Jordan military weapons in Iraq - Proof?

[MeanJoe]

I cannot link directly so I will provide this link first:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/846463.asp?b=hi

Under the pictures for April 5th, please examine the 5th photo.

This photo is of anti-tank weapons that are clearly marked as belonging to the Jordanian military.

Crack-pot theories that this is just planted by the U.S. military aside:

1.) Does this prove that Jordan has been supplying weapons (in violation of the U.N.) to Iraq as the U.S. has alleged?

2.) In my searches so far, I've not seen an article pointing to clear physical proof of the U.S. allegations that Jordan and Syria are assisting Iraq - yet this photo seems to provide just that. Why no coverage?

3.) What, if anything, do you believe the fall-out of this will (or should) be?

MeanJoe

[Boyo Jim]

Maybe because they can't tie the pictured weapon to date of sale. Iraq's been at war, or preparing for war, for decades. So they could have picked up this stuff long ago, before there were sanctions in place.

And if it IS recent, then the administration has some political reason why NOT to make a big deal about it. What that reason is, I wouldn't venture to guess.

[tomndebb]

When has the U.S. charged that Jordan was illegally supplying Iraq with weapons?
(For this war, Jordan has aligned with the U.S., even sending reconnaisance patrols across the border to watch for covert shipments and troop movements.)

During the first Gulf War, Jordan was an open supporter of Iraq and the weapons could date from that period.

Why are the boxes stenciled in English?

[elucidator]

You sure that's not French? Looks kinda French, to me. Those numerals are French too.

[Reeder]

French numerals? Care to show us a couple?

[Payne N. Diaz]

Looks English to me, too. Isn't the crate labelled with "DIR OF PLG & ORG"? Directorate of Planning and Organization? I think the word "of" does not occur in French.

[elucidator]

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As an attempt at "disinformation", it is way too clumsy (I'm assuming that both Jordan and Iraq write in the same Arabic script?)

Unless: the box was shipped from an English speaking country to the Jordan Dir of PLG & ORG, but was later re-used for tank ammo. When the crate was initialy dispatched, it may have contained a copier. Or something.

[Sam Stone]

I watched that discovery on TV, and they said that the weapons they discovered were Jordanian and French.

No one should be surprised by this. The French have been supplying weapons in violation of the sanctions for years. The U.S. reported a shipment of Mirage and helicopter parts from France in January.

Syria has been importing oil illegally for years. If Jordan was supplying weapons, they can join a lengthy list.

BTW, given the English writing, I'd suspect that the weapons were trans-shipped to Iraq through Jordan, rather than originating in Jordan in the first place, in order to give the real country of origin some plausible deniability.

In another part of the country, a bunch of Russian gas masks were discovered that had fresh filter cartridges manufactured in 2002.

[Fugazi]

I also heard on TV (sorry no cite) that some anti-tank rockets are of Russian manufacture. Not only that, but these particular anti-tank rockets weren't developed by the Russians until after sanctions went into effect. It's going to be interesting to see how much illegal activity from other countries will be found after the war.

[Sam Stone]

Actually, the White House just leaked details showing that the Russians have been in full knowledge of those rocket sales for a long time, and that the U.S. had been hammering the Russians diplomatically for the last year to get those sales stopped.

I've said many times that the main reasons for France and Russia to oppose this war are that, A) they were making a ton of money breaking sanctions and dealing with Iraq, and B) they were going to be embarassed when the Coalition forces start combing through documents and talking to Iraqi bureaucrats, scientists, and soldiers about where their weapons came from, who built their bunkers, etc.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
BTW, given the English writing, I'd suspect that the weapons were trans-shipped to Iraq through Jordan, rather than originating in Jordan in the first place, in order to give the real country of origin some plausible deniability.

So which one of the Anglo-American countries would it be?

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Actually, the White House just leaked details showing that the Russians have been in full knowledge of those rocket sales for a long time, and that the U.S. had been hammering the Russians diplomatically for the last year to get those sales stopped.

