Why didn't we just finish the job in Iraq when we were there the first time around?

Question

I'm talking about the job we're supposed to be finishing right now. Why didn't we just finish the job when we were there the first time.

Answer 1

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."
-- Former President George H.W. Bush

Answer 2

You're definition of "finish" comes into play here; however, to cover some of the basics already answered: we were there to liberate Kuwait and limit, i.e. "hurt" Iraq's ability to do something similar in the future. Having accomplished both we made some attempts at Saddam, but gave up as that was not the mission nor politcally acceptable to continue to hunt him to no end.

If by finish the job you mean we were/are there for oil than I'd ask why we haven't taken it to make our gas cheaper (though it's been like $5/gallon in Europe for years), or that it was for Bush's redemption (ok, Saddam's been prosecuted--though I'm sure we'd want any leader of the US who killed thousands of Americans punished by someone if we couldn't do anything about it), or that we should have seen civil/guerilla war spawning (read "See No Evil"). Bottom line is that this could have all been stopped years ago by a sponsored coup and both parties are to blame for wimping out on making it happen for reasons that open a whole new discussion.

Call me whatever, but here's a dose of reality. Some 3000 US troops or so, plus whatever # of civilian deaths we can believe have occurred in this. However; many more die EVERY YEAR from drunken driving. Yet, more people call for impeaching a president, wearing buttons, ending the war or protesting the war than the single act we can control of not letting a friend, stranger, co-worker get in a car and drive after having some drinks. Cheerio.

Answer 3

I was there. We didn't finish the job? I think we did at that time we came over to kick him out of Kuwait so we finished the job. Now to what you are referring to as now we are trying diplomacy that takes alot of time thing do look better over here I am in Iraq now the news only reports the bad and makes them look worse don't belive the news and support the troops

Answer 4

No one wanted to do it 'cause the guys running the US at that time were worried about getting into the kind of conflict that we're now in.

Also, Bush the First had a LOT of countries on board for Gulf War I (50, 80, I don't know but it was plenty of countries); there were a lot of Arab countries, too, and none of them would have sanctioned our occupying Iraq. Not that they could have stopped us but there were realists, not neocons, running State and Defense in 1991. Realists support military action only when they deem it vital to the nation's national security interests. In the case of Gulf War I, they didn't consider that Iraq met that test.

The realists considered Saddam very useful in stymieing Iran's expansionist impulses. And he was useful in doing that - but, in the end, the man was just too stupid to hang onto power. Megalomania is a truly awful disease - both to those who suffer from it and to those who suffer under their dictatorships.

Answer 5

It's part of the deal Bush 41 had to make in order to get all the international backing. The international force was there to liberate Kuwait, not topple Saddam.

Answer 6

I'm a conservative and I say, Bush senior was too much of a wimp. It's unbelievable how he halted Swartzkopf's advance into Baghdad.

By Bush senior's reasoning, just pushing Hitler back inside Germany would have been all that was necessary. Thank God he wasn't in charge back then.

Answer 7

Prior to this Administration, they could have finished it too, could have had Bin Laden several times. If the left side has their way, we will flat out lose it this time.

Answer 8

You mean take out Hussein? There was some talk about doing that at that time, but Bush Sr's advisors told him not to do it. They thought that if they did so, the country would erupt into chaos, possibly civil war, and we would not be able to control the situation. They were right.

Answer 9

it's not about finishing a job. it's about sustaining profits. and it's still going very well for those that are benefiting.

Answer 10

Because President Bush adhered to the provisions of the UN resolution.