America’s previous support of Saddam over Iran is an example of the following truism -
The friend of my enemy is my enemy, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Too liberal? Too Westernized, maybe. He was an autocratic dictator with secret police. Some of the people in the revolution simply wanted him out. Let’s not forget that the Shah, in collusion with the CIA, overthrow the democratically elected Mossadeq government.
You say “Westernized”, I say “liberal”. The two terms seem to be close in meaning in the contest of this thread. The Shah was somewhat in favor of things like women’s rights, secular government, free trade and capitalism, even some freedom of expression (although not on political subjects). The Americans who disliked him supported these things but opposed the Shah because of his corruption, his opposition to democracy, and the violence of his regime.
But the Islamic fundamentalists who replaced the Shah eliminated most of the positive things the Shah had done while doing nothing to restore democracy and actually increasing the level of violence. Admittedly, they probably did reduce corruption.
I’ve never claimed Iraq doesn’t have WMD’s, I’ve claimed that the US failed to prove it before the invasion.
The stuff that Rummy gave them during the Iran/Iraq war was allegedly destroyed after '91 (whatever wasn’t used on Iran or the Kurds). Obviously the White House is alleging that Iraq didn’t destroy everything, and maybe the WH is right. They still have yet to prove it though.
The joke is that Rummy knows Iraq has WMD’s because he kept the receipts.
:mad:
Which is the same disturbing error of quantifier logic that gives us the disturbing, recently-spotted claim that:
If you are anti-war you are pro-Saddam
… I despair.
Why can’t we just admit that some things are not in our control, and by trying to control them, we only make things worse? If A and B are both poor choices, we don’t have to pick A over B, even if A is 0.01% less bad than B.
The competition is closed, and there appear several nominations for the Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf Doublethink Award.
You see, if there is no “right” or “wrong” only “national interest” then one cannot ever say another country’s actions were wrong if they were acting in their national interest, (such as gassing thousands of members of a minority who might become a viable political or military opposition). One can certainly not vindicate the invasion of that country by reference to something so obviously “right” as liberation.
From zwald
Therefore, either:
(a) The US is wrong to support you today.
(b) The US is wrong to destroy you tomorrow.
© Saddam was not wrong.
If “Eliminating the government of Iraq is inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations” was true then, it is true now. If it is false now, it must have been false then.
If one good thing could come from this whole sorry episode, it would be to put to bed the old adage “America has no principles, only interests” (perhaps the most terrifying political quote I have ever heard, save for Thatcher’s “there is no such thing as society”).
Finally, I find msmith’s parallel somewhat skew. As historian Simon Schama and poet Joseph Brodsky put it,* “history never repeats itself. When it comes, it takes you by surprise.”* When one is involved in a World War against forces of comparable or greater power entailing a real risk of one’s own obliteration, one is forced to choose who to fight with and who against (isolationism was not an option for Britain, at least). This is quite a different scenario to choosing which of two distasteful but ultimately non-threatening (to oneself) regimes to support militarily when one could simply not support either. If Iran-Iraq was a war we didn’t want either to win (UK included in “we”), surely selling weapons to one side (UK again included) was a most reprehensible act which should not be repeated, no matter what the economic loss therefrom?
Well, sure, but we figured that an Iraqi win was a lot better outcome for us than an Iranian win (and the best outcome was a long, drawnout war that destroyed the warmaking abilities of both armies).
An easy enough decision to make with 20 years of hindsight and history to rely upon. I think it is a bit unfair to judge decisions made then based upon facts only available now.
Not really. He screwed up. But he;s an intelligent man and apparently has come full circle to fight Iraq, and has done a damned good job of it. He is not solely responsible for either policy.
Well all of those premises are valid in a Schroedinger’s Cat kind of way, as are their converses. The most relevant conclusions are those drawn from premises that exist outside of the box: The US has destroyed regimes that crossed their interests. The US has never been destroyed by a regime whose interests they have crossed. The lesson: if you’re a regime hell bent on crossing US interests, you better beef up that military.
zwaldd: I am familiar with quantum physics. I am also familiar with the concept of realpolitik. What do you mean by your post?
Do you contend that the US was never wrong? If so, do you understand that you cannot consistently contend that Iraq ever did anything wrong?
If we can all agree on what constituted a mistake we can learn and move forward to discuss how such might be avoided in future. If there is no such thing as “wrong” then there was no justification in invading Iraq or, indeed, liberating Kuwait in the first place.
Just as a general question, Sentientmeat, what’s wrong with first supporting a country then later opposing it? Couldn’t you argue that we were right to support Sadaam as a way to stop Iran, and now that Iran isn’t a threat any longer, to oppose him?
Stop Iran what? Acting in its national interests?
Iraq, the supported one, was the one which became the “threat” IIRC.
Read the OP link again. Donald already had knowledge of chemical weapons and grave human rights abuses when he shook that hand. If “we were right to support Saddam then”, then chemical weapon acquisition and grave abuse of human rights were what was being supported. I contend that it is wrong to support such things.
Your statement “regimes like Saddam’s should never, ever be supported in any way again” is based on an unresolved premise: “(a) The US is wrong to support you today.” I believe that conclusions based on unresolved premises have less real-life relevance than those based on resolved premises: The US has destroyed regimes that crossed their interests, etc.
No.
Thank you zwaldd - forgive my rather abrupt tenacity, but I am keen that consensus is reached here if only to rid us of that odious quote I mentioned earlier. (Thank you also for representing the other side in this debate.)
I understand that you are “simply telling it how it is”. Unfortunately, “how it is” is also that terrorists can murder thousands of US civilians at a stroke. “How it is” is also that tyrants and thugs the world over can exterminate innocents at will so long as they don’t interfere with US national interests.
I respect your view, if such it is, that “right” and “wrong” are somewhat superfluous in international politics. But if 9/11 was wrong, or Halabja ‘88 was wrong, or the Caravan of Death ‘73 was wrong, or Kuwait ‘91 was wrong, then past US support for those who perpetrated these acts was wrong. If there’s no such thing, then they weren’t either.
To be fair, saying the US armed Saddam is like saying Kmart gets their money by selling Pepsi. True, Kmart sells Pepsi and gets money from it, but they get most of their money from selling other things. Virtually every western European country, the US & the USSR supported both Iran & Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. The US only provided 1% of the armaments Iraq used in the war. USSR gave 57%, France gave 13% and China gave 12%.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm
I would honestly love to live in a world where the first world chose their third world allies largely on how humane & economically progressive they were. But i don’t know if its realistic. Things aren’t black & white, and sometimes misery, trauma & terror are guaranteed no matter what you do.
Well, it’s probably morally wrong to support things like the abuse of human rights, but when I said “We were right to support Sadaam then.”, I meant “It was in our national interest to support Sadaam then.”
What scares me is how seldom this distinction is actually made.
That’s not a truism; it’s a platitude.