6 ms·

Wow, I have never heard this before: “Few people remember it, but Gorbachev was negotiating with Saddam and had successfully convinced him to pull out of Kuwai

Wow, I have never heard this before: “Few people remember it, but Gorbachev was negotiating with Saddam and had successfully convinced him to pull out of Kuwait. The agreement they came up with would give the Iraqis three weeks to pull out. At this point, it had become a major goal to eliminate the Republican Guard and we didn’t want them to pull their head out of the noose, so President Bush turned down the compromise and ordered the ground forces in.” Is that true?

AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
soviettankie 5y ago
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  It would probably be better to do a simple fact check before going on a dubious grand narrative : https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/world/middleeast/20archive.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/world/middleeast/20archiv... > After prodding by Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Hussein had offered to withdraw Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 21 days. But the United States appeared to be moving ahead with its land campaign.
  - antattack 5y ago
    21 days seems like a delay tactics since it took Iraqi troops just two days to invade.
    - waffleiron 5y ago
      It probably took them longer to prepare than just 2 days.
    - teh_klev 5y ago
      Iraq was able to "complete" its invasion and decapitation of military command & control in two days because the Kuwaitis were massively under prepared. After that you then need to consolidate your position and that would be days if not weeks of deploying troops and their equipment deeper into the country. So after seven months of occupation there's probably a heap of logistics required to extricate and decamp your forces & equipment that likely isn't going to happen even in 10-15 days.
- badRNG 5y ago
  BLUF: The fact that nuking Japan wasn't necessary isn't some Russian propaganda, it was a sentiment strong even among many of the top brass of the military and Truman administration. Not to start a whole debate on the utility of nuking Japanese civilians, but that "narrative" of the bombing being unjustified is nearly as old as the event itself, certainly not something that just became "popular in the last decade." - Gen Eisenhower famously stated "It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Fleet Admiral Nimitz, Commander and Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." (Though Nimitz's perspective is slightly diminished from reports that he initially supported using atomic weapons.) - Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command (a unit of the Twentieth Air Force in the Mariana Islands for strategic bombing during World War II.), stated "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." - Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr, "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it." Other high ranking officials like Fleet Admiral Leahy (Truman Chief of Staff), are on the record stating that nuking Japan wasn't necessary. Now maybe even given these perspectives, perhaps they are all wrong. What I can say for certain is that this perspective isn't without "any real rooting in primary source materials and is pushed on a speculative basis by fringe academics looking to make a name with an out-there theory."
  - robonerd 5y ago
    After the second atomic bombing, Japanese army officers tried to overthrow the Emperor to prevent the surrender. They narrowly failed, after successfully placing the Emperor under house arrest, because the surrender message was smuggled out of the palace. And this happened in Tokyo, which surely knew the horrors of war already, having been extensively firebombed for months. Had things gone a little differently, it's possible that two bombs might not have been enough.
    - badRNG 5y ago
      I think maybe either my comment was misinterpreted or I wasn't clear enough. As I stated before, I'm not wanting to start a debate on whether nuking Japan was justified nor am I taking a position one way or the other. What my comment aims to do is to push back on specific claims made about this position (that the bombing was unjustified,) namely the claims that this position is recent, not rooted in primary sources, is a fringe out-there position to give academics a name for themselves, and originates in Russian propaganda. It is not recent, it is rooted in primary sources, and it was a position held from the very beginning by the top brass of the US military at the time.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chasd00 5y ago
> ordered the ground forces in as i recall, the air war was so devastating there wasn't much of a purpose for ground troops and when it came time to "order the ground forces in" most of the work was just walking across Kuwait. They even made a movie about how much of a let down the ground war was to the Marines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarhead_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarhead_(film)
- gumby 5y ago
  I think you mean Hollywood filmed a book written by one of those marines.
  - burnte 5y ago
    Well, he DID say "they made a movie" so yes, obviously that is exactly what he meant.
  - libraryatnight 5y ago
    I think he said what he meant. But, I think you meant "I know you linked a wiki that explains the film is based on a memoir in the first line, but you've already exposed yourself to the 'It was a book first!' attack, and I don't want to have to turn in my 'Ackchyually Guy,' membership card." Since we're speculating. A more charitable reading would be that you simply meant, "Yes, that movie is based on a book by one of those marines." Maybe with some added opinion on whether you enjoyed it or found it equally as enlightening.
