In Darlene’s Post ”Peace at any Price”, one commenter, Alphie, makes the assertion that the U.S. played an arguably dominant role in the creation of the Iraqi CW capability, as noted below:
Sure we didn’t sell Saddam chemical weapons, Tom.
What do you think Rummy was dropping off for Saddam in the famous handshake photo?
Subsequently, he was asked to provide further information to support his assertion, which he did in his comment here. The document he provided is a U.S. State Department memo to Lawrence Eagleburger (then Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs – the number three at State) dated November 22, 1982, entitled “Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons”. Alphie provided this memo with the intent of demonstrating that the U.S. government was aware of the Iraqi use of chemical weapons, a contention I think is supported by the memo. As I noted earlier, this is an actual good example of open source primary research and should be applauded.
While reading the 8-page memo in its entirety (and it is actually an interesting document) I ran across several other points I thought were of sufficient interest to merit a post by themselves, which is what brings me here. I didn’t retype the entire document, but did reproduce various portions of the text to note some of the more interesting points for discussion. Please note that all emphasis below are mine.
The memo starts of with, what is essentially an executive summary:
ISSUE FOR DECISION
Whether to instruct [the U.S. Interests Section] USINT Baghdad to raise issue of Iraqi CW use and urge cessation.
ESSENTIAL FACTORS
We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons (CW). We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary. A cable detailing U.S. CW policy and available information on Iraq use of CW is at Tab 2.) In keeping with our policy of seeking a halt to CW use wherever it occurs, we have been considering the most effective means to halt further Iraqi CW use including, as a first step, a direct approach to Iraq.
In October Iran accused Iraq of using CW and on November 9 it requested the [UN Secretary General] UNSYG to investigate. Iran also stated that it would soon submit a report providing information and evidence on Iraqi CW use, but has not yet done so. We do not know whether or when this issue will develop further at the UN. It is important to make our approach to the Iraqis on this issue as early as possible to avoid unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to take on this issue.
If you approve the demarche to Iraq, we will submit further recommendations for your consideration on how to handle the issue in the UN if it arises there, as well as on whether we should raise with selected European governments the fact that national firms are selling to Iraq CW production related technology.
RECOMMENDATION
That you approve the instruction to USINT Baghdad at Tab 1 and the cable providing additional background on Iraqi CW use at Tab 2.
Later, on page 4, the specific points to be made to Iraq are included:
Please present the following points in appropriate manner to Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz:
- As you are aware, the USG is very consider with the present overall situation in Southwest Asia. We strongly support a negotiated settlement.
- We raise the issue now neither to into a confrontational exchange with you, nor to lend support to the views of others; but, rather, because it is a long-standing policy of the U.S. to oppose the use of lethal CW.
- We also raise the matter now because we believe continued Iraqi use of CW will play into the hands of those who would wish to escalate tensions in the region, as well as constrain the ability of the USG to play a helpful role in the region.
- We note that Iraq long ago acceded to the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of CW. We believe Iraq’s scrupulous adherence to that Protocol is important to avoid dangerous escalation of the war, to maintain the hope of bringing Iran to the negotiating table, and to avoid providing Iran with a potent propaganda weapons against Iraq.
- We hope you will receive our representation in the spirit it is intended.
And then, from the tail end of the document, on pages 7 and 8:
8. Over many decades the U.S. has sought to deter the use of lethal and incapacitating CW when their use appeared to loom as a possibility. Iraq’s use of lethal or incapacitating CW could further undercut an important agreement observed by nearly all nations against chemical warfare. Introduction of CW to the [Iran-Iraq] was represents an escalation of hostilities that could render still more remote the possibility of a ceasefire and negotiations. Furthermore, Iraq’s use of CW gives the Iranians a powerful propaganda tool against the Iraqi regime, setting world opinion against Iraq at a time when Iran enjoys little international sympathy. Beyond the humanitarian and security/proliferation concerns, these facts should offset the attractiveness to Iraq of using prohibited CW.
9. Both Iran (in 1929) and Iraq (in 1931) have ratified the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. Iraq attached conditions to its accession, having the effect of a “no first use†clause, but its commitment not to use unless attacked with such weapons is unequivocal. Iran attached no conditions to its ratification of the protocols. There is some question whether Iran may have used chemical agents at one point early in the war.
10. The existing convention prohibits only the use – repeat – use of lethal and incapacitating CW. No international treaty yet forbids development, production, or deployment of lethal and incapacitating CW. The U.S. and others have been negotiating for such a treaty for a number of years. Also, we do not interpret the Geneva Protocol as applying to riot control agents as opposed to lethal and incapacitating chemicals. We limit their use to defensive military modes to save lives, e.g. controlling rioting P.O.W.S., dispersing civilian “screens†of attacks, rescue operations in isolated areas, and protecting convoys outside the combat zone.
