I particularly liked this:
(Bolding mine). Is there anyone so adept at doublethink as to defend support for Saddam 20 years ago?
If so, can we agree that regimes like Saddam’s should never, ever be supported in any way again no matter what the short term economic or political benefit might be? Can we agree that it was wrong to support Pinochet?
Interesting question. Yes, support for Hussein and Pinochet was wrong, because the alternatives were better.
But the alternatives have to be considered. Example: President Museveni of Uganda runs a one-party state with large-scale corruption and deprivation of political rights. He became president by overthrowing Obote, who committed genocide.
In that instance, it would have been appropriate to support Museveni against Obote, despite the problems with Museveni.
Sua
A limited defense
The irony is that the US was supporting, or so it was thought, a socialist and secular alternative (Saddam) to the Mullahs and Ayatollahs running Iran. Whoops! It was just another Stalin. Hey, we supported him too.
Well, Iran at the time was more anti-US than Iraq was, wasn’t it, and the alternative to Hussein would have been, possibly, an Iranian dominated Iraq threatening the Gulf. So, why was US support for Iraq at the time wrong?
Meat:
I’m not defending the actions of 1980, but lets put this in some perspective. For example, how many UN resolutions did Iraq have against it in 1980? We’re talking pre-Kuwait invasion and non-compliance w/ terms of the cease fire.
The quote seems a bit out of context, thoiugh, as it seems to imply that Iran was the aggressor. Didn’t Iraq initiate hostilities in the Iran/Iraq war?
So were we wrong to side with Stalin against Hitler?
What Msmith said. Stalin was likely the SECOND most evil man on the planet in WWII. True, with 20-20 hindsight, we could see that some of our support for Stalin was unnessesary, and we could have sent less support & still won. But we knew that AFTER.
“Against Hitler” – that was a given, as Hitler had declared war on us. However, regardless of the fact that Stalin was fighting Hitler, we should not have gotten into bed with him. We basically should have said, “You want Adolph dead, Joe? Great; so do we. But you stay out of our way, and keep under our radar, because you might be next.”
Yeah, yeah, I know, twenty-twenty hindsight. But you would think we would learn from our mistakes. You lie down with pigs, you end us smelling like garbage.
Iraq did indeed start the war. Beginning in 1982 Iraq made several overtures to negotiate an end to the war, but Iran refused to negotiate with the regime of Hussein. This is what the Rumsfeld quote was referring to.
Re: Hitler/Stalin. That situation in WWII was unique. We had no idea what it would take to defeat Hitler. To compromise that effort in any way could have been suicidal. I don’t think there is much merit in comparing any situation in the world today with what we faced in 1942.
We also could do with remembering just why there was a religious revolution in Iran in the first place.
The US supported the Shah, who was oppressive, corrupt and many of the other things that seem to be associated with dictatorial rulers, but he was Western looking, and that got him US support.
When he got overthrown by the Mullahs the US the supported Saddam, and we’ve now had two wars with him.
I will support the idea that, looking back, supporting Saddam was likely a mistake (I will not say certainly, because it’s impossible to tell what would’ve happened had Iran taken over Iraq and dominated the region - coulda been worse). I will not, however, support the idea that we should’ve known this definitively at the time, nor that the idea was inherently immoral, nor that this is proof-positive that the US is an evil empire that likes propping up mad dictators, nor that we should refuse to support bad people in the future at times when the alternative is much worse.
But the rather tame notion that, in retrospect, support for Saddam wasn’t as great an idea as we’d thought? Sure, I can get behind that.
Jeff
Here’s one of my favorite little factoids from the Times:
How can Rumsfeld have any credibility at all at this point? Does this bother any of you conservatives even a little bit?
I think it’s regimes like Saddam’s that need to learn the lesson: Just because the US supports you today doesn’t mean they won’t destroy you tomorrow.
Isn’t this a false dichotomy? I would think that when confronted with the choice of supporting Evil Dictator A or Evil Dictator B, the obvious answer is neither.
And when the Shah was overthrown, many Americans were cheering because they thought that Iran would become a democratic state. Most people in the US failed to realize that many of the Shah’s enemies opposed because they felt he was too liberal.
It’s not a perfect world. Sometimes you have to choose between two alternatives, both of which are bad. And obviously sometimes the wrong choices are made.
But one thing I have difficulty with is the argument that because it was wrong for the US to support Saddam in the 1980’s, it’s also wrong to oppose him now. Maybe I’m missing something, but doesn’t one of those two positions have to be the right one?
Wouldn’t the obvious answer be “Whichever one helps us more”? Of course, sometimes, it’s not obvious that one is more pro-U.S. than the other, or a better ally, and if that’s the case, then don’t support either.
“How can Rumsfeld have any credibility at all at this point? Does this bother any of you conservatives even a little bit?”
DTC: I’m not a conservative, but it does bother me a little bit. I’d be interested to hear what Rummy has to say about it. What surprises me more than anything is that the US would sell bio weapons to ANYONE. This story has been around for quite some time. Does anyone have DR’s response handy?
WWII was a completely unique and different situation… had we not allied ourselves with Stalin, Hitler may have been able to deal with the Russians, who at the time were eating up a lot of German manpower and resources. We needed the Russians as much as they needed us. Without a two-front war, we would’ve been fighting on the Western Front for another two or three years.
Saddam was the only logical option in the 1980s. Why? Take your pick between a dictator, or radical islamics. I think we were right to pick dictator over radical islamics, because imagine what they wouldve done by now to the middle east. It would be a completely different game right now than it is.
As for the whole Iran-Iraq policy question, of course our policy was screwed up. The US armed or supported in some way both sides in the conflict. At the time even that made sense. We didn’t want either side to win the war. Sadly, realpolitik was that we hoped they would beat each other to a pulp and not be able to threaten anyone for a while.
Hey, It worked.:dubious: You know, excluding all the casualties…