- queuebert 5y ago
  Generation Kill is a great movie in a similar vein about the second invasion.
  - cja 5y ago
    It's a mini series, and yes, it's brilliant
- lmickh 5y ago
  I wouldn't go so far as to say there wasn't much purpose for the ground troops in the context of the goal of eliminating Iraqi military capabilities. It involved some of the largest tank battles in US history such as the Battle of Norfolk and the Battle of the 73 Easting. While we look back at some of these as a steam roll in hindsight, the truth is the engagements were larger than most of the armor battles in WW2 involving the US. The marine advancement in to Kuwait that was part of a larger multi-national push that much of the Iraqi forces were running from. The push by 1st Inf Div, 2nd ACR, and others on the west was to cut off that retreat. Combat theaters are large and it is never a good idea to take a narrow view of them and generalize it to the whole. The father of my childhood friend used to tell us how his deployment in Vietnam as an MP was some of the best time in his life. He spent his entire time on a post relatively far from the fighting largely killing his time trying to surf and eat BBQ.
robonerd 5y ago
Have you heard of the 'Highway of Death'? Iraqi forces were retreating on that highway, on their way back to Iraq. Coalition forces did not want to permit that, and slaughtered them. Thousands of vehicles destroyed, hundreds+ soldiers killed, thousands more captured. I can't say I feel much sympathy towards the Iraqis here, but it does seem a tad bit vindictive.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "I can't say I feel much sympathy towards the Iraqis here" Why wouldn't you feel sympathy for people who were killed or maimed, and their families?
  - robonerd 4y ago
    It's funny how I got some comments insinuating that I have too much sympathy, and yours which seems to say I have too little. I'll address both in this single comment. What little sympathy I have, is because people died. I don't have more sympathy because 1) those Iraqis invaded another country. 2) They didn't surrender. I am well aware that retreating but not surrendering soldiers get shot in wars, and I'm not particularly upset about it when those soldiers are on the belligerent side. I have some shred of sympathy for them, only because they are still human.
- nautilius 5y ago
  Human tragedy aside (and it absolutely is, no doubt about it, on all sides), it really depends on the context. Striking the retreating army is the 'easiest' way to 'neutralize' it, Clausewitz writes about it, and I am sure it's been practiced for thousand(s?) of years before that. For a timely comparison: would it be 'vindictive' when Ukraine strikes the retreating Russian army in the Kyiv area before they regroup and attack the Donbas? I don't think so. Seems like a good idea, actually.
  - joshocar 5y ago
    It's how battles have been won for thousands of years. The two army's approach each other and take minor casualties until one sides moral collapses, they break, and route. 90% of the deaths happened after the route.
xyzzy21 5y ago
Just google "gorbachev saddam 1991" The answer is "pretty much true".
- 88840-8855 5y ago
  I took now half an hour to check sources on that and it seems to be pretty much the color. Curious that nobody asked to sanction the US to destroy their economy and to isolate them for that war... or any of the other wars.
  - chasd00 5y ago
    the coalition built for gulf war 1 was extensive to say the least. I think that was one of Bush Sr's requirements, if anyone was going to liberate Kuwait it had to be everyone. You would have to sanction the entire coalition which was basically the entire western world. Bush Sr. convinced everyone to stop at Iraq's border and wouldn't push further to knock out Hussain's regime. Wisely, IMO for all the reasons that are clear today. However, lots of people think this is what cost him a second term and left many people at the pentagon feeling like there was unfinished business in Iraq. This "unfinished business" is what eventually led to Bush Jr's invasion.
    - cafard 5y ago
      What cost him the second term was the economy.
  - nickdothutton 5y ago
    Actually in the end the US went soft on Iraq. Thatcher wanted to roll into Baghdad and clean it out properly (or, she argued we’d find ourselves there again in a decade or 2). Bush disagreed.
chubot 5y ago
I wasn't aware of that history either -- this article gives more color: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/world/middleeast/20archive.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/world/middleeast/20archiv... The Iraqi invasion happened in August 1990, and America's response was in January/February 1991. It sounds like Saddam changed his tune because he saw the buildup of American forces over that time period. If there was no threat then he probably wouldn't have agreed to any settlement. With the ground war just days away, Mr. Gorbachev mounted a peacemaking effort. Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister, arrived in Moscow on Feb. 21. Later that day, Mr. Gorbachev told Mr. Bush in a phone call that he sensed a “serious shift” in Iraq’s position, according to a transcript in the Bush Library.
audiometry 4y ago
Imagine if it were true. Then maybe no Forever Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Or something else horrid and gross would have developed.