11. Heretofore we have limited our efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the [Iran-Iraq] War, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results. Now, however, with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack. [redacted] Nonetheless, on the basis of open source reporting now available there may be steps we and others could take to deter further Iraqi use of prohibited CW.
The upshot of all this is interesting. The current story line to which Alphie and his cohort currently subscribe to is that the US supplied Saddam’s chemical weapons, presumably as a proxy fight against Iran or something (I don’t know, they’ve never explained to me why the US would have wanted to do such a thing, and it’s usually brought up in the context of being prima facie evidence of something or another that is never really explained). In looking through the memo, a couple of things jumped out at me (ranked in no particular order):
- This memo would tend to suggest that rather than the plausibly deniable provision of such a capability to Iraq as has been suggested, that the US has been consistent and adamant in its opposition to Iraqi use of chemical weapons. Imagine that, a government bureaucracy maintaining the same stance on something for a long period of time. Perish the thought.
- In any case, it is also interesting that the US – in several cases – expressed an interest in a negotiated settlement and peace between the two countries. This runs rather contrary to the supposition that the US supported Iraq as a warfighting proxy against Iran.
- Despite the persistent assertion that Saddam and the US were good friends at the time, it appears that the US had relatively limited influence with Iraq. The memo notes that the Soviet Union had provided Iraq (I didn’t copy that text) with CW equipment, such as protective gear, which is consonant with the assertion that Iraq was, along with other pan-Arabist governments, much more closely linked with the same countries that most aggressively opposed enforcement of UN Resolutions on Iraq.
- Another thing that struck me was the ultimate productivity of negotiations involving Iraq – the Iran-Iraq War continued some 6 years or so after this memo was written. Even though the UN was involved in Iraq CW issues even at this early date, decades on, Iraq still failed to be in full and complete compliance with UN resolutions on the matter.
I’m sure that there are a whole host of other things that readers will find of great interest in the memo, and I invite you to read it and let folks know what you found.
The Left will twist any American diplomatic contact with any foreign country into “support” for that regime, should their secular jihad against America call for it.
The sound you hear is a combination of a standing ovation by conservatives and the cranial implosions of Desmodontidae Lunaris.
TW: And dat’s the truth92
You can go here and follow links to declassified notes from the meetings Rumsfeld had with Saddam and Tariq Aziz. Highlights:
Which is not to say US policy at the time was pure as the driven snow. As the page notes:
Still, it’s a far cry from saying Rumsfeld was “dropping off” CW during his trip.
BRD, the link I provided in the other thread (I’ll give it again) is one of my very favorites. I’ve had it bookmarked since the Frogman posted it.
I sure wish he posted more. I especially enjoyed his fairly recent personality test. As a person about halfway between “yuck!” and “yum!” on the subject, perhaps I could drink with him but have to buy
Regards,
Ric
This link is also informative.
Dorkafork,
Thanks for the links – especially the second one. Good stuff.
BRD
Yes, it is, dorkafork. Thanks.
Regards,
Ric
Is there some kind of “underground railroad” for trolls?
Actus has made regular appearances at Patterico. “Alphie” went by the moniker “Neville Chamberlain” over at Patterico’s, and, scarily, made Actus appear to be a sincere, well-reasoned debater.
Among some of the more nonsensical things that Neville/Alphie posted at Patterico’s were
The North Korean nuclear program was the fault of the United States (specifically because the US opened Japan in 1853, yes, that’s right, Commodore Perry’s visit was the reason!).
Britain was right to appease, because Chamberlain (Alphie’s putative namesake) realized that Great Britain was vulnerable in 1938 to an invasion!
The Soviet Union singlehandedly defeated the Germans, the US-UK presence was irrelevant. At the same time, the Soviet entry into the Pacific War was due to the machinations of US foreign policy makers, which resulted in blow-back, leading to a US decision to give northern Korean to the Soviets as some kind of gift.
(No, I’ve not bothered specifically looking up the threads, they were too inane then. Feel free to visit Patterico’s archives, for those so interested in the rantings of a madman.)
So, I have to wonder why there’s this weird cross-fertilization among trolls between Patterico’s site and here?
Lurker, it ain’t just trolls. I have PW, Patterico, and Tim Blair one after the other on my bloglist; they just have a similar feel, despite quite different styles. To a somewhat lesser extent, Maguire’s and Cathy are allied. I read and post on all of them, less at Patterico and Just One Minute than here or Blair’s, and so do several names I recognize.
Regards,
Ric
In my day if you believed in a cause you went, joined up and fought. If the Left had some balls they would get guns, money and gear and go fight in Darfur.
If anyone is going to be pissed at Rumsfeld for selling chemical weapons to Saddam, shouldn’t it be the Kurds?
