Peter Galbraith writes in today's Oregonian that Saddam's rushed execution "denied justice" to many of his victims, including the target of his well-documented genocide, the Kurdish population of Northern Iraq.
Galbraith should know. He helped uncover the atrocity with "14 tons of documents" handed over to him in 1991 by Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish President of the current Iraqi government.
But he also notes that the failure to try Saddam for his crimes against the Kurds prevented the embarassing disclosure of American complicity in those crimes. Galbraith says that a Kurdish trial "...promised to shed light on a deeply amoral period in western diplomacy where the major powers, including the United States, chose to overlook genocide for strategic and economic reasons."
For that reason, as I wrote recently, the rush to judgment may have been an intentional effort to protect these culpable Americans:
- Donald Rumsfeld, Reagan's envoy to Iraq and Saddam Hussein during the war with Iran.
- Colin Powell, who, along with Rumsfeld "...played down the significance of Iraq's use of poison gas, including... against the Kurds."
- George H.W. Bush, who "...doubled US financial assistance to Iraq" after the gassing of the Kurds.
- Dick Cheney, who apparently encouraged the increased assistance to Iraq.
The rushed execution of Saddam Hussein may have indeed denied justice to his many victims. But the silence surrounding America's collusion with Saddam by many of the same people who took us to war in Iraq, at the cost of perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, is also a grave injustice.
And one that can yet be remedied.
Clearly the descriptor "blame-America-first" has to be changed to "blame-America-first-and-last."
Posted by: Idler | January 07, 2007 at 07:55 AM
"Complicity" is a serious charge. What evidence do you have of "American complicity" in Saddam's gassing of the Kurds?
Failure to criticize after the fact is not "complicity." If that were true, about 199 of the 200 countries in the world were complicit in the gassing of the Kurds.
Neither is "providing assistance" complicity. Does U.S. assistance to such counties as Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, most countries in Latin America, and most countries in Africa make us "complicit" in the well-documented human rights abuses committed by those countries?
It almost sounds as if you are saying we should shun countries because of the way they treat their citizens. If the U.S., for example, were to engage Iran and Syria in dialogue on Iraq and larger questions of Middle East peace, would we be "complicit" in the way those countries treat their citizens? If we engaged Iran, would we be tacitly endorsing Ahmedinajad's Holocaust denial?
If we shunned countries because of their behavior, we would have to cut off relations with almost every country in the world, including, perhaps, ourselves.
Posted by: Craig | January 07, 2007 at 01:37 PM
Complicity is indeed a serious charge, but there seems to be ample evidence that the U.S. encouraged Iraq's agression against Iran. As long as Saddam was seen as a useful tool to further American geopolitical interests, he apparently could do no wrong, including the gassing of the Kurds.
There's a big difference between that and engaging in diplomatic talks with Syria and Iran. I'm the last person you should accuse of advocating the "shunning" of countries because of their behavior. That's Bush's position, not mine.
Idler, criticizing my country's foreign policies is not the same thing as blaming America first --or last. Speaking out is the mark of a patriot.
Posted by: Terry | January 07, 2007 at 02:12 PM
As G.K. Chesterton once said, “Saying ‘my country right or wrong’ is like saying ‘my mother drunk or sober.’” What reasonable person could disagree?
Criticizing one’s countries policies when one believes they’re wrong is indeed patriotic, but that criticism alone is insufficient evidence of patriotism. Speaking out against your country’s foreign policy is not in the least inconsistent with the tendency to “blame America first." Habitually and zealously seeking out ways to criticize one’s country’s policies is a funny kind of patriotism. I take your post as representative of a very widespread proclivity to do just that.
