(13 of 16)
Over 130 years after the event, historians are still debating General George Meade's decision not to pursue General Robert E. Lee's forces after the Union victory at Gettysburg. A half-century after World War II, scholars are still arguing over General Eisenhower's decision not to beat the Soviet armies to Berlin. And, I expect, years from now, historians will still ask if we should not have fought longer and destroyed more of the Iraqi army. Critics argue that we should have widened our war aims to include seizing Baghdad and driv ing Saddam Hussein from power. The critics include even my predecessor as Chairman, Admiral William J. Crowe Jr., who testified in Congress for continued sanctions and against going to war; but in his memoirs he argues that we should have continued fighting and expanded the mission to go after Saddam Hussein.
While the belief that Saddam pulled off some sort of Dunkirk at the end of Desert Storm may have a superficial attraction, I want to cut it off and kill it once and for all. It is true that more tanks and Republican Guard troops escaped from Kuwait than we expected. And yes, we could have taken another day or two to close that escape hatch. And yes, we could have killed, wounded or captured every single soldier in the Republican Guard in that trap. But it would not have made a bit of difference in Saddam's future conduct. Iraq, a nation of 20 million, can always pose a threat to Kuwait, with only 1.5 million people. With or without Saddam and with or without the Republican Guard, Kuwait's security depends on arrangements with its friends in the region and the U.S. That is the strategic reality. The other reality is that in 1991 we met the Iraqi army in the field and, while fulfilling the U.N.'s objectives, dealt it a crushing defeat and left it less than half of what it had been.
But why didn't we push on to Baghdad once we had Saddam on the run? Or, to put it another way, why didn't we move the goalposts? What tends to be forgotten is that while the U.S. led the way, we were heading an international coalition carrying out a clearly defined U.N. mission. That mission was accomplished.
Of course, we would have loved to see Saddam overthrown by his own people for the death and destruction he had brought down on them. But that did not happen. And President Bush's demonizing of Saddam as the devil incarnate did not help the public understand why he was allowed to stay in power. It is naive, however, to think that if Saddam had fallen, he would necessarily have been replaced by a Jeffersonian in some sort of desert democracy where people read the Federalist papers along with the Koran. Quite possibly, we would have wound up with a Saddam by another name.
One hundred and forty-seven Americans gave their lives in combat in the Gulf; another 236 died from accidents and other causes. Small losses as military statistics go, but a tragedy for each family. I have met some of these families, and their loss is heartbreaking. I am relieved that I don't have to say to many more parents, "I'm sorry your son or daughter died in the siege of Baghdad." I stand by my role in the President's decision to end the war when and how he did. It is an accountability I carry with pride and without apology.
MY FUTURE