A Few Words on Anne-Marie's Questions
I want to thank Anne-Marie for her comments and for taking the time to write them. I really appreciate them. I was especially moved by the last paragraph. I had actually never heard those remarks by Justice Kennedy. They sound particularly resonant these days.
I think she raised some powerful points about the years before the U.S. invasion, history that's often forgotten. In fact, what she mentioned - I think - tailored much of the Iraqi reaction to what followed Saddam's fall. Not all, of course, but I'm struck by how views of the United States seemed to have shifted through the 1990s. That's particularly the case when it comes to the U.S. record after the Shiite uprising that followed the 1991 Gulf War. The record of U.S. abandonment came up in conversation after conservation, particularly with religious Shiites in southern Iraq - from a taxi driver who told a colleague during the war that they wouldn't be burned twice to the son of a prominent ayatollah who told me you could never trust the Americans because of 1991. Anne-Marie also got at another key point - the ambiguity of U.S. relations with Saddam. I've always been struck by how the conflict was typically portrayed in the United States: Saddam against his people, the United States against Saddam. I think to a lot of Iraqis, there was a sense that through the 1980s and into the 1990s, it was Saddam and America against Iraqis. I tried to explore that a little bit when I wrote about Yasmine in Night Draws Near. Anne-Marie mentioned the prospect of avoiding an occupation, perhaps by working through the United Nations. At one point in the book, I suggested some scenarios that perhaps could have shifted the occupation's course. To be honest, I'm pretty doubtful any would have worked. But I think a short-term administration under the United Nations would have been far more palatable to many in the country. Finally, on the last question, my sense was that Iraqis understood the government's brutality, if not its particular crimes. One of the most moving scenes to me in the diary of Amal, a young girl I wrote about, is her learning of what happened in Halabja and elsewhere.
This was really a helpful post! It is so helpful to get insights like this from someone like you, speculations that one understandably one might not want to put into formal writing.
Thank you both!
September 16, 2005 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm entirely sure that the average Iraqi knew how bad Saddam's regime was, either because it had acted against them or because they were just thoughtful and observant. Very few people in the world, aside from theUS during thr Iran/Iraq war, actually supported Saddam Hussein. He;s a horrible person just as many dictataors the US has supported and does support are horrible.
But, for a long time, I'd say for better or worse but I mean "for worse," and with our support, the defining figure of their culture for a long damned time. Heck, we supported him to such an extreme extent that I really believe that when he invaded Kuwait, he was surprised that we took issue with him. Reports after the war, such as the report by CIA analyst Charkes Duelferm which revealed the Oil for Food corruption in a concrete way, paint a picture of a Saddam who was pining for the old days and hoping for a future where the US would favor him again. He even had good reason, based on his experience, to imagine that it was possible. I bet that Manuel Noriega felt the same way.
I think that it's important to remember, when we're thinking about this ridiculous was in iraq, that the man we took out of power and put into jail was, for a long, long while a client of our foreign policy.
That doesn't make him good or worthy of any defense, but has has baan one of many. The U.S. has always tolerated useful despots, often for daned good practical reasons. But we shouldn't forget that Huseein was one of those.
A lot of what the average Iraqi knew or now knows aboutt Saddam's attrocities happened while he was out boy. We invaded and thus owe the people a debt, but we also supported this guy and either funded or allowed many of the actions that we have now expected Iraqis to reject.
But, we've been there only since 2003 and we were only Saddam's vocal enemy since 1991. The Baathist took power there half a cenurty ago and have controlled the culture ever since, with our support for more than half of the time betwen then and now
What does the average Iraqi thing, feel or know? I wouldn't dare to conjecture. Whatver the answer is, we ad a lot to do with Saddam defining perceptions in Iraq, for a long, lojng time. This war is ongoing and Gulf War I seems like history but was actualy recent. Everything we did to prop up Hussein before that is also remembered in Iraq, even though it's gone ignored i western, post war coverage.
We have a longer and more intricate history both with Hussein and with Iraq than is noticed now. But there is context and people in Iraq know it. I think that is one reason why we'rebeing fought, rather than sowered with the flowers and candy that Bush's minions promised
September 16, 2005 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No discussion of prewar Iraq should overlook the sanctions, which three separate studies blamed for the deaths of at least half a million children.
I lost the little respect I had for Madeleine Albright the day I heard her reassure us that it was worth the price and that, in the end, it was only Saddam's fault. The truth is, Saddam loved the sanctions. We loved the sanctions. And the Iraqis paid the price.
We've lost the war and our ego will have to deal with it (not to mention the more unsettling consequences of this American debacle) but our moral defeat was sealed with the sanctions. The Great Bush-Rumsfeld Charlatan Show simply staged the concluding act.
