Toothless

Submitted by AEB (United Arab Emirates), Feb 10, 2012 at 14:04

Essentially because it was run by rival superpowers, one of which had weakened by 1990.

The war on Iraq was more barbaric than anything possible imaginable. A diplomatic solution was possible, and favoured by the GCC and Iraq. It was blocked by the US.

Saddam barely killed 1,000 Kuwaitis ... He did not annex Kuwait until Americans sent their troops to the region.

It was the US that protected Saddam from 1980 till 1990, and condoned his abuses against the Kurds since 1975. And in 1991 he should have been removed.

The US doesn't need the UN. We all saw that in 2003. Why would it need it for Syria? The UN is useful cover, that's all. Even Libya was a mess - an eight month bombardment of what could have been dealt with in a few days. Saddam only took three weeks to remove, and he had already crushed all rebellions. Assad's military is still more comparable to a miniature 1991 Iraq, and with the FSA in full blow, all it'd take is a blow to the head of the snake in Damascus by special forces - hardly a week's time operation. Damascus is located near Lebanon, the Golan, and Jordan, so it is convenient. If that doesn't work, Aleppo is near Turkey proper and the Hatay, so too can easily be cleansed. The FSA can take care of the rest.

We do not need a propaganda show of strength, like in Kuwait. Saddam was prepared to get out of the country, but the Americans insisted on proving to the world their supreme political and military might, and refused to negotiate with him. What we need is an extremely cautious surgical operation. Don't just recklessly bomb everything. Even Libya was too much, mostly because it lasted for too long. It was to be surgical. Preferably with Arab troops taking the initiative, and American backseat backing.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".