“Re: RE: RE: Bush, Iraq, al Qaeda, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc., etc.”

> Short sighted near term political reasons? They were in the Persian > Gulf to liberate Kuwait, not depose Iraq's government. There's no way > the public would have tolerated that.

Not the public per se; their governments. There was little or no backbone in the spines of the politicians to take the initiative. Of course there was plenty of initiative by the French, Germans and Soviets to continue engaging in trade with them, however.

>Perhaps the public would have accepted a targeted assassination > of Hussein, but not the occupation of Iraq.

Not practical as such isn't legal (at least not by US law).

> Hm... let me guess: the allies would have sparked the current explosion > of islamic jihadist terrorism then instead of now,

Yeah like how the arabs got all uppity after losing the 7 days war too. All talk, no action.

Would it have been better is rather pointless, we're here now.

> and something like > 9/11 probably would have happened many years sooner. Nothing has been > better for the jihadists than occupying Iraq. It plays right into > their hands and gives them the ammo they need to recruit new people.

No, it would have likely ended up killing more of the leadership cadre sooner. As it stands now, it seems like only the passing of the next two generations will cure the situation. Iran's lurching closer and closer to democratic behavior is probably the best thing going in the region. Besides, doesn't the report sort of say just the opposite?