It’s not that simple, Dewey. It’s more a scenario where you’ve been hiring Charles Manson as a hit man, and you supply him with the weapons he needs to get the job done. He’s obviously psycho, but he’s a damn good hit man, so you’re willing to overlook the psychotic tendencies rather than cut him loose and risk wasting time trying to find someone just as good but much more sane. Obviously you don’t want him to go shoot up a mall full of innocent bystanders, but by retaining him as your hit man, supplying him with whatever he asks for, and overlooking the psychotic tendencies, you’re running an ever-increasing risk that he will go out and shoot up a mall. But his efficiency as a hit man is more important to you than the risk of him going on a spree, so in the grand scheme of things, you really don’t care. That is, until people start following the threads back to you.
Sorry for bringing this up so much further down the thread but I just couldn’t let Stoid’s explanation for the “planned killing of innocents” go uncontested. Stoid, regardless of your explanation re: “planning to kill innocents” your statement is disingenuous at best.
An apt analogy might be the statement: “Environmentalists plan to make poor people poorer”
How so you may ask? Well, environmentalists are obstructing the construction of cheap coal based power plants while pushing for higher cost recyclable energy. The resulting higher costs will be passed onto the consumers. Ergo, people who are poor will now have to pay more for the same service. Therefore, Environmentalists are planning to make poor people suffer financially.
The key here is that the word “plan” implies intent. It indicates that it’s part of the goal, not a predictable side effect. If someone says: “I’m planning to get sick” don’t you assume that “getting sick” is the goal? Wouldn’t it be misleading for them to make that statement if they have no intention of getting sick and hope they don’t get sick even though they are in a situation where getting sick is a predictable outcome (i.e. outdoors in bad weather for prolonged periods of time or similar circumstance)?
It would be a lie if people were claiming in this thread that no civilians would be harmed in a military action. No one here so far (that I can tell) has claimed that. I think educated people on both sides realize that minimizing civilian deaths is a laudable, though difficult task. Even though you may have posted with good intentions I still find your choice of wording to be misleading and inflammatory.
Grim
Mr. Svinlesha: how about recently-declassified documents showing concern over Soviet influence was a primary motivating factor in determining US policy in Iran?
The link goes to a 1985 national security memorandum dealing with internal power struggles in Iran, a memorandum that is among the first to suggest selling arms to Iran. It says up front:
Regarding Moscow’s then-current posture towards Iran:
That was 1985, when U.S. carrot-and-stick approaches might have been effective. Consider Iran in 1981: its hostility to the US would have made such efforts impossible. Thus, to achieve the same goals stated in the memo – minimization of Soviet influence in the Middle East – the US backed Iraq in their war with Iran.
Olent: God, I can tell already that this analogy is going to get twisted beyond all recognition, but here goes:
Let’s say you hire the hitman, but you only supply him with garrote wire for the work he does for you. The garrote wire is sufficient to get the job done for most of your hits.
Your giving him the garrote wire doesn’t mean you “don’t care” if he gets a machine gun. You might well care very much: the occasional stealthy hit is useful to you, but you don’t want the heat from the shopping mall massacre. But one of your stupid underlings gives him a machine gun anyway (maybe the hitman told him he needed it for duck hunting). That may make you negligent, but nothing more.
God that was hideous.
In related news, I’ve been playing far too much Grand Theft Auto 3.
You’re not a very good leader if your underlings don’t know what you 're thinking on a subject. I think it was quite clear what Reagan’s policy on Iraq was in the mid-80s, and that the clarity of his views permitted the CDC to ship the bio-agents to Baghdad. Those shipments weren’t a mistake. They were the logical outcome of the US policy on Iraq at that time. Whether or not Reagan actually knew about the shipment or whether or not he wanted Iraq to have biochemical weapons, he was responsible for formulating the “give 'em what they want, even if he is a war criminal (which we deny)” policy and is therefore responsible for Iraq receiving biochemical agents. A mistake would have been sending biochemical agents when he wanted topsoil samples. This was no mistake.
Whatever you say, Olent. Look, we’ve got a Commerce Department program that permits CDC to provide samples for medical research to other countries. Presumably this is one of about a zillion programs the government operates, a minor cog in the government machine. Yeah, someone should’ve thought to investigate the Iraqi request a little further, but no one did. It was a fuckup, pure and simple. And yeah, the administration bears responsibility for that fuckup. But that’s all it was – a fuckup. Even the UN guy agrees with that assessment.
