>The 1991 Gulf War was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of 34 nations mandated by the United Nations and led by the United States. In Iraq, the War is often colloquially called simply Um M'aarak - "The Mother of All Battles".< (1)
Just saw the movie Jarhead yesterday. It started off very gungo-ho, but by the time the first gulf war started it was clear that war was ugly.
Interesting to watch a movie in a public theater. During the “who-ah” stages where the young Marines were trained the audience was restless, noisy, young folks were clearly caught up in the jar head energy and made positive comments and murmurs.
Then, when the war finally started, the hell of the open burning oil fields, the black sky raining toxic oil, people became hushed. In one eerie scene an Arabian horse covered with toxic oil comes out of the smoke and fog - it was a heart wrenching metaphor for the destruction of the habitat.
Towards the end of the film, the young hero comes across a convoy of cars with charred bodies, clearly a civillian convoy. You could hear a pin drop. The anti-war message was coming across for a moment.
I think people left the movie confused. Red state flag wavers were troubled and the subtle anti-war message left them deflated and confused.
Now, my question is, given that:
1.) The first Gulf War lasted 4 days and 3 hours.
2.) There was a true multinational coalition.
3.) Almost one half a million troops were present to invade Iraq.
4.) Iraqi soldiers surrendered in droves.
5.) US forces suffered 147 battle-related and 325 non-battle-related deaths. (1)
6.) It was done relatively cheaply.
>The cost of the war to the United States was calculated by Congress to be $61.1 billion. Other sources estimate up to $71 billion. About $53 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around the world: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States; $16 billion by Germany and Japan (which sent no forces due to the treaties that ended WWII). About 25% of Saudi Arabia's contribution was paid in the form of in-kind services to the troops, such as food and transportation.
U.S. troops represented about 74% of the combined force, and the global cost was therefore higher. The United Kingdom, for instance, spent $4.1 billion during this war< (1)
Do you think that this is where the stupid, stupid, neocons went wrong?
I.) They forgot that since 1991 the ME had changed?
II.) That 9-11 signaled a whole new force in the ME, namely, the old Afghan. Mujahadeen who were now actively recruiting and had already attacked US interests since 1993?
III.) They were fighting todays war with yesterdays realities?
Could the facts of the first Gulf War have led to unrealistic expectations and explain the monumental failure in planning that has led to the mess that is Iraq today?
Because, considering that the neocons have wanted Iraq since 1993, it would make no sense for them to actually “botch” it so badly on purpose, rather, a great and stupid mistake and misunderstanding of the sentiments in the middle east, as they were by 2003 led to insufficient troops, the idea that the Iraqi’s would welcome western occupation, and the idea that they could do for around $86 billion dollars?
One last question: Prior to our invading Iraq, it was thought that the Iranian youth movement and it’s yearning for freedom would result in a change from the old style fundy regime in Iran.
Did we demonstrate, by our invasion of Iraq, that the west cannot be trusted, and thus throw Iran into the clutches of ultra conservatives today?
Citations:
(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Casualties
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
