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

Skip to comments.

A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making (Iraq is Kennedy's fault)
nytimes.com ^ | March 14, 2003 | ROGER MORRIS

Posted on 03/13/2003 10:40:55 PM PST by Destro

A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making

By ROGER MORRIS

SEATTLE — On the brink of war, both supporters and critics of United States policy on Iraq agree on the origins, at least, of the haunted relations that have brought us to this pass: America's dealings with Saddam Hussein, justifiable or not, began some two decades ago with its shadowy, expedient support of his regime in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's.

Both sides are mistaken. Washington's policy traces an even longer, more shrouded and fateful history. Forty years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi leader seen as a grave threat in 1963 was Abdel Karim Kassem, a general who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. Washington's role in the coup went unreported at the time and has been little noted since. America's anti-Kassem intrigue has been widely substantiated, however, in disclosures by the Senate Committee on Intelligence and in the work of journalists and historians like David Wise, an authority on the C.I.A.

From 1958 to 1960, despite Kassem's harsh repression, the Eisenhower administration abided him as a counter to Washington's Arab nemesis of the era, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt — much as Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would aid Saddam Hussein in the 1980's against the common foe of Iran. By 1961, the Kassem regime had grown more assertive. Seeking new arms rivaling Israel's arsenal, threatening Western oil interests, resuming his country's old quarrel with Kuwait, talking openly of challenging the dominance of America in the Middle East — all steps Saddam Hussein was to repeat in some form — Kassem was regarded by Washington as a dangerous leader who must be removed.

In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies — chiefly France and Germany — resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s "Health Alteration Committee," as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.

Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. "Almost certainly a gain for our side," Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.

As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.

According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite — killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures.

The United States also sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the United States had backed against Kassem and then abandoned. Soon, Western corporations like Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum were doing business with Baghdad — for American firms, their first major involvement in Iraq.

But it wasn't long before there was infighting among Iraq's new rulers. In 1968, after yet another coup, the Baathist general Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr seized control, bringing to the threshold of power his kinsman, Saddam Hussein. Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard C.I.A. officers — including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time — speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists.

This history is known to many in the Middle East and Europe, though few Americans are acquainted with it, much less understand it. Yet these interventions help explain why United States policy is viewed with some cynicism abroad. George W. Bush is not the first American president to seek regime change in Iraq. Mr. Bush and his advisers are following a familiar pattern.

The Kassem episode raises questions about the war at hand. In the last half century, regime change in Iraq has been accompanied by bloody reprisals. How fierce, then, may be the resistance of hundreds of officers, scientists and others identified with Saddam Hussein's long rule? Why should they believe America and its latest Iraqi clients will act more wisely, or less vengefully, now than in the past?

If a new war in Iraq seems fraught with danger and uncertainty, just wait for the peace.

Roger Morris, author of "Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician," is completing a book about United States covert policy in Central and South Asia.


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: iraq; iraqhistory; jfk; johnfkennedy; rogermorris; warlist
I pride myself on knowing world history in general but this bit is new to me.
1 posted on 03/13/2003 10:40:55 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Destro
It is truly astounding how events seem to repeat over and over and over in human history. Oh yeah, the tools (weapons) are different, the tactics may be different, but the decisions, the reactions......always the same.

Are humans just plain stupid?????

2 posted on 03/13/2003 10:48:24 PM PST by technomage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Sounds like we should have left the Communist take over.They might have been easier to deal with. I'm sure we'll be dealing with the new despot in 20 years or so.
3 posted on 03/13/2003 10:52:39 PM PST by tubebender (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
I wish the left would make up its mind: is the CIA omnipotent or a bunch of bumbling fools?
4 posted on 03/13/2003 10:53:45 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
SO WHAT THE HELL IS THE AMERICAN PROBLEM!

