Saddam wanted into exile, but Bush rather wanted his head

Remove all ads!

Would it have been a good idea? Probably not. Would it have been better than now? Possibly. Well, we'll never know.

LKD, I think it could have been settled without genocide or similar methods once, but it's probably beyond that point now. I could be right, but it would take a leader - and vision - of impressive proportions to do the job, and I don't see one at the moment.

 

One of the points I wanted to make is that I find the US "Who, me?" stance unconvincing. It appears the Iraq war just happened to America. A war of choice? Never! Our cause is just! Well, wise up. It isn't first time and it probably will not have been the last time since America did such a thing. The possibility is entirely realistic.

And how was that, did I read that right: It was a stupid idea to go to Iraq, but it was all Saddam's fault? Wait. The US had an idea that was stupid, and they went to Iraq - but it was Saddam's fault? Was it Saddam's fault the US had the idea or his fault that the idea was stupid? I'll be generous and blame Saddam for making the US get ideas. But that means ... oh, maybe there was some US involvement in this after all ...

The other was that I find it obscene in the extreme to go to war to test the academic theory that the Middle East could be transformed into something more compatible with US tastes. And all the carnage? It'll be all but a footnote in the history books. For Wolfowitz & Cie. there is a special place in hell for that.

A third point is that I see that the assumption that there was a dire need to remove Saddam, just like that he couldn't possibly be trusted, are taken for granted. The former Middle East head of the DIA said something about his fellow countrymen regarding Arabs:

The man has a point. A lot of that 'Saddam cannot be trusted' line stems in my understanding from mirror imaging
'Hmm, if I were real evil I would cheat! Saddam is real evil, ergo ...!'

Maybe Americans are just too good at PR for their own good. Americans I feel have a tendency to take their own propaganda for real. When everybody else nearly died laughing, Americans apparently were genuinely afraid of Saddam Hussein (or two decades earlier, had a national emergency because of the 'Nicaraguan Threat'). Well, in that case, war it had to be. Speaking of fantasies ...

[ October 02, 2007, 02:18: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Umm...that would be something new? Going back to Saddam and the US in the 1980s...

[ October 02, 2007, 08:14: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The problem is that the counterweight they put in place did his job at first, then he got greedy and power hungry, eventually breaking international law to do so. They had to take out their puppet and put in a new puppet, and now they need to either negotiate with the new Iran (honest, I didn't even smirk until I had finished typing the words), which I doubt that George W. can do, rebuild the counterweight, or yet another poorly planned, unpopular invasion against an even stronger power.

I may have an even crazier supposition: What about playing nice with Iran to counterbalance Iraq? They need some credible allies in the Middle East somewhere...

 

BTA,
please get your history right. At the time of the attack on Osirak Saddam didn't have a nuclear weapons program. Osirak was a research reactor. The Israelis chose to bomb Osirak because they feared the emergence of an Iraqi nuclear capability, that is, the development of know how and expertise for how to build bombs. That development of technical expertise is pretty much what they today fear in Iran as well.
They wanted to pre-empt that. They ended up kick starting just such an Iraqi program with their raid, that was only ended by the disarmament regime after the first gulf war. Talk about blowback. Israel's lack of wisdom got them a lot of that. It suggests to me that the US is ill advised to adopt Israeli threat perspectives and action patterns.

And Gnarff,
as for playing with Iran, that is an excellent and extremely sensible idea. Peace you have to make with your enemies. There is no way around it. You don't need to marry them, or like them. But the Bush administration has refused all Iranian offers for such a 'Grand Bargain' with unprecedented arrogance, dressing down the Swiss, the intermediaries in US-Iranian relations, for even forwarding such a proposal. It'll take somebody else to do something about it.
It is that such a deal with Iraq was impossible after Saddam being portrayed as the devil and the 'Butcher of Baghdad' that anybody making such a proposal would have been blasted as being a weak sister. With Iran being similarily demonised in the US as well, it will get harder to make politically acceptable such a deal. Politicians going down that route should expect to be smeared. That is what I meant with domestic dynamics.

