Waking up in a new world: Part II

Editor's note: If you haven't already, please check part one.

Saddam Hussein.

The sight of Saddam, bellowing, yelling and screaming on trial in Iraq, is quite different than it was on September 12, 2001. Now, all vestiges of his power are gone. Guns that would have been pointed at his enemies, are now pointed at him. How the mighty have fallen.

Back during World War I (or what was ironically referred to at the time as the 'War To End All Wars'), a huge chunk of the modern Middle East was ruled by what was called the Ottoman Empire, or more specifically, the ancestors of modern Turkey. The Ottoman Turks sided with Germany in WWI, which turned out to be not such a great idea. The ancient, grand, Ottoman Empire - the "sick man of Europe", the Muslim world, which in the past had nearly conquered Vienna and Spain, surrendered to the victors. Their punishment for this umbrage was to have their nation cut up and ruled by foreign powers, namely France and Britain. The national boundaries of these new nations were obviously set in order to prevent the citizens from gathering enough power to challenge their new rulers. Hence why you see Kurds in both Turkey and northern Iraq, neither population large enough to gain independence. Shiites spread between Iraq and Iran. Arabs in the Persian Gulf and Baghdad. These new countries were called "protectorates." As if, they needed the French and the English to protect them from danger. Its been said that you can tell which countries were under French control and which ones were under English control. The French, being a republic, set up presidencies, the English, being a constitutional monarchy, installed royal families. Revolutions, military coups and what have you have muddied this practice, but its still interesting. Saudi royal family? English. President of Syria? France.

America's first foray into Middle Eastern politics, as near as I can tell, was the CIA engineering the overthrow of a democratically elected* president in Iran and installing the Shah, some time in the 1950's, I believe. So Iran has never had any love lost for America. When their blood finally boiled and the Shah was overthrown, it was no surprise to see anti-Americanism flowing forth like a river. It culminated in the raiding and occupation of the US Embassy in Teheran.

I mention this because this is where Saddam enters the picture. Saddam, the bloodthirsty strongman who'd murdered his way to the top of the Baathist party, and then to the top of Iraq itself, had visions of greatness. He intended to preside over the greatest country in the Middle East. His vision was for a 'Greater Iraq' consisting of Iraq proper, Jordan, Kuwait, and a large chunk of western Iran. One of the things I like best about American foreign policy is our leaders always have such a long range view, and thereby minimize any problems occurring from their policy. I'm kidding of course [Editor's note: He had me worried for a moment]. American politicians never look further than the next election or the next poll. Saddam wanted part of Iran, and he was willing to kill millions to get it. Americans didn't appreciate Iran, and who can really blame them after the Embassy episode? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Yeah right. Saddam and America had become allies.

That war raged for eight years. When the killing was done, I believe 1,500,000 humans died. Some 10,000 from Saddam's use of chemical weapons. They existed. He had them. He used them. While there is no readily available evidence, I find it hard to believe Saddam acquired these weapons without the US' blessing. The important point here is, Saddam had WMDs, and he used them. I don't care what anyone says, he had them, he used them.

Following the Iran - Iraq war, Saddam's army was badly beaten, greatly reduced, and his treasure vaults depleted. He needed cash, and he needed it quick. And there's poor little Kuwait, sitting on all those gold bars from oil revenue. Now, to be fair, Saddam and Iraq have always considered Kuwait to be part of Iraq proper. And with good reason; it was, until the British decided they didn't want Iraq to have that much access to the gulf and cut it off, establishing a new royal family.

Here's where it gets tricky. Saddam's government made general overtures to the staff at the US Embassy as to whether or not Washington would have any problems with an invasion into Kuwait. The US Embassy staff* was either drunk or not paying attention, because they did not reply that it would be unacceptable, which Saddam took to mean 'go get 'em boys!' And Saddam plunged the Middle East and Iraq into his second war. There was one small problem though. The Iron Lady.