Ric:
But I’m afraid I still don’t quite understand. I’ve seen you here at PW, JustOneMinute, and a couple of other places. You have something interesting and relevant to say, and given the varying topics that arise at these locations, I can understand posting at various and sundry.
But why go to someplace just to be disruptive? And to do so in the most tendentious, not to mention tedious way?
It’s like someone deliberately going to Kiwanis, the Rotary Club, and the League of Women Voter’s just to throw cream pies at whoever’s speaking.
[Shakes head.]
I’m genuinely bewildered.
Well, no. ‘Cause the cream pies, that would be funny.
McGehee, now there’s someone else I keep running across!
And, yes, it’s more like someone deliberately showing their soiled undergarments, as though they’d achieved something, but I was trying to keep this relatively mid-brow.
Well lets see now. The lefties are crying because the world knew and the U.S. attempted to stop Saddam from using the WMD (he didn’t have any according to the same left wing idiots) and now the cry because we took out Saddam to stop the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of ‘real live’ people.
The idiots of the country have gathered in the democrat party.
The weekends display of supidity in D.C. by the radical democrats that are more dangerous than the terrorists proved one thing. The American people led by America’s vet have to arm themselves, and form military units in every state, and start taking out these fools when they destroy public property and spit on American Vet’s. It is evident the police (who are a joke) aren’t capable nor do they have the leadership to do the job they have sworn to do. Throw the U.S. congress in the ‘not capable of doing their sworn duties. I’m ready. No, I do not advocate overthrow of the government, I advocate taking out those officials that don’t follow the constitution and it’s our constitutional right to do it by vote or armed action. The old people knew that one day a bunch of anti-americans would end up in charge through criminal action and they provided the means to get rid of them.
Actually, I’m glad they do show up. The least attractive feature of Blair’s is that there aren’t many trolls; of course paco and wronwright, among others, keep the place lively.
And once in a while, like alphie here, the trolls do, in fact, make a contribution. In any case they generate further thought and posts, and thus make it more interesting. I’m talking the coherent ones, mind—alphie, actus, SteveExPat, and similar. We can easily do without Doctor Deb, and I’m sorry, but Scott is just a spin doctor, ultimately boring. I wish “Dr. Victorino de la Vega” would show up once in a while; his particular brand of stream-of-consciousness misapplication of what is obviously a long-term study of history is endlessly fascinating, like watching a chain-reaction car wreck.
OT: Jeff, is this poor fellow related to someone we know in any way?
Regards,
Ric
Hang on, Lurker, I think I finally understood what you’re getting at.
They’re egotists. They fully believe that reciting the latest Received Wisdom™ will convert us all from our Evil Ways and inspire us to bow to Big Al. Therefore they come and dispense The TRVTH™, and wait for the bows.
Don’t get me wrong—there’d also be plenty going the other way, if the Leftists believed in their own schtick. Jeff and a lot of other rightists tolerate and even encourage the lefty trolls, for the reasons I mentioned above. They keep the place interesting, and once in a megaword or so they actually have a point not easily concealed by hair style. The lefties, on the other hand, have “Ban This Poster” on a single function key, and come down hard on any deviation from The Narrative™ unless the poster is clearly deranged, in which case the post stands as a horrible example: Danger! Winger Alert! Try it at, say, Eschaton (no, I didn’t link; policy.)
So we get entertaining troll infestations, and they get an echo chamber (and are fond of projecting that onto us). Fair trade, I think.
Regards,
Ric
Well, they did. It’s just that they expect it to be more impressive than it is.
Maybe I’m stating the obvious here, but this was after the hostage crisis and the U.S. government was still quite focused on bringing down the Ayatollah.
I think that it is brought up as prima facie evidence that the U.S. didn’t really care about Iraq’s chemical weapons until they needed an excuse to villify the country and invade it (twice).
Ric: By coherent, you mean “you can easily see how transparent they are” instead of the usual “makes sense” definition?
After reading about Kerry, Hillary, and Ann Coulter Syndrome—and then watching the howler monkeys in the comments at Sadly,No! cheer on a completely misleading and misinformed attack on the reporting that Malkin and Preston did in Iraq (“Brilliant! You really stuck it to that frigid dyke!”), I’m contemplating moving to a cabin in Idaho and just growing beets.
Because I am really starting to lose my faith in humanity.
BRD,
Don’t forget that the memo is just the start of the story.
The U.S. continued to fund Saddam’s weapons programs for many years…including a rather large dual-use facility Bechtel built north of Baghdad known as “PC-2”
See the Banco Nazionale del Lavoro and the CCC program of the Dept. of Agriculture scandals.
Reagan’s Secratary of State, George Shultz took over Bechtel, btw.
Also, don’t forget that while we were funding Saddam’s conventional weapons purchases and quite possibly his CW infrastructure, we were also selling Iran and Hezbollah weapons, too.
