3 ms·
Desert Storm was short. The second Iraq War, the stupid one, was not.
by thomassmith65 8mo ago
Desert Storm was short. The second Iraq War, the stupid one, was not.
- UncleMeat 8mo agoDesert storm didn’t attempt regime change. Iran is not currently invading anyone.
- Jtsummers 8mo agoI'm glad someone else remembers. Desert Storm was fast (kind of) because it had a limited objective: Repel an invading army from another nation. It did not lead to an invasion (long term) of Iraq. Comparing any war with the objective of regime change to Desert Storm reveals that the commenter is grossly ignorant of recent history (36 years ago, it's not that far back to be so ignorant). Desert Storm also wasn't really fast, it led to containment operations lasting a bit over a decade in total, ending only when we decided to invade Iraq with the objective of regime change and nation building. And that one, predictably, turned into a quagmire.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- invader 8mo agoHowever, to be fair, Desert Storm hasn't resulted in regime change. The Coalition bombed the shit out of the Iraqi army, but never committed to the ground operation deep inside Iraq. And Saddam's regime survived until the next war. That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks - the ground component is also essential. Something tells me it is going to be the same here. Only a land operation or a total collapse of the government, with the armed police and military joining the opposition, can topple the Iranian regime.
- AbstractH24 8mo agoCounterexanple would be Venezuela
- Braxton1980 8mo agoWhat was the regime change there? The vice president is in charge.
- ericd 8mo agoWell, she started releasing lots of political prisoners. So it does seem like the regime acts a bit differently now?
- djeastm 8mo agoAre you sure? They removed one guy they didn't like but the regime remains.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- platinumrad 8mo agoWas Saddam's Iraq (post Desert Storm when he no longer had the ability to wage offensive war) really that bad compared to what came after?
- Marsymars 8mo agoYou mean immediately post Desert Storm when this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings
- marcosdumay 8mo agoFor a large share of the population, yes, by a huge margin. For an even larger share, no, by a large margin. Both regimes were deeply racist. Anyway, I don't think that information entered on the US decision making in any way.
- datsci_est_2015 8mo ago> That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks. This has been painfully obvious since aerial bombing became possible, but we’ve had so many generals and executives obsessed with the concept that it continues to be a core doctrine, like Kissinger and Curtis LeMay, neither of for whom I have anything but deep contempt.
- ponector 8mo agoThis does not look like a smart one. A bit smarter would be to strike a month ago to support street protests.
- thisislife2 8mo agoIt would have confused the Iranians as the regime would then claim that the foreign military attacks prove that the protests are artificially engineered by the same foreign enemy with the support of the Shah. It would also mean the automatic imposition of martial law in Iran, thus making protests even more difficult to organise.
- torlok 8mo agoThat's because Desert Storm was launched by people who remembered the Second World War. Current wars are started by draft dodgers.
- fuzzfactor 8mo agoDesert Storm was mainly the US fighting for the Kuwaiti way of life.