Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kissinger: Steps on the way to ousting Saddam from Iraq
Houston Chronicle ^ | Sunday, August 11, 2002 | HENRY A. KISSINGER

Posted on 08/11/2002 9:24:03 AM PDT by Dog Gone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 08/11/2002 9:24:03 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
" ... planning should be based on the visible availability of an overwhelming force capable of dealing with all contingencies, and not on the expectation of a quick Iraqi collapse ... "

2 posted on 08/11/2002 9:38:50 AM PDT by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
 " ... creating a system to deal with this challenge to humanity on a more institutional basis ... "

Was supposed to be the challenge to the United Nations.

3 posted on 08/11/2002 9:41:33 AM PDT by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
It doesn't sound as if Henry thinks the UN is the solution for dealing with new Saddams as they pop up around the world.

He doesn't elaborate, but it seems as if he's suggesting that a "nuclear club," comprised of responsible nuclear countries, act in concert to deal with future threats. Sort of a Nuclear Nato, I guess.

4 posted on 08/11/2002 9:48:57 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
Kissinger has spoken.

This should shut Brent Scowcroft up. It has also helped to lay the intellectual framework for the postwar world.

His explanation of the Peace of Westphalia was instructive.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

5 posted on 08/11/2002 9:53:12 AM PDT by section9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: section9
It might shut Dick Armey up, as well.
6 posted on 08/11/2002 9:57:13 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Historically correct, right on target for the current situation, and helpful for the long term. Could not ask for more.
7 posted on 08/11/2002 10:01:31 AM PDT by NetValue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
The Middle East will be split into an inarticulate group, which will be weighing relief from radical pressures authored by Baghdad against the rising dangers from the local Arab street, and radical Islamists, already enraged by the American presence in the region.

What does "radical pressures authored by Baghdad" mean?

As far as I can tell, no country in the Middle East other than Israel actually fears Iraq. Iran fought Iraq to a draw back in the '80s, when Iraq was supported by the Reagan administration. Kuwait is now well protected by US and UK forces. Saudi Arabia has sufficient air power to demolish any Iraqi attack. Syria has had friendly relations with Iraq, a similar Baathist tradition, and roughly equivalent military power. Turkey has greater military power. Jordan, like Kuwait is still functionally a UK/US protectorate.

8 posted on 08/11/2002 10:15:13 AM PDT by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
I don't think the Gulf states fear an imminent attack from Saddam, at least as long as we have a military presence in the area. However, he is expanionist and he's fought his neighbors to the east and south. He's no friend to any of the rulers of those nations.

They can't be terribly pleased that Saddam is building nukes, as well as chemical and bio weapons. His wanton destruction of the Kuwaiti oilfields upon withdrawing from Kuwait demonstrate a willingness to destroy for destruction's sake.

Saddam's weapons may be meant only for Israel, but nobody can be sure that some won't find its way into the radical terrorist organizations. In reality, there is nothing good that come out of Iraq's efforts to perfect weapons of mass destruction, even for Saudi Arabia.

The only reason we have a presence in the Middle East is because of Iraq. We weren't there to any extent before the Gulf War. Containment, as a strategy, has been successful in terms of protecting the region from Saddam so far, but it has been a total failure in terms of preventing the creation of WMD.

Why does Saddam want them so badly if he doesn't intend on using them for leverage, at a minimum, and to destroy entire populations, at worst?

9 posted on 08/11/2002 10:43:47 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
It would be a good thing if Clinton and Kissinger would go away.
10 posted on 08/11/2002 10:52:50 AM PDT by gaffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Who the hell cares what Henry DETENTE Kissinger think ?
11 posted on 08/11/2002 10:59:36 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
A lot of people care. He remains the most respected voice outside of government in the field of foreign relations in this country.

Do you disagree with what he wrote here, or did you skip reading it because you don't like him?

12 posted on 08/11/2002 11:09:30 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
The overthrow of the Iraq regime [would]...strengthen moderate forces in Saudi Arabia

Certainly could happen, but that assumes the hardline Islamists don't take control before or during the Iraq regime change.

13 posted on 08/11/2002 11:56:51 AM PDT by j271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Let me toss something out here and see who salutes it.

Saddam is more afraid of Saudi Arabia than us. Not because of their money, but because of their religion. More that western weapons and money, it is the fundies that he fears will overthrow him. Saddam fears militant islam.

Just a thot. Fire when ready, Gridley.

t
14 posted on 08/11/2002 12:00:01 PM PDT by P7M13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: j271
Part of Saudi Arabia's discomfort with an American action to topple Saddam is the fact we are intent on replacing him with a representative government.

A genuine, functioning democracy in the Gulf is a threat to all autocratic rulers there. The Saudi Royal family is hanging on by a thread as it is, with both radical Islamists (like bin Laden) threatening it from one side, and those who chafe under the strict religious rule from the other.

15 posted on 08/11/2002 12:05:01 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
And we may find many more nations willing to cooperate in reconstruction than in warfare if only because no country wants to see an exclusive position for America in a region so central to energy supplies and international stability.

Sorry Henry, but "to the victor go the spoils".

:=|

16 posted on 08/11/2002 12:58:47 PM PDT by MassMinuteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Kissinger is clueless.

Overwhelming force is meaningless in this context, when all Saddam has to do is send a single e-mail to bring about the death of millions of Americans and the total economic loss of cities like NYC and Washington, DC, just as he promised us in the wake of his strike against the WTC:

THIS IS NEXT
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX
YOU CAN NOT STOP US
ARE YOU AFRAID?
The problem will not be solved by brute force. Anybody who thinks otherwise probably also still thinks we let Saddam off the hook in 1991 because we didn't have a UN mandate, or because we didn't want to offend our Arab buddies. (Think again!) Anyway, George Bush has a different plan. Wait and see.
17 posted on 08/11/2002 1:42:17 PM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
You remain convinced that Saddam was behind the anthrax attacks here in America. You have a distinctly minority opinion in that regard, and I know that I don't share it.

But, if you are correct, that fact will come out, probably just before we move militarily. I'm still holding out hope for a US-sponsored coup that would avoid the campaign and the fairly high chance of WMD being deployed by Saddam.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam doesn't have the slightest reason to refrain from using everything in his arsenal this time. With the US already on record as seeking his removal as the goal, the best he could hope for is a prison cell with Manuel Noriega. More likely his future would look like Mussolini's, hanging upside down from a gas station sign. No reason for him to hold back.

18 posted on 08/11/2002 2:05:00 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
The only reason we have a presence in the Middle East is because of Iraq. We weren't there to any extent before the Gulf War.

The oil field concessions in Saudi Arabia date from meetings between FDR and Ibn Saud during WW II. We overthrew Mossadegh in Iran and installed the Shah. There was heavy influence over Iran until the Revolution. Turkey has been part of NATO since it was formed and had a large US presence.

19 posted on 08/11/2002 5:26:19 PM PDT by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: uncbob; gaffin
Kissinger is almost as smart as he thinks he is. I trust James Baker more, but Henry does get it right, too.
20 posted on 08/11/2002 5:28:39 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson