Why was George H.W. Bush criticized for leaving Saddam Hussein in power?

 (My answer on Quora)

The chief criticism is that he left the business of demagogue removal unfinished, by kicking the powder keg of a can that was Iraq further down the proverbial road for others to deal with.

However to look at this in greater depth we need to travel backwards in time to the very early 1990s, when gas was considerably cheaper, late night talk show hosts were actually funny and the cesspool that is social media had not yet reared its head. The Cold War was winding down but in the political cauldron of the Middle East all was not well (hardly shocking). The Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was looking more powerful than ever and he had visions of territorial expansion in mind.

You see Saddam’s Iraq was in the ascendancy. So he thought anyway. His Iraqi troops had fought the Iranians to a stalemate in a brutal war that had lasted for most of the previous decade, but in the eye’s of the dictator this was a victory against the old foe (Babylon v Persia). His forces had thwarted Iranian designs to overthrow his authoritarian regime and he would frame his foreign policy around this narrative.

What was objectively clear soon after the war with Iran had ended was that Iraq had built up a large armed force with help from the Soviet Union and it was now battle hardened. This was further buttressed by the support he obtained from several Western countries (including the US, France, UK and Germany) in his struggle against the Mullahs. He stood in a position of strength and was well located to put pressure on his oil rich Gulf state neighbours.

In August 1990 he did just that using the pretext of a conflict over oil production to invade the sovereign nation of Kuwait. Unfortunately for Saddam he overplayed his hand. He had been misled to belief that the US would sit idly by as he pressed his fortunes. This was not the case.

A US led coalition with unlikely bedfellows was brokered with UN support to oppose him (a remarkable achievement for which James Baker deserves credit). The mandate of the coalition was to force the Iraqis out of Kuwait and guarantee the sovereignty of that tiny nation. Nothing more. At least that is what it seemed.

Some critics lampooned the entire effort as a ‘war for oil’ with many arguing that the Iraqis had a legitimate claim to the occupied territory.

Nevertheless where it mattered the coalition was successful with the retake of Kuwait (Operation Desert Storm) in early 1991 going down in US history as a tremendous military success. Bush’s popularity rating stood north of 90% for a brief moment.

Saddam Hussein’s troops were reeling and the moment was right to extend the original mandate for the mission, by driving further into Iraq proper and toppling Saddam's Baathist regime. It would be good riddance to a dictator who ruled with an iron first, saw himself as a modern day Nebuchadnezzar and was not above using chemical weapons against his opponents. After all, who would shed a tear?

The Kurds in the North and the Shi’ites in the South of Iraq were anticipating this. Large segments of both populations rose up in revolt against his Sunni dominated regime. The Kurds in particular were encouraged by the US. The opportunity for effective regime change in Iraq was there for the taking all that was needed was the go ahead.

Then it stopped. The US offensive ground to a halt. President H. W. Bush declared the mission complete and refrained from extending it to deal what could have been the knockout blow for Saddam Hussein. The Kurds were stranded and Saddam pushed back. The US did declare No fly zones in both the northern and southern zones of the country to protect both the Kurds and the Shi’ites but momentum was lost.

Why he did this is somewhat debatable. The common view is that Bush 41 did not wish to destroy UN goodwill by exceeding the original mandate. He also seemed loathe to embroil the US in a more tricky end game especially after declaring how thew military had just kicked the malaise that was Vietnam. Others believe that there was a great fear of further destabilizing Iraq. All are legitimate arguments.

Whatever it was Saddam would live to fight another day. Many more in fact. Although he did not know it at the time he had bought himself almost a decade and a half of survival timeshare. George H. W, Bush would leave office in January 1993 with incoming President Bill Clinton left to deal with Saddam’s cat-and-mouse tactics as he time and again skirted UN authorized sanctions (with insider help as well). Occasional Cruise missile strikes were ineffective as a deterrent.

Eventually George W. Bush would inherit the poisoned chalice that was Iraq forcing the ouster of Saddam in far more inglorious circumstances in a post 911 world. An opportunity missed? Perhaps…but it does open up a tantalizing What if?