AlgorithmicTime 5y ago

soviettankie 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago
It would probably be better to do a simple fact check before going on a dubious grand narrative : https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/world/middleeast/20archive.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/world/middleeast/20archiv... > After prodding by Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Hussein had offered to withdraw Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 21 days. But the United States appeared to be moving ahead with its land campaign.
- antattack 5y ago
  21 days seems like a delay tactics since it took Iraqi troops just two days to invade.
  - waffleiron 5y ago
    It probably took them longer to prepare than just 2 days.
  - teh_klev 5y ago
    Iraq was able to "complete" its invasion and decapitation of military command & control in two days because the Kuwaitis were massively under prepared. After that you then need to consolidate your position and that would be days if not weeks of deploying troops and their equipment deeper into the country. So after seven months of occupation there's probably a heap of logistics required to extricate and decamp your forces & equipment that likely isn't going to happen even in 10-15 days.
badRNG 5y ago
BLUF: The fact that nuking Japan wasn't necessary isn't some Russian propaganda, it was a sentiment strong even among many of the top brass of the military and Truman administration. Not to start a whole debate on the utility of nuking Japanese civilians, but that "narrative" of the bombing being unjustified is nearly as old as the event itself, certainly not something that just became "popular in the last decade." - Gen Eisenhower famously stated "It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Fleet Admiral Nimitz, Commander and Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." (Though Nimitz's perspective is slightly diminished from reports that he initially supported using atomic weapons.) - Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command (a unit of the Twentieth Air Force in the Mariana Islands for strategic bombing during World War II.), stated "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." - Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr, "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it." Other high ranking officials like Fleet Admiral Leahy (Truman Chief of Staff), are on the record stating that nuking Japan wasn't necessary. Now maybe even given these perspectives, perhaps they are all wrong. What I can say for certain is that this perspective isn't without "any real rooting in primary source materials and is pushed on a speculative basis by fringe academics looking to make a name with an out-there theory."
- robonerd 5y ago
  After the second atomic bombing, Japanese army officers tried to overthrow the Emperor to prevent the surrender. They narrowly failed, after successfully placing the Emperor under house arrest, because the surrender message was smuggled out of the palace. And this happened in Tokyo, which surely knew the horrors of war already, having been extensively firebombed for months. Had things gone a little differently, it's possible that two bombs might not have been enough.
  - badRNG 5y ago
    I think maybe either my comment was misinterpreted or I wasn't clear enough. As I stated before, I'm not wanting to start a debate on whether nuking Japan was justified nor am I taking a position one way or the other. What my comment aims to do is to push back on specific claims made about this position (that the bombing was unjustified,) namely the claims that this position is recent, not rooted in primary sources, is a fringe out-there position to give academics a name for themselves, and originates in Russian propaganda. It is not recent, it is rooted in primary sources, and it was a position held from the very beginning by the top brass of the US military at the time.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chasd00 5y ago

> ordered the ground forces in as i recall, the air war was so devastating there wasn't much of a purpose for ground troops and when it came time to "order the ground forces in" most of the work was just walking across Kuwait. They even made a movie about how much of a let down the ground war was to the Marines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarhead_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarhead_(film)

gumby 5y ago
I think you mean Hollywood filmed a book written by one of those marines.
- burnte 5y ago
  Well, he DID say "they made a movie" so yes, obviously that is exactly what he meant.
- libraryatnight 5y ago
  I think he said what he meant. But, I think you meant "I know you linked a wiki that explains the film is based on a memoir in the first line, but you've already exposed yourself to the 'It was a book first!' attack, and I don't want to have to turn in my 'Ackchyually Guy,' membership card." Since we're speculating. A more charitable reading would be that you simply meant, "Yes, that movie is based on a book by one of those marines." Maybe with some added opinion on whether you enjoyed it or found it equally as enlightening.
queuebert 5y ago
Generation Kill is a great movie in a similar vein about the second invasion.
- cja 5y ago
  It's a mini series, and yes, it's brilliant
lmickh 5y ago
I wouldn't go so far as to say there wasn't much purpose for the ground troops in the context of the goal of eliminating Iraqi military capabilities. It involved some of the largest tank battles in US history such as the Battle of Norfolk and the Battle of the 73 Easting. While we look back at some of these as a steam roll in hindsight, the truth is the engagements were larger than most of the armor battles in WW2 involving the US. The marine advancement in to Kuwait that was part of a larger multi-national push that much of the Iraqi forces were running from. The push by 1st Inf Div, 2nd ACR, and others on the west was to cut off that retreat. Combat theaters are large and it is never a good idea to take a narrow view of them and generalize it to the whole. The father of my childhood friend used to tell us how his deployment in Vietnam as an MP was some of the best time in his life. He spent his entire time on a post relatively far from the fighting largely killing his time trying to surf and eat BBQ.

