Why didn't they remove Saddam after the first war, and establish a democracy a long time ago there?

Question

If they could have captured Hussein(common knowledge that he was wihin our sights the whole time), and established a provisional government then, not only would we not have the current war, but they would have had 10 long years to establish
democratic rule.
I think they left Hussein there as a foil for Iran, but just wanted to soften him up a bit with sanctions and such.....they know he was
still getting arms per money from the sanctions.
He has always been used for whatever fit american foreign policy
best at them time, to the ultimate pain and sacrifice of the Iraqi people........

It's quite unreal when you think of it. Read Woodward's new
"State of Denial" to find out prenty more.

dat, isn't iraq pretty much in anarchy right now?

pae, you can't establish any mode of gov't,
from socialism to communism to capitalism, at the point of a gun.
The point is, most of those middle east countries are propped up anyway, with
aid, weapons, or both.
Where would Eqypt, Isreal, or Jordan be without the billions put in their coffers
every year?

pae, also, you know full well, brother, that the UN is toothless, and per the US, essentially invisible.....they were as unilateral back then.........
the fact is, they wanted to keep Hussein
in power, muted a bit, as a foil against Iran.
Then way, they keep Iran hemmed in, and let iraq do the dirty work, knowing that the
US public would have a low tolerance for a pretracted battle....and the war would win them the election(or so they thought).

?????? makes good points...indeed, only a strongman fascist could keep all three
peoples under control.....take away the powerman and you have anachy...
Look at Marshall Tito and the old Yugoslavia. The serbs, croats, and muslims were only held together by
facism and a strongman. Soon as he dies,
and the USSR pulled out, mass anarchy reins.The croats and serbs were so similar
to the sunnis and shiites it isn't funny.
they even had their version of the kurds,
the kosovoans...............
they are at peace now(yugo), so I guess there is still hope
still hope.......

Answer 1

It would have been too easy, we must make things hard.

Answer 2

Darned if I know why they didn't go on Baghdad in Gulf War Mark 1. There were quite a few mistakes made in policy then.

As for democracy - you're kidding yourself if you think a stable democracy is going to arise out of that lot in the next few years. Can you imagine a country with only Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics among the population? That's what you have over there. One lot calling the other lot heretics. American and allied troops are getting in the way of the Shiites and Sunnis struggling for supremacy.

Once either side gets on top they will make damn sure that the others stay under their thumbs while mouthing platitudes about democracy at first. Saddam was a secular Sunni, like the rest of his government, in a majority Shiite country. A lot of his atrocities were to make sure the Kurds and Shiites (or anyone else) didn't threaten him. He was not unlike the military junta in Argentina who probably murdered even more people before the Falklands war or Pinochet in Chile.

Apart from that of course, he was like his idol Joe Stalin - a career criminal who murdered and imprisoned his way to the top.

Answer 3

Desert_Kat has said the answer. The primary reason for leaving Saddam in power was as a counter to Iran. Iraq is the only nation in the region to keep Iran in check. Remember prior to Desert Storm, Iraq and Iran had a 10 year war. There is no other country in the Middle East that could stand up against Iran. Isreal while still having a formidable military is not large enough or close enough to battle against Iran. Too many other countries to fly over to attack.

Answer 4

because the administration (bush 41) took more notice of the history of how iraq had only ever been kept together and stable under the rule of dictatorial governments.the historical conflict between the sunni and shia sects and the long held wish for autonomy by the kurds at the risk of Turkish military action if that happened was the sensible reasoning against full invasion and they foresaw the impossible job of administering such a situation.

Answer 5

The reason we did not push to Baghdad during the first gulf war was due to UN restrictions we had signed to prevent us from going there. While the UN backed our incursion into Kuwait, they did not want us to go all the way to Baghdad. The no-fly zones were established to box Saddam troops in and to restrict his military from leaving central Iraq. You must remember that the same UN countries that signed onto these deals are the same countries such as Russia, France, Germany and China, were all profiting from the Iraqi oil. They also had huge military and infrastructure deals in the works with Saddam. To allow the U.S. to push all the way to Baghdad would ultimately expose the backdoor dealings all these countries had with Saddam. This of course all came to light after the second gulf war.

Answer 6

George Bush, Sr. and his advisers had a better understanding of what would happen should the Anglo-American alliance invade Iraq.

You really think that establishing "democracy" is a feasible or realistic goal of politicians, corporate and military leaders who are presently effecting laws and policies which are eroding our Constitutional rights? A nation which removes itself from the World Court, which reserves for itself the privelege of violating United Nations conventions and declarations, on Human Rights?

What else are you reading these days?

Answer 7

democracy is something that cannot be given or forced upon a group of people. we fought for ours and we are still trying to practice it properly . we will not know if the democratic process will work in Iraq for many years , it is aready painfully obvious that one large group of Iraqi citizens are not real fond of the idea of a democratic political process ,those are the sunni muslims.for a true democracy to work all those involved have to .....A. want it and B.abide by the results of decisions made through the process, this includes both the majority as well as the minorty group....i guess what i'm trying to say is it must be built by those who wish to live in it like what our founders did ,not ESTABLISHED by people from an ocean away who are not going to even be involved in the future of their country , unless we plan to occupy for 30 or 40 years until all the minorities are killed off and we have one happy democratic group with no one else to fight( one party ....well i guess that would be a monarchy , or worse)

Answer 8

Saddam was a stabilizing factor in the area, kept his country from civil war. Iran wanted his overthrown as they always had intentions of turning it into a religious state like themselves. Bush Sr. advisors were told that during the first war none of his neighbors wanted him remove just under control. Now Iraq has no strong leadership, fighting among themselves and Americans and our allies dying needlessly just because Cowboy George wanted to show us how big his gun is.

Answer 9

I don't think he was as much a threat in Reagan's time, Daddy Bush didn't have the balls to go after him and finish the job, Clinton was too busy with himself, which leaves the mess up to the current President Bush.

As far as setting up a democratic society, I think they're too content killing each other and everybody else to concern themselves with a functioning government.

Answer 10

I heard there were two reasons:

1) US did not want Iraq to erupt in Anarchy (at that time).

2) Saddam had American hostages and US threatened to take him out if he harmed the hostages. Saddam released the hostages and US kept their end of the bargain.

Answer 11

WEll its not as easy as you think it is.
Dont forget that not every country is made up of people who think like americans.
maybe they do not exactly value democracy, or their model of ideal democracy is different.
or perhaps they do watn democracy, but feel that the Us has no business interfering.
change that is sudden will shock the system. do not forget that. imagine if suddenly US became a dictatorship! there will surely be some struggle of power, right?