27 years ago question for you veterans

[Trigger Mike]

Have any of you other veterans felt something similar:

 

We declared a cease fire 27 years ago in Iraq because we were killing too many of them and it had ceased being a war and turned into something else.  One one hand, elation, with sadness and guilt over the massive destruction we were dealing and the other anger that we did not finish the job?  All at the same time and all years down the road.  The anger did not end until we finally went back in and got hussein.  

[Randingo]

11 minutes ago, Trigger Mike said:

we did not finish the job

Couldn't agree more.  If we had, would be there now.  How may lives could we have saved? 

[Widder, SASS #59054]

History is a funny thing.

Hussein was our ally when he fought against the Iranians........ who were once our allies when under the Shaw.

 

I don't know much else about the history or politics that created the situation back when or today.   But it seems there is always a conflict somewhere that we get involved.

 

..........Widder

 

 

 

 

 

[Utah Bob #35998]

It’s complicated. The fragile aliance that had been formed to liberate Kuwait showed signs of breaking down after the initial mission had been accomplished. Remember that we had Arabs fighting Arabs and there was a lot of sensitive cultural issues in having us (Crusaders) back in the Mideast. Throw Israel in on our supide and things get even more dicey. It has been speculated that further incursion into Iraq to topple Hussein was not the deal we initially struck with the area’s nations. Had the arabs begun to pull out it’s doubtful that we could have been completely successful on our own. The strategic and logistical problems would have increased exponentially as time went on and no one wanted another Vietnam. The Highway of Death which the media ghoulishly and repeatedly smeared across the American tv screens influenced public opinion into an “enough is enough” frame of mind a la Tet 68. 

Hindsight is of course 20/20 butit’s hard to say for sure what the end game would have been.

Just my personal analysis based on what I have read.

[Big Rock, SASS #44055]

Patton wanted to roll into Berlin and then to Moscow .... Eisenhower said no.  What would the world have been like if he would have also?

I agree with the OP, Bush #1 should have let them keep on rolling ....  I would have never deployed and my son would not have the PTSD and TBI he suffers from ....

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

Having "Been There - Done That" for the first conflict to liberate Kuwait, we actually did finish the job.  "The Job" at the time was to remove Iraqi from Kuwait and we did that.  Job Done.  The only thing the Middle East coalition signed on for was to remove  Iraqi from Kuwait.  Once that was done the other nations did not wish further conflict.

 

The Second Middle East conflict, still on going, was an entirely different matter and has turned into a Religious conflict we cannot "win."  

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

16 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

It’s complicated. The fragile aliance that had been formed to liberate Kuwait showed signs of breaking down after the initial mission had been accomplished. Remember that we had Arabs fighting Arabs and there was a lot of sensitive cultural issues in having us (Crusaders) back in the Mideast. Throw Israel in on our supide and things get even more dicey. It has been speculated that further incursion into Iraq to topple Hussein was not the deal we initially struck with the area’s nations. Had the arabs begun to pull out it’s doubtful that we could have been completely successful on our own. The strategic and logistical problems would have increased exponentially as time went on and no one wanted another Vietnam. The Highway of Death which the media ghoulishly and repeatedly smeared across the American tv screens influenced public opinion into an “enough is enough” frame of mind a la Tet 68. 

Hindsight is of course 20/20 butit’s hard to say for sure what the end game would have been.

Just my personal analysis based on what I have read.

 

3 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Having "Been There - Done That" for the first conflict to liberate Kuwait, we actually did finish the job.  "The Job" at the time was to remove Iraqi from Kuwait and we did that.  Job Done.  The only thing the Middle East coalition signed on for was to remove  Iraqi from Kuwait.  Once that was done the other nations did not wish further conflict.

 

The Second Middle East conflict, still on going, was an entirely different matter and has turned into a Religious conflict we cannot "win."  

 

UB and CC hit the nail on the head.  It was complicated, but the mission was solely to liberate Kuwait, which was accomplished in a most efficient manner. Toppling Hussein was never a serious part of the equation.

 

Had we attempted to topple Hussein in 1991, we’d have found ourselves in the same quagmire as now, only the war would have been going on eleven years longer.

 

Middle East politics and cultural differences are too complex to distill to a simple “Had we ‘finished the job’ in 1991...”

 

I’ll end my comments there.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Sad to say, but the united Staes hasn't truly won, nor even fought, a war since 1945.  Police actions, settled cease fires without a real end, appologizing for everything we do, no real objectives nor stopping points, and we "can't step on anyone's toes".

[Sixgun Sheridan]

I agree with Utah Bob's assessment. Unfortunately international politics has played a major role in every military engagement we've been involved with since the end of WW2. After all, we fought Vietnam with one hand tied behind our back simply because we didn't want China or the USSR to get involved. But in the end we couldn't defeat our enemy because those same countries were quietly re-supplying them with weapons and supplies faster than we could destroy it.

[Utah Bob #35998]

1 hour ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

I agree with Utah Bob's assessment. Unfortunately international politics has played a major role in every military engagement we've been involved with since the end of WW2. After all, we fought Vietnam with one hand tied behind our back simply because we didn't want China or the USSR to get involved. But in the end we couldn't defeat our enemy because those same countries were quietly re-supplying them with weapons and supplies faster than we could destroy it.

Well, despite their importing of weaponry we defeated them militarily quite decisively. But the American public and government were unwilling to continue the fight. The Vietnamese had been at war continuously for decades, against the French, the Japanese, the French again and then us. And we won’t even mention the wars of previous centuries. Their mindset was much different than the American/European one. They were prepared to stay the course. We were not.

I sometimes wonder if today’s contemporary attitudes had existed in the waning years of the 18th century whether or not we would have prevailed over the forces of King George III. 

[Sixgun Sheridan]

2 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

I sometimes wonder if today’s contemporary attitudes had existed in the waning years of the 18th century whether or not we would have prevailed over the forces of King George III. 

 

Had today's people lived in 18th Century Colonial America there wouldn't have been an American Revolution. Most people would have been perfectly content paying exorbitant taxes and being subjects of the Crown.