Remember the psychobabble claiming that George W. Bush went to war in Iraq to settle the scores of his father? In a strange way, he has. Foreign policy ideologues lambasted Bush the Elder for failing to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq. Bush the Elder's ambitions were more limited: eject the Iraqis from Kuwait and secure the Saudi Arabian border. For more than a decade, would-be nation-builders dreamed of what might have been had Bush 41 unleashed Norman Schwarzkopf upon Bagdhad. Now we know, fifteen years later, why he didn't--and why his restraint was wise. In the wake of disaster in Iraq and disaster at the ballot box, George W. Bush turns to George H.W. Bush for advice. The current president might have saved himself, and the nation, a lot of trouble by soliciting such counsel before embarking upon his Iraq venture.

The question becomes; Would George Bush senior have advised his son not to invade?

I much prefer the foreign policy of Bush 41 to Bush 43. My believe that Bush the second would be more similar to his father than he was, was a factor that lead me to support the war.

But 2003 was not the same strategic situation as 1991. The presence of Saudi Arabia as a American ally in the region made the case, for invading Iraq, and in so doing unleashing Iran, quite unconvincing at that time.

In 2003, our relationship with Saudi Arabia had changed, and so had the broader situation. It was no longer, I think, the case, that the cost of removing Iran's chief rival in the region outweighed the benefits to us of having Saddam Hussein out of power.

The would be "nation builders" would argue that the policy was the correct one and it has simply been badly executed. In any event, if we and our allies were going to transform Iraq into a western style democracy we would have needed to, at a minimum, commit vastly more troops to the invasion. I suspect we may have had a chance had we commited about 500,000 troops and been willing to give it 50 years. Also, we never should have allowed Islamic parties into the electoral process.

We were not going to keep Islamic parties out of the electoral process nor were we going to commit 500,000 troops or 50 years to the process. As such, a campaign to transform Iraq into a "democracy" never should have been undertaken.

To further complicate matters, the new government of Iraq appears to be much closer to Iran than it is to us. Iran is a much greater threat to the US than Iraq ever was or ever could be.

In any event, we will be seeing major changes in strategy now. I'm concerned that the Bush 41 team may try to squeeze Israel into making more unilateral concessions to their enemies in hopes of achieving some semblance of peace in Iraq and the broader middle east. I hope they don't pursue that route. It would only make matters worse.

The key to Iraq and to the broader GWOT is to do something about Iran. The best option would be to seek regime change in Iran but the US will not pursue that. I suspect the US will opt for some type of containment strategy. For better or worse, I think the only way the US will confront Iran in the foreseeable future will be through proxies.

If the US fails to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel will act to do so. They will have no choice. Hopefully it will not come to that but if it does the US should stay out of Israel's way. If possible. the US could supply diplomatic cover for the Israelis within the UN.

I know that the correlation between Iraq and 9/11 is thin at best, but Bush #1 didn’t get smacked in the face with a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Bush #2 did and I don’t think that justification for the current war based on the reaction factor can be underestimated. It still seems as though B1 had more reason to go in as our first foray into Iraq was directly the result of Iraqi aggression in that part of the world and defensive in nature. B2’s second act was a full fledged offensive based on one indirectly related event that had little to do with Iraqi aggression.

On the surface, B1 had much more of a reason and justification to launch an attack against Iraq than B2 did. For that, B2 is paying the price.

All those quotes by Cheney back in 1992 have long struck me as odd given his push to overthrow Saddam since the late 90's. I think I just do not fundamentally understand the mindset of the neocons and their fellow travelers.

Here are some of the old Cheney quotes:
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.

"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.

"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

Bruce: Cheney sure can talk like a conservative sometimes, can't he?

Wow. That's a stark contrast.

"The would be "nation builders" would argue that the policy was the correct one and it has simply been badly executed. In any event, if we and our allies were going to transform Iraq into a western style democracy we would have needed to, at a minimum, commit vastly more troops to the invasion. I suspect we may have had a chance had we commited about 500,000 troops and been willing to give it 50 years. Also, we never should have allowed Islamic parties into the electoral process." -B.Poster

Democracy was an afterthought, trucked out when the CNN effect of not finding stockpiles of WMDs didn't look so good.

As such it should be abandoned, as not strategically necessary to success, and a drain on resources. It would have been great to achieve, but it isn't necessary to achieve, and isn't necessary to completing our goals.

"If the US fails to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel will act to do so. They will have no choice. Hopefully it will not come to that but if it does the US should stay out of Israel's way. If possible. the US could supply diplomatic cover for the Israelis within the UN." -B.Poster

The US will be incapable of remaining on the sidelines in an Israel v. Iran conflict. Its either going to be a US battle with Iran (whether initiated by us, Iran, or Israel) or the formation of an anti-Iranian alliance in the region.

If it is to be a battle, I imagine it will be started by Israeli attacks on Iranian nukes sites. Iran will be forced to respond in the only way it can-by closing off the Straight of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil supply passes each and every day.

The result will be a brief naval war between the US and Iran in the straight, which Iran will be incapable of winning. Still, I cannot imagine that the US would be willing to give a force contribution to any such conflict of greater than 1-2 Carrier Battle Groups and a battalion or so of US Marines.

The other scenario is that the US will form an anti-Iran alliance in the region, similar to the NATO that was formed to counter Soviet expansionism at the onset of the Cold War. Likely members of this alliance would include Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and (perhaps unofficially-to avoid tensions) Israel.

Skeptic and Ralph,

I have even read some more quotes from Cheney from the First Gulf War which make his last point about who would govern Iraq post-Saddam even stronger, but in my quick internet search I couldn't find them. They had to do w/ his recognition then of the deep ethnic and religious divisions in the country.

I have long found Cheney and Rumsfeld enigmas. They seemed like innately conservative guys and very realist, even through the attack on Afghanistan in the case of Rummy. His approach to the military which stresses small forces, special ops and high grade technology seems to me a very good one for defending this country, and one that wouldn't entail as huge a military-industrial-congress complex (that Ike warned of).

I have no clue why they became so dead-set and convinced on cutting short the pursuit of Bin Laden in Tora Bora and attacking Iraq. Possibly Cheney in the Gulf War I era was only speaking on behalf of the administration's policy? And he all along truly wanted to topple Saddam by any means necessary? I actually wouldn't mind if the Dems decide to investigate how exactly the administration pushed for and got this war as I am curious myself.

Just in the interests of completeness I can now add the full Cheney quote from 1991 on not taking down Saddam. I ran across it here: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/article.html

"Once you get to Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that going to have if it’s set up by the American military there? How long does the United States military have to stay there to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens once we leave?"

Strange how these very questions should have been asked 4 years ago and were not. Not by Cheney, not by any Democrat in Congress or by any organ of movement conservatism.