Baker: I am no longer asked why we did not remove Saddam

Great piece of traditional realist thinking published in today's Times.

 

Just lucky none of that came true, then.

 

Very clever use of words here, crafted to appear to say "I told you so", but actually only appearing wise after the event. Baker is trying to make himself look good while not accusing anyone else of being stupid, and it won't wash.

The Coalition didn't stop in 1991 because they suspected what the outcome would be (as has actually transpired in 2006) if they removed Saddam Hussein. If that were the case, why didn't some clever Americans persuade Dubya not to do it this time around?

Nor was the reason they stopped in 1991 anything to do with the Mitla Ridge turkey shoot, although that gave us a nice excuse to wrap it up after a nice round 100 hours. I believe it had more to do with being afraid of the very things that we allegedly went to war for this time around, but which turned out not to exist.

Then again, how stupid is that? To press for regime change for the self same reason that you didn't push on and remove the dictator last time.

What Baker didn't reveal was what people are probably asking him instead. Not "why didn't you remove Saddam Hussein last time?", but "why the hell did you do it this time?"

 

I thought he was doing pretty well until I hit this bit:

then I decided I'd like a pint of whatever he was drinking when he wrote it.

 

BDS observes,

Totally agree. Everyone is now trying to potray themselves in a more favorable light because they heard that the first draft of history is being written. He goes on to say:

Sounds like someone just picked up today's paper and is trying to "predict" the past. If Old Jimmy has said this circa 2002/3 then he would have sounded more believable. Now he sounds more like the boy who did not cry wolf...even when the wolf walked right by him and slapped him in the arrse.