From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: US Cruise missile's accuracy
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:37:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1993Jan24.183705.5479
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <bob1.727736358@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1993Jan21.143448.29210@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.213940.5270@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> watsonb@alcohol.ecn.purdue.edu (Bradley S Watson) writes:
>>>>J10B <J10B@UNB.CA> writes:

>>>:                                             And how dare one criticize
>>>:the rest of the world for being savage and ignorant of human rights while
>>>:one's own actions reek of such ignorance and blatant disregard for life??

>>>During this conflict, the US has tried to keep the number of civilian
>>>deaths to a minimum.  After the Iraqi army was smashed and Kuwait 
>>>liberated, we could easily have rolled into Baghdad and taken over the
>>>whole country.  Instead, we declared a cease-fire to avoid Iraqi
>>>civilian deaths.

>>	No, we declared a cease-fire to ensure that enough would be
>>left of the Iraqi army that any rebellion that occurred could be
>>crushed, to satisfy our ally, Turkey, and also to ensure that Iraq
>>remained sufficiently strong to act as a balance to Iran.

>How short memories are. How much of the coalition do you all suppose
>would have supported continuing on to Baghdad? The US would have
>suddenly out in front all alone, condemned by the whole world for
>exceeding the UN mandate, which was simply to force Iraq to withdraw
>from Kuwait.

	Granted, the coalition ould not have supported us.  However, I
remember reading that that US forces slowed down, so coalition forces
would liberate Kuwait City, not just Americans.  The American army has
the ability to fight without coalition partners.

	However, you are correct.  The UN mandate was to force Iraq to
withdraw.  However, we went nearly all the way to Basra, and this was
not seen as excessive by our partners.  (It was called excessive by
many others.)  The US army did not do enought to force Iraq to
withdraw from Kuwait.  This is demonstrated by Iraqs continuing
instragence in the face of UN resolutions, its sending troops into
Kuwait, etc.  It is becoming clear that our victory was not complete.

>>	Doubtlessly, a desire to avoid further American casualties
>>contributed to the decision, as did George Bush's desire to end the
>>war at a "round" hundred hours.  Reports at the time indicated that
>>both Collin Powel and Norman Schwartzkof (sp?) opposed ending the war
>>that soon, as they understood that the Iraqi army was not smashed.

>Understandable from a military viewpoint, but again - the coalition
>forces were there under UN mandate, which said nothing about smashing
>Saddam's army.

	They did call for his removal from Kuwait.  Just last week, he sent
troops into Kuwait.  He has repeatedly violated the ceasefire
agreements.  When you win a war, you extract a price rom the loser,
quantified in the cease-fire agreement.  Iraq does not consider itself
required to abide by the cease fire, and we should continue fighting
until it does.

>>>After the war, when Saddam started killing his people,
>>>we risked our own pilots and planes to protect the Kurds and Shiites
>>>with the no-fly zones.

>>	Actually, we did not risk our own pilots and planes until the
>>American people indicated outrage at the fact that the supposedly
>>crushed Iraqi army was managing to deal quite nicely with the Shiite
>>and Kurdish rebellions.

>>>Then after Sadam started bombing
>>>UN convoys in the north, launching raids into Kuwait, defying the no-fly
>>>zones, and interferring with UN inspections, we chose to retaliate
>>>against targets that would put very few civilians at risk.
>
>>	The only question is why did we wait so long?  He has been
>>ignoring the no-fly zones since a few weeks after the cease-fire,
>>blatantly taking documents from UN inspectors, refusing them entry to
>>important buildings, refusing their advice on the destruction of the
>>supergun, etc etc.
>
>Why not wait. Surely reading this newsgroup supplies ample evidence
>of why it is necessary to wait. Simply because that unless strong
>provocation is shown, we will be roundly condemned by the rest of
>the world. (Of course, even if we brought everyone home and built
>an impenetrable wall around the country, we would still be
>condemned :-/ ).

	No, reading this newsgroup provides ample evidence that we
failed in our goals.  Iraq has not renounced claims to Kuwait, sends
troops there, violates the cease-fire agreements, and generally thumbs
its nose at the world, who obligingly condemn the (misguided) US
response.
Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu

"If we had a budget big enough for drugs and sexual favors, we sure
wouldn't waste them on members of Congress..."   -John Perry Barlow
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian