Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
I'm reminded more of 1945, following the surrender of Germany. Supposedly George Patton advocated rearming the Wehrmacht and pushing on against the Russians, under the assumption that we were going to have to fight them sooner or later anyway, it might as well be right then when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do it. Would it have been the smart thing to do? Possibly, but probably not. The same holds true for Iraq in '91. In hindsight it might have been wiser to go on and depose him, but probably not.
In hindsight...from our own perspective, No. 1) We needed those troops in the Pacific. 2) No one has ever 'successfully' attacked Russia from the west. 3) Because though the relations were tense, we never had that head to head war Patton was predicting... AND 4) They were our allies. You have to do your best to stand by your allies... even if you don't particularly like them.
True, Iran would probably not have joined with Saddam, but they wouldn't have stood by and let "The Great Satan" move into the region. Iran in 1991 was much more belligerent and threatening than they are now.
That would have been the perfect time to invade, conquer, and leave Iraq's neighbors as occupation troops. No Great Satan. No that would have been the great in-and-out campaign the Shrub was hoping for.

Yeah, and we're having the same problems the Germans did: our troops are not trained or equipped to fight a guerilla war. And the Germans had the chetniks to help them.
BTW, I'm not sure I would qualify an invasion by 21 German divisions as a "minimal force" but I understand your meaning.
Hmmm... the Yugoslav and the Greek campaigns both started on April 6th 1941 and I think the 21 divisions was for both campaigns combined... but no reason to quibble as the point is... It takes far more troops to hold territory than it takes to conquer it.