And again BTA,
it's worth keeping in mind that it took Nixon, in a brilliant political move, to go to China and make peace with Mao Tse Tung - a guy who probably killed 300 million people and as an evildoer by the Saddam logic couldn't possibly be trusted. Amazingly, the deal held. But no, Saddam was different, he was really evil! And Nixon doesn't count because him engaging Mao proves that he was a crypto-Commie. The day is saved. No inconvenient thoughts! Man, open your mind!

 

It's easy to criticize Israel when you're in a country that's not surrounded by neighbours who claim loud and long that one of their main policy goals is to wipe you off the face of the earth.

As for the invasion, I never said "it was Saddam's fault." If I came across that way, my bad. However, to say that he deserved it for being the vicious bugger he was, well, that's more in line with my thoughts. There's a hundred other little tin plated despots in the world who deserve some serious justice, but it would be unwise of anyone to do so just because of the quagmire it would put the invading country in. But that doesn't make them any less despicable.

Chandos, your point is well taken, and I'm aware that the U.S. government makes dirty deals all the time (as does every country) -- I mean, they support the Saudi regime despite the fact that they are more repressive at times than even Saddam. The point is, they draw flak for doing that. In fact, they draw flak for pretty much everything they do.

Gnarff, while I agree that using Iran as a counterweight to Iraq is a fair policy (the U.S. has been playing these two off each other for a long time) I question your use of the term "credible" in relation to the Iranian regime!

 

Ragusa: You may not know, but the MTR's are primarily used for weapons development. Osirak was designed to evaluate nuclear flux and could be used to process a small amount of plutonium. It may be that the French were the only ones willing to sell nuclear technology to Iraq, but the MTR seems a odd choice for peaceful research.

 

Ragusa - I respectfully disagree that America should make peace with despots and bullies, such as Iran, for the simple sake of peace. I'm a non-voilent, peace loving guy, but principles should prevail in dealing with tyrants and tyranical regimes such as Iran. We complain here about the isolation of gays, but those bullies in Iran hang them - in public; they abhore freedom of expression, religion and the press; they have a brigade of zealots who act as the "thought police," attacking citizens in public for cultural "infractions;" they are probably supporting our enemies in Iraq and would not pass up the chance to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

In my humble oponion, Saddam should have been held accountable for the "accidental" shooting of the US frigate Stark, (1986?) and the killing American sailors. But in that instance, the American adminstration chose to look the other way, rather than pursue just how much of an "accident" it really was. I never trusted Saddam or the bullies in Iraq, or the Taliban, but that does not mean that I would have chose to invade Iraq in a war of choice, nor would I bomb Iran. Only that they should be regarded as enemies. Give these idiots enough rope and they will find a way to hang themselves, without us having to get our hands bloody by doing it for them.

 

If you don't want Iran to change, the most effective method to insure its stability is to pursue the course we've been pursuing since the hostage crisis.

I take it you're in favor of theocracies, Chandos?

 

Chandos - I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning on Iran. Peace is, chiefly, the state of not having war. Therefore if two countries are not at war with each other, they are at peace - so I can't quite agree with your claim that the US should be at peace with Iran "for the simple sake of peace." If it has to resort to war, okay; yet peace for the sake of peace is way, way better than war for the sake of - well, most everything with a few notable expenses.

Of course, there are different kinds of peace, particularly as far as the relations with that country go: technically, the cold war was a period during which the USSR and the USA were at "peace". Nobody is saying that the US shouldn't treat Iran with care or wariness, I believe . Just that unless there is a real necessity for war (and I still don't think it existed in Iraq) peace is the better option.

