04-30-2003, 09:21 PM
When did I say that Iraq was a pure and loyal ally? Poppycock maybe, but not my contention. Indeed, the record shows the desired result of the Iran Iraq war was a Pox on Both Their Houses.
However...
It doesn't matter how loyal HE was. It matters what the US did. And you supported him during the very years when he represented a "campfire", as the analogy I was arguing with goes. What he did before that was pretty typical (typically awful) of a third world dictator. But it also was small potatoes, compared with the Iran/Iraq war or the Gulf I, the major examples of "fire".
That the cold war had its own logic is not an argument. It did, and everything has to be seen in that light. But does that translate to a carte blanche for everything in the region? If so, then surely the local players in the middle east get that priveledge as much as the Superpowers. If, on the other hand, we're going to judge actions (appropriately contextualized, yes, but not swept under the cold war rug), then we have to look at what happened. The US was willing to support him, having lost half of their enforcers in the region to the Ayatollah. Sure, they were protecting their interests. Sure, they were protecting trade and oil. (Israel... I don't think was much an issue in supporting Iraq.) Does any of those things count as a legitimate excuse? Not unless practically every action by any nation is excusable by the same grounds, including nearly everything Iraq has ever done.
Kissinger I mentioned primarily as a matter of doctrine. It was his idea to curb Soviet influence by shutting them out completely. A similar lockout happened to the French after WWII, and to the British, except as lieutenants of US power. The US had the power to do so, and it largely succeeded. Israel and Iran were more than enough to keep the region stable, until Iran went down, and then Iraq was propped up to counter it. Iraq knew enough by the '80s that Soviet support was irrelevant compared to US support, and was more than happy to bask in the warm glow previously reserved for the Shah.
The French could not act without at least tacit US approval. The Soviets, maybe, but by the time Saddam was in expansionist mode, the Soviets were falling apart at the seams. So, what's the idea, that the French gave Saddam the fuel for his "fire", despite US protests? I think not. That the French sold him weapons when the US was doing the same hardly exonerates the US. Indeed, as the major Superpower, the US sets the agenda, and therefore bears most of the responsibility. Is it that the USSR was Saddam's important ally in fulfilling his ambitions? I don't think he'd think so, at least during the '80s, when he did most of his expanding.
Jester
However...
It doesn't matter how loyal HE was. It matters what the US did. And you supported him during the very years when he represented a "campfire", as the analogy I was arguing with goes. What he did before that was pretty typical (typically awful) of a third world dictator. But it also was small potatoes, compared with the Iran/Iraq war or the Gulf I, the major examples of "fire".
That the cold war had its own logic is not an argument. It did, and everything has to be seen in that light. But does that translate to a carte blanche for everything in the region? If so, then surely the local players in the middle east get that priveledge as much as the Superpowers. If, on the other hand, we're going to judge actions (appropriately contextualized, yes, but not swept under the cold war rug), then we have to look at what happened. The US was willing to support him, having lost half of their enforcers in the region to the Ayatollah. Sure, they were protecting their interests. Sure, they were protecting trade and oil. (Israel... I don't think was much an issue in supporting Iraq.) Does any of those things count as a legitimate excuse? Not unless practically every action by any nation is excusable by the same grounds, including nearly everything Iraq has ever done.
Kissinger I mentioned primarily as a matter of doctrine. It was his idea to curb Soviet influence by shutting them out completely. A similar lockout happened to the French after WWII, and to the British, except as lieutenants of US power. The US had the power to do so, and it largely succeeded. Israel and Iran were more than enough to keep the region stable, until Iran went down, and then Iraq was propped up to counter it. Iraq knew enough by the '80s that Soviet support was irrelevant compared to US support, and was more than happy to bask in the warm glow previously reserved for the Shah.
The French could not act without at least tacit US approval. The Soviets, maybe, but by the time Saddam was in expansionist mode, the Soviets were falling apart at the seams. So, what's the idea, that the French gave Saddam the fuel for his "fire", despite US protests? I think not. That the French sold him weapons when the US was doing the same hardly exonerates the US. Indeed, as the major Superpower, the US sets the agenda, and therefore bears most of the responsibility. Is it that the USSR was Saddam's important ally in fulfilling his ambitions? I don't think he'd think so, at least during the '80s, when he did most of his expanding.
Jester