Whenever this country’s enemies gather, in the flesh or in the audience of media, they never find a shortage of earnest, apparently well-meaning people to listen credulously to a characterization of the United States’ role in the world in the most damning terms. Those listeners are much more likely to be guilty of nothing worse than moral vanity—showing that they are of finer moral scruple than their compatriots. But while they are not traitors, their behavior is not to be mistaken for the stuff of which patriotism is made. I’d have more patience with them if they applied greater skepticism to the claims of this country’s enemies (including internal ideological ones) and greater scrutiny to policies and acts of other countries. For example, France’s current foreign policy smacks of as much realpolitik as the United States did in the 1970s, but somehow none of the fine moralists of the blame-America-school ever take any notice. It would be a perplexing phenomenon if it hadn’t been so tediously repeated over the decades that it eventually became transparent and predictable.
Posted by: Idler | January 07, 2007 at 04:25 PM
I should have been more specific, Idler. It's the policies of Bush and his minions --Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz-- that I question. I've also been critical, consistently, of the Democrats who have enabled those policies.
It appears you believe that I've been swayed by America's "enemies". I don't who they are, so perhaps you could enlighten me. I think my views are in line, generally, with the majority of the American people. I assume those aren't the enemies of whom you speak.
Posted by: Terry | January 07, 2007 at 06:12 PM
Oops! "I don't KNOW who they are... ."
Posted by: Terry | January 07, 2007 at 06:15 PM
Nice try, but you don't get off that easy. Your post clearly implied that the U.S. was complicit in the gassing of the Kurds.
No one disputes that the U.S. helped Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. That does not make the U.S. complicit in the gassing of the Kurds.
Posted by: Craig | January 07, 2007 at 06:23 PM
Terry,
Obviously your criticisms aren’t limited to your current favorite bogeymen since the subject of your original post is the policy of U.S. administrations long gone. None of the figures you cite set those administrations foreign policy, which was, in the case of GHWB, at least, one of realpolitik, nearly the opposite of the Wilsonianism pursued by the current president.
Several points might be made from the Galbraith article. You choose to make one calculated to embarrass the United States and make the country look like a villain on the world stage. Assuming you were attempting to be scrupulously impartial and honest, even about your own country’s shortcomings, why do you fail to mention Galbraith’s assignment of culpability to other Western powers? Surely a patriot would want to adduce evidence in favor of his country, even while candidly admitting its faults.
That being the case, does it not merit mentioning that, while countenancing the quick execution of Saddam Hussein—and thereby denying the Kurds the benefit of public affirmation of the injustices and atrocities committed against them—the United States has nevertheless done more for the Kurds than any other Western power? The Kurds are understandably upset about losing this valuable opportunity, but that opportunity is of less importance than having been liberated from the tyranny of Hussein. The article laments how few of Saddam’s enemies were granted justice by Saddam’s execution. But none would have enjoyed justice without U.S. intervention, and all would have to entertain the possibility of Saddam’s return while he still lived.
It seems to me you would have introduced these mitigating factors if you were not a blame-America-first-and-laster and, frankly, if you actually gave a damn about the Kurds apart from this opportunity to bash your internal political opponents. It should be obvious that the policy of the George W. Bush administration is the best thing to happen to the Kurds in recent history.
When all is said and done, I’m sure you do love your country, but you are too willing to make it look bad, and by doing so you help to injure its prestige unjustifiably and, as I’ve already said, give credence to the claims of its enemies.
My little discourse on “well-meaning people” was meant to address the blame-America-first phenomenon more generally, but yes, I do believe you are likely to be swayed by people who hate what this country is and work tirelessly to denigrate it. I have only rarely visited your blog (despite your agreeable personal style) by clicking through from BlueOregon, but in the mere two or three visits I’ve seen you favorably quote one such person, Alexander Cockburn. It’s hard to doubt that if I stuck around more I’d see others similarly quoted.
I’m sure that in terms of your personal commitment to decency and your abhorrence of cruelty, you are indeed like most Americans, but your political tastes and affiliations are not in line with the majority, especially with regard to feelings about the worth of this country and its place in the world.
Posted by: Idler | January 08, 2007 at 08:25 AM
Terry,
Reading over I see you do mention the other Western powers. My apologies.
The rest of the post stands.
Posted by: Idler | January 08, 2007 at 08:33 AM