I really don’t see where you get the idea that the policy was “giving 'em what they want” with no constraints whatsoever. If that was the case, we’d have given Saddam nukes.
Heh. Wasn’t Abe Fortas’s chief qualification his assisting LBJ in getting away with ballot stuffing in 1948? 
Ignore that last post. Multiple windows open, wrong thread, you get the idea.
Well, Iraq did have a nuclear weapons development program before 1998, since the IAEA documented the destruction of weapons development machinery during the inspections after the Gulf War.
Where did they get the machinery and the materials from?
boy, did this thread ever get sidetracked. there are a number of points i’d like to make with the current topic of debate. but my real problem is that i don’t see how the current topic of debate has any bearing on whether or not we should invade iraq. as has been pointed out before, even if we were to concede that arming iraq and/or iran with weapons and/or biological agents was a bad and/or morally culpable thing for prior administrations to do, that doesn’t mean that we should continue on that path, does it?
in fact, since olent and company seem to think that arming these bad men was a bad thing, i would think they would support removing the bad men from power.
look at it this way: if you opposed arming the bad guys back in the 80’s, and now the evils which you warned america against have come to fruition, then why are you now fighting efforts to remove these bad men from power? it doesn’t make any sense.
. . . unless your real concern isn’t whether it’s best to get the bad men out of power, but rather to provide opposition to whatever the current administration is doing. i hated this tactic when democrats did it with reagan and bush I, when the republicans did it with clinton, and i hate it now when the democrats do it with bush II.
the only explanation i’ve heard you give for your opposition is that it’s hypocritical. well, you’re pointing out how horrible the reagan administration was for providing disease samples to iraq because they were clearly intended to be used to create biological weapons; meanwhile, you’re opposing current efforts to stop iraq from using disease samples to form biological weapons. clearly, the american government isn’t the only one that’s being inconsistent in its approach to iraq.
the american gov’t has justified their change in stance by pointing out that iraq has made itself an enemy of america, and that there is evidence that iraq intends to use the biological weapons and other WMD’s to attack america and american interests. what’s your justification?
Really? I missed that entirely. I haven’t seen a shred. Not a hint! Nor a peep! I’m so not paying attention these days. Can you be a pal and give a cite for this?
DCU:
*Well, hush my mouth….but then again, let’s not be too hasty.
Unfortunately, your link reflects even more poorly upon your argument than it does upon mine. As you have noted, this 1985 memo argues in favor of supplying arms to Iran – but not, as you seem to want to claim, in support weapons deliveries to Iraq. In fact, quite the opposite. This point is made clearly on the front page of the link, where we read:
So the situation is even worse than I imagined. It seems to be taken for granted here that Reagan himself authorized the sales to this official enemy of the US, while simultaneously supply its regional rival – and, according to you at least, he justified both of these actions as legitimate responses to the ”Soviet threat.” Technically, it’s treason, but I don’t know – can a president be tried for treason?
Anyway, I have not asked for evidence that the sale of arms to Iran was motivated by a fear of Soviet expansionism (although I must admit, honestly, that it surprises me to discover this). I asked for evidence that US support for Iraq was motivated by fear of Soviet influence in Iran. You’ll note, regarding this issue, that the main US fear (cited in the memo above) seemed to revolve around what might happen after Khomeni’s death, and the sense that in such a situation the USSR might be in a better position to take advantage of the resulting power vacuum than the US. (I get this from a quick overview of the document cited, which seems mostly concerned with the internal power struggles that threaten to fracture/disintegrate the Iranian government. I wonder who McFarlane has in mind when he writes of the “conservatives” in the Iranian government, specifically?)
Clearly, such an argument might serve to justify arms transfers to Iran, but scarcely makes sense as a justification for military support of Iraq – support which would surely have a detrimental effect on US-Iranian relations. In fact, to bolster the arguments for his proposed arms deal, McFarlane writes:
But don’t worry; I won’t send you on another cite chase. For the time being, I’ll just take your word for it, and sagely note that “defending against Soviet aggression” is an exceptionally flexible, and useful, rhetorical technique.
*Perhaps, but your link doesn’t support that assertion.
mattymillhouse:
First off, welcome to the debate!
Second:
*You raise a valid point, and perhaps some clarification on this issue is overdue.
To begin with, no one is suggesting that we “continue on the same path;” but there exists a world of options between supplying a regime with chemical agents, on the one hand, and bombing it, on the other. It is my contention that a unilateral US military invasion of Iraq is not, at least at this time, a morally, legally, or practically justifiable course of action. There are a lot of reasons why I feel this way; too many, really, to list here.
