Editor's note: I think we may run out of Roman numerals. Anyway, as another worker drone once said, I'm not even supposed to be here today. But here I am, and here is another post in the possibly never-ending series that could have been called: Why I (the writer) think the invasion of Iraq was a necessary and justifiable action. I have another title for it, but decorum prevents me from typing it out. And if you think this expanding table of contents is fun, I've got a few choice words for you too:
Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....
[Author's note: Perhaps this will help the editor]
Islamic Fundamentalism.
I know I promised Islamic Fundamentalism, but in order to cover the most extreme whacko parts, we need to learn something about Islam first.
Back in my younger days, I never thought much about Islam. not sure when exactly I first even heard of it. I do remember studying it somewhat in ninth grade social studies class. In the golden days of educational reform (the 1970's) the subjects of history, geography and civics were all jumbled together into one class called social studies. My teacher, Mr. Case, said we were going to spend a few weeks studying religion. Since we students were mostly Christian - if any religion - he said we'd skip over that and concentrate on Islam, Hindu and Buddhists. Made sense at the time. Since I don't remember anything I learned on the subject in that class, I assume it was pretty bland and uninformative.
Islam continued to bore me for years afterwards, and it wasn't until September 12, 2001 that I took a real hard look at it. To begin with, from newspaper and magazines articles. I bought a National Geographic book in the winter of 2002, "The World of Islam" which was a collection of articles published by the magazine over the last 100 years. I learned a good deal more about western civilization's bias' towards Islam than I learned about Islam itself. And I don't mean that sarcastically, the West had some pretty big stereotypes about Arabs. I've continued to read about it since. Sun Tzu, who wrote a masterpiece called "The Art Of War", which is still required reading at some military academies, once opined "know your enemy". I was determined to do just that.
Islam comes down from the Prophet Mohammed, who is said to be a direct descendent of the father of monotheism. Abraham is considered the father of three modern religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Now I must say, there is interesting reading on Abraham in the book of Genesis. It's almost too funny. Can you imagine being a stable hand in Abe's house, when this crazed, old, 99 year old guy comes rushing into your room - brandishing a knife - and screaming God himself declared that Abe must circumcise every male in his house before dawn? I don't know about you, but I would be both skeptical and scared as all hell.
Abraham had a wife, Sarah, and a concubine,named Hagar. They both gave him sons. Sarah was the mother of Isaac, Hagar the mother of Ishmael. The Old Testament tells us that God told Abraham to take his son, climb a mountain, build an alter, and sacrifice his son as proof of his devotion to God. The Old Testament states that Abraham did just that, and at the moment he was about to slice his son's throat (an awful lot of that over in the Middle East, isn't there?), an angel stayed his hand. The son went down the mountain, never to return home, Abraham went back to Sarah. The story has an underlying parable about how when kids grow up, they really need to get the hell out of the house at some point. But on the subject at hand, what's important is which son was chosen to be sacrificed. Jews and Christians believe it was Sarah's son Isaac. Muslims believe it was the Hagar's son Ishmael.
Isaac descended the mountain and went on to father the twelve tribes of Israel (which is in fact, the name of one of the twelve tribes, the largest). Later, Joseph would lead them into Egypt, for what he thought was at the time, gainful employment, only to turn into slavery. Ishmael went on to father the tribes of Arabia. There's the kicker. Both Christianity/Jewish and Islam claim to be the rightful heirs of Abraham, and thereby the one true God. On a side note, the Hebrews languished in slavery till Moses came along and helped convince the Pharaoh that it wasn't such a cool idea. After parting the Red Sea, and hiking off to Mount Sinai where he received the 10 Commandments, Moses came down and found the tribes of Israel really partying it up - and not in a good way. Moses broke the stone tablets, condemning the non-believers to hell. I mention this because some Muslim scholars believe that even if Isaac was the chosen son, Hebrews gave up any claim to be the chosen people of God when they sinned in shadow of the mountain, in front of God.
After wondering around the desert for 40 years (geeze, can't anyone ask directions?) the Hebrews entered the "land of milk and honey", the chosen land, the land promised by God, the River Jordan valley. They promptly made war against the inhabitants, the tribes of Ishmael, and the two groups have been at each other's throats ever since. Some people think all this trouble with Israel and Palestinians can be solved with a few treaties and swapping some land around. History, good people, look to history!
This story has always made me wonder. It's apparent that all three religions have the same roots, they believe many of the same things, so why can't we all just get along? Islam venerates the Virgin Mary and believes Jesus was a prophet who just got carried away. Some times it's almost surreal. So close, yet so far apart.