(* I would like to point out that one of the Sr. staff members at the US' Iraq Embassy, during this time, was none other than the left's current favorite playboy Joe Wilson. Its been said that George H. W. Bush referred to Wilson as "truly inspiring" and "courageous." From what I see, its nothing more than both trying to cover their respective asses for dropping the ball on Saddam's overture before the invasion. Neither of them look particularly respectable on this point.)

Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, took notice of the invasion, and was not pleased. She believed it was the foreshadowing of dark times, one country, ruled by an insane despot, controlling not only the world's oil supply, but also the trillions in wealth accumulated from that sale. She moved into action. She immediately denounced the invasion, demanded the Saddam retreat, and then set off on a world tour to promote her calls. Many people mistakenly believe George H. W. Bush was the force behind the first Gulf War, but no, it was Thatcher.

Maggie even traveled to the US to bend Bush the elder's ear. During a conference in Colorado, Bush met Thatcher and she urged him "not to go wobbly" with regard to consideration of using force to repel Saddam. Before his meeting with her, Bush's position was the invasion was terrible, Iraq should restore the Kuwaiti royal family, but other than that, there were a few rounds of golf to be played. Afterwards, they held a joint press conference, demanding the complete and immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq, and pledging to take this cause to every nation in the world.

And Bush the Elder did lead that charge, side by side with Maggie. They went to the UN, they got their world wide coalition. They got money, troops, logistics support, France even sent an air craft carrier - which broke down half way there and had to head back to port. Feel free to insert favorite French joke here. And so it would appear the world was united against Saddam. But things aren't always as they seem.

True there were many nations in the world-wide coalition. But its also true most did nothing. There's an old saying that nothing attracts followers like success. And with America and Britain on the move, every country wanted in on the deal. The various countries of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Jordan) were rightly scared shitless of Saddam and his army. They paid through the nose for the US to come and slap him down. Most other countries either coughed up cash, or sent token troops, a dozen here, a dozen there. Czechoslovakia sent a team of highly trained chemical weapon specialists. But, by and large, it was American soldiers and American muscle that bore the brunt of the war. One important thing to note at this point, Bush got his UN resolution backing his use of force. But that resolution only extended to the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. It said nothing about the US moving into Iraq itself.

With all the bravado of despot, Saddam brazenly declared he would destroy America's army, he would destroy America, and he would rule the Middle East. Anyone remember the "Mother of All Battles"? Then the battles started, and almost before it began, it was over. Kuwait was burning from oil well fires, the nation in ruins. And Saddam's army in tatters, on the highway of death.

There's one main highway running between Kuwait City and Baghdad. A nice, straight line. That was the road the Iraqi army chose to use as it ran back towards Baghdad. A video game couldn't have set up the targets any better. The US Air Force spent a day or two on strafing runs. I believe the casualties numbered well over 100,000. Then-General Colin Powell, a lifelong military man, couldn't even stomach the carnage and called it off.

Before the war had ended though, Saddam had launched his Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel. Every one of them feared to contained the chemical and biological weapons that Saddam possessed, and had used during the Iraq - Iran war. Fortunately, the fears were not realized. Editor's note: Perhaps...

And I remember seeing the Iraqi General bowing as low as he could while remaining on his feet, as he offered an unconditional surrender to General Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf.

It appeared the US had finally finished their bloody relationship with Saddam. But it was not so.

* - Editor's note: The author later felt it important to note that although democratically elected, the government was Soviet-friendly. He said this was important to add to make clear that the CIA was following Cold War policy. I personally don't see why that matters. A free society should not be engaging in such action. However, he is the writer, so I am presenting the addendum as requested.
Author's note: What the editor must not be able to see, is that by pointing out the CIA toppled a Soviet-leaning, democratically elected Iranian president, it re-enforces the author's earlier point about the myopic view of US foreign policy. The CIA apparently wasn't overly concerned about the long term effects of the operation in the middle east, and instead concentrated only on the short term gains in the Cold War.
Editor's note: Fine.