Most of the "media analysis" and tin hat conspiracy stuff relies on an Iraqi transcript of the meeting which was, like DiLorenzos crap, both incomplete and doctored.
Glaspie did tell Saddam that the US had no interest in inter-mural politics in the Arab world --- That IMHO is a good, common sense policy. Murbuarak of Egypt, Hussain of Jordan, The Saudis and the Emirates pirates were already involved and mediating the dispute between Saddam and the Kuwaitis. And, I migh add, they were not siding at all with Saddam or buying his stories. The US had no special hand to play in resolving the disputes. But Glaspie also told Saddam at that meeting that the use of force would be a concern to the US. Glaspie's boss, James Baker, said the same damn thing the next day even invoking the UN Charter in making it clear that a military resolution was not acceptable. Baker's statement is firmly in the record, but never repeated by the tin foil hat chorus!
Walt, it is one thing for a cop to say I have no business in an argument between you and your wife. But if you decide to start punching her out, then it is a cop's problem. Galaspie said that the dispute was not our concern, but that military action was our concern.
The other bit of smoke and mirrors here from the myth makers, Saddam foremost among them, is that he was somehow justified because Kuwait was; 1. Violating their border and slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and/or 2., Pumping too much oil and depressing global oil prices to Iraq's detriment.
Without getting into the dubious merits of either of those justifications, (which the other Arab nations didn't buy either) it must be kept in mind just who financed Iraq's war with Iran. The lion's share of money came from "loans" (more like extortion) from Kuwait and Saddam was very deep in debt to them --- something like twice his entire GDP. Kuwait's financial support for Saddam during the Iran war was the reason we ended up putting US flags on Kuwaiti tankers and running an escort service in the Gulf to keep the Iranians from blowing them out of the water. With Iraq's debt situation and residual sanctions left from that war, Saddam simply was in a fiscal box. If somehow the loans could be "forgiven" Saddam would be back in business and be able to rebuild his military. What better way to make the banker forgive your loans than to kill the banker and take over his bank?
It all really is as simple as that. If there was a US policy screw-up, it was in not realizing exactly how totally insane Saddam is. We were treating him as if he were any other semi-rational 3rd world despot. I doubt Bush II will ever make that mistake.
See The Christian Science Monitor for more information. And please --- don't underestimate how dangerous this guy is.
That all sounds like good information and I appreciate it.
Walt
He's dangerous in the same way the 9/11 hi-jackers were dangerous when they slit the throats of stewardesses on the hijacked airliners. You said Saddam had bad generals. Arab culture doesn't produce good soldiers on the western model either. In our culture, and not just in the military, you are expected to take responsibility for your actions, to train your subordinates, and to work together for common goals. The reason the Israelis kicked the snot out of all the Arab armies they faced is because Arab culture doesn't support any of these important ideas. The Arabs can't build cohesive combat units that will stick together and fight together in the same way we do.
The Arabs are sneaky and cowardly, even if they might individually get into a fanatic state on occasion. I met a guy not long after Desert Storm who was in the 101st Airborne. He and his buddies were processing Iraqi POW's when one of them reared up with a knife and stabbed this guy. His buddy covering the searches butt-stroked the POW to the back of the head and killed him. That sounds about right to me.
You're right though. If they can fire a Stinger surface to air missile at a 747, or park a car with a dirty nuke in it on a city street they will do it in a heartbeat.
Walt