The War Against Iraq Over Kuwait

At the time I was pretty gratified that the war ended. Now, although I was opposed to the more recent war, I can admit that I think it would've been a better idea to depose Saddam then, when there were actual reasons to (violations of Kuwaiti sovereignity, suppression of Kurdish and Shiite minorities, stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons, etc.).

In retrospect, it would have been shameful if the United Nations had not stopped the elimination of one of their members.

What really gave me the creeps when it came out was the background of those high-profile and ubiquitious "support the troops" pro-war rallies, held in all fifty states. Many-- most?-- were secretly sponsored by Reverend Moon and the Unification Church, but were presented as grass-roots pro-war "protests." And of course they were publicized as much-- or more-- than genuinely grass-roots peace advocates who held protests.

The cynicism of the Bush administration has been pointed out above. But I really don't get the media blind eye to the long-term consequences of the betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites.

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

And how many days after this conversation did Iraq invade Kuwait? Oh yeah, A FUCKING WEEK!

Desert Storm/Desert Shield... lots of folx counting scud-fire nightly. Burning oil rigs. Saddam being compared to Hitler (surprise, surprise). "What this economy needs is a good war!"-type blather from the CIC. Nerve gas was tested, possibly exposed to USA troops ("Gulf War Syndrome").

I recommend the movie "Three Kings" for a decent period piece.

(xxx post)

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

It's not fundamentally different, is it? And remember, I said that even if this wasn't intentional, it was a major diplomatic screw-up to leave Hussein with the impression that the U.S. didn't care if he invaded Kuwait. And that is almost certainly what Glaspie did.

In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussain against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid."

Furthermore, she fucking ADMITS they screwed up by underestimating Hussein's stupidity! Well, perhaps you'll have that when you're looking the other way while the son of bitch uses poison gas in the Iran war and takes out a goodly number of Iraqi kurds at the same time. Give me a break.

Look, I'm just trying to learn about an issue you brought up, which seems interestingly thorny (different versions of an Arabic transcript) and about which people in the know seem to disagree.

The U.S.'s relationship with Hussein predates the Glaspie transcript. If they didn't understand him, they shouldn't have backed him in the Iran/Iraq war. He was well-known as a nutjob in the region even before that time. As I said, at the very least, Glaspie was careless to the point of incompetency. I don't know if there's anything else beyond that, and it doesn't really matter. I started this out by saying the Gulf War was bullshit--everything we've discussed fully supports that view, and I stand by it 100%.

if you must say so yourself.

I...am...shocked!

Now I know for sure that the Iraqi War was bullshit. Not only has everything discussed on this thread fully supported that view, there's photographic evidence!

Go on posting a picture that's been posted approximately 1,000 times on ILX and thinking you're making a salient point towards my comment. It's convincing.

If you'll note what I posted, I did address J's argument quite succinctly.

Who was being dismissive?

Call me a cynic, but I believe that the U.S Government DELIBERATELY
nudged Saddam towards invading Kuwait, for the purpose of having another
hoot n' holler of a popular war. Of course, I also believe that GWB
flatly lied about WMD's. Politicans like to play dumb ("we messed up,
sorry) when they've been caught red-handed, but I don't buy it.
>Is Iraq even a good idea...

You're so right. Iraq, Kuwait, all those nations were created in the early 1900s when
the British drew some lines on a map of the middle east. Of course this was going
to result in chaos. The question is, can we
fix things by rearranging the lines ourselves? Imperialism is a long, tough slog.

>In retrospect, it would have been shameful if the United Nations had not stopped
>the elimination of one of their members.

I've become disillusioned with the UN. So many people seem to accept it's
claims of legitimacy and goodness at face value; but how many of the
governments represented therein are democratic and fair? How can we trust
the appointees of cynical, ruthless dictators and oligarchs?

> The Big Lebowski, too.

Hang on, I changed my mind. The first Iraq War was totally worth it, if only
because it allowed the Dude to say, "this aggression will not stand, man."

When did Pat and the neo-cons drop all pretense of not hating non-Christians and non-whites? Once your candidate drops below .5% nationally, you can say whatever you want without fear, I suppose.

Your really expect me to think that a line like "everything we've discussed fully supports that view" is the sign of an honest discussion happening? If I ever posted a comment like that, do you think that you or anyone else would be dismissive of such egotistical condescension?

You really expect me to see your response--that picture of Rummi with Saddam, one that has been posted ad nauseum on ILX--and assume you are interested in an honest discussion?

I'm being lame?

This is what I think, too. I think my original opposition to the war was more of a gut-response of dislike for the people who were pro-war. The strange excitement the war itself seemed to cause in a lot of people I knew reinforced my anti-war views (all that stuff about 'did you see that missile going around corners' etc.)

