RF wrote: ...
Lets be clear. I think that if a country invades without lawful reason another country in violation of the UN Charter then that country gives up all its rights to territorial integrity. The US Army acting on behalf of the UN in my opinion does not and should not require permission to invade Iraq.
In one sense the US didn't need any more permission than it had. On the other hand there were political concerns that dictated our incursions into Iraq be of a limited nature.
Then show me how it's wrong. I certainly don't see it and your proclomation doesn't past muster as proof.
lwd, if you are faced with a threat the only solution is to eliminate the threat. Containment is not elimination.
It can be. The Soviet Union is a rather classic example of that. It's not a black and white thing either there are all sorts of shades of grey. How much does it cost in one coin to gain how much additional insurance that the threat is limited or eliminated?
Containment, the policy used against Saddam Hussein for the 13 years prior to the 2003 invasion, allows the threat to continue so you have to devote resources permanently to contain and block.
Well not permanently and taking him out then would also have taken considerable resources. Indeed overall I think things worked out much better for the US for a number of reasons.
Get rid of the threat once and for all no futher resources for perpetuity are required.
We could have taken out the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis, would that have been better than letting them collapse of their own accord? I don't think so.
Clearing the Iraq forces out of Kuwait in my view was only half the job. Removing the regime that invaded Kuwait should have been the number one goal...
From what I've read the US wouldn't have been unhappy with that but that wasn't what the coalition signed up for.
There were incursions into Iraq but they were designed to cut off the Iraqii forces in Kuwait.
Question - if the purpose of Desert Storm was simply to clear the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, then why block their exit routes?
Because it also cuts off their supply routes and some CC channels and degrades their fighting potential when and if you have to cut them off.
RF wrote: ... War is not a game of cricket - or baseball. In war there can only be one objective - absolute victory. Any thing less is a betrayal of what you are fighting for, a betrayal of serviceman's lives. Such a war should never be fought. And you don't need to study Clauswitz to understand that.
Historically that has not been the case and I don't think studying Clauswitz supports it either.