To cut to the chase, the reason why I have gotten side-tracked on the issue of past US-Iraq-Iran relations is because I question the motives of those who support a military solution to the problem (not here on the message board, but those in the government, who really have power). Many of these people, like Donald Rumsfeld, are the same ones who provided Saddam with his weapons in the first place. When they actively pursued these policies of support (some, perhaps, with the best of intentions), they gratuitously ignored the fact that Saddam was a ruthless dictator who gassed his own citizens. Back then they argued that we had to arm Saddam, regardless of his genocidal domestic policies. The fact is, it is my feeling that people like Rumsfeld (who was himself instrumental in the sell of Apache helicopters to Iraq – helicopters that were used, in turn, to gas Kurds) are accomplices to Saddam’s acts. If they really believed in human rights, like they say they do, then they would have prevented the sales. Instead, they facilitated the sales, and then turned a blind eye when the weapons were used.
So now these same people come to me and tell me that Saddam is mad dog, and that we have to put him down. Well no shit, Sherlock; you knew that 10 or 15 years ago, when you were giving him the weapons in the first place. Back then, you said you had to give him these weapons to secure democracy and human rights; now you say you have to put him down to secure democracy and human rights. Excuse me if I’m a bit skeptical.
So the point of this is, I don’t trust people like Rumsfeld anymore. I don’t trust the US government anymore. And when Rumsfeld, or the government, starts talking about “preserving democracy and human rights,” I start looking around for ulterior motives. Because I have found, in my study of US history, that the US government looks out for its own first, and ruthlessly presses for what it conceives to be in its own interests, and let the rest of the world be damned.
So now I’m watching US actions very closely. The US gov’t says that the Iraqis must allow inspections to resume, and after a great deal of pressure, the Iraqis agree. Then the US says, “No, no inspections – first we have to have a tougher UN resolution.” And so on. All the US proposals seem calculated to insult the Iraqis, push them into a corner, or provoke them into a defiant stance. Now, why is that? We know that the Iraqi government is years away from building a nuclear device, and is suffering under both sanctions and intense scrutiny from the rest of the world community, but President Bush comes on TV and says, with face hanging there off the side of his neck, that the Iraqis are six months away from building a bomb. He’s lying to you, your president. Right to your face. You saw it, and then a spin doctor comes along, patches things up, and we all pretend like it didn’t happen.
So the upshot of all of this is, I don’t believe the hype. When a powerful US politician tells me he’s concerned about human rights, I grab my wallet to make sure its still there. And if I don’t take him at face value, then of course I need to try to figure out what his real motives are. Is he trying to use the might of the US government to settle a personal grudge? Could be. Is he really interested in getting Saddam out of the way, to get at Iraqi oil? Quite possibly. Is he really concerned about Iraq as credible threat to the US? Doesn’t seem likely.
Of course, I agree with you that Saddam is a bastard, and that arming him with weapons and/or biological agents (an issue which, as I understand it, is something of a red herring) is something we absolutely should not do. No one here is suggesting that we do that, anymore. But to begin with, the US is part of the world community. Even if it is a super-power, it doesn’t have the right to decide, for everybody, who is or isn’t the next major security threat in the world.
So maybe Saddam really is a serious threat at a regional level; maybe we do need to get rid of him. He’s certainly an asshole, and I won’t miss him when he’s gone. Having said that, I don’t think I can support a US policy that involves bombing and replacing every weak, petty dictator on the globe that doesn’t kow-tow to American interests.
So that’s my answer, and sorry its so long-winded.
oh, man. you really haven’t been paying attention, have you? for example, you seem to have completely missed my questions.
you also seem to have completely missed the fact that i said “theamericangov’t has justified their change in stance by pointing out . . . that there is evidence that iraq intends to use the biological weapons and other WMD’s to attack america and american interests.” please note that nowhere did i ever profess to have the opinion that you seem to attribute to me, nor did i ever say that i was privvy to all the information given to our elected representatives (or presumably, to you).
in fact, i would imagine that most of the opinion that hussein is a threat stems from his history as something less than a benevolent dictator, combined with his attempts to gain WMD, and his distaste for america and americans (particularly of the bush family). if you’d like, i can provide a cite to some of the transgressions he’s visited upon the world, including something know around here as the “Gulf War,” and his use of WMD in past conflicts. as for other cites that will provide the “hint” and “peep” you’re looking for, here’s what i’ve got after a quick google search:
here’s the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ report on iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.iiss.org/conferencepage.php?confID=3&PHPSESSID=9b7d135bada4ba7155687720543fbb68
here’s tony blair’s dossier on iraq.
