Once more, American complicity in Saddam's crimes

That means all of his crimes --except the one he was hanged for. 

Those crimes include the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja in March, 1998, which was used repeatedly by George W. Bush to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq --a sovereign country-- and the deposal of Saddam Hussein.

Responses to my initial post accuse me of using the term "complicity" too cavalierly.  And of blaming America first. 

Here's what I know.  Or, more precisely, what others purport to know to support the charge of American complicity in Saddam's crimes. 

First, syndicated Canadian journalist --and Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern history-- Gwynne Dyer:

"With all of Saddam’s other crimes to choose from, why on earth would you hang him for executing the people suspected of involvement in the Dujail plot?

It’s because the US was not involved in that one. It was involved in the massacre of the Iraqi Communists (the US Central Intelligence Agency gave Saddam their membership lists).

It was implicated up to its ears in Saddam’s war against Iran — to the point of arranging for Iraq to be supplied with the chemicals to make poison
gas... ."

According to Dyer, the U.S. was "complicit" in supplying the materials used to gas the Kurds in 1988, which occurred immediately after the cessation of hostilities with Iran.  In another article written last March, Dyer wrote that to try Saddam for any of his "big" crimes

"...like the wars of aggression against Iran and Kuwait and the massacres that accompanied them, would have implicated the United States in one way or another."

Jon Wiener in The Nation uses similar language to explain the hanging of Saddam on a relatively "minor" charge :

"Saddam Hussein's execution on Dec. 30 prevents him from being put on trial for his most serious crimes – genocide against the Kurds and the use of poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war."

Last February, Paul Rockwell provided the specifics:

"Last month the Iraq Weapons Inventory included a long list of Western and U.S. companies (Union Carbide, Honeywell, Dupont, SpectraPhysics, Bechtel are some mentioned in The Nation, 1/13/2003) that supplied Saddam with deadly and dual-use material. Hoping to disguise its own culpability in Iraq's past war crimes, the U.S. suppressed the list, but the dossier was leaked to a German newspaper, Die Tageszeitung."

He goes on to say:

"The main facts are no longer in dispute. In violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which outlaws chemical warfare), the Reagan-Bush   administration authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, from anthrax to bubonic plague, throughout the '80s. In 1982, while Saddam Hussein constructed his machinery of war, Reagan and Bush removed Iraq from the State Department list of terrorist states."

To me, that's "complicity." 

Comments

[Idler]

I see how you’re advancing your case about U.S. complicity, but I don’t see how you’re addressing the charge of blame-America-first-ism. Rather, I would say you are just focusing on your blame-America task, using bona fide blame-America sources.

Do you care that no one has done more to advance the interest of the Kurds in recent history than the current administration (whom you pretended to be exclusively criticizing in your last response)? Apparently not. It’s as if you don’t care about that when you can find a way to criticize figures of this administration by reaching back a few decades to when America contributed to harm inflicted on the Kurds. When faced with the present scenario of “America good” (with regard to the Kurds) you seem to prefer a scenario with which you are able to say “America bad,” even if you have to go back in history to find it.

An impartial observer (let alone a patriot) might conclude that, whatever the wisdom of the current American adventure in Iraq, at least the United States has finally rid the earth of a horrible tyrant, and one—like Stalin—that the Americans did business with. But no, even as the tyrant swings at the end of a rope, some people are determined to find some way to blacken the United States reputation, even if it requires dwelling on things it did in the past that are at odds with its current policy and actions.

An earnest person might be led to mull these exhumations of past crimes—given that such a person may not be very skeptical about the motives of those who advance them and may actually be conditioned to entertain such arguments. But if that person were simultaneous animated by some warm glow of patriotism, might they not ask some questions like the following? Were there any mitigating circumstances to the U.S.’s actions during the time alluded to? Were there any arguably legitimate considerations with regard to the country’s geopolitical interests in the way they acted? Were there any questions with regard to the use of chemical weapons during that time by United States’ chief geopolitical adversary? What subsequent actions did the U.S. take with regard to chemical weapons, and how does that compare with the behavior of the Soviet Union? What bearing do the actions in question have on a current policy that, if anything, reverses the atrocity visited on the Kurds by liberating them from the tyrant?

