Does anyone know who said this?
Posted on March 1st, 2010 by admin
""extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep’, and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs… Would have have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles… 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.".
I think it was Bush Sr.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:46 am
I think it was Bush Sr.
References :
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:58 am
somebody smarter than me obviously (or maybe not, i couldnt get past the 2nd line)
References :
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:13 am
someone of certain something
References :
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:27 am
george bush?
References :
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:50 am
whoa i feel really dumb..i didnt get that at all. haha
References :
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:04 am
i’m guessing george bush.
-venom spd
References :
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:45 am
I don’t know for sure, but I agree with answer 1.
References :
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:31 am
Yes, and the two of them were quite right. How did George W. get it so wrong?
In their cowritten 1998 book, “A World Transformed” George Bush the Elder and Brent Scowcroft discussed regime change in Iraq:
Trying to eliminate Saddam [in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep’, and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs… Would have have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles… 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.”.
References :
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:38 am
We had to occupy, and to some extent still do, Germany and Japan after WWII. You have to understand combat zones wipe out almost everything and it has to be put back together once things are stable and the fighting has quit. Any initially new government in these areas or countries will need help in the form of military to keep the peace until they can operate on their own with their own military. It takes time to train a viable military. Korea is a good example of this. During the Korean War and for sometime thereafter. Their armed forces were useless. The same with Vietnam. The Korean Marines and or ROKS fought in Vietnam. It was a well known fact one of the safest place in Vietnam was with Korean unit. They became world class fighters. It did not taker our enemy in Vietnam long to figure out avoid contact with the Koreans.
Having said that, Citizens of this United States have not had to experience war except for 9/11 and the Civil War. I, am a veteran proud of that. Our citizens do not know or understand what has taken place and needs to take place. It all takes time and patience. We do not need career politicians using Iraq and Afghanistan for political gain.
References :
My first profession. The United States Marine Corps. Retired
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:46 am
I believe that Was George Senior on why he didn’t take out Saddam when it might have actually been justified.
References :