| Editor's Rant |
| This space is reserved for our Editor to spout off about anything he wants to. |
| The Persian Follies: Looking Back at 25 Years of Misguided U.S. Policy in Iraq |
In order to fully appreciate the futility and foolishness of the Bush regime's current
adventures in Iraq, I think we need to take a look back at our nation's track record in the
region over the past quarter century or so.
Clear back in the 70's Saddam was a cruel dictator who, although he wasn't a commie,
was a major trading partner with the hated USSR, which made him our enemy. He was
also right next door to our friend the Shah of Iran, who was an equally cruel dictator. The
Kurds were already clamoring for autonomy in the north and we gave them some covert
assistance. But not too much, just enough to try to keep Saddam busy. After all, the
cheeky bastards wanted autonomy in northern Iran and Southern Turkey, too. We
couldn't have them enjoying too much success.
Then the Islamic extremists took over Iran while the Shah was out of town. To add injury to
insult they invaded our embassy and took Americans hostage. After a disastrous rescue
attempt President Carter's people were negotiating for the hostages' release in the
summer of 1980. Ronald Reagan's campaign team, fearing an October surprise where
the hostages would come back just before the election and cause Carter's popularity to
soar, sent their own team to strike a deal with the Iranians, even though Reagan was only
a presidential candidate and they had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United
States.
They offered to give the militants everything that Carter was offering, mainly unfreezing
Iranian assets, plus they would secretly sell them weapons later. All the Iranians had to do
was hold our hostages for several months longer, until Reagan's inauguration. Bad
enough that he made a secret, unauthorized deal to sell weapons to an enemy of the U.S.,
but the deal wasn't even made to secure their release, it was made so the Iranians would
hold our hostages longer and Reagan could take credit for their release.
Then Saddam, looking to expand his borders and figuring that the Iranian revolution would
leave it's military disorganized, went to war against Iran. Suddenly he didn't seem so bad,
so we secretly supplied him with weapons to use against the hated Iranians. Which made
it difficult for us to complain when he also used them against the Kurds. We also
convinced our little buddy Kuwait to loan him money to help finance the war, making their
oil tankers a target for Iran. So, after selling weapons to both sides of the conflict and
dragging Kuwait into it, we sent our own naval forces into the middle of the whole mess to
protect Kuwait's oil.
Throughout the eight year war Saddam was our friend, making the Kurds feel somewhat
betrayed. When they attempted an uprising and Saddam dropped mustard gas on them
our silence was deafening. How could we complain when he was also using the gas
against the hated Iranians? Especially since he probably got it from us. After all, we had
huge stockpiles of chemical weapons that we were too civilized to use. Why not give it to
somebody less civilized who was fighting our enemy?
Also during this time Iran-sponsored extremist groups throughout the Middle East started
grabbing Americans and other westerners as hostages. After all, it had worked well in
Iran. Reagan stated hypocritically, "We do not deal with terrorists." At least not unless
there's an election at stake.
A couple of years after the Iran-Iraq war Saddam was having a tiff with Kuwait and started
massing troops along their border. He wanted them to forgive his war debt and was
claiming that some of their oil fields near his border were actually his. Bush 1 was
sympathetic to Saddam, especially about the war debt, but Kuwait didn't get to be a rich
little sheikdom by giving their money away. So the elder Bush sent the message through a
diplomat, "The United States will not get involved in an Arab-Arab conflict," thinking that
Saddam might push a few miles over the border and take over the disputed oil. But he
greatly underestimated the dictator's zeal. If he had sent the message "if you attack our
friend Kuwait we will use all of the forces necessary to defend them" the first Persian Gulf
war probably wouldn't have happened.
Saddam took the message as a green light to do what he wanted to Kuwait. He released
the message to the press, apparently thinking that if it was made public we would be held
to it. But he greatly underestimated the level of outrage in the rest of the world when he
invaded and looted Kuwait.
We bombed Kuwait and Iraq for months while we built up our ground forces in Saudi
Arabia, then we easily crushed his retreating forces. Some people, myself included,
questioned why Bush 1 didn't press on toward Baghdad and demand Hussein's
unconditional surrender, but the president may have been prudent on this point. Better to
dance with the devil you know than leave a power vacuum to be filled by who-knows-who.
Also, having Saddam still in power gave us an excuse to keep our forces in place in the
region.
For the next twelve years we enforced an embargo on Iraq and effectively controlled it's
airspace. If we ever had reliable information of disallowed activities, like a chemical
weapons plant for instance, we could have, and surely would have, destroyed the site with
no loss of life on our side.
