A History of the Iraqi Conflict…
Lately, I’ve seen comments on my Should We Attack Iraq… and Those Stupid Americans… articles along a similar vein, mainly that the US is unjust in its position against Iraq. I submit the following, much of which is taken or derived from documents and records at the National Security Archive at George Washington University:
In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of countries regarded as supporters of international terrorism. That action eliminated legal restrictions that would otherwise have prevented Iraq from receiving credit guarantees, enabling it to obtain credit for the purchase of US products and technology. The authorization enabled Iraq to obtain financing to import US food products, a significant benefit for a country that experienced growing financial difficulties throughout the 1980s. Iraq’s economic difficulties resulted in part from its commitment to intensive and expensive civilian and military industrialization programs, a commitment which was maintained throughout and after the war with Iran. The US government, fully aware that Iraq had active programs in the areas of chemical and biological warfare and missile development, was concerned about providing it with US technology. Nevertheless, a great deal of dual-use equipment and technology made its way to Iraq from the US throughout the 1980s, including missile research and information on explosives and propellants research and production.
Throughout the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), the Reagan administration chose to give priority to maintaining US-Iraq relations over concerns about Iraq’s use of chemical warfare. In March of 1984, the United States publicly condemned Iraq’s almost daily use of chemical weapons. However, Iraq continued its use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces throughout the war. The issue became more problematic for the Reagan administration, however, in the spring and summer of 1988, when Iraq engaged in chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds in the village of Halabja and at other locations. The Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs described the government of Saddam Hussein as “one of the most brutal and repressive in the world”, based partially on the use of chemical weapons on its own people.
The Bush administration became a particular focus of criticism because it followed its predecessor in making strengthened US-Iraq relations a key objective, despite the fact that the end of the Iran-Iraq war had eliminated a major rationale for this goal. A transition paper prepared for the new presidency outlined the conflicts that characterized existing policy toward Iraq. The paper recommended assigning high priority to US-Iraq relations because of Saddam Hussein’s potential as a “major player,” but reviewed persistent divisive issues, including Iraq’s chemical weapons use which “aroused great emotions” in the United States, and its “abominable human rights record.” These negative factors were contrasted with Iraq’s value as a financial market and its potential as a trading partner, and with the fact that it shared an interest with the US in containing Iran. Secretary of State James Baker personally intervened to promote strong ties with Baghdad, asking the Commodity Credit Corporation to increase its Iraqi funding by $1 billion during 1990.
On August 4, 1989, the FBI and other agencies raided the Atlanta branch office of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), one of Italy’s largest banks, whose shares were almost entirely owned by the Italian government. Informants had reveled that the bank had provided massive off-the-books loans to foreign countries, including Iraq. The loans had far exceeded the bank’s lending limits and were recorded in a parallel accounting system rather than in its official records. The branch office had not only handled a major portion of US agricultural credit guarantees for Iraq; it had also provided financing for exports of non-agricultural products. In addition, the managers had signed a series of agreements obligating the bank to provide $1.155 billion in loans to Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Production, a government organization that was in charge of Iraq’s efforts to obtain western technology for military research and development programs, including those involving chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and missiles. George Bush still signed National Security Directive 26, committing the administration to strengthened ties with Iraq.
Despite the commitment of the Bush administration to maintaining political and economic relations with Iraq, sustaining that relationship became increasingly difficult. On December 5, Iraq launched a rocket capable of conveying satellites into space. US officials immediately began to discuss increased efforts to control technology exports to Iraq, and also began discussion of Iraq’s efforts to expand its chemical and nuclear weapons programs. It took Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait for President Bush to issue executive orders to freeze all Iraqi and Iraq-controlled assets in recompense for the state’s $2 billion in defaults.
Two administrations, blinded by the economic potential of a solid US-Iraq relationship, supported Saddam despite well-documented involvement in humanitarian atrocities, corruption, and technological espionage. While I hesitate to assert that the United States “created” Saddam Hussein as he exists today, both administrations were naive in their machinations and in their support of his regime.
