Gulf War I. Margaret Thatcher Was Right.
Of course, as I've said before, Margaret Thatcher was right. We should have completely destroyed the Iraqi military.
I blame SecDefDick Cheney and CJCS Gen. Colin Powell for that. They saw the "Highway of Death" and lost their spine. Thank goodness they were nowhere around Normandy in 1944. And of course it was ultimately Pres. George H.W. Bush's decision. Not long before he died, Bush admitted that it might have been a mistake to not have removed Saddam Hussein from power in 1991.
I think the best outcome would have been the total collapse of the Iraqi military and Hussein's capture. Gen. Barry McCaffrey's 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) would have absolutely destroyed the Republican Guard units as they fled towards Basra. But they were given the order to halt. Thousands of Shias paid would pay the price for that with their lives.
When the "cease-fire" docs were signed, the Iraqi generals asked to discuss POW exchanges. They were in disbelief over the amount of prisoners the coalition had taken. They had no idea themselves of how badly defeated they were. So how could the Iraqi people?
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf had wanted the Iraqis to sign a surrender onboard the battleship USS Missouri and broadcast it throughout Iraq, so the Iraqi people could see just how badly their leader lost the war. He was overrulled.
The Iraqis asked if the no-fly zone could exclude helicopters because we had destoyed much of their communications ability. They were given permission and then abused that grant by later massacring thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq.
Saddam Hussen should have been put on trial for a whole list of international war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons on Iranian civilian populations.
How might that have effected our relations with Iran? It wouldn't have hurt, that's for sure.
Hung him and be done with it. Then out of Saudi Arabia.
I still believe and will continue to maintain that if we didn't stay in Saudi Arabia once we would have finished Hussein for good, there's a better chance than not of the 9/11 terrorist attacks not happening. Perhaps not the London and Madrid bombings either. Osama bin Laden used U.S. and western Allies presence in Saudi Arabia as a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. That would have been denied to him.
Many Brits don't like Thatcher, mostly for her conservative economic policies.
But she was right on about Saddam Hussein.
As for going to Bahgdad:
Q: But do you think they did it because of resolution 678--that being ambiguous and unclear as to what the real war aims were.
Q: How do you think this crisis is finally going to be resolved? Do you think the people of Iraq will do it themselves or do you think somehow that the West has got to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Q: Do you think we betrayed the Kurds?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/thatcher/1.html
---
But when giving President Richard Nixon's eulogy, former SecState Henry Kissinger said:
(I'm sure that Kissinger cleaned-up the language a little bit.)
---
And of course there was Marshal Ferdinand Foch's warning about the Treaty of Versailles.
He was off by one year.
I blame SecDefDick Cheney and CJCS Gen. Colin Powell for that. They saw the "Highway of Death" and lost their spine. Thank goodness they were nowhere around Normandy in 1944. And of course it was ultimately Pres. George H.W. Bush's decision. Not long before he died, Bush admitted that it might have been a mistake to not have removed Saddam Hussein from power in 1991.
I think the best outcome would have been the total collapse of the Iraqi military and Hussein's capture. Gen. Barry McCaffrey's 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) would have absolutely destroyed the Republican Guard units as they fled towards Basra. But they were given the order to halt. Thousands of Shias paid would pay the price for that with their lives.
When the "cease-fire" docs were signed, the Iraqi generals asked to discuss POW exchanges. They were in disbelief over the amount of prisoners the coalition had taken. They had no idea themselves of how badly defeated they were. So how could the Iraqi people?
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf had wanted the Iraqis to sign a surrender onboard the battleship USS Missouri and broadcast it throughout Iraq, so the Iraqi people could see just how badly their leader lost the war. He was overrulled.
The Iraqis asked if the no-fly zone could exclude helicopters because we had destoyed much of their communications ability. They were given permission and then abused that grant by later massacring thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq.
Saddam Hussen should have been put on trial for a whole list of international war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons on Iranian civilian populations.
How might that have effected our relations with Iran? It wouldn't have hurt, that's for sure.
Hung him and be done with it. Then out of Saudi Arabia.
I still believe and will continue to maintain that if we didn't stay in Saudi Arabia once we would have finished Hussein for good, there's a better chance than not of the 9/11 terrorist attacks not happening. Perhaps not the London and Madrid bombings either. Osama bin Laden used U.S. and western Allies presence in Saudi Arabia as a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. That would have been denied to him.
Many Brits don't like Thatcher, mostly for her conservative economic policies.
But she was right on about Saddam Hussein.
Aggressors must be stopped, not only stopped, but they must be thrown out. An aggressor cannot gain from his aggression. He must be thrown out and really, by that time in my mind, I thought we ought to throw him out so decisively that he could never think of doing it again. ... Dictators must be stopped. They must not be able to march into other peoples' territory, rule their lives, take away their whole mode of existence and just get away with it.