robonerd 5y ago

Have you heard of the 'Highway of Death'? Iraqi forces were retreating on that highway, on their way back to Iraq. Coalition forces did not want to permit that, and slaughtered them. Thousands of vehicles destroyed, hundreds+ soldiers killed, thousands more captured. I can't say I feel much sympathy towards the Iraqis here, but it does seem a tad bit vindictive.

pmoriarty 5y ago
"I can't say I feel much sympathy towards the Iraqis here" Why wouldn't you feel sympathy for people who were killed or maimed, and their families?
- robonerd 4y ago
  It's funny how I got some comments insinuating that I have too much sympathy, and yours which seems to say I have too little. I'll address both in this single comment. What little sympathy I have, is because people died. I don't have more sympathy because 1) those Iraqis invaded another country. 2) They didn't surrender. I am well aware that retreating but not surrendering soldiers get shot in wars, and I'm not particularly upset about it when those soldiers are on the belligerent side. I have some shred of sympathy for them, only because they are still human.
nautilius 5y ago
Human tragedy aside (and it absolutely is, no doubt about it, on all sides), it really depends on the context. Striking the retreating army is the 'easiest' way to 'neutralize' it, Clausewitz writes about it, and I am sure it's been practiced for thousand(s?) of years before that. For a timely comparison: would it be 'vindictive' when Ukraine strikes the retreating Russian army in the Kyiv area before they regroup and attack the Donbas? I don't think so. Seems like a good idea, actually.
- joshocar 5y ago
  It's how battles have been won for thousands of years. The two army's approach each other and take minor casualties until one sides moral collapses, they break, and route. 90% of the deaths happened after the route.

xyzzy21 5y ago

Just google "gorbachev saddam 1991" The answer is "pretty much true".

88840-8855 5y ago
I took now half an hour to check sources on that and it seems to be pretty much the color. Curious that nobody asked to sanction the US to destroy their economy and to isolate them for that war... or any of the other wars.
- chasd00 5y ago
  the coalition built for gulf war 1 was extensive to say the least. I think that was one of Bush Sr's requirements, if anyone was going to liberate Kuwait it had to be everyone. You would have to sanction the entire coalition which was basically the entire western world. Bush Sr. convinced everyone to stop at Iraq's border and wouldn't push further to knock out Hussain's regime. Wisely, IMO for all the reasons that are clear today. However, lots of people think this is what cost him a second term and left many people at the pentagon feeling like there was unfinished business in Iraq. This "unfinished business" is what eventually led to Bush Jr's invasion.
  - cafard 5y ago
    What cost him the second term was the economy.
- nickdothutton 5y ago
  Actually in the end the US went soft on Iraq. Thatcher wanted to roll into Baghdad and clean it out properly (or, she argued we’d find ourselves there again in a decade or 2). Bush disagreed.

chubot 5y ago

I wasn't aware of that history either -- this article gives more color: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/world/middleeast/20archive.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/world/middleeast/20archiv... The Iraqi invasion happened in August 1990, and America's response was in January/February 1991. It sounds like Saddam changed his tune because he saw the buildup of American forces over that time period. If there was no threat then he probably wouldn't have agreed to any settlement. With the ground war just days away, Mr. Gorbachev mounted a peacemaking effort. Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister, arrived in Moscow on Feb. 21. Later that day, Mr. Gorbachev told Mr. Bush in a phone call that he sensed a “serious shift” in Iraq’s position, according to a transcript in the Bush Library.

audiometry 4y ago

Imagine if it were true. Then maybe no Forever Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Or something else horrid and gross would have developed.