It’s time to send in the clean-up crew…
“peace must be supported by going to war” OK, can anyone actually explain to me how you do that? As for your other points, I’m sure many of the people in Iraq want Saddam out of power and support him only because they fear him. But I’m not convinced our invading a soverign nation is the best way to deal with this. (And let’s be honest. “Iraqi Freedom” is not the reason we went to war.) “Inactivity supports the growing strength of a dangerous tyrrany” but there WERE activities going on. Sure, searching and inspecting aren’t as much fun or as quick as dropping bombs. But they’re certanly cheaper and less destructive, aren’t they? And I could absolutely make the argument that Iraqi civilians are dying. Are you truly suggesting it is better for us to kill 100 so Saddam won’t kill 1000? What if we could prevent the 1000 without having to kill the 100? Wouldn’t THAT be a better option? And, finally, it is ABSOLUTELY a decision about war over peace. I suggest that the next time you are about to say there is no choice but war that you think about about it. Check your basic assumptions. Make sure you’re not starting part way down a path of thought. Too many people are NOT thinking this through, opting instead for the easier route of starting with square 5 by which point there really does seem to be only one path ahead.
Mostly, I agree. The US is not invading with the primary reasons being humanitarian ones. However, the citizens will eventually benefit. A regime that throws (or threatens to throw) children of its own citizens into whirring helicopter blades in order to force their parents’ cooperation and submission cannot justify its existence in the 21st century. - RDL
What about a country that forces its citizens into burning buildings and blocks the path of rescue workers? What about a counrty that stands by and does nothing while they do? Do we get to invade Saudi ARabia and Amaerica next?
Most interesting. Alot of Americans and Brits are happy justifying this action with the argument that the Iraqis are benefiting from this more than anyone and ‘we’ are liberating them. People who talk about the Germans and the Japanese forget that the US refused to help until Pearl Harbour, and even refused to accept Jewish refugees so thats that argument. Am reading a biography about Saddam, not a sympathetic one, which mentions the CIA fund revolution in 1963, following which Bechtel were awarded a nice juicy contract. Guess who got a nice juicy contract last week ? Yup, Bechtel. The US (and others) have been playing Iraq (and others) for decades now. 9/11 was just a result of US interference. And the information flow to the general public means that they sit there thinking that our countries were right to do what they did but there isnt any excuse for this. No ‘defence of our people’, because there still are no chemical weapons, no ‘freeing the iraqis’ because there was no desire to protect them ever. If that were the case then what about China who we love so much despite their horrific human rights record. Regime change was just a smokescreen for another move to economically exploit a weaker country. However, just like 9/11, there will be a come uppance, and I hope I’m somewhere safe when it happens. We’ll see how long the troops stay in Iraq, we’ll see if they decide to execute ‘regime change’ in Syria and we’ll see how many Americans who opposed this war before it started revert to their anti war stance once they realise this was a ruse to line a few evil old báštárd’s pockets (Rumsfeld is an evil looking old báštárd). I hate when our soldiers have to go out and die for these báštárdš to make more money. I’m afraid those of us who believe we were doing anyone a favour are really just asking to be told bedtime stories. Go out and do your own research, the truth is out there ;o) Fox Mulder
i believe that going to war for peace has many advantages and disadvatages. i am only 16 and I am supporting our troops, the troops that are dying for us. the people who dont support those troops are being selfish. put yourself in their position. if you were out in a foreign country and your comerades are dying and you heard that your friends at home are not supporting you and saying things like this is an effortless fight, how would that make you feel?
Prior to 1979 the Oil Cartel (prim. US Corp’s) were bleeding Iran of oil. In 1979 dictator Shaw developed cancer, dying in 1980, causing the Iran front-gov to collapse (we had reinstalled SOB in 1950s along with SAVAK Secret Police after Shaw was ousted in elections). President Reagan (1982) as front for the Oil Cartel then took Iraq off US “Terrorist Supporting Nation” list that was an effective Embargo of WMD-sales. Reagan/Bush also instrumental in Saddam getting many US-Corp Bio-Agent strains (for health reasons?). We even shipped US Agri-surplus to Iraq, which Saddam sold to enlarge his military (largest of Arab nations). Reagan & Bush then provided Top-Secret spy plane-satelite data, sitting back and watching Saddam poison-gas Iran (and) Iraq Villages of people. Our government then stopping by veto a UN investigation of this atrocity. This is a trend of Reagan/Bush bunch, who also stopped US-gov and UN from putting an Embargo on Aparthied (look it up). What the warmongers want everyone to forget, is that Saddam as with Muslim-Mujihadeem (Freedom Fighters) were essentially (every enemy) they today want our young children to die fighting. Does anyone remember the (pre-emptive) war to prevent “Mushroom Clouds?” Couldn’t call it a Police Action, now could we?