Oooooo, the bloody White House leaked the detials.

Give me a break Sam, why should I give the Bush Admin, pimpers of false data on nuclear sales and the like, any credit for "leaks" in which they have such transparent interest in.

Your credulity sometimes defies belief.

I've said many times that the main reasons for France and Russia to oppose this war are that, A) they were making a ton of money breaking sanctions and dealing with Iraq, and B) they were going to be embarassed when the Coalition forces start combing through documents and talking to Iraqi bureaucrats, scientists, and soldiers about where their weapons came from, who built their bunkers, etc.

Well, Sam, your analysis on this matter is of your usual quality. French opposition was hardly motivated by some penny ante profits by a few French firms, thsi is the same sort of rhetorical bullshit idiocy that the anti-War crowd engages in when crying they have "proof" of Blood for Oil and that kind of nonsense.

Argument from tenous 2nd rate logical ties cuts both ways.

In any case, given the close relationship of certain past American officials with old Iraqi policy and the attendant connexions, I should hardly be holding me breath Sam.

As to the weapons, Tom had correctly noted Jordan has long enjoyed a close relationship with Iraq, quite naturally. A number of explanations, knowing the Jordanian elite, present themselves few as lurid as Sam's panting conservo porn scenarios.

(a) Old weapons
(b) Corruption - 'new' post sanctions transfers. The Generals here are not ... clean people.
(c) Collusion, see (b).

How recent either (b) or (c)? Who knows. Might be mid 1990s for all I know. I consider it highly unlikely post-Abdullah ascenscion.

[CyberPundit]

"The French have been supplying weapons in violation of the sanctions for years."
And do you have a source, more credible than the Washington Times, for this allegation which you keep repeating again and again?

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by tomndebb
Why are the boxes stenciled in English? [/b]

Jordanian military trains in English.

[Tuckerfan]

The previous king of Jordan bent a lot of rules when it came to dealing with Iraq. Reason being that Jordan was fairly dependant upon Iraq for a lot of things, and the population of Jordan was pretty pro-Iraqi, even though the king of Jordan was rumored to believe that Saddam should be removed from power. The US didn't make a big fuss over it then, his son, who is seen by many Jordanians as an outsider, has quietly allowed US forces to operate within its borders. I don't know about the current king of Jordan, but his father was seen as a very progressive individual in that region of the world, and if his son is continuing in his father's footsteps, I can imagine that the US doesn't want to make a big fuss over what appears to be a minor matter.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
The previous king of Jordan bent a lot of rules when it came to dealing with Iraq. Reason being that Jordan was fairly dependant upon Iraq for a lot of things, and the population of Jordan was pretty pro-Iraqi, even though the king of Jordan was rumored to believe that Saddam should be removed from power. The US didn't make a big fuss over it then, his son, who is seen by many Jordanians as an outsider, has quietly allowed US forces to operate within its borders. I don't know about the current king of Jordan, but his father was seen as a very progressive individual in that region of the world, and if his son is continuing in his father's footsteps, I can imagine that the US doesn't want to make a big fuss over what appears to be a minor matter.

Indeed.

Abdullah speaks English better than Arabic, at least formal Arabic, which is an embarrassement here.

The situation in Jordan is complex and has shown signs of deteriorating, with public comments by the King and Government backpeddling.

Most likely some minor corruption involved in re arms transfers for oil kickacks.

[Tuckerfan]

Ah, Abdullah's his name. I haven't paid much attention to Jordan since the last war. I do know that his wife is an American, and she's pretty big on the humanitarian front. Frankly, if they are as pro-Western as they seem to be, the US should leave well enough alone when it comes to Jordan. Better that Jordan makes slow progress towards democracy (which they were inching towards, IIRC), than to suffer a complete reversal because the US goes mucking about there.

[Sam Stone]

Since when is the Washinton Times not credible?

Here's a link to the original article: Iraq Strengthens Air Force with French Parts.