Then little Bush came along and he viewed Iraq as unfinished business. Why have all
these forces sitting around to keep him in check when we have the capability to take him
out? But he needed a good excuse to renew hostilities after all these years. That excuse
came with 9-11, even though Saddam had nothing to do with it. Our allies inside Iraq, the
Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, were both more likely to have ties to
al-Qaida than Saddam Hussein. He wasn't an Islamic extremist, he was a military thug who
believed that HE was god within his borders.
Nevertheless, Bush 2 and his cronies started suggesting some vague connection between
Saddam Hussein and the war on terrorism every time they spoke in public, as if he was a
threat to the people of Des Moines or Cleveland. The PR campaign was so relentless that
before long even most members of the press, who should have known better, seemed to
buy into it. Maybe that had something to do with the fact that all of our nation's media
outlets are now owned by a handful of corporations, and the owners of those corporations
supported the war. Or maybe it was just that Bush 2 made it clear that war was inevitable,
so everyone just sort of accepted it.
Which brings us to our present misadventures in Iraq. This might be the most ill-advised
war in modern history. It certainly wasn't in the best interests of the people of Iraq. Are
they better off now with their cities in shambles and no electricity? The regular citizens
want jobs and running water. Under Saddam Baghdad was a fairly safe place to live and
work, as long as you didn't get on his bad side. Now venturing outside means risking your
life. Sure, he was a tyrant who tortured and killed those who opposed him, but we haven't
stopped that, either. Only now it's us torturing and killing those who oppose us. When we
leave, whoever is left in charge will be torturing and killing anybody who opposes them.
This war also isn't in the best interests of the U.S. Under Saddam there were no terrorists
in Iraq to speak of. But we sent our military in there to act as a target for extremists from
all over the region who want to take a shot at The Great Satan. We helped ensure an
endless supply of terrorists because our occupation of Iraq makes it easier for leaders to
convince the young that we really are an evil force that wants to destroy all Muslims.
My prediction for the future of Iraq: Within five years after the pullout of our forces they
will have an Islamic government similar to Iran's, if we're lucky. If we're not so lucky it will
be more like the former Taliban government in Afghanistan.
adventures in Iraq, I think we need to take a look back at our nation's track record in the
region over the past quarter century or so.
Clear back in the 70's Saddam was a cruel dictator who, although he wasn't a commie,
was a major trading partner with the hated USSR, which made him our enemy. He was
also right next door to our friend the Shah of Iran, who was an equally cruel dictator. The
Kurds were already clamoring for autonomy in the north and we gave them some covert
assistance. But not too much, just enough to try to keep Saddam busy. After all, the
cheeky bastards wanted autonomy in northern Iran and Southern Turkey, too. We
couldn't have them enjoying too much success.
Then the Islamic extremists took over Iran while the Shah was out of town. To add injury to
insult they invaded our embassy and took Americans hostage. After a disastrous rescue
attempt President Carter's people were negotiating for the hostages' release in the
summer of 1980. Ronald Reagan's campaign team, fearing an October surprise where
the hostages would come back just before the election and cause Carter's popularity to
soar, sent their own team to strike a deal with the Iranians, even though Reagan was only
a presidential candidate and they had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United
States.
They offered to give the militants everything that Carter was offering, mainly unfreezing
Iranian assets, plus they would secretly sell them weapons later. All the Iranians had to do
was hold our hostages for several months longer, until Reagan's inauguration. Bad
enough that he made a secret, unauthorized deal to sell weapons to an enemy of the U.S.,
but the deal wasn't even made to secure their release, it was made so the Iranians would
hold our hostages longer and Reagan could take credit for their release.
Then Saddam, looking to expand his borders and figuring that the Iranian revolution would
leave it's military disorganized, went to war against Iran. Suddenly he didn't seem so bad,
so we secretly supplied him with weapons to use against the hated Iranians. Which made
it difficult for us to complain when he also used them against the Kurds. We also
convinced our little buddy Kuwait to loan him money to help finance the war, making their
oil tankers a target for Iran. So, after selling weapons to both sides of the conflict and
dragging Kuwait into it, we sent our own naval forces into the middle of the whole mess to
protect Kuwait's oil.
Throughout the eight year war Saddam was our friend, making the Kurds feel somewhat
betrayed. When they attempted an uprising and Saddam dropped mustard gas on them
our silence was deafening. How could we complain when he was also using the gas
against the hated Iranians? Especially since he probably got it from us. After all, we had
huge stockpiles of chemical weapons that we were too civilized to use. Why not give it to
somebody less civilized who was fighting our enemy?
Also during this time Iran-sponsored extremist groups throughout the Middle East started
grabbing Americans and other westerners as hostages. After all, it had worked well in
Iran. Reagan stated hypocritically, "We do not deal with terrorists." At least not unless
there's an election at stake.