I think it is correct to say that the United States has never signed up to any convention denying the United States the right to use chemical weapons.
Anyone know if that is the case?
aw yeah. RTO and I chatted about Hillary today. I let him know that he’d been wasting his time over there and I’d say he should come home now, but I’m not quite ready to take the cut in income yet. have you seen the clips of Pelosi and Murtha in Iraq?
Entertaining at times, at other times I wonder if they are here just to cause distraction and prevent any progress of ideas.
It’s no secret that the left has become stunted and all but paralyzed in its thinking. I spend little time on lefty blogs – they truly are echo chambers where anything unorthodox is shunned. So much so that it is often very difficult to glean much in the way of complex thought processes from the participants. In contrast the rightward blogs often contain enough honest disagreement and dicussion among the non-lefty participants to allow new idead to appear. The last couple decades have seen a resurgence of thinking from the right but this appears to have slowed quite a bit of late. I’d hate to ascribe more intelligence and deviousness to some of the low watts that come here but can’t help but wonder if they are not directed here with some intent. Spanners in the works as it were.
Whenever we are lucky enough to have a serious subject thread with no troll infestation I’m stuck by the diversity of comment and the depth of understanding that the discussion comes to represent. Sure these are often subtle differences, but the finer points can and do matter. Hell, there have even been times when it seemed actus caught himself somewhere between the libertarian elements and the more traditional conservatives. But once one of these usual suspects arrives and begins working from the playbook the level of discourse collapses down to all too typical game of whack-a-mole, with little to no advancement or refinement of ideas. I’m not for banning them, but at times I wonder if it would be more useful to just talked past them.
furris, America signed the Geneva Protocol and the Geneva Conventions, both prohibit the use of chemical weapons.
Jeff,
I thought the Sadly, No! thing was pretty humorous.
Malkin visits one of three mosques she says the AP falsely reported as having been attacked and the photos of it she posts show:
1. The roof is blown off.
2. Scorch marks from a fire above the windows.
3. Hundreds of bullet holes in the walls.
How is that not comedy gold?
no, the AP reported them as destroyed. I think there’s a difference in most people’s minds. uh, in future I don’t think I’d rely on more than one source.
Did the US ratify those conventions? Only asking-
Cancel that request. The US ratified the convention in 1997 and expects to have destroyed its chemical weapons stocks by 2014- which while later than the deadline is a lot quicker than the Russians.
But who would want to hurry around a decomposing Soviet chemical arms dump?
aaaaaaw, but I just found this.
Alphie – Were you really that putz Neville on Patterico’s blog? That would explain a lot. Did he ban you or did you just stop posting over there?
Yes, we did, furris.
maggie, look at this picture of the mosque on Malkin’s site.
Now read the actual AP report in question.
The savage revenge attack for Thursday’s slaying of 215 people in the Shiite Sadr City slum occurred as members of the Mahdi Army militia burned four mosques, and several homes while killing an unknown number of Sunni residents in the once-mixed Hurriyah neighborhood of Baghdad.
See the fire damage in Malkin’s photo?
I don’t see the word “destroyed” in that report.
alphi, the AP often edits stories…. how bout you check out the townhall link?
Alphie – Did you see a reference to the ubiquitous Captain Hussein in that clip?
and if that’s not enough, Patterico has screen shots of the AP stories.
Aah, Patterico (yes, I was Neville Chamberlain on his site, daley) adding his lawyerly touch to this story.
I don’t think any rational person would object to this mosque being described as either burned or destroyed.
Bill “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” Clinton understands what’s being attempted here, though, I’m sure.
ah, but would he consider it “comedy gold”?
I’d call it damaged.
because words mean things.
“To render useless or ineffective” maggie?
If that were an American church, would the congregation be allowed to hold services in it? I don’t think so.
Judging by the scorch marks, the inside was gutted then the roof caved in.
And if we pull back and look at the “big picture” here, I don’t think the dreaded “MSM” was trying to mislead anyone or distort the news from Baghdad that day when they described this mosque as either burned or destroyed, do you?
This victory you are declaring, you realize you’re the only one even thinking he’s scored points here…
Er, you’ve scored points…
aplhie, we’re still waiting for you on the other thread to provide proof of your assertions that:
-the US is “growing” opium in Afghanistan.
-Rumsfeld was delivering chemical weapons in the “handshake” photo.
Now jump to it monkey.
Hang on lads. In all the excitement, we missed this gem.
Now hands up who remembers who invaded Kuwait in 1990?
Anyone?
No?
Stevie?
No Miss, that was because we discovered Iraq had chemical weapons so we, um, villified them an then, an then, like
I can’t remember Miss…
For some reason, I’m not surprised that Steve seems to have completely missed something here. Something that happened between the time the memo was written and the Iraq war. Oh, I don’t know… could it be Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait? Could that be a reason that the US would start caring about Iraq’s chemical weapons?
He could be referring to the Persian Gulf War when he says ‘invade it (twice)’ but we didn’t need an excuse to villify Iraq at the time. Afterwards, the peace treaty was contingent on Saddam giving up his chemical stockpile and agreeing to verify that he had disarmed… something he didn’t comply with. So the US didn’t just suddenly start caring about Iraq’s chemical stockpile as an excuse to invade. But then again, anyone with any logic and knowledge of history should have known that…
alphie, the term neo-con certainly seems to imply a new thing, doesn’t it? Realpolitik has cause the US to do things and support regimes we ought (IMHO) to have shunned… just as other past (including distant past) foreign and domestic policy decisions can now be causes for regret and even shame. But explain if you will how turning from those policy decisions is a bad thing.
And before you get onto the whole “Then how come we’re still supporting [fill in the blank]?” let me add what ought to be self-evident: that even for us, resources are limited and national interest must enter the equation; therefore we do what we can, where it makes the most sense, and keep on trying (relatively cheap) diplomacy and (relatively more expensive) foreign aid tied to expectations where our national interest is less engaged. Triage, if you will.
Then the question becomes, “Where’s everybody else in this geopolitical morality play?” We spend our treasure building and maintaining the only military capable of being “the world’s police officer,” and we’re reviled by those whose national security depends on our willingness to use it that way when we do so in the service of some other “neighborhood.” That’s just disgraceful. Like the bozos who picket “pigs,” with their children in tow, then expect a prompt response to their 911 call.
Should we use our military that way? When it’s in our national interest, absolutely. Is it in our national interest to provide the impetus and support for a moderate democracy in the Middle East, rather than continue to allow the entire region to stew in its own juices? Well, yes. Why aren’t we backing off on the military option and attempting to draw the “world community” into a diplomatic solution?
Because we tried that and our “natural allies” laughed, fingering the lucre in their pockets, maybe?
That would certainly seem to be true.
But it has to be understood too that a state of war will exist between certain Muslims and the US as long as the State of Israel exists.
The key is to ensure that those certain Muslims control as few countries as possible. Presently Iran is leader of the pack, but is it essential, essential, that Iraq does not follow.
And that is another reason why it is right that America is in Iraq, and right that America should stay to see it through.
Bung us about 10% of the aid you throw at Egypt annually, so we can buy some of your A 10s, some new C 130s and some IED-proof troop carriers and you may find we can scrape up another brigade. Not much, but we are only little.
furriskey,
OOH! OOH! OOH! I know that one! That was Saddam Hussein!
What I don’t remember was any invasion of Iraq, barring what we might call an enhancement of the Iraqi retreat. But I do remember thinking that it would have been a great idea at the time, a theory that has stood the test of hindsight.
Yes, except that we had nobody to put in Saddam’s place, and as a Sunni holding down an essentially Shia’ country in between Shia’ Iran and Sunni but Shia’ controlled (the Assads being Alawites) Syria, it seemed the least of all evils to leave him in place but clip his wings.
I do think that when he set about the Kurds and Marsh Arabs we should have said, oh balls to the politics, let’s just kill the turd. Especially as we had the troops still more or less in situ.
Which explains why it had been abandoned for some time. In terms of the AP reportage, no one was dragged from it and burned, and no one destroyed it. A firebomb of some sort, apparently along the lines of a molotov cocktail was thrown at it. It was not destroyed, and it was barely burned.
Right. A decade of no fly zones was foolish policy, and I’m sure alphie is going to tell us how we’re responsible for the hundreds of thousands Saddam murdered between then and now. As well as before.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, as the saying goes.
Where did 2x go?
He’s strategically redeployed, I’d imagine. Okinawa, perhaps?
He popped in just long enough to see if the water was still bloody, and thanks to Alphie it was.
And if that were the sole basis of Hot Air’s report you might have a point, but Malkin blew alot more holes than that in the APs story, patching a small semantic one isn’t going to impress many. How about you locate the two mosques that were destroyed so utterly no one even remembers their existence?
It was no big deal for Alphie to admit that he was Neville Chamberlain over at Patterico’s. Darleen and I had a private converation about Neville’s style of snark before I had connected him with Alphie and his Blog (which just came into existance late last year.)
However the conversation was directed at the similarities between Neville and a certain simian who was banned. Check here and be sure to scroll down to Pablo’s addition to the “comment trail.”
Alphie, is a confession in order? Are you the architect of the infamous Balloon Fence?
Inquiring minds want to know…
Good analysis. timmy used to be neoconsstink, didn’t he? He tries to preserve a veneer of civility but the raw lefty animal lurks just below the surface. He hates anyone who makes him look a fool, which sadly includes everyone who posts here except for Michelle, who makes him look like Einstein.