You don’t ask such questions. You seem quite happy to dwell on the charges made by people who are no friends of the United States as currently constituted, which is amply revealed by the esteem in which they place the country vis a vis other countries in the world, and how they focus their venom on the United States where other states could be held culpable, and often far more culpable. In fact, you adduce these further arguments with something that looks to me like sanctimonious glee. “Speaking out” may sometimes be the mark of a patriot, but the enthusiasm with which you make this one-sided case against your own country most certainly is not.

[Janet]

Amazing arguments on both sides. However what Terry Olson seems to omit is the fact that Saddam gave the final order to gas the Kurds at minimum. Put simply if you give two kids a gun and one kills and the other dose not, do you blame the gun or the kid who pulled the trigger. Obviously the trigger puller "killer" should be held responsible for his/her actions. But, some may view the gun as the killer. How you interpret this would be subject to your origins and unobtrusive view of what you are and what you stand for.

If this is in the least bit ambiguous to you I suspect life influences have a strong hold that is not penetrable. Put it to a jury and I am sure they would have to hang the killer.

[Terry]

You make some articulate arguments, Idler. We fundamentally disagree about the mistakes of American foreign policy, but I appreciate your comments.

A couple of observations, however. If I'm not mistaken, most Kurds live in Iran and Turkey, so I don't think a lack of concern about the Kurds on my part is a fair argument. In fact I agree with Biden's proposal for an ethnic partition of Iraq.

Regarding legitimate geopolitical interests, I firmly believe in the law of unintended consequences. One of the consequences of American Cold War alliances was the arming of Saddam Hussein. Others include the disastrous Vietnam War and the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which arguably led to a haven for Osama bin Laden and then 9/11. Of course there are many others, most notably the American alliance with the brutal and repressive Shah of Iran. Now Iran is part of the ill-conceived "axis of evil", and yet another war may be brewing.

The bottom line is that I truly believe that war should be a last resort, and only in direct defense of the nation. That belief has unfortunately not been shared by any American President, either Republican of Democrat, in the last half century, save perhaps Gerald Ford.

Speaking of which, Janet, you sound like Charleton Heston and other anti-gun control fanatics. If guns, especially handguns, were banned, as I believe they should be, then the question of a child's culpability in a shooting would be entirely moot.

[idler]

Terry,

Thanks for the compliment. You always write well too, which makes reading your blog easy and pleasant.

As far as our supposed fundamental disagreement about U.S. policy, I haven’t taken a stand here (other than rhetorically) on any particular aspect of that policy; I have only said that your writing betrays an unfair readiness to criticize that policy, even to the extent that you will take two incompatible positions as long as both involve criticizing the United States.

For example, one policy ends up hurting the Kurds, one ends up helping them. Which will you choose to criticize? Well, both, but you’ll keep the benefit the Kurds enjoyed out of the equation. Strikingly, even when you are alluding specifically to the Kurds, you still manage to take a position that only vilifies and does not praise your country. Your latest response is more of the same. I ask you now: why is it fair to criticize the U.S. for harm that they were indirectly involved in within Iraq but not fair to credit the U.S. for benefit within Iraq that they accomplished directly? One can criticize the U.S. for some local injury to the Kurds but you can’t praise them unless they facilitate the creation of a Greater Kurdistan? Or what?

Regarding “the law of unintended consequences”: Why does it seldom occur to people citing this “law” that it is not only actions but also failure to act that can result in unintended consequences? One’s enemies won’t stand still just because you do.

People who cite the above “law” also like to mention the term “blowback,” to show their sophistication (or they did before it became trite, anyway). But those sophisticates don’t understand that blowback applies to undesirable reactions even when you’ve taken the best possible course. Nothing is done in a vaccum.

Your position seems to assume a hermetic world where a country can simply choose to step off the stage and experience no blowback, no unintended consequences from its abdication. More acute cases of blame-America-first-ism take this to a point where listening to them, you realize they believe the world would be a peaceful, happy place, if only the U.S. didn’t interfere. But even in your more reasonable view, you preserve a kind of utopian detachment about the messy affairs of the world and the questions about what to do about them.

