AMH-Disc

!
This is a graded discussion: 25 points possible
due Apr 20
Discussion 11 8 27
Directions
Respond to the following prompt:
Many military experts argue that the United States could have brought down
Saddam Hussein during the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Do you agree or disagree
with President George H.W. Bush’s decision to leave Saddam in power?
Why or why not?
Submission
After you have posted your initial post, read and respond to two or more of
your classmates’ posts. Be sure to make substantive and constructive
comments (just posting “nice post” doesn’t count). For example, add
something from your own experience, something you’ve read or seen. If the
situation calls for it, feel free to state an opinion, but be sure to state any
points with which you agree and/or those with which you disagree, as well as
your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing.
Grading
This discussion is worth 25 points toward your final grade and will be
graded using the Discussion Rubric. Please use it as a guide toward
successful completion of this discussion. (This Canvas Guide explains
how to view a rubric attached to a discussion
(https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-10577-4212540120) .)
Search entries or author
” Reply
Unread # $ % Subscribe
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/32645)
Nathanial Jang (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/32645)
Apr 13, 2022
” Reply
!
I believe the U.S. could have brought down Saddam Hussein because
Bush and his foreign policy team “forged an unprecedented international
coalition of thirty-four countries, including many members of NATO
(North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the Middle Eastern countries of
Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt, to oppose Iraqi aggression.” The U.S. had
other countries on board ready to support Bush’s decision. Bush
succeeded in getting resolutions from Congress authorizing the use of
military force against Iraq, and the U.S. then orchestrated an effective air
campaign, followed by Operation Desert Storm, which he sent 500,000
U.S. troops and another 200,000 from twenty-seven other countries
which expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The U.S. had more than enough
power to stop Saddam Hussein if they really wanted to. However,
“General Colin Powell, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued that
to continue to attack a defeated army would be “un-American.” I agree
with this statement because what is the point of beating someone who is
already defeated.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117572)
Kaitlen Muse (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117572)
Yesterday
” Reply
!
I definitely agree, I feel as though President Bush could have
removed Hussein from power. I do think the amount of force that was
applied to Iraq could have been enough to remove Hussein, I just
question if it really was because they believed it to be “un-American”,
was the honest reasoning behind it. I can applaud them for adhering
to the treaty, that there would be severe consequences if they did not
withdraw, but it also leaves me wondering about the multiple other
occasions the UN had to use force when they refused to comply.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/82848)
Matthew Lumpkin (He/Him)
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/82848)
7:06pm
” Reply
!
Hey Nathanial,
The big point I really agree with what you said was how President
Bush and the US could’ve stopped them but like you had mentioned,
General Colin had spoken with Bush and said otherwise. I think this
shows how much restraint Bush really did have during those times.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/114716)
Tavon Powell
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/114716)
9:15pm
” Reply
!
Right! and full-agree, there was already a lot going on. So why
cause more problems.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/88718) Reid Cory (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/88718)
Monday
!
” Reply
Many people argue that the United States could have easily killed
Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf war by invading Iraq and
overthrowing the government. However, this would not have been a
reasonable mission to go through with. The United States claimed victory
in this war in the open desert, using their firepower and technological
superiority to their advantage and overpowering Iraqi troops. If the
United States had carried through with invading Iraq to overthrow the
government and kill Saddam Hussein, they would have had to march 200
miles through a city that occupies over 5 million people meaning there
would be house-to-house fighting. Overall, the best route for the U.S. was
to demand an Iraqi withdrawal in Kuwait, rather than to invade Baghdad.
The united states military also did not have the authorization to invade
Baghdad, so an invasion would not have happened even if they wanted to.
Not only would it have been challenging and dangerous to invade
Baghdad, but it was also unnecessary as the goals of the united states
were accomplished. Kuwait was liberated, Hussein’s future threats had
been diminished, and most of Iraq’s military machines had been
destroyed, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon programs.
I believe that the United States made the right choice regarding how
they ended the war. There was no reason for the U.S. to invade Baghdad
as it would have ended in more American casualties.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117572)
Kaitlen Muse (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117572)
Yesterday
!
