes for the military. Would it have had an Iraqi flavor, and not been the state the U.S. would prefer in a perfect world? Yes. But it would have been functional and had more Iraqi buy in. As Lawrence said way back when, if the Arab (or other local national) CAN do it, it is better that they should. (too lazy to get the exact quote this morning.)
(5)
(0)
TSgt David L.
I agree that Saddam should have been removed from power as the conclusion of Desert Storm. Pres. Bush followed the UN mandate instead of finishing the job, a mistake we are still paying for. He did what he thought (at the time) was right, whether it was truly abiding the UN or merely an attempt at ensuring re-election, a simple bullet would have fixed the problem. ;-)
(2)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
One of the first rules of defeating a country in battle is to never leave the former ruler or any smidgen of his former direct administration in charge to seek vengence. We pride ourselves on how we handled Japan and Germany after World War II but we often forget that we purged both countries of facism via war tribunals after we defeated each. I was also really shocked at President Bush's naivete in regards to leaving Saddam Hussien in power after the war.
The only other stupid move that compares with it in naivete is breach of warfare rule #2 which his Son made and that is after defeating a country in battle.......don't disband the effin Army so they have nothing to do but join an insurgency (mistake made by George Bush II)........anyone in George Bush II's Admin that paid attention to how the Nazi's rose to power after WWI capitalizing on unemployed recently disbanded Army units? Apparently they slept through that lesson from the past as well. As soon as they disbanded the Iraqi Army in the second Iraq War. I knew the chances of a quick exit just disappeared. Thanks Paul Bremer you idiot.
The only other stupid move that compares with it in naivete is breach of warfare rule #2 which his Son made and that is after defeating a country in battle.......don't disband the effin Army so they have nothing to do but join an insurgency (mistake made by George Bush II)........anyone in George Bush II's Admin that paid attention to how the Nazi's rose to power after WWI capitalizing on unemployed recently disbanded Army units? Apparently they slept through that lesson from the past as well. As soon as they disbanded the Iraqi Army in the second Iraq War. I knew the chances of a quick exit just disappeared. Thanks Paul Bremer you idiot.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Should we allow brutal dictators to exist, if they maintain regional stability? Yes.
While our Judeo-Christian values pull at our hearts to DO something to stop every human tragedy in the world, these are national decisions, not individual ones. And as a nation-state, the US should do what is in its best interests. This requires rational analysis, not heart-strings.
We are beginning to recognize we cannot solve all the worlds problems, especially when there are many powerful forces that are very happy with "the problem". How can the US remain a superpower? Economic growth and engagement with all, entangling conflicts with none. I think it's funny how some people like Paul are portrayed as isolationists, when maybe they are just returning us to Realpolitik.
While our Judeo-Christian values pull at our hearts to DO something to stop every human tragedy in the world, these are national decisions, not individual ones. And as a nation-state, the US should do what is in its best interests. This requires rational analysis, not heart-strings.
We are beginning to recognize we cannot solve all the worlds problems, especially when there are many powerful forces that are very happy with "the problem". How can the US remain a superpower? Economic growth and engagement with all, entangling conflicts with none. I think it's funny how some people like Paul are portrayed as isolationists, when maybe they are just returning us to Realpolitik.
(4)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
I think we ousted Saddam more because of the failure of the embargo than leadership. The French & Russians were re-establishing commercial ties with Baghdad and we were losing influence (I was at the US Embassy in Kuwait and we were briefed weekly). We fuzzied up the intel, found a reason to suspect WMDs and the rest you know. When we start thinking about operations, we need to move well past the immediate tactical and go to long term end state planning. Clearly, from Iraq & Afghanistan, that part needs some serious work.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Like Motorcycle accidents.
"Not if but when."
I actually did a paper on this recently, which posited "knowing what we know now, would Gen Schwarzkopf have chosen to oust Saddam in 1991, rather than wait until OIF."
We were in a better position to oust him then, but would have caused great political turmoil because of the era. It would have been easier to rebuild, and we wouldn't have been fighting a 2-front war, however we'd still be in the same relative position overall.
Iraq itself, is a keystone, of relative Middle East stability. Without Iraq being Engaged/Occupied/Busy, we have to deal with the Iran problem. When those two "major fires" are under control, we can focus on the brush fire that is Israel... which can turn into an out of control forest fire.
The problem is that we can't diplomatically focus on all these brush fires at the same time.
Saddam "effectively" provided Regional Stability, which in turn let us handle Global Stability. When we removed him, we knocked out Regional Stability, and we are ill-equipped to handle that.
So..."Was it a mistake?" No. "Was it a mistake, at that particular point in history?" Yes. "When would have been the correct time?" Hell if anyone knows.
"Not if but when."
I actually did a paper on this recently, which posited "knowing what we know now, would Gen Schwarzkopf have chosen to oust Saddam in 1991, rather than wait until OIF."
We were in a better position to oust him then, but would have caused great political turmoil because of the era. It would have been easier to rebuild, and we wouldn't have been fighting a 2-front war, however we'd still be in the same relative position overall.
Iraq itself, is a keystone, of relative Middle East stability. Without Iraq being Engaged/Occupied/Busy, we have to deal with the Iran problem. When those two "major fires" are under control, we can focus on the brush fire that is Israel... which can turn into an out of control forest fire.
The problem is that we can't diplomatically focus on all these brush fires at the same time.
Saddam "effectively" provided Regional Stability, which in turn let us handle Global Stability. When we removed him, we knocked out Regional Stability, and we are ill-equipped to handle that.
So..."Was it a mistake?" No. "Was it a mistake, at that particular point in history?" Yes. "When would have been the correct time?" Hell if anyone knows.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SFC William Swartz Jr I'm not second guessing the decision, I'm using it to highlight the question posed by COL Charles Williams "Was it a mistake?"
In essence, we were going to have to oust him sooner or later. If not in 1991, then in 2003, if not in 2003, then in 2005, or 2008, or 2020. It was going to happen. Not if, when.
In essence, we were going to have to oust him sooner or later. If not in 1991, then in 2003, if not in 2003, then in 2005, or 2008, or 2020. It was going to happen. Not if, when.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I think we could've saved a lot of heartbreak/ache if we would've just gone in after him in '91. Damn the consequences! As you said, "who would enforce it?" The ground troops knew what needed to be done, but those in charge cared more for their precious coalition (that mainly kinda just stood by & watched in DS if I recall correctly - I was only in middle school at the time) than the future consequences of not nipping the prevailing issue in the bud!
I think we could've saved a lot of heartbreak/ache if we would've just gone in after him in '91. Damn the consequences! As you said, "who would enforce it?" The ground troops knew what needed to be done, but those in charge cared more for their precious coalition (that mainly kinda just stood by & watched in DS if I recall correctly - I was only in middle school at the time) than the future consequences of not nipping the prevailing issue in the bud!
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSgt (Join to see) I think it would have been the same amount of heartache, just spreadload a little better. When it really boils down to it, we destablized a region, and we need to correct that.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
We were headstrong & didn't take tribal intel as serious as we should've. After so many years of being lorded over, they didn't know what to do having it lifted from them.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google