And of course, you could watch the news. French weapons are being found all through Iraq. Of course, France was one of the biggest arms suppliers to Iraq before the sanctions, so maybe they all pre-date them. We'll have to wait and see.

Collounsbury: Man, even when you're trying really hard you can't keep from being snotty, can you? Why don't you leave out the editorial comments like, 'This analysis is of your usual quality', and 'your credulity sometimes defies belief', and "Sam's panting conservo porn scenarios"? You can make your point without personal cheap shots. I think.

As for my credulity with regards to Russian arms sales to Iraq:

Financial Times:

Washington has made a series of representations to Moscow over the past year, protesting against the alleged sale by Russian companies of night-vision goggles, anti-tank missiles and jamming equipment to the Iraqi military, some via Syria.

US officials have suggested that these sales continued up to and at the start of the Iraq war, thereby endangering coalition lives.

Of course, Putin denies this.

One Russian company, KBP Tula, accused by the U.S. State Department of supplying Iraq with "Kornet" antitank missiles, said such sales could not have taken place because sales to other countries are "under strict Russian government control.

But then the shooting starts in Iraq, and what do you know?

U.S. Surprised By Iraqi Use Of 'Kornet' Antitank Missiles

RFE/RL correspondent Ron Synovitz is embedded with a unit of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division currently outside Najaf, a city in central Iraq now encircled by U.S. troops following 36 hours of heavy fighting. He reports that U.S. troops are encountering an unanticipated, and formidable, weapon in the Iraqi arsenal -- Russian-built Kornet antitank missiles.

Najaf, Central Iraq; 27 March 2003 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. military intelligence is warning American troops that Iraqi soldiers have begun to use a wire-guided missile system against American tanks that the U.S. military previously did not know they possessed.

It is called the AT-14 Kornet surface-to-surface missile. It has a range of 3.5 kilometers, and it is emerging as the Iraqis' most effective direct-fire weapon against U.S. armor in the desert of southern Iraq.

Iraqi commandos traveling in three-man teams dressed in black civilian robes and riding in Nissan pickup trucks have been moving against the flanks of columns of armor from the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division and launching broadside attacks from several kilometers away using the system. Those attacks have already disabled at least two Abrahms tanks and one Bradley armored troop carrier.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by Tuckerfan
Ah, Abdullah's his name. I haven't paid much attention to Jordan since the last war. I do know that his wife is an American, and she's pretty big on the humanitarian front. Frankly, if they are as pro-Western as they seem to be, the US should leave well enough alone when it comes to Jordan. Better that Jordan makes slow progress towards democracy (which they were inching towards, IIRC), than to suffer a complete reversal because the US goes mucking about there.

His wife is of Palestinian origin and they both indeed are deeply pro American.

I am not sure about the progress towards democracy, it is highly situational in reality. Elections postponed 3 years in a row as I recall now.

Certainly if we are smart, we shall leave well enough alone and let Abdullah backtrack to save face.

Now as to Sam, you're trying to sell quite a strong scenario on the flimsiest of evidence -- and indeed quite spun evidence. Apply the same bloody standards to the evidence Sam - stop trying to have it both ways. Halliburton clean, but ooooo if there is a French company involved it's collusion. Pitiful.

Your argument has been for official collusion on arms sales by France and Russia. Russia one can give some credit to, although I would put my money on simple corruption. France, well pimp away, I certainly don't see the moonie rag as a credible source.

In the end, French and Russian motives are very adequately explained by their view of their national interests, not some minor contracts and corruption involving a few private firms. I would make the same argument in re US policy, that all the idiotic claims about US policy being driven by commercial interests are utterly wrong and based on equally ideological misunderstandings of national interest. Bush et al are pursing what they believe is a correct policy on national interest. They're wrong, but wrong in a largely honest way. Your continual one sided promotion of this kind of bankrupt analysis does no small discredit to yourself and the ideological rags ( LEFT AND RIGHT that continue to pimp these bankrupt analyses.