A couple of years after the Iran-Iraq war Saddam was having a tiff with Kuwait and started
massing troops along their border. He wanted them to forgive his war debt and was
claiming that some of their oil fields near his border were actually his. Bush 1 was
sympathetic to Saddam, especially about the war debt, but Kuwait didn't get to be a rich
little sheikdom by giving their money away. So the elder Bush sent the message through a
diplomat, "The United States will not get involved in an Arab-Arab conflict," thinking that
Saddam might push a few miles over the border and take over the disputed oil. But he
greatly underestimated the dictator's zeal. If he had sent the message "if you attack our
friend Kuwait we will use all of the forces necessary to defend them" the first Persian Gulf
war probably wouldn't have happened.
Saddam took the message as a green light to do what he wanted to Kuwait. He released
the message to the press, apparently thinking that if it was made public we would be held
to it. But he greatly underestimated the level of outrage in the rest of the world when he
invaded and looted Kuwait.
We bombed Kuwait and Iraq for months while we built up our ground forces in Saudi
Arabia, then we easily crushed his retreating forces. Some people, myself included,
questioned why Bush 1 didn't press on toward Baghdad and demand Hussein's
unconditional surrender, but the president may have been prudent on this point. Better to
dance with the devil you know than leave a power vacuum to be filled by who-knows-who.
Also, having Saddam still in power gave us an excuse to keep our forces in place in the
region.
For the next twelve years we enforced an embargo on Iraq and effectively controlled it's
airspace. If we ever had reliable information of disallowed activities, like a chemical
weapons plant for instance, we could have, and surely would have, destroyed the site with
no loss of life on our side.
Then little Bush came along and he viewed Iraq as unfinished business. Why have all
these forces sitting around to keep him in check when we have the capability to take him
out? But he needed a good excuse to renew hostilities after all these years. That excuse
came with 9-11, even though Saddam had nothing to do with it. Our allies inside Iraq, the
Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, were both more likely to have ties to
al-Qaida than Saddam Hussein. He wasn't an Islamic extremist, he was a military thug who
believed that HE was god within his borders.
Nevertheless, Bush 2 and his cronies started suggesting some vague connection between
Saddam Hussein and the war on terrorism every time they spoke in public, as if he was a
threat to the people of Des Moines or Cleveland. The PR campaign was so relentless that
before long even most members of the press, who should have known better, seemed to
buy into it. Maybe that had something to do with the fact that all of our nation's media
outlets are now owned by a handful of corporations, and the owners of those corporations
supported the war. Or maybe it was just that Bush 2 made it clear that war was inevitable,
so everyone just sort of accepted it.
Which brings us to our present misadventures in Iraq. This might be the most ill-advised
war in modern history. It certainly wasn't in the best interests of the people of Iraq. Are
they better off now with their cities in shambles and no electricity? The regular citizens
want jobs and running water. Under Saddam Baghdad was a fairly safe place to live and
work, as long as you didn't get on his bad side. Now venturing outside means risking your
life. Sure, he was a tyrant who tortured and killed those who opposed him, but we haven't
stopped that, either. Only now it's us torturing and killing those who oppose us. When we
leave, whoever is left in charge will be torturing and killing anybody who opposes them.
This war also isn't in the best interests of the U.S. Under Saddam there were no terrorists
in Iraq to speak of. But we sent our military in there to act as a target for extremists from
all over the region who want to take a shot at The Great Satan. We helped ensure an
endless supply of terrorists because our occupation of Iraq makes it easier for leaders to
convince the young that we really are an evil force that wants to destroy all Muslims.
My prediction for the future of Iraq: Within five years after the pullout of our forces they
will have an Islamic government similar to Iran's, if we're lucky. If we're not so lucky it will
be more like the former Taliban government in Afghanistan.
| PEACE FORCE A science fiction novel by J.W. Lengel the creator and contributing editor of The Strange Times |
Available now from your favorite
bookseller or at the
PublishAmerica.com online bookstore.
Publish America, Science Fiction,
ISBN: 1-4241-1220-6
For more information about the book
or author visit jwlengel.com
bookseller or at the
PublishAmerica.com online bookstore.
Publish America, Science Fiction,
ISBN: 1-4241-1220-6
For more information about the book
or author visit jwlengel.com
Its the year 2051 and for the past
twenty years Earth has belonged to an
Intergalactic Organization, trading raw
materials for advanced alien technology.
twenty years Earth has belonged to an
Intergalactic Organization, trading raw
materials for advanced alien technology.
To enforce international law & order, Earth has formed a type of world
government with a large standing military called the World Peace Force
government with a large standing military called the World Peace Force
Thank You for supporting our sponsors