There is a CIA man in Iraq! :))

5 posted on 03/13/2003 10:53:52 PM PST by bobi (events before the event are more important than the event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
the CIA is and has always been composed of omnipotently bumbling fools.
6 posted on 03/13/2003 10:56:21 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bobi
Ouch---that hurt.
7 posted on 03/13/2003 10:56:42 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Destro
THe reason you haven't heard of it is because it is a construct of Morris made out of rumors he has picked up- one of them originates with an Iranian mullah who couldn't abide the idea of Hussein being able to successfully invade Iran, so he claimed it was the all-powerful CIA. In the Middle East, everything is believed to be rooted in the CIA or the Mossad and nothing is ever blamed on the local prince or despot's security forces, or upon Muslim arabs, becuase then they would have to accept responsibility. It's little wonder that the tale has blossomed once in the hands of folks like Morris.

Roger Morris is a leftist-red, a fellow traveler who resigned his government job in protest of US action in Cambodia in 1970; one of those more in the mold of Chomsky and Ramsey Clark; but unlike them, he told such tantalizing lurid tales about the Clintons that right wingers fell for them in droves. The right was apt to believe anything bad about Clinton, whereas Morris is apt to believe anything about the CIA, no matter how far-fetched.

Morris believes Clinton was CIA. In fact, there isn't much he DOESN'T believe Clinton did. He used the tales of Clinton as flavoring to make his other unsourced nonnsense about the CIA more palatable to the rightwingers he was trying to spoonfeed.

Iraq was a Soviet client state all along and Hussein himself was a backer of the opponents of the Shah of Iran- hardly the kind of character useful to the CIA. Hussein was backed by pan-Arabic palestinians in Egypt, not by the CIA. It was among the palestinians that Hussein had sought refuge when he was involved in a failed coup when young, and to them he still clings for his cause is the conquest of Jerusalem. That's why he funds suicide bombing against Israel. The myth that he was some sort of buddy of ours is made believable only because Hussein supressed communists within Iraq- but it's just that, a myth. He backed communists in Iran- he just didn't like any competition at home. And while he was funding rioting in Iran, he was buying Scuds from the USSR and backing Abu Nidal terrorism in Syria, and he nationalized the oil companies. None of these things would be compatible with US policy.

8 posted on 03/14/2003 12:29:24 AM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro; piasa; bobi; BushMeister; tubebender; technomage
"...the CIA is and has always been composed of omnipotently bumbling fools..."

Yuppers! They damned-near got us killed.

It's those two words that don't go together - Military and Intelligence.............FRegards

9 posted on 03/14/2003 1:14:15 AM PST by gonzo (I wonder how much I can get away with, and still get to Heaven?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
The CIA should be disbanded as a failure and the job given to the Pentagon.
10 posted on 03/14/2003 6:43:00 AM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: *war_list; Ernest_at_the_Beach; madfly; farmfriend
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
11 posted on 03/14/2003 7:36:21 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Kennedy ... The man was a walking disaster area. Don;t blame the CIA or JFK, Blame Truman. He had a nuclear advantage and didn;t have the cahonies to use it when we had the commies on the run.

Hell, the nuclear radiation levels would be almost liveable today, I betcha.

12 posted on 03/14/2003 8:02:11 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... I'm kidding folks! OK? (well, almost))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa
Morris believes Clinton was CIA.

I don't know about this, but Clinton IS a covert Republican Party operative with the sole mission of destroying the Democratic Party. His role has been most successful, so far.

13 posted on 03/14/2003 8:41:20 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: technomage
"It is truly astounding how events seem to repeat over and over and over in human history. Oh yeah, the tools (weapons) are different, the tactics may be different, but the decisions, the reactions......always the same."

So true!

Santanya said: "Those who do not repeat history are doomed to repeat it."

It has seemed typical of politicians to never consider the long term consequences of their machinations. We need to remember what happened with the Munich Accords of the late 1930's.

Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister, sold out Czechloslovakia, in an act of craven appeasement. He told the World that we would have "..peace in our time..". We all know the results. Hitler was emboldend, and invaded the rest of Europe. World War II cost the lives of many milions of people, including the over 6 million Jews murdered in the Nazi death camps.

Every time I hear the pacifists, with their self-righteous "give peace a chance", I want to throw up. Pacifism costs lives.
14 posted on 03/14/2003 10:14:32 AM PST by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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