His daddy did it too.
Posted on 08/14/2020 7:04:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Exactly 30 years ago, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and created a set of consequences that are with us today, including sectarianism, terrorism, and Iranian militancy. The Bush presidencies made a number of historical mistakes in dealing with Iraq and Iran. Iran, as a result, reaped the rewards of Saddam Hussein’s cruelty and greed, and American errors. The George H. W. Bush administration, for its part, was given a mandate by the United Nations to undo Saddam’s aggression in Kuwait. It should have been used to eliminate Saddam Hussein alone.
At the same time, the collapse of the Soviet Union gave the George H. W. Bush administration an opportunity to deal with the radical Iranian regime, following the bloody eight years of war with Saddam’s Iraq. It was one of the Ayatollahs regime weakest periods. The George W. Bush administrations March, 2003 Second Gulf War, which was meant to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction, eliminated the Sunni-led Iraqi army. It enabled the Shiites to take over Iraq politically, thus opening the door for the Islamic Republic of Iran to virtually control Iraq. With the Sunni-led Iraqi army disbanded, many of its officers became involved in sectarianism that led to the rise of ISIS, and a wave of terror still rocking Iraq. Shiite Iran was able to capitalize on America handing over Iraq to Shiite rule. The U.S. destroying the Sunni-led Iraqi army led to a fundamental destabilization of the regional balance of power, and it freed the Iranians to pursue their expansionist dreams.
There was never a question about the necessity to topple Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi-Sunni’s, Shiites, and Kurds, as well as thousands of Kuwaitis. This maniacal dictator accused Kuwait on July 18, 1990 of stealing oil from Iraq and encroaching on Iraqi territory. He demanded $2.4 billion from Kuwait. Then, Tariq Aziz, Saddam’s foreign minister, accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi petroleum over a decade. On August 1, 1990, the Arab League and Saudi Arabia suspended their mediation, and the next day, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait with 100,000 soldiers and 300 tanks.
On August 8, 1990, Iraq announced Kuwait’s “total and irreversible” incorporation into Iraq. Earlier, on August 6, 1990, the UN Security Council imposed an embargo on Saddam’s Iraq. Later in August, 1990, Saddam formally annexed Kuwait as Iraq’s 19th province. There were fears at this point that Saddam might order his forces into Saudi Arabia, and President George H. W. Bush then sent U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia.
When diplomatic efforts to oust Saddam’s army out of Kuwait failed, the U.S. launched Operation Desert Storm on January 17, 1991. It was followed by intense aerial bombardment of Iraq. One hundred hours later, a ground assault by U.S. and coalition forces liberated Kuwait. In his attempt to draw the Arab world to his side, and break the Arab-Western coalition, Saddam fired 39 scud missiles into Israel, causing the death of 74 Israeli citizens. Two died from a direct hit, four from suffocation in gas masks, and the rest from heart attacks. The Israeli air force was ready to retaliate, but Prime Minister Shamir was persuaded by President Bush to stay put. The U.S. rushed Patriot Missiles to Israel and U.S. special forces knocked out the scud launching vehicles in western Iraq.
The George W. Bush administration did “Throw the baby out with the bath water.” This expression fits with the administration’s actions in taking out Saddam Hussein and his entire Sunni-led military establishment. As evil and destructive as Saddam was, his regime nevertheless kept the Iran at bay. When Saddam’s regime was removed in 2003, Iran became the dominant regional force. Once Saddam and the Sunnis were out of the picture, Iran managed to assert its control over Iraq through loyal Shiite militias’ and politicians. Iran was ensuring that Iraq could never again pose a threat as it did under Saddam.
Another serious error by the Bush (George W.) administration and the Obama administration that followed it, was to insist on keeping Iraq as a unitary state rather than split it into three independent states. Clearly the Kurds in the north deserved an independent state. Being a distinct ethnic group (and non-Arab and Sunni-Muslim) Kurds have been abused by all the surrounding regimes, and Saddam butchered them in the thousands by gassing and cluster bombs. The Sunni-Arabs in western Iraq have more in common with their tribal cousins on the other (eastern) side of the Euphrates River in Syria than with the Shiites. They are unlikely to reconcile themselves to live under Shiite rule.
The current situation simply invites more terror and instability. It is therefore logical to set them apart. The Shiite Arabs in southern Iraq would be far more secure in their own independent territory, which includes the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf. The capital of Iraq, Baghdad, has been largely emptied out of its Sunni residents, and might have to be split between the Sunnis and Shiites. A similar condominium might have to occur in the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk in the north, between Kurds and Sunni-Arabs.
The value of having these three independent entities is first and foremost to undo the arbitrary and artificial creation of Iraq by the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement (Britain and France). More importantly, it will serve as a barrier against Iran, preventing it from materializing its vaunted Shiite Crescent, and imperial expansionism. A Kurdish and Sunni-Arab state would form just such a barrier. Iran is surrounded by largely secular Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Sunni majority states of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey. Across the Persian Gulf are the Arab-Sunni led states of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Oman (Ibadi Islam). Armenia, northwest of Iran, is Christian.