My harsh criticism is aimed at the whole kit and kaboodle of simple minded arguments that see this particular conflcit's universe of policies being driven by a narrow commercial interest. ANyone in the midst of this can see how simple minded and wrong that is. Surely there is influence on the margins, but this conflict has gone to the heart of state interests and long term positions on sovereignty and the like. Serious issues that focus the mind.

[CyberPundit]

"Since when is the Washinton Times not credible?"
When has it ever been credible? How many people outside right-wing circles take it seriously? How many Pulitzer prizes has it won?
Isn't it funny that you never see these stories in the Washington Post or the NY Times?

In any case considering how unreliable even the public "evidence" submitted by this administration has been, annonymous quotes by administration officials in the Washington Times are all but useless. Until someone produces evidence verified by third parties, all you are doing is repeating unsubstanitiated allegations which happen to fit your ideological prejudices.

[Sam Stone]

I don't disagree with that. This is a complex issue, and there are a lot of things going on. France is attempting to build a coalition to check U.S. power. France is also jockeying for power within the EU. And France has 50 billion dollars worth of oil contracts with Iraq, negotiated at very favorable terms, and only due when the sanctions are dropped.

But even that is just symptomatic of the real issue: France sees Iraq has being in its own sphere of influence. France was one of Saddam's biggest trading partners before the Gulf war. Cooperation between France and Iraq goes back decades.

So yes, there are a lot of factors in play. The bottom line is that France has a lot to lose from a successful U.S. invasion of Iraq, in financial losses, prestige, political capital, embarassment, weakening its position in the EU, etc.

As for Russia, I agree that simple corruption makes more sense than high collusion with the government to thwart the U.S. Russia is starved for hard currency, and Saddam is awash in it. That causes government officials to look the other way.

Nonetheless, Russia was warned by the U.S. at the highest levels long before the war started, and chose to do nothing. It was therefore embarassing to the Russian government when U.S. tanks started falling victim to the vrey missiles the Americans were concerned about. It remains to be seen what other Russian weapons are found in Iraq, but I don't think we've seen the last of them.

[CyberPundit]

"And France has 50 billion dollars worth of oil contracts with Iraq, negotiated at very favorable terms, and only due when the sanctions are dropped"
Except that sanctions were unlikely to be dropped while Saddam was in power so these contracts are largely worthless.
Wouldn't it make better economic sense to support an invasion and use the leverage thus gained to obtain real contracts after the war which actually result in production and profits?
Not to mention the fact that as a net importer of oil (2 million bpd IIRC) the French will benefit if the invasion is successful and succeeds in increasing the supply of Iraqi oil and reducing the world price.

In other words your claims make no sense whatsoever..

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Sam Stone

So yes, there are a lot of factors in play. The bottom line is that France has a lot to lose from a successful U.S. invasion of Iraq, in financial losses, prestige, political capital, embarassment, weakening its position in the EU, etc.

France's position in the EU is far from weakened. If anyone's position has been seriously damaged, it is Britain's. Blair knows that fully well, which is why he has started to bridge the gap by insisting on UN oversight after the war. Spain is irrelevant anyway, given that they will have a number of elections in the months to come culminating in parliamentary elections next year, which will lead Aznar into political oblivion. In fact, the French, if anything, will profit, given that a joint EU decision making process on foreign issues is now seen as imperative by people on both sides of the Iraq question. Not the least, however, the attack has largely eliminated the chance for the US to be seen as a fair arbitrator in middle eastern affairs by the Arab world for the short term, which will only lend more power to the EU in such a role.

As for financial losses, it remains to be seen how high they will be in the end. Given that the Iraqis have already stated they will not feel bound by any contracts not enacted by a sovereign Iraqi government, there are far more unknowns than knowns in the reconstruction process. Not the least, a US administration there giving out contracts to US companies alone can easily be seen as a case of illegal subsidies, and is unlikely to rouse sympathies by the Iraqis, especially when they are asked to pay for it.