 

BTA,
One thing to keep in mind about Israel's Osirak attack is that it was in UN Resolution 487 strongly condemned and found to be in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct. That resolution was passed unanimously, with the US vote, during Reagan's presidency and when US ambassador to the UN was hardcore Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Did Saddam have such intentions before the attack? Hard to say. It can be argued that Saddam even in case he had no nuclear aspirations was given a reason to do so in secret, in violation of the NPT, by the attack. And that is hardly proof of Saddam's treacherousness. For a sovereign country whose nuclear reactor just had been taken out by the only nuclear power in the region, in an act of aggression that demonstrates an ability and will to dominate, it is reasonably forthright to consider looking for a nuclear deterrent, in secret to avoid a second such attack. That doesn't strike me as vicious, crazy or insane in the slightest. In fact it's pretty rational. Of course, one can only get there if one is willing to concede that that animal Saddam was capable of rational thought.

Surprise attacks do cause such things. In the US, 911 caused policy makers to claim that international law does not longer apply to the US, manifesting itself in the national security strategy of iirc 2002. I find it patently ridiculous to simply look at it, sip on your beer, and conclude that Saddam was a nutter, and evil and ... good riddance. It ain't that easy. There also seems to be a whole lot of confusion about the incompatibility of US goals (regime change) and the goal of the disarmament regime imposed on Saddam (disarmament). The 'Saddam's to blame' school of thought assumes that the US in dealing with Iraq has always acted in good faith and couldn't possibly have been contributed to lack of cooperation on Saddam's side. Alas, that was not so.

The accusation that someone you don't like cannot be trusted anyway is IMO wielded promiscuously in the US public dispute. It's a convenient excuse for not trying. Politicians who use that argument to justify a hard line are acting cheap, and seem to choose any day a good dose of Moralin over hard thinking. In effect they are just delegating the hard moral choices down the chain of command, usually to soldiers to have to execute the wars of choice their leaders have been seeking, just to maintain their moral purity and a good non-waffling track-record of being 'tough on evil'. The moral burden is to be carried by the decision makers, the elected leaders, not soldiers. They forget that use of force is the last resort. It is not about seeking peace for peace's sake Chandos, I am no peacenik. But I do oppose policies seeing war as the tool of choice because it involves no personal 'compromising with evil' if you're sufficiently superior.
In my view that's coward and immoral. That applies especially to pre-emptive wars of choice for the sake or regime change. Wars of national defence or national liberation are something else where you do not have a choice, and Iraq doesn't fall by any stretch into that category. And just in case, no, Saddam had no links to Al Queda.

In the end, accepting Saddam's exile would have been a zero risk strategy for the US. In case it didn't work, they could have still invaded if they absolutely felt they needed. They didn't even try, probably because it would f*ck up their attack deadlines. It seems to be a popular belief that the Bush administration in good faith tried to prevent the war with Iraq. I don't buy that. And in any case the Bush administration didn't even try to make peace with Iran when the Iranians were having candlelight vigils in Teheran for the victims of 911 and really wanted to make peace. The answer was the moronic axis of evil speech, clearly one of the stupidest US foreign policy moves ever, well, so far.

I think that engaging despots is inevitable. That doesn't mean throwing your principles overboard. But that requires dialogue (both sides talking, listening, and having a will to come to a result), not hurling accusations at them. You don't tell nations you don't like you'll undo them, and expect them to behave well. You only do such a thing when you don't care what they do because you intend to act on that announcement. And I think that the politicos formulating the regime change strategy were indeed willing to and considered the US able to act on that. A bold strategy indeed. Look how well it worked in Iraq.
To get back to my point, nothing did more to end the cold war than the non binding Helsinki accords on civil rights, on which the Russians agreed to publish a declaration that in their media. That spawned a whole generation of dissidents in Russia and helped trigger the internal change that eventually led to the collapse of the regime. That and the Afghanistan war probably did more to end communism than all the hysterical arms races and hair trigger alerts. Talking with your enemies will generate a modus vivendi, which is a good start for further improvement. The cold war lasted 50 years, with a lot of tension, stand offs, hair trigger alerts, proxy wars and some pretty shady compromises. Should the US have gone to war with the USSR in order to prevent themselves from getting corrupted in this process instead? There are things easier said than done, "Better dead than red!" is one of them, particularly when applied on policy and war making, especially in foreign countries. To make it more pointed: To pursue that path of moral clarity would have probably wiped out my country in the process. Worth it?

