Originally posted by: syzygy
clinton was responsible for saddam because bush did not want to depose saddam because of the immense influence iran would've had in the eventual outcome. Bush senior backed off, keeping saddam in place to preserve the stability of the region. instead of thanking him and abiding by the truce he signed, saddam became arrogant again and challenged the US/UN. Clinton, mindful of the new order that Bush senior had established, should've dealt with that rodent rather than chasing interns. The second gulf war should've occured as late as dec. 1998. but it didn't and hussein got more brazen. clinton looked weak in front of everyone.
the reports bush sr. was receiving actually jibed with the events on the ground in the wake of iraq's mass retreat. if i recall correctly, 15 of the
19 iraqi provinces were in revolt. beyond a core of republican guard divisions, saddam had no armed forces to rely on. the kurds pressed from the
north, disaffected iraqi personnel from the south, numerous coup de'tats were in motion, saddam's fall appeared imminent.
the u.s. gave somebody in iraq a vague promise of 'support' - that never materialized - but no firm commitments, for fear they did not have an
academic grasp of the players who were vying to fill the soon-to-be-empty iraqi throne. bush politicos seem to have feared the huge unknowns.
why such unknowns existed and why a more dedicated effort was not made by bush and company remains a blight on their record.