posted on April 7, 2004 11:53:53 AM new
I was wondering what General Schwarzkopf's present thoughts are on the Iraq invasion and I found this article from August 19, 2002. Interesting to read when you see how things have evolved since that date.
Gulf War general tells Bush: Don't go it alone
NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF, the US general who commanded allied forces during the Gulf War, joined a growing number of senior US military and political figures yesterday who are opposed to a unilateral invasion of Iraq and said President Bush “should not go it alone”.
General Schwarzkopf, now retired from the US Army but still a commanding voice on matters relating to Iraq, said that the success of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and the expulsion of President Saddam Hussein’s troops from Kuwait was almost entirely based on the existence of a broad international coalition. He said: “In the Gulf War we had an international force and troops from many nations. We would be lacking if we went it alone at this time.”
He emphasised the dangers of an invasion without international consensus and military support because of the size and strength of the Iraqi Army. “It is not going to be an easy battle but it would be much more effective if we didn’t have to do it alone,” he said.
To be effective, a US-led invasion would need launching points not only from Kuwait and Turkey, but also from Saudi Arabia, which Riyadh has so far pointedly refused, he added.
Wesley Clark, the retired general who led the Nato alliance during the Kosovo campaign, also joined the voices counselling against an invasion without international co-operation.
In an article for the September issue of The Washington Monthly, he said: “The early successes (in Afghanistan) seem to have reinforced the conviction of some within the US Government that the continuing war on terrorism is best waged outside the structures of international institutions. This is a fundamental misjudgment. The longer the war goes on . . . the more our success will depend on the willing co-operation and active participation of our allies.”
Brent Scowcroft, who was the National Security Adviser to the first President Bush and who is a close friend of the Bush family, said last week that US action against Iraq, without resolving tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, “could turn the whole region into a cauldron and thus destroy the war on terrorism”.
Richard Armey, the Texan House majority leader and a close presidential ally, said that an “unprovoked attack” on Iraq would be unjustifiable.
posted on April 7, 2004 12:27:34 PM newHere's the coalition list.
Yes, take a good look at the list. It is basically a list of third world backwaters that were promised all kinds of economic aid by Bush the liar. That's why Bush has refused to include the Iraq occupation in the budget - he doesn't want anyone to know how much he has paid these fine "allies".
posted on April 7, 2004 12:45:17 PM new
I don't know his present thoughts, Linda. That's what I was looking for when I found this.
He emphasised the dangers of an invasion without international consensus and military support because of the size and strength of the Iraqi Army. “It is not going to be an easy battle but it would be much more effective if we didn’t have to do it alone,” he said.
The US does not have the military support of all the countries on the list you posted. Like Reamond says, the only reason some are on that list is because of the promises of economic aid.
posted on April 7, 2004 12:49:57 PM new
If what was said almost 2 years ago is to be examined.....then I think we should hear where he stands today. I haven't read his latest statements but I'd bet MY LIFE he's not calling for a US pull-out.
-----
"In March 2003, the United States of America put together an international coalition, dubbed the "Coalition of the Willing" to toople Saddam Hussein. This coalition was predictably criticised, particularly by the anti-American Left, as coercive, unilateral and unrepresentative."
"Smaller countries in the Coalition were labelled "token" allies, and ulterior motives were ascribed to various Coalition Governments, despite the respective governments outlining highly plausible reasons for their participation."
"Britain was characterised as isolated in Europe, despite the fact that most European countries were part of the Coalition of the Willing."
"In this atmosphere of obfuscation and anti-Coalition propaganda, this page was constructed to explode the myths. As far as possible, this page attempts to present cold facts, rather than inventing conspiracies, as many other web publications have done."
"Direct links to sources such as news articles and fraGovernment statements are provided, along with information in graphical form are provided, along with some editorial comment."
"This page was constructed by me - PWHCE Editor Trevor Stanley. Around April, I stopped updating maps and lists here, and left the page as an historical record of the state of play at the time of the main, conventional war in Iraq. Now, in March 2004, I have updated the page to show current involvement in the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq, while also maintaining the historical information."
posted on April 7, 2004 12:54:30 PM newI haven't read his latest statements but I'd bet MY LIFE he's not calling for a US pull-out.
Who said he was calling for a US pull-out??
Linda, you're getting all bent out of shape again over nothing. It was interesting reading in retrospect, that's all. Sheesh, truly sorry I got you all upset again.
posted on April 7, 2004 01:22:00 PM new
We're going to have to make some sort of withdraw sooner or later. But I don't think the outcome will be much different if we stay until 6-30 or stay 5 years.
Iraq will become an Islamic Republic. The question is how many soldiers need to die and how much money we must spend before it happens.
Schwartzkopf had very little confidence in the Bush team last year.
TAMPA--Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.
And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
posted on April 7, 2004 04:50:13 PM new
We're already in Iraq.....we have been for almost a year.
Do you have proof that he's said we should put our tails between our legs and run.....??????
------------------
An on the UN....they've got their own problems right now.
Some senators blamed Russia, France and China for blocking past U.S. efforts to investigate the corruption allegations. Those nations played a key role in the oil-for-food program.
Senator Lugar suggested those countries may have opposed the U.S.-led coalition's decision to use force to topple Saddam Hussein because ousting the regime would expose corruption in the oil-for-food program.
posted on April 7, 2004 05:18:13 PM new
well kiara - there's a war going on right now.....if you and helen wish to continue discussing articles/thoughts about whether we should have invaded Iraq or not ....please feel free to continue.
posted on April 7, 2004 05:34:12 PM new
If you now concede the debate whether we should have went into Iraq, then Linda you must now be willing to withhold your support of Bush.
