Video: Dick Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire

[Shaka_Khan]

LINK

In this interview from April 15th, 1994, Dick Cheney reveals the reasons why invading Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein wouldn't be a great idea. He also stipulates that "not very many" American soldiers' lives were worth losing to take out Saddam during the Gulf War.

Dick Cheney explains why Iraq wasn't occupied during Desert Storm I.
The media showed this video again in a documentary a few years ago. I was unable to find it until someone in another forum did.

Is this the same Cheney whom we know of today?

[Marshal Murat]

Disappointing but also enlightening.

Keeping all that in mind, why would Cheney go to Iraq if he was aware of the consequences? It must have been some sweet intelligence, and there must have been more reasons to go into Iraq other than getting Saddam Hussein.

I see the light! Hallelujah!

[KafirChobee]

The reason we didn't invade Iraq during Desert Storm was because the military and political leaders of the time knew we would have to stay there to assure that Iraq didn't turn into another Iran - e.g. led by an Ayatolha (sp). And, the lessons of Reagone's excursion into Lebanon were still fresh in their minds. Then the lesson fades, and it becomes a what if ...... or, is there money to be made.

It can be a matter that a man may know the truth of a circumstance at one point in time, but be convinced by his friends that if he just looked at it the way they do - and envision the profits gained by his & their friends (fiends) - that the original assumptions were wrong. One has nothing to fear, but the profits that can be gained by thee and thy friends.

Cheney, was a man that realized the limitations of military power (in 1991) - but, then realized (in 2001) the wealth he and his fellows could gain if he ignored them and convinced a guy that had no clue (Dubya) that invading Iraq would make him (Mr. No Clue) that by doing so he would show-up his Daddy.

Generally, one learns from the mistakes of the past, and does all in their power to prevent them from occurring again. Other times one discards those lessons as being a weak part of themselves, and simply makes a similar mistake all over again. The only factor that convinces a person to reattempt a former failure is profit - you know? It's like betting on a losing racehorse a second time - even though the odds are worse (was 3-1, is now 40-1), because you're convinced it is due to win (a sooner or later philosophy) - plus if no blood of your own is at risk? What the hey.

Makes one wonder what Powell was thinking while he listened to the planning of this train wreck - US invasion of Iraq, 2003. Suppose, what if he had protested when he saw his "doctrine" ("When using military force, assure it is overwhelming and that once hostilities end the populace can be controlled by same force - without calling for reserves immediately.") being flushed down the toilet in favor of the chickenhawks' and Rummy's plan of limited forces and no aftermath - because we were going to be liberating France all over again (only it's called Iraq)? Would it have mattered? Or, was being a part of something (of his nation) still important - regardless of his agreeing or disagreeing with the men that led it. All he had to do was stay true to his own values, and to the men he witnessed dying in Vietnam. What was he thinking? Why did he give up on his own principles for those of others? [$$$$$$$$$$$$$] His recent proclomations against the war, not withstanding, are still weak and leaves one to wonder where even his loyaltys lie - with America or an elitist faction. Is just curious - that's all.

As for Cheney, he did change. Either out of greed or arrogance, but he did change - maybe it was due to lack of blood flow to his brain during one or more of his heartattacks. But, he did change. More's the pity - for +3,000 Mothers and Fathers. Mores the pity, because he almost showed a grain of integrity in 1991.
No more, though. Now he's the boogey-man - least ways if my children were little he would be the guy I pointed to that was coming to get them if they didn't listen to their Mom. Then again, he still is - only for the GOPists that question anything outside the party think-alike frame of dogmatic enthusiasm surrounding the Bush administration and the Iraq occupation. LOL!

[KafirChobee]

oops. it happens,

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well you see, Bill Clinton was President then, so actually Dick had good reason to believe invading Iraq then would end in quagmire because Bill is inept, but that he could pull it off fine because he can alter reality with his thoughts.

CR

[Tribesman]

Well you see, Bill Clinton was President then, so actually Dick had good reason to believe invading Iraq then would end in quagmire because Bill is inept

[AntiochusIII]

but that he could pull it off fine because he can alter reality with his thoughts.

Nice one.

[Goofball]

Well you see, Bill Clinton was President then, so actually Dick had good reason to believe invading Iraq then would end in quagmire because Bill is inept, but that he could pull it off fine because he can alter reality with his thoughts.

CR

That's apparently Cheney's problem: he believes he is Mike Ditka.

[Odin]

LINK
Is this the same Cheney whom we know of today?

Somewhere he got an etima from the religous right and now we have the clown we know today.

[Lemur]

Seamus is at least partially right. 9/11 changed everyone, and combine it with the cumulative effect of six heart attacks and lord-knows-how-many mini-strokes, and you have a very different man.

Here's another example of the old, conservative Dick Cheney, from a conference at the Cato Institute in 1998. Note that Iran's nuclear ambitions were well-known by this time.

[O]ur sanctions policy oftentimes generates unanticipated consequences. It puts us in a position where a part of our government is pursuing objectives that are at odds with other objectives that the United States has with respect to a particular region.

An example that comes immediately to mind has to do with efforts to develop the resources of the former Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea area. It is a region rich in oil and gas. Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action, both in terms of opportunities that develop with respect to Iran itself, and also with respect to our ability to gain access to Caspian resources. Iran is not punished by this decision. There are numerous oil and gas development companies from other countries that are now aggressively pursuing opportunities to develop those resources. That development will proceed, but it will happen without American participation. The most striking result of the government’s use of unilateral sanctions in the region is that only American companies are prohibited from operating there.

Another good example of how our sanctions policy oftentimes gets in the way of our other interests occurred in the fall of 1997 when Saddam Hussein was resisting U.N. weapons inspections. I happened to be in the Gulf region during that period of time. Administration officials in the area were trying to get Arab members of the coalition that executed operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory. They wanted that capability in the event it was necessary to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to honor the UN resolutions. Our friends in the region cited a number of reasons for not complying with our request. They were concerned with the fragile nature of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, which was stalled. But they also had fundamental concerns about our policy toward Iran. We had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise, and that they should not do.

So, what effect does this have on our standing in the region? I take note of the fact that all of the Arab countries we approached, with the single exception of Kuwait, rejected our request to base forces on their soil in the event military action was required against Iraq. As if that weren’t enough, most of them boycotted the economic conference that the United States supported in connection with the peace process that was hosted in Qatar during that period of time. Then, having rejected participation in that conference, they all went to Tehran and attended the Islamic summit hosted by the Iranians. The nation that’s isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends about the overall wisdom and judgment of U.S. policy in the area.