Saddam was not the only cruel Arab dictator in the region. Libya had Muammar Ghaddafi, Yemen had Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Syria endured the Assads, both the late Hafez, and his son Bashar, the current butcher of Damascus. All of them managed to generate chaos, civil wars, and have caused the death of millions. The Ayatollahs regime in Iran is similarly oppressive and cruel, and far more dangerous to the world than the abovementioned dictators. The Ayatollahs, unlike the secular dictators, add religious fanaticism to their quest for regional, if not world power. Moreover, while Saddam, Ghaddafi, and Assad Jr. sought but never quite acquired nuclear power, the Islamic Republic of Iran is cheating its way toward a nuclear bomb. It is also sowing instability and terror throughout the region and beyond, which makes it a global menace. Saddam, in the 1980’s, was largely oriented toward the West and served as a bulwark against Iran, but his invasion of Kuwait made him an international pariah. Iran’s ayatollahs regime, however, was always a global menace. It was never punished for invading the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, and for keeping American diplomats as hostages for 444 days. The U.S. has an unfinished score to settle with Iran.
The clearest lessons from the Gulf Wars are that eliminating Saddam Hussein and his closest clique didn’t necessitate destroying the established order in Iraq. Additionally, Iran, not Iraq, should have been targeted by the U.S. for regime change.
* * *
Iran. That is an easy question.
+1
5.56mm
I hope his books are placed in the science fiction department. His theology is so full of personal fed manure it could never act as fact.
I don’t know where he was during freeing of Kuwait or the direct attack on Iraq, but he didn’t say five things that were factual or could have been.
rwood
This is a nonsense, hypocritical premise. Saddam was, if not our friend, at least considered acceptable, when he was bleeding Iran’s army in the early 1980s.
Moreover, while we can never know counterfactual history, The ensuing civil wars, rise of ISIS, genocide of Christians and massive flow of migrants out of Iraq and Syria has caused far more death and chaos than Saddam every committed.
ISIS, John McCain and the military industrial complex. May they all rot in hell.
Kuwait as it turned out, was “drinking Saddam’s Milkshake” which was part of the reason Saddam invaded in the first place.
We should never get involved in intra-Arab squabbles.
bump
Ultimately, Iran may be the biggest loser as their attempts to take over Iraq may prove to be over reach for a failing terrorist state near economic collapse.
They can barely keep their own country afloat and Iraq is bleeding them.
This will change if they can consolidate power in Iraq and begin to exploit it economically - a certainty of Joe Biden is elected President.
As long as President Trump is in office, Iran will continue to bleed and it's ambitions in Iraq will remain unfulfilled. it's operations in Iraq will become economically untenable and Iran will be forced to withdraw or face economic collapse.
President Trump is executing a very sophisticated strategy against Iran in the region and it's working.
It's not for nothing that a powerful array of interests are so desperate to remove Trump from office. This election is by far the most important in our recent history.
We are now at a pivotal point in history, geo politically, economically and technologically.
The choice is simple - re elect Donald Trump with his MAGA agenda or see the country fundamentally transformed into a failing Neo Marxist state built on economic redistribution based racial spoils and identity politics
His daddy did it too.
Second, yes, the whole policy was a disaster and deBa'athification, not having an actual plan for Civil Restoration after taking down Sadam shows how short-sighted GWB was. That the follow on policies were largely executed by Cheney is no excuse. They didn't have a plan.
We might not like Sadam, but he let us know well ahead of time that he was keeping the lid tight on Pandora's box. We took him out and opened the box. We already knew some of what was in there.
Iran is a state actor with its limits. There were a lot who benefitted primarily the terrorist international. Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the rest of McCain’s friends.
RE: the whole policy was a disaster and deBa’athification, not having an actual plan for Civil Restoration after taking down Sadam
So, if we had a post-Saddam takedown plan that was NOT a disaster, would it have been a good idea to invade? Or was the entire invasion policy totally wrong?
I’m not sure what the issue is — the invasion, or the post-invasion implementation.
I am merely pointing out that another part of the insanity was that the idiot neo-cons didn't even have a plan for what comes next. I guess they though liberal democracy was going to break out in the Middle East once Sadam was gone. Wishful thinking is not a plan.
“” “” I guess they though liberal democracy was going to break out in the Middle East once Sadam was gone. Wishful thinking is not a plan.”” “”
Nobody is learning. Then we had Arab Spring.
Don’t forget dear old uncle Jimmy Carter who subverted the Shah of Iran which led to his downfall and subsequent takeover of Iran by the moslem maniacs.
Don’t forget dear old uncle Jimmy Carter who subverted the Shah of Iran which led to his downfall and subsequent takeover of Iran by the moslem maniacs.
Yup. We spent American blood and treasure helping Iran.
Iran may have benefited, but I think the main intended beneficiaries were Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of whom had bad relations with Iraq.
I don’t think that the resulting chaos is what they were looking for.
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.