But looking back, what was the alternative? Leaving Saddam ruling a previously independent country during the '90s would have been intolerable.
I'd like more people on the thread to address this point, rather than pointing out all the (undoubted) flaws in American policy before Saddam's invasion, and after the war.

however the effects both immediate and long term of the coalition attack were devastating for the iraqi people and i wonder which is the greater evil, invading kuwait or the devastation of the iraqi infrastructure etc.

but of course one of the reasons i alluded to above was that if hussein invaded kuwait with only nominal condemnation, he might have felt empowered to invade another country after the fashion of the iran-iraq war (which hussein always claims to have won, though it was a phyrric victory at best) which was the bloodiest middle eastern conflict of the century.

If J. wants to make a dismissive, subjective judgement such as "everything we've discussed fully supports" his view on this matter, then I don't see what the problem is with me calling him out on it. You think don't think his post was dismissive because you agree with his political position. You don't think your picture was dismissive because it jibes with your political position. Then, after making these nonsensical arguments, you accuse me of being "lame." I'm merely joining the table you've set for me.

if you must say so yourself.

which doesn't address the substance of J.'s argument, dismissive or not, at all! You're basically saying there "how dare you have your own opinion" to him without even having any substantial way of challenging his argument. It has nothing to do with who's on what side of the argument, it has to do with you deciding, out of the blue, to be a fucking prick.

So here we are, don. Tell us:

Remember that war in the early 1990s, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and then a US led coalition stuffed them out of it?

What were your opinions on that at the time? Have they changed?

I'd like to know what you really think about these questions, not whether or not you can tell someone to shut up.

Indirectly, it does. I'm not saying, "How dare you have your own opinion"--I'm saying "It's rather ridiculous to assume that every other post in this thread supports J's argument." This kind of out of the blue, fucking prickness happens all the time at ILX. Does it only bother you when it comes from me? How do you feel about filling up threads with comments such as "oh fuck you too, shill boy"? Should we look over other threads and note the number of times when you've chimed in with something like my first post? Your crusade of Internet etiquette that has been directly at me is not particularly compelling.

But since you asked:

Remember that war in the early 1990s, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and then a US led coalition stuffed them out of it?

Yes. I remember it. My roommate in college (I was a senior in undergrad at the time) was sent over. A friend of mine from high school was killed there.

What were your opinions on that at the time?

Hindsight is 20/20, and to be honest, I don't really remember the details of my opinions too well. At that point in my life, I was becoming very suspicious about the State in general, and I definitely never thought Bushco 41 was a great president. I remember thinking that he really didn't do much to deserve such high approval ratings since all he did was authorize war and institute diplomacy, and I remember not being surprised that he got beat in 1992. I'd met him twice in 1987-88 and his personality was suprisingly dorky. I remember somewhat that I figured it was probably the right thing to do since there was massive diplomatic support. It certainly seemed more legit than something like, supporting "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua. But at that time in my life, I was very preoccupied with finding a job and courting my future wife...I simply don't remember getting obsessed about the details of the war like some of my friends were.

Have they changed?

I'm not convinced (and certainly not by this thread) that the first Iraqi war was a bad idea. But I'm not comfortable in believing that militarily meddling in the Middle East is ever a good idea. And to be honest, I haven't had the time to study the plethora of revisionist history about the first Gulf War, so my opinion of it is not all that fortified by a command of facts, links, and pro or anti Freeper slogans to add to this thread. I do have a Scowcroft book but read it about five years ago and don't remember much.

As usual, Don has latched onto the single most objectionable thing I said and treated it as though its the sum total of my argument. So, I'll withdraw it! Sorry, Morris--I was pissed off, not at you though. Every time I think about the Gulf War I think about GHWB's sanctimonious ass telling us all how eeevil "Sodom" was for invading poor defenseless Kuwait, as if he had *absolutely no idea* how that *possibly* could have happened. It makes my blood boil. I hate GHWB *far* more than I hate GWB--he was far more dishonest and dangerous, even to conservatives (remember "read my lips"?).

Anyway, as I will reiterate, the *only* point I was trying to make is that if the whole Glaspie thing was nothing but a misunderstanding or even a misrepresentation on Hussein's part, it's one that the U.S., having had plenty of experience with him, should have anticipated. The fact that I actually believe that there is a more sinister explanation is kinda beside the argumentative point, although I will offer it here as a weak mea culpa for my dismissive attitude towards Morris.

(ha ha x-post - don and i have something in common!)

A: "The present importance of the Gulf stems from its massive energy deposits. Sixty-five percent of the world's known oil reserves are located in the Gulf countries, which produce over a third of the world's daily output. (By comparison, North America holds 8.5 percent of the world's reserves.) Saudi Arabia ranks first in reserves, with 261 billion barrels, followed by Iraq (100 billion), the U.A.E. (98 billion), Kuwait (96.5 billion), and Iran (89 billion). The Gulf is also rich in natural gas, with Iran and Qatar holding the world's second and third-largest reserves, respectively."
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/country/kuwait/

For an extremely detailed history of the conflict:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/atkinson/1.html