Sanctions don't work. There's a possibility that we would cut off a lot of the money flowing to Iraq, by cutting out the oil. Sanctions are still on Iraq. They haven't worked now. You have to put sanctions on and make it quite clear that you are doing so, but I'm afraid that there's a great deal of smuggling which goes on across borders. There always is and proof positive is, they don't work, is there still there, and indeed if we hadn't taken action, Kuwait would still have been occupied and the people under the most terrible tyranny.
And of course you know the Iraqis took hostages as they retreated, they took hostages. Not only prisoners of war but hostages. They just gathered them and pulled them out of the house and took them back with them and some of those, I think something like between 500 and 600 of those are still not back at their homes in Kuwait. This is what you are dealing with, this is the sort of person you have to deal with firmly.
It's not enough just to reverse the invasion. If you leave them with an army strong enough to come back and do it again. You've got, as we knew, you've got to destroy their army. We couldn't bring down Saddam Hussein. What I thought it was our job to do, was to make it quite clear to the world and particularly the people who'd been wronged, that he'd been totally and utterly defeated and his army had been totally and utterly defeated. So that he couldn't come back again.
And it didn't seem to me that that part of it was fully achieved. And you know full well they went and attacked the Kurds, they went and attacked the Marsh Arabs and the Republican Guard.
And of course you know the Iraqis took hostages as they retreated, they took hostages. Not only prisoners of war but hostages. They just gathered them and pulled them out of the house and took them back with them and some of those, I think something like between 500 and 600 of those are still not back at their homes in Kuwait. This is what you are dealing with, this is the sort of person you have to deal with firmly.
It's not enough just to reverse the invasion. If you leave them with an army strong enough to come back and do it again. You've got, as we knew, you've got to destroy their army. We couldn't bring down Saddam Hussein. What I thought it was our job to do, was to make it quite clear to the world and particularly the people who'd been wronged, that he'd been totally and utterly defeated and his army had been totally and utterly defeated. So that he couldn't come back again.
And it didn't seem to me that that part of it was fully achieved. And you know full well they went and attacked the Kurds, they went and attacked the Marsh Arabs and the Republican Guard.
As for going to Bahgdad:
I don't know that it was necessary, I don't know that it was necessary to go onto Baghdad, I wasn't there at the time, nor what changes they made to the rules of engagement. You're asking me views on things er to which I was not privy. But I had after all, I hope, managed as Prime Minister, things reasonably successful before, successfully before, and, just look now. Its not over.
When you're dealing with a dictator, he has got not only to be defeated, well and truly, but he has got to be seen to be defeated.
Half measures never work, you've either got to do the job properly and show the world you're serious so they better not let it happen again. No half measures, just not on.
That would have left Kuwait, an enormous asset, completely in the hands of Saddam Hussein, and the people there, and they weren't being treated well as you know. And you recall some of the scenes on television, I remember them very vividly, there was Saddam Hussein, seeing some of our hostages whom he'd taken, hostages. And patting a charming young boy on the head and saying, we're keeping you here so that your country can't attack us.
I had already seen the Emir of Kuwait and some of his ministers, and made it quite clear that as far as I was concerned, we had to do the job properly and then I just went on television and said, I simply don't understand it. There's Saddam Hussein, a dictator, a man hiding behind the skirts of women and children, what sort of man is that?
Now, the generals in the Gulf, weren't even allowed to take a surrender. I have forgotten what they called it, was it a truce? Those people should have been seen to have been defeated, they should have surrendered their equipment and their armed forces. They knew full well, it had been well treated with us.
And I just didn't understand it, this is how we'd done it in the Falklands and then you have to look after all of the people who you have taken prisoner of war, of course you do, but it could have been done, many of them surrendered of course and came over, but there are a lot that totally got away, including the Republican Army.
So the people of Iraq never saw this dictator, humiliated and beaten.
I think that there were people who said look, Kuwait is free, we've done what we came to do. Let us free it, let us just stop now. What they didn't have any regard to was that the same thing can be done again, unless their army is destroyed.
Now sanctions admittedly are still on, but you couldn't bring down Saddam Hussein directly. You could only bring him down by humiliating him. It was not done. Not even the marvellous battle they'd fought, not even to take a surrender, and I think someone said 100 hours isn't that marvellous, we've done it all in 100 hours. Let's stop now, for the job had not been properly done.
When you're dealing with a dictator, he has got not only to be defeated, well and truly, but he has got to be seen to be defeated.
Half measures never work, you've either got to do the job properly and show the world you're serious so they better not let it happen again. No half measures, just not on.
That would have left Kuwait, an enormous asset, completely in the hands of Saddam Hussein, and the people there, and they weren't being treated well as you know. And you recall some of the scenes on television, I remember them very vividly, there was Saddam Hussein, seeing some of our hostages whom he'd taken, hostages. And patting a charming young boy on the head and saying, we're keeping you here so that your country can't attack us.