China is another point in case. It's not about 'for the sake of peace', but about common sense. With his China move Nixon ended all further fighting about the Dominoes in East Asia. The christian China lobby in the US was terribly upset about that because Mao was an atheist, but so what? Is risking a nuclear war a good price for keeping missionaries happy?
Today East Asia, despite all hysterical concerns of the time, is not red because of a US withdrawal. In fact, it's entirely capitalist. Your trainers have probably been made in Vietnam (mine are I noticed). Vietnam is not a place I'd like to live in, but apparently the Vietnamese have been able to govern their place reasonably well without US tutelage. Yes, Vietnam did kill an awful lot of Americans, and beastly treated POWs. Germany killed an awful lot more of Americans. And America killed an awful lot of Germans and Vietnamese. So what? It's 2007.

The only thing that I dislike about the American stance, and that's in the essence what has been ticking me off throughout this thread, is that their nation is not to blame in the slightest for what their national politics have caused. National policies are national acts of will. The Iraq war, carried by congress, was a national act of will, carried out by the military force of the nation that travelled a long way to go to war with Iraq. To blend all that out, and focus on Saddam and assign guilt only to him is just a quite astonishing point of view.

[ October 03, 2007, 14:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa,

I agreed with much of your post. I apologize in advance that I won't do it proper justice, but I really only want to comment on two points you brought up:

I think a lot of people bought that (myself included) back in March 2003. I know very few people who still buy that 4 1/2 years later in October 2007. The only ones who still buy it are the ones that will continue to back Bush's decisions no matter what. These people are lost, and cannot be cured. But enough of that - this is what I really wanted to discuss.

As far as I am concerned, you have brought up a problem that bugs a lot of people in the US. To put it more succinctly: There is a complete lack of accountability, particularly in the upper echelons of the administration, for any and all actions taken by the US government that turn out poorly. When something goes right (or is seemingly going right), they are the first people to stand up to take credit. Bush landing on the carrier and giving the "mission accomplished" speech is a case in point. When something goes wrong, they are always ready to point the finger at someone else. I expect more from my leaders.

 

I disagree completely -- and I'm a Bush supporter. I think everyone could see he had an itchy trigger finger. The big problem was the hysteria about the war on terrorism and many people (politicians, journalists, and citizens) confused the two issues. Iraq was NOT about the war on terror. However, many people believed weapons of mass destruction could get into the hands of terrorists -- and Iraq would be the source. This added fuel to the anti-terrorism fire in America and practically assured support for Bush's personal vendetta.

I felt the sanctions were working and that we had no business going to war over a blood fued of the Bush family. There was no 'good faith' here, it was all about expediently eliminating a perceived threat.

Aldeth: That's what television politics has done to America. We are no longer focused on issues or integrity. Image is what wins elections.

 

Well, technically, it should have been labeled the "Cold Peace" by your definition. But another good definition of war is to be an active counterforce, in the hopes of fashioning progressive change, or reform. We Americans love this "war" terminology: The War on Drugs, The War on Poverty, The War on Terror, The War on Crime... In my younger days, I killed my share of nickel bags. Much like those "old warriors" of the Iquisition, (the War on Satan) I would have considered it a sin to draw blood, so I never took them into my backyard and actually "shot" them, but I set fire to many of the enemy drugs, which proves my patriotism.

Of course, using such terminology "proves" that we mean business. For instance, when your average American politician uses the terminology of fashioning a "war" (and we have lots of average ones), it causes Americans to pause and take note notice; it even earns them a top spot on FOX News. There's nothng we Americans love to hear more about than a good old fashioned "war," except, of course, how Brittany is doing in rehab.

[ October 03, 2007, 21:27: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Ragusa, I can totally see your point on the responsibility issue. The U.S. claims responsibility every time something goes right, and never shoulders the blame when something goes wrong. That's obvious.

But that behaviour is not unique to the Americans. Pretty well every government or institution in the world does the same thing. I'd argue that the vast majority of individuals in the world react this way instinctively. Some people are just pissed that the Americans can do it and are powerful enough to get away with it. But for those detractors who dislike the Americans for their arrogance (and I'm one of those detractors more often than you might think) there is the fact that America is once again getting a lesson in humility. A small group of poverty stricken, underfunded and underequipped rebels is consistently thwarting the massively well funded war machine of what is arguably the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. That's got to stick in the craw.

 

Heh, guess that makes me a war criminal.

 

BTA,
what I say about Saddam is that America contributed to Saddam's decisions, and that you apparently are not overly well informed about what the US did during the sanctions period. You basically say it's Saddam's fault that the US had to keep troops in Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on him, and thus contributed to Al Quaeda's grievances and is thus responsible for them striking the US? Gimme a break, are you serious? The original idea behind the resolutions against Iraq was to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty. So far so good. Once that was achieved the armistice negotiations started, and here it gets interesting.

What the US made out of that was something entirely different. Iraq now was to meet disarmament conditions, and only then Iraq would be allowed to be a sovereign country again. Now restoration of Kuwait's territorial integrity was no longer the point. The sanctions regime they imposed only nominally had the goal to disarm Saddam. The larger idea was to weaken Saddam and to achieve regime change through destabilisation of his regime. That however failed because the US regime changers severely underestimated Saddam's staying power and the degree to which he could gather support in his population. The troops that put down the Shia uprising were largely Shia.
No reason to change the policy though. What is responsible for the persistent US presence that ticked off Al Qaeda was the US sticking to a failed policy because they had no better alternative plan and were unwilling to let even a disarmed Saddam off the hook, and interviews with US government officials made that abundantly clear: Whatever Saddam would do, it would never be good enough. The Iraqis were acutely aware of that. The US ended up with a decade long stand off and and persistent undeclared air war and ever toughening sanctions.

Saddam kicked out the inspectors? You have an idea why? No, it wasn't because he was evil, or because he had much left to hide. It was because the US were playing games. The Iraqis found out that US intelligence services had infiltrated the presumably neutral inspectors to gather intelligence about his government. The US abused the inspection regime for their own ends - regime change. They US consciously put Iraq in an impossible position by setting up demands Saddam couldn't possibly meet. The sanctions were a set-up. And you are mistaken, I am not defending Saddam here, but I try to point out that in dealing with Iraq the US did have choices and made poor ones, and are very far from being blameless in the case of Iraq. Yes, Saddam was a thug - but what where the US? What about crooks? US policy towards Iraq was a dishonest and very cynical game. And you come along and earnestly blame Saddam for not surrendering unconditionally and stepping down in time because an irrational and cynical US policy left him no other option? In which world do you live? Nobody would surrender to such terms, nobody.

What the entire malaise about Iraq suggests to me is that insistence on regime change in itself is an inherently stupid idea for a policy. It is a one way street. If it doesn't work you're stuck with no option but escalation, or risk losing face. The reason is quite simple: Because to justify regime change the first step is demonization. For regime change to be publicly acceptable the other side must be truly evil, and inherently untrustworthy so they can impossibly be dealt with because they would break every agreement. That was what I meant with falling for your own propaganda image of your chosen enemy. Saddam as the untrustworthy, irrational Butcher of Baghdad is as (anglo)-american a product as hot dogs. That the US eventually went to war with Iraq over this only underlines that once you got for forced regime change, and stick to that, the result inevitably will be war.

Oh, we could already be speaking of Iran.