Thus, you tut-tut about the U.S.’s unwitting spur to unintended consequences through its alliance with Saddam Hussein, as if this needn’t have happened, if only they had listened to you. But why not start with FDR’s alliance with Stalin, if you want to talk about unintended consequences? My point is that prudent foreign policy in a hostile world often involves choosing not good over evil but the lesser of two (or more) evils, even knowing that your choice will likely come to bite you—though just a little later than the other choice will. Your take on unintended consequences, and your resulting view of foreign policy, fail to include this critical insight.

None of this is to say any particular decision is right or wrong, prudent or foolish, moral or immoral or amoral. But it is to say that a view which fails to appreciate this dimension is not likely to edify.

Your shallowness with regard to this dimension may be one reason, but not a sufficient one, to explain that in every case you cite, you allude to the downside, not the benefit of the decisions, even though in all the cases mentioned there was an upside or at least something that reflects well on the U.S. There is nothing the U.S. does that you can’t turn exclusively against it.

Even the Vietnam War was a result, in part, simply of the United States living up to its obligations to allies and facing down a global expansionist movement. It was lost because the American people didn’t want to win it, largely because they were influenced by doom-saying reports, even when the U.S. was victorious. Richard Nixon accepted the will of the people to withdraw from the field of combat, but nevertheless tried to live up to the commitment and achieve peace by strength. That is how Nixon got the North Vietnamese to the table in Paris. But as soon as he resigned, the Democrats moved to halt further aid and operations in support of the South. The North Vietnamese took the cue and attacked. Gerald Ford, whom you recognize in your last comment, pleaded with the Democratic Congress to at least provide financial support to the South. He said, “American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally.”

Talk about unintended consequences. Since that time, the U.S. has been thought of as a paper tiger, a country of people too soft to face up to the challenges of war. The Gulf War mitigated that, as did the quick defeat of Saddam’s military. America’s enemies know its soldiers can fight and their weapons are peerless, but the image of the American people not having the stomach for a fight—alluded to most recently by bin Laden and his supporters—has returned.

And think about another case of unintended consequences: If large-scale slaughter of civilians and piecemeal roadbombing of American units causes Americans to talk about withdrawing, what do you suppose the likely consequence of that talk will be if not more slaughter of civilians and more determined piecemeal attacks on American soldiers until America turns tail and withdraws?

To the last point you addressed to me: the doctrine of war as a last resort ONLY IN DIRECT DEFENSE OF THE NATION requires total abdication of responsibility for American alliances and American interests abroad. It’s as simple as that. It would make sense only if the country could survive in total isolation, even in the case of a single enemy becoming dominant in the world. This would have been a foolish and unsustainable doctrine in the 18th century; it’s a lunatic doctrine in an age where America depends on outside partners for its continued economic strength, an era in which the U.S. economy runs on petroleum from other countries, and in which the country depends on an external manufacturing base.

To say nothing of smaller conflicts, your doctrine would have prevented the U.S. fighting in Europe during WWI and WWII, and it would have left Soviet expansion unchallenged, both in this hemisphere and around the world.

[Terry]

I agree, Idler, with your phrase "prudent foreign policy." We disagree apparently on the rush to war as "prudent."

I also reject your contention that my position is "isolationist." It's not. It's simply anti-war. I've argued that every war we've fought in the last 60 years since WWII has been unnecessary, especially Vietnam, which we didn't lose "because the American people didn’t want to win it." We lost it because it was a foolish and unwinnable war from the outset.

Anyway, I blogged about it today. Forgive my use of the word stupid. It wasn't meant to demean you any more than Kissinger or Pat Buchanan who share your views on Vietnam.

[Idler]

No offense taken.

Can you explain how your position would have justified U.S. entry into WWII (in Europe, at least, and in the Pacific beyond, say, Midway)?

What does one do when one's interests are threatened and one's adversaries will not negotiate in any meaningful way? Simply watch your allies, external property and expatriates get destroyed in the interest of being "anti-war"? Do you watch powerful enemies expand and become more powerful—and more threatening—through conquest? Do you allow them to harrass your trade with impunity? Seriously, is that what you propose? And don't tell me you would try to negotiate; some adversaries won't negotiate, some won't negotiate in good faith, many will simply use the pretense of negotiation to buy enough time to consolidate their gains and make them faits accomplis—further eroding your strategic position.