Regarding France, I think that power on an individual level is a much more direct influence on its policies. Chirac knows fully well he only had a very marginal support in the public, despite his record election. He also knows that there's DAs sharpening their knives for the day he ceases to be president and enjoy the immunity coming with that office. Doing what he did was the PR coup of the century, providing him with immense public support. Conversely, supporting the US would have resulted in large parts of the public calling for his being ousted.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Since when is the Washinton Times not credible?

This is a joke, right? Rev. Moon's newspaper is so blatantly conservative and unreliable, it makes Rudolph Murdoch jealous.

[Payne N. Diaz]

There is a blurb in the latest issue of US News and World Report (a fairly conservative publication, it's true) that says the three main opponents to the invasion of Iraq were France, Germany, and Russia. Iraq owes people a lot of money, and see if you can guess which three countries hold most of the Iraqi foreign debt.

[Spoke]

Careful about quick assumptions. They've also found American arms. (You know, from when we were supplying the Iraqis...)

[Payne N. Diaz]

I bet they weren't stamped with a 2002 date, though.

[Sam Stone]

By the way, this drivel from the anti-war folks about the U.S. having armed Saddam is a gross exaggeration. Saddam has NEVER been a major recipient of U.S. weaponry. The 'chemical weapons' he received were things like anthrax samples delivered for agricultural purposes, and NOT for weaponry. The shipments did not come from the U.S. military, but from the Center for Disease Control.

Saddam's primary arms suppliers have always been the Russians and France. Saddam's fighter jets are Mirage F1's (French) and MiG 29's (Russian). Saddam's missiles are Russian, French, and Chinese. Saddam's artillery is mostly Russian. The light arms used in Iraq are mostly Russian.

The amount of military aid given to Saddam by the U.S., even when he was an 'ally', was a trivial amount. I believe the total amount of U.S. aid amounted to about 200 million dollars, compared to hundreds of billions from other countries.

To say "The U.S. armed Iraq" is simply wrong.

[Abe]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
By the way, this drivel from the anti-war folks about the U.S. having armed Saddam is a gross exaggeration. Saddam has NEVER been a major recipient of U.S. weaponry. The 'chemical weapons' he received were things like anthrax samples delivered for agricultural purposes, and NOT for weaponry. The shipments did not come from the U.S. military, but from the Center for Disease Control.

I hope no other madmen were armed in this apparently innocuous manner.

To say "The U.S. armed Iraq" is simply wrong.

It is not wrong to say "the US helped arm Iraq". And "The US armed Iraq" is itself not an exclusive statement, in fact it could exist right alongside other statements such as "France armed Iraq".

[Sam Stone]

But it would be totally disingenuous, wouldn't you agree? If the U.S. sold 200 million worth of goods to Iraq, most of which was intended for agricultural purposes, while France sold Iraq 200 billion dollars worth of fighter jets, nuclear power plants, missiles, etc., then it would be very, very misleading to say, "The U.S. helped arm Iraq just as France did."

The fact is, Iraq was armed by Russia, China, and France. The U.S. was not a real factor - and whatever money flowed to Iraq from the U.S. was a piddling amount.

[Spoke]

Originally posted by Payne N. Diaz
I bet they weren't stamped with a 2002 date, though.

And were the Jordanian arms so stamped?

Sam, speaking of disingenuous, please refrain from implying that US provided no military aid to Iraq. I'm pretty sure the American arms found in the Iraqi weapons cache were not intended for "agricultural purposes."

(Or maybe they were. Perhaps the rifles were intended for shooting crows...)

[Payne N. Diaz]

I can't vouch for the Jordanian arms, but the coalition did find Russian gas masks and chemical suits, still in the plastic bags, with expiration dates of 2007, which means that they were pretty new.

