Why was the Iraq problem so easy for General Swartzkoff and yet so hard for BUSH???

Question

IT SEEMS AN AVERAGE MAN WOULD AT LEAST ASK SWARTZKOFF HOW HE DID IT.

A lot of good answers

Thank yoy all

Answer 1

43, you are a whack attack!

I honestly don't think that Islamic terror groups were organized enough in the early 90s. If Bush Sr. had gone in, he would have overthrown Saddam, and things might have been groovy. But with the growth of the internet, cell phones, etc. it is cheap and easy for everyone to call the terrorist party line.

'sides, Schwartzkopf did not actually invade Iraq.

Answer 2

because its 2 very different situations in the swartzkoff time Iraq was invading Kuwait with a regular army new weapons were introduced to the world them the Iraqi army was shocked and it had no chance of standing in a regular war against the US army but the president them choose not to occupy Iraq because he knew it would ruin every thing and he was right.
bush did defeat Saddam Hussein on the ground but winning a war against a large scale organized gorilla army has never been done by a modern regular army before in history. ever.
but just didn't see it coming.
if he wins though it will be the first

Answer 3

Schwartzkopf's instructions from Bush Sr were simply to oust Iraq from Kuwait. Bush Sr knew (as he wrote in his book with Scowcroft), that going into Baghdad, toppling Saddam and trying to hold the country would have bogged America down in a prolonged guerilla war.

If only W had asked his father for advice, instead of listening to the voices in his head which he mistakes for God, the world would be a much better place right now.

Answer 4

Schwatzkopf had a pure objective, once that objective was achieved he was victorious. They did not go into Baghdad in the first war for a reason....NO EXIT STRATEGY!! "W" shoulda listened to his old man.

So now "W" is in Baghdad and guess what..."NO EXIT STRATEGY"

First off Norman Schwatzkopf was a general under command of the president of the US, who at the time was Bush sr. He has nothing to do with the political strategies that dominate this conflict.

Second, I am sure that "Stormin'" Norman and "W" sat down and talked about the initial invasion.

Answer 5

Once again you are comparing the ability of a General on the ground and a President who has Generals on the ground. Our president gave our military a mission to Carry out the same as his father gave Swartzkoff and they are doing it. the mission our troops are engaged in today is a much more complicated mission than Swartzkoff had. Your description of hard for Bush is inaccurate and i know you meant it to be.

Answer 6

Norman Schwartzkopf is/was a military strategist, a decorated General with much tactical experience, under orders. His decisions were based solely on military strategy. His adversaries were in the desert, not hiding in populated cities.
If it were a matter of "kill the enemy without care of collateral damage" this war would be over with one nuclear strike.

Answer 7

Because Bush is not a general Teddy Kennedy thinks he is but he is busy right now Something about a contributor named Jack,
Jack Daniels

Answer 8

You have to understand that the war that Swartzkoff was in dealt with different things than the current war. One took more a defensive stance while the other is an offensive one. It's easier to provide defense than it is to attack a "fortified" city (Art of War - Sun Tzu).

Answer 9

He had upwards of 40 nations on board, and even HE was thwarted by Bush 41 in going to Baghdad and taking Saddam down. They don't really do it for decisive victory, they do it to generate levels of control and corporate opportunity. As long as you see it for what it is, it's all very clear.

Answer 10

George has NO military experience. If he did, he never would have ordered the invasion of Iraq. Especially since Sadam (as terrible as he is) was against terrorism and was doing a better job than we are of keeping them out of Iraq.