here’s a speech by al gore to the council on foriegn relations on feb. 12, 2002:
“There are still goverments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.”
http://cfr.org/publication.php?id=4343
bill clinton, after an attack against iraq in 1998:
“We began with this basic proposition - Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons or the means to deliver them. He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked, he would do so again.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/texts_and_transcripts/239145.stm
here’s a news report detailing iraq’s plans for a “counterpunch” against the u.s., which “will include everything in Iraq’s arsenal, according to what Hussein told his inner circle of advisers and two sons during a five-hour meeting last month that was leaked to a Saudi newspaper. ‘Everything’ in this instance means weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is known to possess both chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.”
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/10072002-024212-6260r.htm
now, i’m still waiting for a response to my questions.
your “pal,”
millhouse
awww, man! after seeing Mr. Svinlesha’s well-thought out reply to my earlier message, i feel all silly for my snarky (and late) reply to Stoid. i guess i should have kept the debate at a higher level. (or at least refreshed once before posting my response.)
thank you, Mr. S.
The link supports the notion that Soviet influence in Iran was a primary motivating factor for US policy in the region in 1985. That is the only assertion I was using the link to assert. I did not claim it argued in favor of weapons deliveries to Iran, and in fact I specifically note that at both the beginning and end of my post. It’s a little disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise.**
Your request for a cite was phrased as follows:
You were contesting the notion that Soviet influence was a serious US concern in Iran. Earlier you even wrote “By the way, do you have any evidence whatsoever that our policies toward Iran were connected to fear of Soviet expansion? I’ve simply never heard that one before.” You also described the the notion that the US was concerned over possible expansion of Soviet influence as one of “the silliest thing I read on these boards”
The memo I cited clearly indicates that the US was concerned over expanding Soviet influence in the region. There is no reason to suspect that those concerns were any different in 1981.
Thus, backing Iraq would make perfect sense in a situation where, as in 1981, Iran would not be mollified by US aid. The post-revolution environment would be a ripe one for the Soviets to expand their influence in the region – providing foriegn aid while joining the chorus against the “Great Satan.” Supplying Iran’s foe would at least prevent Iran’s – and thus the Soviet’s – influence from spreading further.
DCU:
Yeah, I know. There’s nothing more irritating that arguing with an opponent who challenges you on a position, demands a cite, and then refuses to admit he’s wrong even when you present one.
So, just to clarify my response: originally, I thought it was implausible to claim that concern about Soviet influence played a significant role in US policy decisions regarding Iraq and Iran. There, you were right and I was wrong, obviously. I should also pause here to thank you for providing the interesting link.
*Actually, unless my reading comprehension is seriously awry, you claimed at the beginning the post that it did argue in favor of weapons deliveries to Iran, and at the end of the post that it also supported your contention that in 1981, the US decision to ”normalize” relations with Iraq was a matter of Cold War politics as well. That’s what threw me off. You wrote:
To further clarify my point: your final conclusion, stated above, might be completely correct. My only contention was that your documents fail, technically, to provide evidence that your assertion is true. You are making an inductive generalization: US policies towards Iran in 1985 were dictated (at least in part) by Cold War considerations, and thus, US policies towards Iraq in 1981 were also dictated by such considerations. This in no sense an unreasonable contention, but one must be wary about inductive generalizations. (If you don’t believe me, ask Karl Popper.) Also, it was wrong of me to characterize your argument as “silly,” and I withdraw my comment with an apology.
However, should your assertion prove to be correct, it seems to me that it has the unfortunate side effect of weakening your arguments, because it leads to the conclusion that the US can, and perhaps did, justify mutually exclusive foreign policy initiatives on the basis of its Cold War considerations. After all, as noted in the introduction to the document in question, Weinburger originally dismissed McFarlane’s proposition as ”almost too absurd to comment on.”
It was absolutely not my intention to be disingenuous, even if I perhaps came off sounding that way. When I reread our previous discussion, it seemed clear to me from the context that I was asking for evidence supporting your assertion that US policies towards Iraq were justifiable on the basis that the US was opposing Soviet expansionism. Naturally, that doesn’t imply that my meaning is clear to other readers.
