How come we didnt take down Saddam in the first gulf war?

Question

Ive been thinking how come we didnt take down Saddam on the first war when every nation like france was on our side. The US wouldnt be in this mess if we did and if we did what would happen would there be insurgents or a easier occupation.

Answer 1

From the "making money for the few", it was not at that time a good idea. Now it is. Look who is benefiting from our troops been killed over there now.

Answer 2

I'd have to say it is a combination of what TomKat152 and Tim P stated and a little extra.

It was not our objective at that time. We had a treaty with Kuwait and getting them out of there and protecting them was the main objective at the time. We also had to consider the U.N., but I'll have to disagree with Tim P. We didn't follow their rules to the letter. We were pretty much the driving force then and everyone followed our lead, but we had to consider how other countries would react to what we did and they would not have reacted well if we went in at that time. I'll agree it would have been easier to target Saddam at the time, but there are certain rules to war. One rule is you don't target a nation's leadership in most cases. You have to have someone in charge to negotiate with. (Surrender, demands, etc.). Also, you want the country’s leadership as stable as possible to minimize civilian casualties and suffering that comes about if a country is at war and looses it leadership. (Riots, thefts, starvation, etc). Basically, if you take out the leadership it would wreak havoc. It would be a lot worse than what is happening there now. Yeah, I can hear you saying... Dang we should have done it and sometimes I feel that way myself, but the United States wants to keep things somewhat ethical.

Answer 3

The1991 Gulf War was a United Nations mandated mission, and taking out Saddam was not part of the U.N. mandate.
It was widely thought that Saddam would be so weakened by his humiliating defeat, that he could not stay in power much longer.
The kinds of difficulties we are seeing now, could have happened then, if we had invaded Iraq at that time. So it was hoped that he would be taken out by Iraqis, and outside intervention wouldn't be necessary.

Answer 4

I served in the first Gulf War as well as in the present one. Our objectives the first time around were dictated by the UN resolution which only allowed us to defend Kuaiit and force the Iraqi army back to Iraq. We were not to 'take out' Saddam. We did however try do to so through various actions. It is much more difficult than you think to accomplish an assination of a figure such as Saddam, it's not like the movies. So to answer your question we did what we were told to do by the UN. This time around we decided to do what was necessary inspite of the UN. Funny thing is...guys like you complain that we didn't get him the first time said we should go against the UN resolutions and then this time around complain that we are going against the UN by being there this time around...kind of hypocritical, don't you think??

Answer 5

War is a mess, no matter the year. Your question (which you answer yourself) is very valid.

I may not make any points on this answer, but here it goes.

I recently was pall bearer for my uncle, who was a multi-decorated WWII POW vet. I spent some time thinking about what hell he went through, along with all the others there. Do you know that about 6,000 US servicemen died every month for 60 straight months in that war?

George H.W. Bush went through the same time period.

I think these men, once they got home, said to themselves, "I'll NEVER make my sons go though that!" and many resolved to keep the kids out of the military, the nation out of conflicts.

But, they could not make up the minds of other countries and terrorists of all sorts. So, against all of their\our wishes, evil men keep creating turbulent situations.

Over many years, our military was diminished in numbers, strength, and purpose.

George H.W. Bush & company took a lot of time but finally got around to slapping tyrant Saddam H's fingers. I believe they should have given Saddam a little Sharia-style Islamic justice.

Was it wisdom or timidity? I'll wager that G.H.W. Bush is wondering that himself these days.

Answer 6

No doubt maybe the same things would have happened that are happening now. That's something we will never know. Saddam wanted to control everything back then and we went in there and basically drove him out. A tyrant like him should have probably been dealt with right away.

Answer 7

Papa Bush didn't want to do anything else but liberate Kuwait. He wagered that the Iraqis would topple Saddam in a popular insurrection. Well, that got terribly repressed and many died.

In retrospect, having the international coalition stroll up to Baghdad to take out Saddam while people were revolting would've taken out his regime in a manner that would've been more acceptable to the populace.

Answer 8

I think we're seeing the answer to that question right now.

You remove a strongman like Saddam in a divided country, and all hell breaks lose. I bet it would have happened in the early 90's too.

Answer 9

Ask Colin Powell. Schwartzkopf and Bush wanted in, but Powell refused to march on Baghdad. In the end, they agreed that it would be too risky and expensive to invade Iraq at that time, believing that it would be cheaper and safer to let Saddam alone. Bad risk, I suppose.

Answer 10

Because, like now, there was no justification for doing it.

Bush Sr. knew what would happen to the region if he took Sadam out, and so stopped. Jr. is a traitor to the US and demon who does not care how many people he kills nor how much destruction he causes. The more death the better to him.