[kingpengvin]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
But it would be totally disingenuous, wouldn't you agree? If the U.S. sold 200 million worth of goods to Iraq, most of which was intended for agricultural purposes, while France sold Iraq 200 billion dollars worth of fighter jets, nuclear power plants, missiles, etc., then it would be very, very misleading to say, "The U.S. helped arm Iraq just as France did."

The fact is, Iraq was armed by Russia, China, and France. The U.S. was not a real factor - and whatever money flowed to Iraq from the U.S. was a piddling amount.

Uh ok... sure.
Except in the decade before the first Gulf War the United states did help build Iraq's military. Quite a bit of it was in the form of "aid" that could be weaponized. The helicopters they used on their own people before the No fly zones were imposed were American designed sold for "Agricultural scouting purposes" which became gun ships quite easily. The agricultural chemicals that were sold had the side benifit of being able to be combined to make chemical weapons.

As for the WMDs take a look at this

[Sam Stone]

Sam, speaking of disingenuous, please refrain from implying that US provided no military aid to Iraq. I'm pretty sure the American arms found in the Iraqi weapons cache were not intended for "agricultural purposes."

I wasn't aware that I had implied that. But here are the facts: Between 1980 and 1990, Iraq purchased about 60-70 billion dollars in weapons from other countries. The U.S. contribution was less than a billion dollars - and it came primarily in the form of about 100 helicopters. Another billion or so in 'dual-use' equipment (machine tools, computers, ambulances, large trucks) was sold to Iraq by the U.S. And unfortunately, far too many dangerous chemicals, although NONE were intended for weaponry. But Iraq bought a lot of pesticides, cultures of things like anthrax and botulinin toxin, etc. Bad policy by the U.S. for sure, but there were legitimate non-military uses for this stuff.

That's about all I can find for U.S. weapons being sold to Iraq. Iraq was in possession of a very small amount of other U.S. weapons, but they were purchased from other countries like Jordan. Things like Howitzers, small arms, etc.

In comparison, France alone during this period sold Iraq: 400 Exocet missiles, 200 AS30 laser-guided missiles, 133 Mirage F1 fighters, Five Super Etendard advanced strike fighters, and 100 Gazelle, Super-Frelon, and Alouette helicopters. And that's just aircraft and air-to-ground missiles.

From Globalsecurity.org:

By the summer of 1990, the IQAF constituted the sixth largest air force in the world, with 750 fighter, bomber, and armed trainer aircraft, supported by 200 miscellaneous types, including an Iraqi-built airborne early warning aircraft derived from the Soviet IL-76 transport. Iraq's air force included the modern MiG-29 Fulcrum interceptor and air superiority fighter, the MiG-27 Flogger strike fighter, the MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor, the MiG-23 Flogger fighter-bomber, the MiG-21 Fishbed fighter, the Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot ground attack airplane, the Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer strike aircraft, the Sukhoi Su -7, -20 and -22 Fitter family of fighter-bombers, and the Tupolev Tu-16 Badger and Tu-22 Blinder bombers. Additionally, it had Chinese-made H-6 and J-7 aircraft, the Czech L-39 armed trainer, and French Mirage F-1 fighters. These carried a variety of Soviet and European air-to-air missiles, bombs, bomblet dispensers, and smart weapons such as the French-built AS-30L laser-guided weapon.

Before the gulf war, Iraq had 5500 tanks. ALL of them came from the Soviet Union or China. Anti-tank weaponry came from China, France, and Russia.

In fact, if you go through the Iraqi inventory of arms, three countries leap out at you - China, Russia, and France. These three countries are responsible for about 95% of all of Iraq's weapon purchases, and virtually 100% of the weapons extant around the first Gulf war.

Of the helicopters the U.S. sold Iraq in the early 1980's, none survived in the inventory after the Iran/Iraq war, as far as I can tell. They were either destroyed or became unmaintainable because the U.S. soon stopped selling parts to Iraq.

