Iraq: Then and Now

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Considering our "combat troops" have all withdrawn from Iraq, here's an excellent article by Fouad Ajami that reviews the circumstances over there and reminds us why we're there in the first place.

The Guns of August, 1990

The last 20 years would have been very different had American forces taken that open road to Baghdad the first time around.

By FOUAD AJAMI

He struck in early August, 20 years ago, at a time when the Cold War had just ended, and the world was replete with claims that wars of conquest had become a thing of the past. This was Saddam Hussein's summer, and his conquest of Kuwait, the rich principality next door.

He came for the loot; his soldiers headed to the gold souk and the central bank. He also dispatched his armies right up to the Saudi-Kuwaiti border, making a bid for mastery over the Persian Gulf and its oil supplies. He didn't worry about the Americans, since he was sure they did not have the stomach for a fight. But American power would call Saddam's bluff, it would shatter his army, and with it the myth of Iraq as a mighty power—the Prussia of the Arab world.

In many ways, we still live in the grip, and in the shadow, of that summer. A vast force is still in Iraq, 50,000 American soldiers will be there, even as the "combat troops" are withdrawn by the end of this month. A meandering trail led from that summer right up to 9/11 and to the second American campaign against Saddam Hussein in 2003.

For nearly two decades, the Persian Gulf had been left to find its own balance of power. The British had pulled out of "east of Suez" by 1971. They had grown weary of empire, the calling and the wealth needed for imperial burden having ebbed away. The Americans had been reluctant to fill the void.

The interregnum between the British and the Americans had been an unmitigated disaster. Arab "brotherhood" had turned out to be a sham, Saddam had sacked Kuwait to widespread Arab approval. It was an oil well with a flag, radicals said of Kuwait, a rich, selfish place better folded into a new Iraqi power.

The desert Arab powers had no answer to Saddam's brazen aggression. In times past, they had lobbied for American protection, but they had wanted the Americans "over the horizon," a discreet distance from their protectors. Their world now in the wind, they were done with subtlety and wanted the protectors on the scene.

Saddam Hussein had bet that the House of Saud would never dare call in the Americans; the Saudis surprised him. The guardians of that realm were in no mood for guesswork. Saddam could have struck into Saudi Arabia, or stayed on their border, keeping open the possibility of an invasion. He could have severed the oil-rich Eastern Province of the Saudi kingdom from the rest of the country. It was farewell to purity, and so a vast American-led military coalition would descend on the Arabian Peninsula.

"First we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it," Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said of the Iraqi army, and of the American plan for that war. A colorful commander, gruff and plain-speaking, Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, emerged as a hero of that war. The American public took to that war, and it proved easier than many of its detractors had thought.

"We were 150 miles from Baghdad, and there was nothing between us and Baghdad," said Gen. Schwarzkopf after a ground war that lasted a hundred hours. But the Iraqi army was not "killed"; no sooner had the dust of battle settled, the victors were seized with doubts and caution. Saddam Hussein was spared, he was left with his helicopter gunships, and enough military force to terrorize his own.

George Herbert Walker Bush called on the Iraqis to "take matters into their own hands." They rebelled, took him at his word, and 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south slipped out of the tyrant's grip. But the tide soon turned, and the remnants of Saddam's army would prevail in a great display of merciless terror. America had betrayed the rebels. In 2003, an American expedition dispatched by George W. Bush would find, stalking it, a memory of that betrayal.

With the Iraqi despot spared, the skies over southern Iraq had to be monitored, and they were from the Saudi realm next door. There had been Saudis who had been made uneasy by the American military presence. The American forces that stayed on to monitor Saddam's regime fed and confirmed those suspicions.

This was the material that a pampered child of a construction dynasty, born and raised in Jeddah, Osama bin Laden, evoked when he set out to challenge the House of Saud. The sacred earth of the Arabian Peninsula, Islam's birthplace, was being defiled, bin Laden exhorted. He had been a bit player, a fund-raiser for the jihad in Afghanistan. Now he rose as a warrior of the faith, to do battle against the "infidels" and their local collaborators.

The road to Manhattan and to the Pentagon, and to 9/11, had opened. Strictly speaking, Saddam hadn't launched those terror attacks. But the war that defeated then spared him provides the essential background of the furies that would come America's way on a clear September morning in 2001.

Those were young Arabs, 19 of them, the pilots and the muscle aboard those planes on 9/11. Their leaders and financiers were in the badlands of Afghanistan, and on the Afghan/Pakistan frontier, courtesy of the Taliban. It was judged prudent (rightly so, in my view) that a "light" campaign, with special forces and proxy allies, would strike at the terrible seminarians in Kabul.

The bigger effort, the big guns and the heavy brigades, would aim for Baghdad, the reluctance of 1990-91 would be torn asunder. The unfinished war against the Iraqi ruler would be resumed. There he was, after 9/11, in the midst of American grief and concern, bragging about his might, and his awesome weapons of destruction.