I had already seen the Emir of Kuwait and some of his ministers, and made it quite clear that as far as I was concerned, we had to do the job properly and then I just went on television and said, I simply don't understand it. There's Saddam Hussein, a dictator, a man hiding behind the skirts of women and children, what sort of man is that?
Now, the generals in the Gulf, weren't even allowed to take a surrender. I have forgotten what they called it, was it a truce? Those people should have been seen to have been defeated, they should have surrendered their equipment and their armed forces. They knew full well, it had been well treated with us.
And I just didn't understand it, this is how we'd done it in the Falklands and then you have to look after all of the people who you have taken prisoner of war, of course you do, but it could have been done, many of them surrendered of course and came over, but there are a lot that totally got away, including the Republican Army.
So the people of Iraq never saw this dictator, humiliated and beaten.
I think that there were people who said look, Kuwait is free, we've done what we came to do. Let us free it, let us just stop now. What they didn't have any regard to was that the same thing can be done again, unless their army is destroyed.
Now sanctions admittedly are still on, but you couldn't bring down Saddam Hussein directly. You could only bring him down by humiliating him. It was not done. Not even the marvellous battle they'd fought, not even to take a surrender, and I think someone said 100 hours isn't that marvellous, we've done it all in 100 hours. Let's stop now, for the job had not been properly done.
Q: But do you think they did it because of resolution 678--that being ambiguous and unclear as to what the real war aims were.
If you are to stop an aggressor, you not only have to stop him on that occasion. You have to make certain that those who flouted every rule of decent behavior in fighting the war are brought before a tribunal and you also, in fact, have to see that the army surrenders everything they've got, and the people so they cannot do it again.
Q: How do you think this crisis is finally going to be resolved? Do you think the people of Iraq will do it themselves or do you think somehow that the West has got to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
I don't see how the West can, we had the chance to to, to defeat him and make him surrender, I don't think we can. There is a balance of power there, certainly, between Iraq and Iran, very much so and now we are all watching very carefully, what happens to some of the weaponry that is coming out of the former Soviet Union, and obviously there has to be some equipment still kept down the Gulf in case we have to have a look at it again. Now, just look, there is the aggressor, Saddam Hussein, still in power. There is the President of the United States, no longer in power. There is the Prime Minister of Britain who did quite a lot to get things there, no longer in power. I wonder who won?
Q: Do you think we betrayed the Kurds?
I think the public opinion was very strong at the time and it was public opinion which virtually insisted that these people must in fact be guarded, and indeed they were, but the problem still isn't fully solved and indeed, in addition you have the Marsh Muslims who lived in the marshlands in the south of Iraq. Their rights haven't been properly regarded either.
You see so much of the problems we are dealing with now, comes from the end of World War I.
The German empire collapsed. The Austrio-Hungarian empire collapsed. The Turkish empire collapsed and the British empire went on and also the French empire did, but right down the heart of the whole of Europe were countries with strange names, which were put together artificially and so, Czechoslovakia came into existence and so because of the collapse of the Turkish empire, Palestine was put together and we the Britons were given a mandate to have regard to that.
And, because the Turkish empire again had collapsed, the pieces of Iraqi, administrative areas from the Turkish empire were put together, merely because they'd been administrative regions and they were put together and called Iraq. And all of the countries, the Balkans, many of them were put together and called Yugoslavia, and we're still suffering from the un-wisdom of some of those events, and we still haven't sorted it all out.
You see so much of the problems we are dealing with now, comes from the end of World War I.
The German empire collapsed. The Austrio-Hungarian empire collapsed. The Turkish empire collapsed and the British empire went on and also the French empire did, but right down the heart of the whole of Europe were countries with strange names, which were put together artificially and so, Czechoslovakia came into existence and so because of the collapse of the Turkish empire, Palestine was put together and we the Britons were given a mandate to have regard to that.
And, because the Turkish empire again had collapsed, the pieces of Iraqi, administrative areas from the Turkish empire were put together, merely because they'd been administrative regions and they were put together and called Iraq. And all of the countries, the Balkans, many of them were put together and called Yugoslavia, and we're still suffering from the un-wisdom of some of those events, and we still haven't sorted it all out.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/thatcher/1.html
---
But when giving President Richard Nixon's eulogy, former SecState Henry Kissinger said:
He drew strength from a conviction he often expressed to me:
"The price for doing things halfway is no less than for doing it completely; so we might as well do them properly."
"The price for doing things halfway is no less than for doing it completely; so we might as well do them properly."
(I'm sure that Kissinger cleaned-up the language a little bit.)
---
And of course there was Marshal Ferdinand Foch's warning about the Treaty of Versailles.
This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years.
He was off by one year.
36-40, FVIP