So when people say, "The U.S. armed Iraq", it is SERIOUSLY misleading. It implies that Iraq's military strength was somewhat due to the United States, or even that soldiers in Iraq today are facing U.S. weapons. This is simply not true. If the U.S. hadn't sold those 100-odd helicopters to Iraq, it would have just bought them from someone else. And in any event, 1 or 2 billion dollars is a TRIVIAL amount of hardware compared to the 'big three' suppliers, and most of it was dual-use anyway.

[capacitor]

Sam, The Rumsfeld-led envoy gave Sadaam something even more important--legitimacy. That allowed the other countries to treat The Ba'ath party as the legitimate government of Iraq.

[Sam Stone]

I don't disagree with that. The U.S. did aid the Iraqi regime in lots of ways - it just didn't ARM the regime. Not in any meaningful sense.

No one disputes that the U.S. supported the Hussein regime. There was a policy shift in the 80's - at the start of the Iran/Iraq war, the U.S. had a policy of rough neutrality in the conflict. But the Reagan administration came to believe that Iran was a bigger threat, and therefore supported Saddam's regime. Remember, this was just after the Iranian hostage crisis, and during the period of time when Iran was screaming about the "Great Satan". Hussein, in comparison, looked like a moderate, secular leader - someone who could be reasoned with.

However, as the U.S. came to realize how barbarous Hussein's regime was, and how reckless and dangerous he was, U.S. policy shifted away from the regime and became actively hostile. France, Russia, and China ignored all this and continued to befriend the regime and sell arms and give other support to it, up to and including their tireless efforts to keep Saddam in power this year.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
The U.S. did aid the Iraqi regime in lots of ways - it just didn't ARM the regime. Not in any meaningful sense.

Spin, spin, spin.

No one disputes that the U.S. supported the Hussein regime. There was a policy shift in the 80's - at the start of the Iran/Iraq war, the U.S. had a policy of rough neutrality in the conflict. But the Reagan administration came to believe that Iran was a bigger threat, and therefore supported Saddam's regime. Remember, this was just after the Iranian hostage crisis, and during the period of time when Iran was screaming about the "Great Satan".

Odd, then, that Oliver North and his seekret clique of operatives were selling arms to Iran at about the same time. I believe Ronnie even sent a cake to Iran as a token of gratitude.

The only reason Reagan backed Hussein at all was because Iran was being supported by the Russians at the time. Since, in the conservatives' black-and-white worldview, Communists == evil, it was imperative to support Iraq as an anti-communism move. Any doubts about working with Saddam were irrelevant, since all Reagan cared about was countering the Soviets.

However, as the U.S. came to realize how barbarous Hussein's regime was, and how reckless and dangerous he was, U.S. policy shifted away from the regime and became actively hostile.

You keep believing that, Sam.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
I don't disagree with that. The U.S. did aid the Iraqi regime in lots of ways - it just didn't ARM the regime. Not in any meaningful sense.

Well, I think you have 1/2 of a point Sam. You're correct that the U.S. was not a primary arms supplier, even during the Iran-Iraq War ( and not at all before that, as Iraq was the primary regional foe of Iran, the dominant U.S. proxy/ally in the region ). However I wouldn't take that too far. Above and beyond the direct arms sales, the U.S. carefully funneled equipment through other states ( for example those cluster bombs purchased from Chile were obtained with U.S. blessing ) and diplomatically it quietly helped prod the Gulf States into supplying the cash to buy those French, Russian, and Chinese arms. I don't have the exact cite in front of me, but my source is Anthony Cordesman et al. in his volume on the Iran-Iraq War.

Abe has the correct answer - the U.S. helped arm Iraq, at least during the Iran-Iraq War.

No one disputes that the U.S. supported the Hussein regime. There was a policy shift in the 80's - at the start of the Iran/Iraq war, the U.S. had a policy of rough neutrality in the conflict. But the Reagan administration came to believe that Iran was a bigger threat, and therefore supported Saddam's regime. Remember, this was just after the Iranian hostage crisis, and during the period of time when Iran was screaming about the "Great Satan". Hussein, in comparison, looked like a moderate, secular leader - someone who could be reasoned with.

