Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Colin Powell's Record 
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:54:07 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.desert-storm
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Sep.3.00.22.17.1992.12892@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
> tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
> 
>> was misled by his advisors (particularly Colin Powell, the Rasputin
>> of American politics, who screwed up Desert Storm by ending it
>> before the pursuit phase was properly exploited).
> 
> Since I criticize Bush when I see his decisions as ill-founded, it is
> only fair that i defend him (and Powell) against charges that I think
> are unfair.
> 
> Unless you get into urban, house-to-house fighting, I don't see that
> the end of the fighting should have been extended for any more than
> perhaps a day.  In this case, I think that Bush has taken an unfair
> hit.  It is silly to realistically think that Saddam could not have
> hidden himself indefinitely from the allied forces even if the
> fighting had continued.  I don't see what possible good would have
> come from extending the fighting.
> 
> Having said that, I should point out that I have consistently
> criticized the administration for several aspects of the Gulf War:
> 
> 1)  When Iraq first started massing troops on the Kuwaiti border,
> Washington should have sent a strong signal that aggression would not
> be tolerated.  Instead, they sent Glaspie with a message that by all
> accounts was unclear and which Saddam took as a green light for
> invasion.  The war should never have happened.

	This is very misleading.  The US did not SEND Glaspie.  Saddam summoned
her at midnight, for unspecified reasons.  Only after she had been there quite
some time (listening to Saddam's harangues) did Saddam pop the question.

	Given the circumstances, her non-comittal answer was entirely
appropriate.

> 2)  Schwartzkopf should have been allowed to capture the tanks within
> reach of his troops rather than allowing the Iraqis to withdraw them.
> I realize that this was an effort to keep Iraq strong enough to
> counterbalance Iran within the region, but the tanks could have been
> returned later if necessary after evidence of good faith on the part
> of the Iraqis.

	True.  You should never the the enemy maintain control over functional
military units.

> 3)  Allied forces should have enforced a ban on the use of helicopters
> against the Shiites and Kurds.  I realize that this was an effort to
> keep Iraq in one piece, but it has led to a human rights tragedy
> which could easily have been predicted given Saddam's past history.

	Yep.  Even though the agreement specified fixed-wing aircraft (the
Iraqis pleaded that helicopters were the only way to get around in their
country) the US should have enforced a "no fly" rule from the start.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42466 ca.politics:7142