” Reply
I appreciate you noting the severity of what could have happened if
the United States attempted to remove Hussein from power. I do
think it is important to note that though the United States did
diminish the immediate threat from Iraq, and although Kuwait was
liberated, Iraqi aggression was re-ignited as throughout the years as
they refused to comply with resolutions set forth by the UN. No one
could have predicted to what extent Iraq would defy the terms of the
peace agreement, but it only leads me to believe they had a strong
craving for revenge.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/52957)
Andre Romano (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/52957)
12:03pm
” Reply
!
I really agree with your opinion that we do not need any more US
casualties. Therefor pulling out the troops in my opinion was the best
thing to do at the time.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/16839)
Myranda Roche (She/Her)
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/16839)
2:15pm
!
I agree with you about not wanting to invade Baghdad and having a lot
of casualties for one person.
” Reply
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/114716)
Tavon Powell
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/114716)
9:16pm
” Reply
!
Yes, lives are being put at stake because of something can be
declined.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/118440)
Thomas Grimm
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/118440)
5:32pm
” Reply
!
I believe that we had the same source. I agree fully with your
discussion. Not only would there be more American casualties but
there would be an unnecessary amount of civilian casualties as well.
The President made the right choice because the fight had already
been won.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/116686)
John Brooken (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/116686)
Monday
” Reply
!
Do I agree with George H.W. Bush decision not to bring down Saddam
Hussein? Honestly I sympathize with President Bush. This was a hard
decision. Bush was in the middle of a economic recession during the
Gulf War so I am sure going to war was a difficult decision to begin. I
am sure prolonging would have been an even more challenging decision.
But if I was in the president’s position I think I would have did everything
in my power to bring Saddam Hussein to justice. I feel like he needed to
answer for unfairly invading Kuwait due to Iraq’s financial issues because
of their foreign debt. Saddam displayed that he was untrustworthy as a
leader and even more of a threat in the near future. Also feel history has
showed that a war can also help our country come out of recession as
well. (World War II)
Personally I don’t blame Bush for deciding not to pursue after Hussein. I
am sure he was thinking about the welfare of his troops (who later
revealed to suffer from Gulf War syndrome), he was advised by General
Colin Powell not to continue the attack on a defeated army and the
president was successful with driving the Iraqi military out of Kuwait. I
wouldn’t say I fully agree with the president’s decision but overall I do
and looking back now he would have had my support.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117572)
Kaitlen Muse (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117572)
Yesterday
” Reply
!
I appreciate you noting the economic struggles being a factor
considered when deciding to remove Hussein from power. I noted
that, as well as it leading to future threats. Husseins decision to
invade Kuwait was unjust and uncalled for. It created a sense of
devastation that rippled across the globe. I can sympathize with the
consideration of the lives of the troops, I just find it a hard pill to
swallow that he didn’t acknowledge the possibility of Iraq licking its
wounds, all while planning means for revenge. As it has been proven,
the UN has had to exercise its ability of bombing Iraq a multitude of
times in the future. It is a very unsettling thought that, if we did
attempt to remove Hussein from power and succeeded, how much
devastation could have possibly been avoided in the future.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/118440)
Thomas Grimm
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/118440)
5:39pm
” Reply
!
The only reason I say Bush made the right decision is because if he
were to invade it would be going against the US Security Council.
Now if he were to have authorization, he should have brought him
down. In Bush’s position, he may have had the ability to obtain
authorization. Thinking back on my response, I would say if he had
the ability to obtain authorization then he made the wrong choice but
for this circumstance I think Bush was right.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/88718) Reid Cory (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/88718)
6:29pm
” Reply
!
I think it was a very difficult decision as well. Taking down Saddam
Hussein would have been a huge accomplishment for the U.S. and
would have completely diminished any threats made by the leader in
the future but I think that the invasion was too much of a risk for our
troops. If the invasion was authorized I believe that the U.S. could
have very well been successful but there could have also been many
American casualties.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117572)
Kaitlen Muse (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117572)
Yesterday
!