Furriskey: If you have had no experience with the wildly popular Balloon Fence theory, click on the link and then tell me whether or not our lost simian friend bears a striking resemblance in form and substance to alphie. A strong advisory is posted to duct tape your head to prevent spontanious explosions.
After all, we’re growing opium in Afghanistan don’cha know…
Iraqi weapons were Soviet, French, Chinese, and German, roughly in that order. We didn’t sell them anything of use, and actually actively prevented others from selling them stuff. The British openly mocked us when we blocked a shipment of “oil industry pipe” in the late ‘80s. They thought our contention that it was for a “supergun” was a crock. After the Gulf War, it was found to be 100% correct.
SteveXX answers one of my questions in his responses:
As to the first assertion, that the US backed Iraq to fight against the Iranian regime, I wonder how consistent that assertion is with the level of support provided to the Iraqi government. In looking at levels of arms sales to Iraq, the US never provided a large amount of equipment or assistance. In the case of the above memo, this was at a time when Iraq was losing a significant amount of ground to Iran, yet the US was opposing the use of chemical weapons by Iraq. Additionally, the assertion that the US was trying to use Iraq to fight Iran doesn’t seem to square with the assertion, made several times, that the US sought a negotiated solution to the conflict. The memo would suggest, rather, that the US was primarily interested in not seeing Iraq fall to Iran, rather than being a proxy for an American fight against Iran.
I am also not sure that the memo supports the second point SteveXX made, that the US is only interested in Iraqi chemical weapons when looking for a causus belli in the two wars we have fought against the government. I seem to recall that no mention of chemical weapons appeared in UN 678 – something that would rather run contrary to the assertion that chemical weapons were a significant reason given for the Gulf War.
Additionally, the assertion that the US was only concerned with Iraqi chemical weapons use is, at least as far as I can tell, undermined by the content of the memo, which raises objections to such behavior in 1982 – nearly a decade before the Gulf War.
BRD
Alphie,
As with the other documents, I would be most grateful if you could dig up some links. To be clear, I don’t assert that the US had no involvement in Iraq, but rather than when one gets into the business of asserting culpability and malfeasance, that such accusations should be roughly proportional to the bad behavior in question. In this case, the US does not appear to be a significant – let alone leading – factor in the supply of Hussein’s regime with respect to either chemical or conventional weapons.
If you have evidence to the contrary, again, I would be quite interested in reading what you can find.
Thanks!
BRD
BRD: I appreciate the yeoman work that you have done on this topic and your courtly manners.
The one thing that we can say about alphie and steve XX is that when the evidence presented is examined and evaluated the conclusions are far more nuanced than the proclamations as written.
Saddam was an imperialist/opportunist who would have traded with Vlad the Impalerto accomplish his goal of a Pan-Persian Caliphate, one that would have continued to pay the same lip service to Islam that other secularist thugs (Baathist and otherwise) do today. They represent the other side of the coin in the GWOT because they are the enablers, the financiers and the safe harbor. The US has it’s sordid past with Saddam on the Realpolitick stage, but it was far less than Russia, China, Germany and France in its impact in either Iraq’s miltary ascendancy or its WMD capabilities.
Unless alphie pulls a banana out of his butt, those 4 countries, the very same loudest complainers of the invasion, carry the heaviest burdens in Saddam’s development as a ME imperial threat. Between that history and their complicity in the Oil For Food debacle their sanctimonious protests will face history’s judgment.
But, you know, there are still those expat American pot farmers organically tending their Afghani opium crops…
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
alpo, once again you have been caught in a lie.
“If that were an American church, would the congregation be allowed to hold services in it? I don’t think so.”
That would be because the mosque in question is…..abandoned. It doesn’t have a congregation.
“Judging by the scorch marks, the inside was gutted then the roof caved in.”
Errrr…well no, it isn’t. If you, you know, actually LISTENED to the fucking report, MM reported 2 rooms with “fire damage.”
“And if we pull back and look at the “big picture†here, I don’t think the dreaded “MSM†was trying to mislead anyone or distort the news from Baghdad that day when they described this mosque as either burned or destroyed, do you?”
That’s hilarious, alpo appealing to the “big picture”. You couln’t see the big picture if someone shoved a telescope up your ass.
You’re inane posting, both style and what little substance they have, both confirm to me that you are a micrpcephalic idiot.
Please take your mendacity back to the reactionay left side of the blogosphere, were lying and poo flinging are SOP.
BRD,
And given that Iraq was a Soviet client state, we had no interest in seeing their sphere of influence expand.
Stupid facts.
And this would be borne out by my experiences during and after Desert Storm. I saw a great deal of Iraqi equipment, and it was most definitely not American.