September 16, 2005 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right on. Our history with Iraq didn;t begin in 2003, or after 9-11 or even in 1992 when we launched the firs gulf war.
We should have known, after Gulf War I, that sanctions almost always punish innocent citizens more than they punishj the tagetted regime.
We also knew, for a long long time that Saddam was our client until he stepped out of line.
None of this is meant to defend Saddam. But, there is a lot of history that we're facing now and a lot of that history includes our unfortunate aupport if the government that we removed.
America might be in a "Post 9-11 mindset," but the rest of the world has a longer memory.
September 16, 2005 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two quick points. As I mentioned in a post to Matt's recent comments about Afghanistan. Whether there, or Vietman or Angola the United States from Truman through Bush I had a very simple view of the world, or at least acted as it did. The Soviet Union was the ultimate evil and enemy. Anything necessary to oppose the Soviet Union was acceptable. If this resulted in harm to peoples in other countries that was the price that had to be paid to defeat the Soviets. This was the basis of our prior support of Saddem before he invade Kuwait.
Secondly the United States has a long history of abandoning allies. During the war with the Barbary Pirates we allied ourselves with the emir's brother. When we defeated the emir we neither set his brother up in power nor took him with us. We left him to the tender mercies of the people we sided against.
September 17, 2005 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saddam didn't love the sanctions, he despised them. He was constantly lobbying to have them removed - and he was coming damn close to succeeding when the U.S. invaded. Pricing his oil exports in Euros was a key (and effective) move in that regard.
September 17, 2005 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The United States support of Saddam was probably more major concerns throughout the Iran-Iraq war was that one of the nations would win a convincing victory and emerge as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, thus threatening its economic security. The United States (and other major western nations) therefore had an interest in seeing the two countries engage in a protracted, inconclusive war that left both worse off than when they started.
September 17, 2005 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're certainly right, Daniel. And heck, I don't absolutely demand undying loyalties to our allies or clients because they change and circumstances change. The mere fact that we supported somebody we're fighting (heck, we supported Osama) is no reason not to fight them, if they attack us or become a threat.
But I do think it means we have to think better about who we choose to support and why. It also means that we often have a lot of responsibility for the behavior of "bad guys" that we often ignore.
We also need to be honest with our own people. Even now, I bet a lot of folks think that we invaded Panama because Noriega was an unrepetant drug dealer and money launderer. But we knew those things for years, since he was on our government's payroll. In the very least, when we go to war against a former ally (or, in the case of Noriega, Saddam and bin Laden, a former crony) the past relationships should be noted and explained and the reason for the change should explained.
In the case of Osama, it wouldn't have been hard. He turned on us first. The Taliban, which we also supported, chose Osama over us when things got serious. No beefs there.
But Saddam, I think he was actually surprised that the US did anything about him invading Kuwait. He was tight with us back then and probably expected to get a pass. To me, the hardest thing about opposing Gulf War II was that, with regards to Saddam, it couldn't have happened to a more worthy fellow. But when I hear his past attrocities listed as a cause for this war, I can't forget how many of them he committed while cashing our checks and shaking Rummy's hand.
The world is complicated. Messy situations are the norm. Idealogical consistancy over decades of policy is rare to find and not always good just because it's consistant.
However, I don't think that our government should claim moral high ground when the facts don't back the claim. I can accept complexity and the need for flexibility and change. But I expect honest explanations.
September 17, 2005 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Peter. It's irrelevant now but wasn't Baathism meant to be a form of Middle Eastern socialism? It has never, ever worked out that way, but, I think that's what it was meant to be. Saddam's good relations with Russia also extended beyond the first Gulf War, as evidenced by the Russian companies who received Oil for Food allocations and Saddam's attempts to bribe Russia politicians in the hopes that Russia would oppose the UN sanctions.
September 17, 2005 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the irony in my post.
By "Saddam loved the sanctions" I meant it was business as usual for him. In fact, from his point of view, that period was one of the most trouble-free he'd ever known.
You're wrong that he came close to have them lifted. He came close to having them restructured so as to alleviate the suffering of his people (and that was NOT his initiative).
Got a problem with that?
September 18, 2005 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think "client" is far too strong a word to use for our relationship with Saddam. He was always much closer to the Soviets and armed by them. I think we were just satisfied that he keep Iran, who really had been our client, occupied and the oil taps open.
September 18, 2005 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
We supported Saddam in the eighties more for the fact that he was killing Iranians, rather than a Soviet angle. We were getting even for the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew our strongman, the Shah. The poison gas made the Revolutionary Guard (or whatever they were called) fanatical attacks way less effective. Some have written that the poison gas was the only thing that stopped the Iranians from winning the war.
September 18, 2005 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink