Posted on 09/23/2001 10:59:41 PM PDT by gaelwolf
What "pressure" did the US put on the UN to rally them against Iraq? Saddam Hussein's annexing of Kuwait wasn't "a problem?"
How quickly we forget our history. Remember "Operation Desert Shield?" The United States sent its forces to the Middle East under the pretext that they were going to defend Saudi Arabia against an Iraqi invasion. After everything was in place, they decided that "Desert Shield" would become "Desert Storm," and these forces would be used to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.
"The U.N. has mandated an armed response to get get Hussein out of Kuwait," they said at the time, "so we must do it." The fact that the U.N. has been "mandating" Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories for years (with the U.S. and Israel often being the only opposing votes) never seemed to inspire even the mildest U.S. interest, but by gosh, this U.N. mandate must be followed!
That whole incident in the Persian Gulf was nothing more than manipulation of public opinion from the beginning. In retrospect, there are some facts related to the Gulf War that make the whole thing ridiculous from a U.S. perspective.
1. The U.S. ended up engaging in military action against one of the only Middle Eastern nations that had any degree of religious tolerance and where non-Islamic religions (with the exception of Judaism, of course) flourished. Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, for example, is not a Moslem but is a Chaldean or Maronite Christian.
2. During this conflict, the U.S. sided with an array of Islamic nations that on any other day would be considered "intolerant." After hearing the stories about the Pentagon asking U.S. servicemen stationed in Saudi Arabia to refrain from openly showing religious medallions or other symbols (in case they offend the very people that the U.S. was supposed to be "protecting"), I didn't know whether to laugh or vomit. It was this incident in particular that made me decide that I wouldn't be so disappointed to see President Bush defeated in 1992.
3. Iraq and Kuwait had been engaged in a border dispute for years, primarily centered around the issue of directional drilling and the ownership of oil fields that straddled the border between the two nations. This became a particularly contentious issue in the late 1980s because Iraq was relying on its oil revenue to help it recover financially from its ten-year war with Iran. If anything, most Arab countries probably would have supported Iraq, since Kuwait has always been seen by these nations as nothing more than a huge pain in the ass.
I haven't "forgotten" that "history," because it was never written that way -- not accurately, anyway. I don't know what Canadian history books are like, but they don't seem to be much different than America's, unfortunately.
Let's get a take from one of the true insiders: Here's Wafic al Samarrai, Saddam's Head of Iraqi Military Intelligence at the time, from a BBC interview shown on PBS' Frontline (bold mine):
Now...what was that you were saying about "pretext?"
Q: Iraq's situation following the Iran/Iraq War.....Samarrai: Iraq left the war with Iran heavy under debts. Iraq had ambitions ...Iraq looked to build a major military power and sturdy economy. Towards the end of the Iraq/Iran war the Iraqi army stood at one million and 300,000 soldiers and had more than 4500 tanks and more than 600 combat aircrafts and many pieces of artillery. In addition, this includes the popular army. When Saddam Hussein spoke he thought that Kuwait was the salvation from the poor economic state that resulted from the war with Iran . The economic status was good if not very good, but the financial state of the power..was not providing enough sources to re-vamp the army. Iraq was also heavily in debt and this put a restraint to his research in biological and other sorts of weapon. This is what is meant by the very poor economic state. But as for individuals, they were being able to manage quite alright.
Saddam Hussein always talk about great Iraq. Great Iraq meant that Iraq should become the strongest country in terms of the army, the economy and the politics and he always looked to expand...
</font color>
Q: His Arab Neighbors....Samarrai: Generally speaking, he was not comfortable to dealings with all Iraq's neighbours. For instance, he looks at Syria and the leadership in Syria with very deep concern. He thought that intellectual threat came from Syria. He was neither comfortable with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, economically speaking. He thought and he felt that he fought for them and he did favours for them and they should pay him back. He had also a very antagonistic view towards Iran. So you can see he is not comfortable with any of his neighbours and he was quite evil. He often miscalculated situations and that's why we always suffered from this point during our war with Iran. He never thought or visualised that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will take a tough stand towards him.</font color> Even towards the very few hours before the invasion, he never thought that the allies will strike against him though we tried very hard to convince him of this.
We had reports, intelligence reports, that the Gulf States had very poor relations at the time with Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, we learned that there were very clear sensitivities in their relations. We also learned, and knew, that the relations between the Gulf States and Jordan were not at their best terms. He built his calculations on these factors and he did not expect that reactions will be severe.
Saddam, before invading Kuwait, improved his relations with Yemen, with Jordan and Egypt and he formed the Arab Cooperation Council. One of the main objectives of this was to prepare the ground for invading Kuwait or any other similar action.. and to guarantee that these three parties would not know the truth.
The relation between Iraq and Jordan was very strong but, in fact, Saddam was really watchful and quite cautious towards King Hussein.</font color>
Q: Saddam's ambition...Samarrai: I believe that Saddam did not, and would not have been satisfied with only Kuwait. Had his invasion of Kuwait been without reprisals, he would have continued to take the Eastern part of Saudi Arabia.
In his further plans, we had planned this in detail, i.e. to take the oil wells in Saudi Arabia, had we engaged in fighting and had we been able to carry on our plans.</font color>
1. I am a U.S. citizen, and I was living in the States during the Persian Gulf War, so my views have not been colored by "Canadian history books."
2. There is a larger oil presence in Alberta than anywhere else in the world except Texas, and when you speak to people in the industry you get a very different picture of how things work in international politics.
3. People of even moderate intelligence must ask themselves what exactly motivated the U.S. government when they pursued their course of action in the Middle East back in 1991. The United States was selling military hardware to Iraq up until the day of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and the research I did at the time on those last-minute meetings between the Iraqi government and U.S. ambassador April Glaspie indicated that the United States had given Hussein veiled approval to invade Kuwait. When you consider that Hussein has been permitted to remain in power long enough to outlast George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton (and will be in power long after George W. Bush leaves office unless he dies a natural death -- mark my words on this one), something doesn't seem quite right.
In one respect, Osama bin Laden was justified in his outrage at the Saudi government in response to their dealings with the United States in 1991. I have always believed that the real motive for the U.S. involvement in the Gulf War had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and was nothing more than a back-door strategy to establish a permanent military presence in an oil-rich part of the world. Every day that passes lends more credence to this theory, and this is something that people should think about as events unfold in Afghanistan over the coming months.
If this sounds like a bizarre conspiracy theory to you, consider that the U.S. military campaign in the Middle East has now lasted longer than the Civil War and both World Wars -- combined.
I don't pretend to have any idea what was the deal with April Glaspie. It didn't then and doesn't now make sense that she would give some form of official word that it didn't make no nevermind if Iraq wanted to annex Kuwait, only for her superiors to contradict her. If this was some kind of brilliant master plan, the GHW Bush admin was really clever in making it look like Keystone Global Kops.
Regarding your charge that Saddam Hussein has been "permitted" to remain in power (as if the West has some use for him rather than being fearful of the bloody quagmire extracting him would cause), that suggests that world affairs are so well in hand that something like the Glaspie situation wouldn't have even happened.
Besides, the point of my last post wasn't to argue what was in the mind of the US and its UN allies as much as I was showing that the idea that Saddam was a threat to the Saudis wasn't a fantasy spun as cover for restoring Kuwait to it's ruling family.
It's a fact, Jack (or Jackie): Saddam Hussein DID have eyes on Saudi Arabia, and Desert Shield thwarted him. No less an authority than his military intelligence chief backs that charge up.
Blair has just realized that he (Blair) still has to perform, while klinton skates. Klinton still has his adoring suck-ups who sing his praises while conveniently overlooking all the evil klinton did to contribute to this disaster. Klinton partied for eight years, and now his buddy Blair is expected to lend a hand fixing the mess, while keeping silent about Klinton's major role.
Honestly, no.
Now, honestly...tell me which nation would.
I don't have any complaints about U.S. foreign policy per se, but I insist that they stop treating the American public as if they are all dumb as rocks. Even if I agree that the ultimate objectives of a military campaign are justified, anyone who gets up and lies to me about it becomes Public Enemy #1 in my mind. That applies to Democrats and Republicans alike.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Without taking sides on the "one-sided" policy -- what change in U.S. policy would not result in endangering the very existence of Israel?
Think before you answer.
So what was all the nonsense about fast food and television shows?
I wish the "Times" would let me thank the author directly for his honest attempt to assess our culture.
We ARE "The GOOD GUYS" in this terrible conflict.
The tragedy is, we will now be forced to CRUSH a conflicting culture in order to survive.
Once before, we were faced with "Kamikazes,"--& were forced to crush a competing culture whose only purpose was our annihilation. We NOW face a similar enemy; we are NOW forced to decide--once again--; if OUR culture should survive, if THEIR culture must expire to allow us to continue!--a choice NO civilized culture should be forced to make!
At the end of WWII, the psychotic element of Japanese culture FORCED this horrible decision upon us; now we face the SAME decision, forced upon us by the psychotic followers of a perverted form of Islam.
I sadly think that our answer MUST be the same--WE are STILL the "GOOD GUYS!!"
We must NOT ONLY be admired (however begrudgingly,) but FEARED.
The CRETINOUS Psychopaths who attacked us & MURDERED our innocents (women & children) MUST learn to be TERRIFIED of us.
They must lose one or more cities to HORRIFYING nuclear destruction; they & their offspring must be taught to fear us for GENERATIONS.
The ONLY deterrent to suicidal psychopaths is TOTAL, MIND-NUMBING FEAR.
So be it.
Doc
But.
Whose side are you really on?
[What a beautiful commentary!]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.