A whole history—speculative, the domain of judgment and preference and hindsight—could be written about the "might have beens" of American forces taking that open road to Baghdad the first time around.
Fouad Ajami: The Guns of August, 1990, and How Iraq and the World Would Be Different If American Forces Had Taken the Open Road to Baghdad 20 Years Ago - WSJ.com



Keep in mind some of the main points brought out in this article, especially when listening to those who still preach that it was an unnecessary war.
  • How easily people forget about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. If we hadn't taken him on at that point he would have gone right after the Saudis and perhaps other neighbors for their money and their natural resources.
  • The means and opportunity were in place to take him out in the first Gulf War. George H.W. Bush mistakenly decided against that move, leaving Saddam and his army in place to wreak havoc on his citizens and his neighbors.
  • The Kurds and Southern Shiites rebelled and were crushed by Saddam's still-intact army because they were betrayed by Geo. H.W. Bush. The result was a mess for somebody else to clean up and a lingering doubt among the Iraquis and other US allies about our trustworthyness.
  • H.W. was more to blame for the Iraq mess than anyone because he didn't finish the job. Bill Clinton did nothing to help the situation by virtually ignoring the ensuing terrorist attacks by Al-Queda, treating them as criminal cases instead of acts of war.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Keep in mind some of the main points brought out in this article, especially when listening to those who still preach that it was an unnecessary war.

  • The means and opportunity were in place to take him out in the first Gulf War. George H.W. Bush mistakenly decided against that move, leaving Saddam and his army in place to wreak havoc on his citizens and his neighbors.
  • H.W. was more to blame for the Iraq mess than anyone because he didn't finish the job. Bill Clinton did nothing to help the situation by virtually ignoring the ensuing terrorist attacks by Al-Queda, treating them as criminal cases instead of acts of war.

Actually I can not blame Bush 1 for his lack of over-the-horizon thinking.

We forget the most important player in all of this, the one group of people who not just demanded our involvement but also told us what we were to do - The United Nations.

Bush followed orders and stopped the troops right where he was told to, not a step more. We were in effect the UN's patsy, their lap dog and Clinton just continued the practice.

IF we would have said ***** **** UN, the world would have been against us. BUT within a number of years, after the Oil for Food program was underway, after kofi got his millions, the UN passed resolution after resolution calling for Saddam to be removed and that became our national policy under Clinton.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
All true, which makes me blame HW for even more bad judgement. Considering the US is a soverign nation, he could have easily ignored the UN and procedded into Bagdad and cleaned house. The UN is nothing without US money, and he could have reminded them of that in continuing to defend an ally in the Mideast and vanquish a sworn enemy. I've always thought HW was a really lousy president - not on the Carter level - but pretty bad by being a squishy moderate. He should have never allowed the US to act as a minion for an organization as corrupt and inept as the UN. Considering Iraq's aggression towards Kuwait at the time, he didn't even need UN sanctions as justification for our actions.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
That's all true but the thing is the UN was the one who asked us, we held back on Kuwait's request because of the need to get others involved.

We could not do this alone, there was a lot of negotiation with Saudis and other arab countries to allow us to operate. I think if Bush didn't crap on the Kurds, we would not have had the issues with Bin Laden as big as they were but like you said, there is a feeling of abandonment among the Kurds and others in the middle east.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
We forget the most important player in all of this, the one group of people who not just demanded our involvement but also told us what we were to do - The United Nations.

There it is again, those words "The United Nations" makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

It is the most useless organization when dealing in international affairs! They want our help, then tell us what to do, AND WE LISTEN. Unbelievable! :mad:
 

Freightdawg

Expert Expediter
There it is again, those words "The United Nations" makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

It is the most useless organization when dealing in international affairs! They want our help, then tell us what to do, AND WE LISTEN. Unbelievable! :mad:

Mainly they want our money, then tell us what to do!
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
First it should not be dues tied to any measurable amount, in order for a country to be a member, then it should pay the same thing every other member pays for dues - that is the only fair way.

BUT I feel that tying the 'dues' to the GDP or any other number should be something that would include an equal voting right for each group. Seeing we pay so much, we should have so many votes - like 1500 compared to South Africa who should get 1.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Hundreds of millions of dollars in arrears? Good, that's a step in the right direction. How do our contributions already in the bank compare to those of the rest of the world? It's about time we pulled the plug on this kind of waste, considering our current economic situation.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Give the UN 30 days to vacate the country. Call the money even. They owe that much in unpaid parking tickets!! :p
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I think we should declare the NY river front property a needed property for the city, go to court and take it - give them what they paid for it back in the 40's and then hand it over to trump to develop.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Give the UN 30 days to vacate the country. Call the money even. They owe that much in unpaid parking tickets!! :p

I think we should declare the NY river front property a needed property for the city, go to court and take it - give them what they paid for it back in the 40's and then hand it over to trump to develop.

I will be there waving goodbye!:D
 
Top