I'll agree with this, with the exception that I don't think the U.S. administration, or at the very least the regional specialists in the State Department, ever had any serious illusions as to how "moderate" Saddam Hussein was. He was considered the lesser of two evils, period.

However, as the U.S. came to realize how barbarous Hussein's regime was, and how reckless and dangerous he was, U.S. policy shifted away from the regime and became actively hostile. France, Russia, and China ignored all this and continued to befriend the regime and sell arms and give other support to it, up to and including their tireless efforts to keep Saddam in power this year.

I think you are exaggerating U.S. benevolence. The correct modifiers are probably unreliable and uncooperative. The barbarity was quietly tolerated during the war and they knew he was reckless from the first minute he invaded Iran. France, Russia, and China continued to supply arms to him because they always had and it was good business. I'm quite certain ( yes, this is opinion ) the U.S. would have done the same if it had come to that. The reason they didn't wasn't so much political ( before 1991 ), but for the same practical reasons they hadn't been a major equipment supplier before - the Iraqi military was already primarily equipped with a dual soviet/western equipment grouping ( like so many third-world nations ), in this case Russian and French-patterned, that would have only had more incompatability problems if they had added a third major supplier.

Originally posted by rjung

Odd, then, that Oliver North and his seekret clique of operatives were selling arms to Iran at about the same time. I believe Ronnie even sent a cake to Iran as a token of gratitude.

A misguided and poorly executed attempt to deal with the Lebanese hostage crisis. A realpolitik dealing that had nothing to do with nothing, really ( at least vis-a-vis the Iran-Iraq War ).

I substantively agree with Sam's take on U.S. motives ( excluding benevolence, as I mentioned ).

The only reason Reagan backed Hussein at all was because Iran was being supported by the Russians at the time. Since, in the conservatives' black-and-white worldview, Communists == evil, it was imperative to support Iraq as an anti-communism move. Any doubts about working with Saddam were irrelevant, since all Reagan cared about was countering the Soviets.

While the cold-warrior mentality doubtless seeped into the equation ( it was indeed endemic in the Reagan administration, for good or ill ), I don't think this was the major factor. The U.S.S.R. in fact armed both sides, but mostly Iraq before 1989 ( i.e. both before and during the Iran-Iraq War it was THE largest arms supplier to Iraq ). China and North Korea were the bigger suppliers of arms to Iran during the war, but neither was ever regarded as a Cold War threat on the level of the U.S.S.R. .

- Tamerlane

[Sam Stone]

Tamerlane - Well, I pretty much agree with you. The U.S. had a policy of aiding Hussein's regime, and that included things like looking the other way while American arms were funneled to Iraq through other states, as well as giving direct aid and support.

My point, however, is that the sum totality of U.S. military aid to Iraq is DWARFED by the amount of arms received from France, Russia, and China. If the U.S. had maintained an overtly hostile stance towards Iraq and not given them a nickel, Hussein's regime at the start of the Gulf war would have had about the same amount of arms as it did with U.S. support. Because the sum total of all support from the U.S. and aid from allies amounts to a few billion dollars at a time when Iraq was the largest importer of arms in the world, buying tens of billions of dollars in weaponry each year.

So in that sense, saying "The U.S. armed Iraq" is disingenuous. Even, "The U.S. helped arm Iraq" overplays the effect U.S. aid had on the Iraq military. A more accurate statement would be something like, "The U.S. gave Iraq a small amount of aid in the 1980's, almost all of which was used up in the Iran/Iraq war".

After all, I can't find a single U.S. weapon in any Iraq inventories such as the one at GlobalSecurity or FAS. Those 100 American helicopters are long gone, and the only other U.S. weapons Iraq ever got were a few howitzers and other small arms, and ammunition for those mostly dried up by the early 1990's. So in no substantial way does Iraq's military power have anything to do with the United States.