Yes but what you think they should have done isnt the issue here, the issue is the actions of the US government. They obviously allowed Saddam to stay, as i mentioned before they simply "preferred an iron fisted military junta". The US mistake? I suppose it was un-intentional to forget about Saddams sizable force of helicopter gunships? A mistake that any competent general in charge of the worlds largest army could make.
Answer this; HOW LONG SHOULD THE US PUT ITS ARMED FORCES IN AND AROUND IRAQ TO ENFORCE THE UN RESOLUTIONS BEFORE TAKING ACTION TO GET IRAQ TO COMPLY ?
TEN YEARS WAS NOT LONG ENOUGH ?
WHAT OTHER COUNTRY WOULD DO IT?
Fact of matter is the US and Britain imposed a uni-lateral interpretation of the sanctions. Broadening it from one that denies materials for military build up (the sanctions regime envisioned by the UN) to one that severely punishes the Iraqi people and strengthens Saddams power.
The US preferred Saddam in power until recently. The sanctions regime (which is what the US has spent all this time trying to enforce, albeit their own version of it) had a substantial effect on Iraq's people, leading to the death of 500,000 children. The sanctions increased the dependence of the Iraqi people on Saddam for food and medicine strengthening Saddams hold on the country and weakening the people.
Simply said there is no case for the sanctions regime as far as the US is concerned. Their form of uni-lateral sanctions aren't just inapropriate but outright criminal.
The main (and almost only) argument given for the sanctions which is repeated by US and British officials zealously was reiterated by the head of the UN Sanctions Comitee, Peter Von Valsen (spelling?); "Iraq is in a league of its own, its the only country that has actualy used weapons of mass destruction against an enemy or even against its own people" which is needless to say not exactly true LOL
Something else that warrents some thought is another reason given to justify the sanctions regime.
"...two hawkish military analysts writing in the Journal of Foreign Affairs... they pointed out that 'the sanctions agaisnt Iraq have killed more people than all the weapons of mass destruction in all of human history put together' They didn't say that in critisism in fact they added that it was necessary to do this. But if one is concerned with weapons of mass destruction yes they have been used we have been using them for the past ten years, it is a form of biological warfare (the sanctions)" - Chomsky a lecture about justice in Iraq
Also since Iraq kept firing at our planes in the no fly zones that were put there to protect the Shiites and the Kurds. 1000 times they fired missles at our aircraft. IMO that alone is an attack on our country and a violation of the cease fire aggreement and the UN resolutions and deserves an attack and the removal of the government that ordered it. Unless you believe a country that puts its forces at the disposal of the UN has no right to defend itself .
The air raids were carried out by the US with no Security Council authorization, making them illegal. In fact the December 1998 bombing was carried out in contempt of the security council, timed to coincide with when the Security Council was meeting to deal with the question of Iraq. The no fly zones were not put in place to allow US planes to commit daily bimbing runs throughout the 90's, and indeed Article 51 of the UN resolution is clear in stating that if the US wishes to have bimbing runs in breech of International Law, then Iraq has a right to defend itself. If Iraq was ordering bombing runs over Los Angeles i would think you have the right to shoot those bombers down.