Bravo Romeo Delta, thank you for a fine post. I’m amazed at how widespread this state of mind is: We create all our enemies. In the course of arguments with friends I’ve heard how we not only gave Saddam Hussein all his weapons (the phrase “Soviet client state–thanks Pablo!–being mostly forgotten in regards to Baathist Iraq), we installed him as dictator in the first place! (We must have, right?)
Oh yeah, and Osama bin Laden was our best buddy when we were aiding the Afghanis against the Soviets. (Which was pretty mean of us–what poetic justice that it came back to bite us!) We created him too.
It’s reassuring, really, because if we are the source of all our troubles, then all we have to do is…stop. And everything will be fine.
JPS,
It would be naive to think America actually causes all the troubles we face in the world.
It would be equally naive to assume there is no cost when we prop up a dictator or topple a government we don’t like at the moment.
In many cases, it would seem the costs of U.S. covert actions far exceed any possible benefits.
I’ll bet you’ve got the spreadsheet that proves it, too.
Alphie:
“It would be naive to think America actually causes all the troubles we face in the world.”
OK, I’ll admit my comment verged on a straw-man argument. I concede that there are very few people who actually believe this. But I know quite a few people who, in instance after instance, argue as though they do.
“It would be equally naive to assume there is no cost when we prop up a dictator or topple a government we don’t like at the moment.”
Not many people do assume that. I certainly don’t. But I tire of hearing those costs invoked in the spirit of “This is mainly our fault in the first place, therefore we have no moral right to” do whatever it is we’re thinking of doing.
Well McGehee,
Just to name a few, propping up Saddam, installing our puppet the Shah on the throne of Iran and funding the Taliban overthrow of the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan would seem to be money losers for America.
Alphie:
Sorry, but you are an idiot. The soviets were a hundred times more responsible than we were for “propping” up Saddam, as was China, France and Germany as well as Saudi Arabia and Syria. We’ve already gone over the numbers so you’re just trying to sneak one by.
We provided arms and assistance to the mujahadeen. The Taliban were mostly Deobandi Madrassa students, very few of whom actually took part in the fighting in ‘85-’89 as they were too young. Mullah Omar and most of his close associates had participated, all of which had very little to do with the Taliban taking over Afghanistan which was the fault of the warlords putting their personal power over their country. BTW: The Saudi’s provided the bulk of the money during the Russian occupation and the Communist government didn’t topple until three years after the Russians left.
The installation of the Shah in the fifties allowed the Oil companies not to be nationalized, which was a net gain for the US and Britain. If Carter had not been a spineless twerp we might have transitioned the Shah to a democratic government someday. Even the Shah would be a heap better than what we have now.
By criminy you are dense one. How do you feel about missile defense in Israel?
Alphie,
You mention several historical episodes that you apparently deem to have been, at the time, clear losses in a cost-benefit analysis. Would you care to mention what other options you would have pursued?
BRD
BJTexs:
“The installation of the Shah in the fifties allowed the Oil companies not to be nationalized,”
Aha! It’s all about the oil!
Funny. I’d actually written and deleted a “for example”, in my last comment to Alphie, on our role in the overthrow of Mossadegh and its ramifications a quarter-century later.
It was, taken in isolation, a lousy damn thing to do. I know some Iranians who hate the Mullahs, hated the Iranian revolution, are damned glad to be Americans–and are still pissed off that we stepped on their nationalist aspirations that way.
Protecting the oil companies’ interests certainly played a part, one I’m not keen to defend. But if I’d been Eisenhower, I might have ordered much the same meddling, because we just could not afford to have Iran fall into the Soviet orbit. Or if we could, we had no way of knowing we could. (We didn’t know we were going to win the Cold War until we had.)
Was this worry overblown? Did we mistake Mossadegh for a commie when he was mainly a nationalist? Could we have won the Cold War anyway? Probably, say I with the luxury of hindsight. I’m not sure it was that clear back then and I’m not sure I’d have taken my chances if it had been up to me.
I recently read “Guests of the Ayatollah,” by the excellent Mark Bowden. One thing that annoyed me was his repeated wonderment that more Americans didn’t reflect on why the Iranians were so pissed at us. Well, Mark: I know why. I think they had a legitimate grievance. And I lost all sympathy for them when they took our guys.
What, alphie/Neville? No citing of how the US opening of Japan in 1853 led to North Korean development of nuclear weapons?
I’d have thought that’d be the first example you cited, given the number of electrons you expended insisting on this point.
What happened?
So, now it’s covert action that you decry? Does this mean you no longer condemn the efforts of the US to involve the USSR in the war against Japan in 1944?
But as long as you’re learning history, perhaps you could acquaint yourself with the sequence of US aid to anti-Soviet mujaheddin, and exactly when the Taliban came into existence.