I don’t have time, unfortunately, to comment in more depth on this discussion at the moment – but I’ll try to get back again shortly. I just want to make this final point: it’s my position that when reflecting upon US foreign policies, one must take many factors into consideration. All too often in the past US policy initiatives were justified as a ”response” to the ”Soviet threat.” In some cases, this might in fact have been a legitimate defense. In others, it was merely an attempt to hide the real motives behind US policy, which were primarily self-serving. An in-depth inspection of US relations in Latin America, for example, reveals this pattern throughout. It has recently occurred to me that there are many situations in the world, perhaps a majority of them, in which the ”well-being” of Americans, and the defense of ”US interests,” economic or strategic, conflict with the needs and interests of local populations. US-Saudi Arabian relations is a case in point, as I’ve argued elsewhere. Anyway, as I see it, reducing US actions to a single motivating factor, like curbing Soviet influence, is not a terribly nuanced analysis of US policy. But that’s a much longer discussion, and a hijack as well.
mattymill:
You’re welcome. I’m sure Stoid didn’t take offense.
I hope that, even if you disagree with my position, you can at least understand why I feel the way I do.
**
Your reading comprehension is fine. I shouldn’t have put the “not” in the sentence you quoted.
Other than that, I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing that much on the facts – we just disagree as to what extent Cold War considerations could propery justify policy choices, which is probably an eye-of-the-beholder kind of thing.
Thanks for putting the debate back in the proper perspective, Mr. Svinlesha. I get so wrapped up in petty details trying to establish a basis for further argument I lose sight of the broader picture.
I agree almost completely with these quotes; the only thing I disagree with is “maybe we need to get rid of him”. Saddam certainly needs to be gotten rid of, but it’s not “our” responsibility to do so. That’s the task of the Iraqi people themselves - to rid themselves of unwanted leaders; and it is their right to choose the leaders they do want, free of outside interference.
The fact is, the military and financial support the US gave to Saddam in the 1980s, and the sanctions slapped on the country in the 1990s, are the two biggest obstacles in the Iraqi people’s way. The first enabled Saddam to become an even more repressive dictator, the second has ruined the country’s infrastructure and starved the majority of the population to the point where they can’t even begin to think about organizing to fight back because they’re too busy scrounging for enough bread to feed the family members they have left.
You want to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Get the US out of the Middle East and lift the sanctions. Let the Iraqis take care of him.
Uh, you are aware that Iraq is a totalitarian dictatorship, right? You think the Iraqi people have ANY SAY whatsoever in how the government is run? The Kurds tried to have a say - so he gassed entire towns, killing hundreds of thousands. Then just for yucks, he sprinkled aflatoxin on some more. In case you’re not familiar with it, aflatoxin is a horribly biological agent that attacks mainly the livers of children, causing cancers that kill the children slowly, over a period of years. It is a terror weapon with no military purpose, and Saddam has ‘weaponized’ it – the only country to do so, or even try.
Wow. You really think that all the U.S. has to do is go home from the Middle East and the Iraqi people will ‘take care’ of Saddam? That’s one of the most naive statements I’ve heard in a while.
Saddam is in power because he has built a huge totalitarian state with rings of secrecy and informants at every level. People who are in positions where they could hurt Saddam have their families held hostage to keep them from trying something. No one is willing to plan a coup, because no one knows who is a spy for Saddam. No one will respond to someone seeking support for a coup, because Saddam routinely sends agents out who pretend to hate him and try to get people to say negative things about Saddam. Those people are then arrested and executed.
No one outside of his inner circle can plan an assassination because Saddam uses a whole cadre of look-alikes who travel around in an endless shell game.
Look: Saddam survived the Gulf War, when almost all of the military knew that they were facing almost certain death because of his actions. He survives today, even though his intransigance is about to bring the wrath of the United States down on the head of not just himself but all his followers.
If the U.S. gets out of the middle east and lifts the sanctions, Saddam will have the Bomb in about 2 or 3 years. The day he gets the bomb, the tanks will roll back into Kuwait. Saddam’s empire will double in wealth, and his military power will grow. With the Bomb, other countries will be afraid to oppose him. Eventually, he’ll move on Saudi Arabia as well. At that point, this crazed dictator will have the economies of the modern world by the balls, and hundreds of thousands of people will be dead by his hand.
Eventually, we’ll be forced to take him out. If we do it then until now, it will be a massive conflagration throughout the Middle East, undoubtedly ending in a nuclear exchange.
Right, God forbid someone should beat the United States at their own game…