The argument whether or not President George H. W. Bush could have
brought down Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War has been an ongoing
debate. President Bush attempted to mirror President Raegan’s style in
regards to economic policy, shrinking government involvement, as well as
the promise of keeping taxes low. Though President Bush openly
acknowledge he wanted to continue the economic legacy that of his
predecessor, the troubles of the times would soon be weighing on him. I,
personally, think that President Bush could have brought down Saddam
Hussein, though he found himself in trying times as he did not want to
break his promises of balancing the budget, and reducing the deficit.
break his promises of balancing the budget, and reducing the deficit.
Ultimately, a compromise was made with the cultivation of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, this included measures to reduce the
deficit, and defaulted to the demise of his “no new taxes” approach. I feel
as though his fear of breaking his promises to the American people, led
to the negligence of foreign affairs. Bush approached the Soviet Union
with a hands-off approach, as to avoid angering them and leading with
the need for peace and cooperation. This approach, I believe, bled into
how he would handle the Middle East, as they were a growing concern. As
Iraq cultivated a significant amount of foreign debt, as a result of the 8
year long war with Iran, as well as the plummeting prices of oil due to its
increase in production in other Arab states, Iraq’s leader, Saddam
Hussein, was starting to feel the pressure. Unfortunately, as there was no
success when communicating with those he felt benefited from the war
with Iran, the feelings of political and economic isolation began to set in.
August 1990, Hussein ordered attack on Kuwait, leading Bush into his
first international crisis. The production of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization was Bush’s attempt at putting an end to Iraqi aggression,
hoping to deter belligerence with “new world order”, by informing them of
the consequences they would face if they refused to withdraw from
Kuwait. As Bush was successful in gaining support from Congress,
Operation Desert Storm would soon be put in motion. In my opinion, this
operation would ultimately be putting a bandaid on a bullet wound, as the
decision to remove Hussein from power was ultimately decided against.
As Bush was influenced by General Colin Powell, the head of Joint Chiefs
of Staff, with the argument that continuing to attack a defeated army
would be “un-American”, troops effectively began to move out of the area.
As it was believed that the United States no longer suffered from
“Vietnam Syndrome”, I believe leaving Hussein in power, after such force,
branded a target on our Nation, leaving the people of Iraq scorned and
hungry for revenge. Years later, as it goes to show, Iraq is bombed many
times, as a result of their failure to comply, leaving many to wonder,
Edited by Kaitlen Muse (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117572) on Apr 19 at 3:20pm
” Reply
times, as a result of their failure to comply, leaving many to wonder,
including myself, why Bush never removed Hussein from power in the
first place.
https://cel.fscj.edu/LOR/amh/2020/17/#slide4
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/52957)
Andre Romano (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/52957)
12:00pm
” Reply
!
it’s sad that things like these involve politics and not the well being of
the people.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/116686)
John Brooken (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/116686)
8:10pm
!
” Reply
Wow…Kaitlen, I do agree that Reagan left President Bush in a pickle
when it came to the economy that might have indeed affect his
decision making when it came to foreign policy. And Bush genuinely
struggled with keeping his promise with new taxes. I believe he is a
man of his word (especially being a southern gentlemen, that and
having to face future backlash). And at the time Americans still
criticize the outcome of the Vietnam war so yes he didn’t want history
to repeat itself.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117396)
Alton Whitaker (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/117396)
8:50am
” Reply
!
I do not agree with his decision to leave to leave Hussein is power,
mainly because I’m an Iraq veteran and I lost a lot due to the war. I do,
however, understand his decision. With the Vietnam war looming over
him, he didn’t want a repeat of a long war. He also achieved what he
sought out to do, which was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. He couldn’t have
known what leaving Saddam Hussein in power would lead to. He also
didn’t want to lose his 89% approval rating.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/16839)
Myranda Roche (She/Her)
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/16839)
2:22pm
” Reply
!
I agree with you about understanding his decision. I do think you are
right about him not wanting a repeat of a long war where he doesn’t
think our outcome is great.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/116686)
John Brooken (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/116686)
8:14pm
” Reply
!
Alton, I am sorry that you was affected by the war in Iraq. I can
respect that you personally understood the ramifications of Bush’s
decision. I agree Bush was under incredible pressure due the
previous war and maintaining the people’s approval rating. And he
trust the advise of General Powell.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/52957)
Andre Romano (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/52957)
11:59am
!
