whitecity
LE

Great piece of traditional realist thinking published in today's Times.
The Times Online said:I am no longer asked why we did not remove Saddam
The Former Secretary of State heads the Iraq Study Group, which publishes on Wednesday its long-awaited review of US operations in Iraq. In his memoirs he recounts his thoughts about the importance of removing Saddam Hussein and the difficulties of occupying the country
For years, the question I was most often asked about Desert Storm is why we did not remove Saddam Hussein from power. [The answer is that] A coalition war to liberate Kuwait could then have been portrayed as a US war of conquest. Furthermore, even if Saddam were captured and his regime toppled, American forces would still have been confronted with the spectre of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify a country and sustain a new government in power. The ensuing urban warfare would surely have resulted in more casualties to American GIs than the war itself, thus creating a political firestorm at home.
And as much as Saddamâs neighbours wanted to see him gone, they feared Iraq would fragment in unpredictable ways that would play into the hands of the mullahs in Iran, who could export their brand of Islamic fundamentalism with the help of Iraqâs Shias and quickly transform themselves into a dominant regional power.
Cont/...