Or do all brown Muslims look alike to you?
alphie, I was once having a discussion with Jack Murtha, yes THAT Jack Murtha, and I said to him that all of this trouble in the ME started because Carter pulled the rug out from under the Shah. And that the people the Savak were making diappear are the exact same people we are chasing after right now.
His answer?
“You know Tom, your absolutely right.”
In all our discussions, that was the first time he ever admitted I was right.
BTW aplhie, we’re still waiting for you on the other thread to provide proof of your assertions that:
-the US is “growing†opium in Afghanistan.
-Rumsfeld was delivering chemical weapons in the “handshake†photo.
Put up or shut up coward.
And to provide historical precedents where those options have actually worked in the past? Just pointing a finger and saying “See? I told you it wouldn’t work!” is semantically and intellectually meaningless and morally repugnant, unless you can show a viable alternative.
“Diplomacy” had been given 12 long years and had accomplished precisely diddly-squat, with even the Germans saying that Saddam was a mere 18 months away from a nuclear device…
So what else ya got?
I’m not saying we should never meddle in the affairs of other countries, BRD.
Just that some thought should be given to the long-term costs before we do so.
The downside…what could go wrong, etc.
TomB:
“Put up or shut up coward.”
Might not be my place to say, but go easy, would you? I’m feeling a certain goodwill toward Alphie, myself.
Many times have I seen the claim that the U.S. gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons. And many times have I clicked on a link to the famous Saddam/Rumsfeld handshake, intended as proof positive that never were two countries more closely allied than the U.S. and Iraq in the ‘80s.
But Alphie has done something really rare: To claim that the handshake actually sealed the chemical weapons deal! This is a perfect example of the genre. As Christopher Buckley once said, It would take a satirist with balls of stone to make that up.
With all due respect, BS.
After the last thread, I’m feeling no goodwill toward alphie or steviexx. Alphie leaves steaming turds all over the place and then scampers away when he gets called on it, only to creep back on another thread to fling more poo.
He’s been called on his utterly insane statement that the United States is growing opium in Afghanistan. The proper thing would be to withdraw the allegation, but not him. He just runs from the thread, hoping everyone forgets. That is the definition of a coward.
But no thought at all to the “long-term costs” of not acting?
There are times when inaction is actually worse than bad action. (Just ask those who stayed at home during this last election.)
TomB, in all honestly, I don’t feel like every post is worth responding to.
In addition, this is Jeff’s blog and I stop posting in a thread if it starts to become the alfie show.
I enjoy the give and take, but I’m just another commentor here.
I posted my thoughts on this question on my modest blog and you’re welcome to take this offline and flame me there if you want.
Especially if you are caught in a lie and can’t weasel your way out of it.
And it just happened to become “the alfie show” (gosh, how humble) when people started calling you on your allegations.
Coincidence, I’m sure.
Alphie said; I enjoy the give and take, but I’m just another commentor here.
No. Son. You’re the entertainment.
TomB:
“With all due respect, BS.”
If that’s directed at me, don’t worry. Very little respect is due, and my comment was more or less BS. I was just amused by the image of Rummy actually dropping off the weapons themselves, and by the implicit caption to the famous handshake: Congratulations! Here’re those chemical weapons we promised you!
Drumwaster:
“But no thought at all to the “long-term costs†of not acting?
“There are times when inaction is actually worse than bad action.”
I think this is exactly right, and it’s something that the constant critics desperately ignore.
Heh.
Somebody else had Rummy as a UPS driver. “Uh, Mr. Saddam, could you sign for this please?”
I think this episode shows the complete shallowness of alfie’s intellect.
Somebody else had Rummy as a UPS driver. “Uh, Mr. Saddam, could you sign for this please?â€Â
I pictured it like Rummy actually had anthrax in his hand, like he was palming a twenty. “Here’s a little something for yourself, kid.”
Well, at leat 2x seems to have buggered off for the time being.
alphie is a funny one. He actually did withdraw an incorrect staement once last week (about numbers of military deaths under Clinton vs Bush), so he can do it.
I’m sure if he did it more often he could find a little niche in our hearts…
Re the ballon fence, obviously I didn’t read the whole thing, but my principal objection, as I said at the time, is that the concept is a clear rip off of my own money-spinning scheme back when I was just a young captain, of selling WWII barrage balloons to the Saudi’s to create shade. Then by painting the tops black and the bottoms silver, I was going to create a condensation effect so that gentle dew would drop from heaven on my little Bedu friends.
Before I could carry the scheme to fruition a humourless army moved me to Dhofar where I had to live in a hole in the ground and share my curried goat with rats.
Then this monkeyboy punter turns up and tries to steal all the credit.
Considering how much I enjoyed the feeding frenzy a few threads back, I’d be happy to call Alphie “chum.”
And this, boys and girls, is how leftist facts are invented.