There have been arguments of both sides of the argument. While some
believe that without a concerted effort by coalition forces, Saddam
believe that without a concerted effort by coalition forces, Saddam
Hussein would have been toppled, others maintain that it was not within
the capabilities of the US military to oust Saddam Hussein at the time.
The lack of airpower and other support, as well as Hussein’s strategic
location in central Iraq, made it difficult for the US to achieve a decisive
victory. Ultimately, the decision to leave Saddam in power was a
political one, and the military could not have accomplished what was
required (Mann, 1993). While the situation in Iraq may not have been
ideal under Hussein’s rule, it is difficult to say definitively what would
have happened had the US attempted to remove him. The decision may
have been more costly in terms of human lives, and it’s uncertain whether
Hussein would have been replaced by a more democratic leader.
Geopolitical tensions were raised when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would give Saddam Hussein a 20% share of the
world largest oil reserves if he secured power of both countries. From
this George Bush gave a speech stating, ”Our jobs, our way of life, our
own freedom and the freedom of friendly countries around the world
would all suffer if control of the world’s great oil reserves fell into the
hands of Saddam Hussein.” (Apple, 1990). Following the same the US
made a condemnation of the invasion. Relatively George Bush of the
” Reply
United States had good intel on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass
destruction and his intentions, but he also had to weigh the potential
cost of attacking Iraq at that point in history. Given the aftermath of 9/11,
many people in the United States were opposed to another military
conflict. If Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and weapons of mass
destruction not found, the United States could have been seen as
reckless and weak. As it was, Hussein was able to continue his
aggression in other parts of the region and use weapons of mass
destruction against his own people multiple times over the next
decade. After a ground campaign, the Iraq forces flew to Kuwait having
set fire in all the oil wells that made Bush to cease in Gulf, making Kuwait
liberated. Afterwards, Hussein was permitted to continue in power,
although the Iraq was compelled to hand up the searchers for weapons
of devastation.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/16839)
Myranda Roche (She/Her)
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/16839)
2:13pm
” Reply
!
I agree with Bush to leave Saddam Hussein in power. I think Bush feared
if he took Saddam Hussein power away he would go into hiding and it
would take forever to find him again and the U.S believed he would have
been overthrown after the war. Bush didn’t want Saddam to flee to
Baghdad where if we went to capture him we would have a lot of
casualties.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/118440)
Thomas Grimm (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/118440)
5:26pm
!
I think President George H.W. Bush made the right decision to not go
through with the attack even though they were fully capable. The reason
being, to overthrow Saddam Hussein the United States troops would
have had to march 200 miles through a dense populated city named
Baghdad. It is said that Baghdad’s population of five million would have
been motivated to engage in house-to-house fighting with our so called
western invaders. The risk of civilian interference and death of American
troops was too high for the President to go through with the unnecessary
battle. Without authorization from the US Security Council, the United
States would have been seen as the aggressor through an international
communal lense.
” Reply
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/88718) Reid Cory (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/88718)
6:25pm
” Reply
!
I felt the same way about the invasion. It would have been too much
of a risk for American troops to march that far in such a populated
city especially with the invasion not being necessary.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/82848)
Matthew Lumpkin (He/Him)
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/82848)
7:41pm
” Reply
!
Hey Thomas,
I like how you brought up the lives of the American troops and
civilians possibly interfering. I can agree that was possibly one of the
larger points of why Bush had chosen to go with the attack as he
valued those around him more than finishing off the opposition.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/82848)
Matthew Lumpkin (He/Him)
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/82848)
7:00pm
” Reply
!
I would personally agree with George Bush’s decision. In that time he
could’ve decided to not leave them in power and possibly take over but
he realized that his actions could’ve had worse consequences. Deciding
to leave them in power probably wasn’t what he wanted to do but knew he
should make it over his own feeling. He also had side advisors and others
tell him or give him several reasons to not push it any farther so it was
also good that had listened to them.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/114716)
Tavon Powell (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/55457/users/114716)
9:14pm
” Reply
!
Honestly, I’m not sure if there is a wrong or right answer for this, because
we do and still have a great military force. But for me I think he made the
right choice, no war means less worry in my head. No raising taxes and
putting lives stuck when you can simply just say no. But we could just
have done an alliance as well.