Being a Roman Catholic, I know about the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic), and the Eastern Rite. I also know of the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, orthodox being the Greek word for "right-thinking." I couldn't even begin to list all the various flavors of Protestant religions. Lutheran, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Evangelical, Church of Latter-Day Saints, those people who dance with rattlesnakes, and let's not forget every one's favorite, Jehovah Witnesses. (On a side note, I do enjoy when they come knocking on the door questioning if I go to church, and if so what scriptures were read, because I go to Church and I remember what I read. It leaves them speechless. And there's nothing like the sight of a Jehovah Witness, slack-jawed, stunned into silence. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Jehovah Witness.)
Since Christians can't seem to agree on the correct method of worship, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Islam also comes in various flavors. I believe the largest sect is Sunni, followed by Shiite.
When Mohammed finally expired, not surprisingly, there was a power struggle. One group of Muslims thought the companions of Mohammed knew him best, and therefore were most capable of continuing his teaching and work. Another group believed the position of leader of the religion should be hereditary, so there was a split. Imagine that, humans not agreeing on religion? The group that held the companions best capable eventually evolved into the Sunnas, which means "way" or "custom" as in the way of the prophet. Their chosen leader was referred to as the Caliphate (remember this word, we will come back to it), or "successor", as in successor to the prophet. The other sect evolved into the Shiite, which means Shia of Ali, or followers of Ali, the original, closest living relative of Mohammed at the time of his death.
So there was this uneasy state between the two groups, riled up by different interpretations of the Quran. Well it finally hit the rotating oscillator when the third Caliphate decided that Shiites were not true Muslims, but rather "kafirs" (nonbelievers, that category would include everyone on the planet who is not a Sunni) and needed to be dispatched (remember that too). A war erupted (I thought Islam was a religion of peace?) which climaxed with the death of the leaders of Shiites in Najaf. In modern Iraq, there is a huge Mosque in Najaf to memorialize the death of the leaders of Shiites, it's currently the Mosque of Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, considered the religious leader of the Iraqi Shiites. It was also the Mosque that Muqtada as-Sadar's army hid in when attacked by the US Marines a year or two ago. They hid behind their holy walls and dared the Marines to attack, hoping to ignite a civil war. Hiding in the sanctuary of a holy Mosque while taking pot shots at American soldiers. I'll save the righteous indignation for when we get to modern Iraq.
In case you might have missed it, Shiites show up at least once a year on the news, in a large procession, beating themselves with chains, whips, cutting themselves to draw blood. This is done during the festival to memorialize the Shiite deaths at the hands of the Sunnis. One of the few recorded incidents I've come across where Muslims did, in fact, fight to the death. Its considered one of, if not the, holiest aspect of Shiites. It may seem strange to me, but I can only imagine what Shiites think when my Church proclaims every Sunday that the Eucharist, is in fact, the "body and blood" of the Christ.
Under Saddam, the march was outlawed. Can't say as I blame him much. If I was the head of 20% of a nation oppressing 60% of the population, I wouldn't want to see them all armed and working themselves into a bloody hysteria.
Next, Wahhabism.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Waking up in a new world: Part IV
Editor's note: Don't be one of those people who reads the last page of a book first:
Part I then Part II then Part III then this one, in that order, thank you very much.
Once again, I must apologize for the lack of links and the unedited post. I'm on vacation, dammit!
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Kind of strange term if you think about it. As compared to what, weapons of minimum destruction? I don't remember exactly when it entered the popular lexicon, but it basically covers weapons that can kill vast numbers of people, with a minimal amount of effort or cost. Probably the first WMD's were the atom bombs dropped by the US on Japan. I still have debates about whether or not that was a necessary evil, or war crime. I'm of the persuasion that it saved the lives of some 3,000,000 American soldiers. Judging by Japan's history of refusing to surrender, and refusal to surrender in battles leading up to the bombings, I see no indication they would not fight to the death for their homeland.
Since that time, weapons that have been called WMDs tend to be of the flavor of nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, easily dispersed with the push of a button. Nukes blow up, big time, and cause the rubble to be radioactive. Chemical weapons usually kill you by searing any number of different parts of the human body, lungs, central nervous system, burn the skin off your body, etc. Biological weapons are usually diseases, viruses, or another type of agent found in nature that can be easily controlled by the attacker but not those on the receiving end. For example, one side has a vaccination for a disease the other side lacks.
Saddam had these weapons. I know it for a fact. I have seen the pictures on the news of the Iranian veterans with their broken and burned bodies. I've seen footage of the dead Kurds and Shiites from the 1991 uprising. They existed, guaranteed 100% true. I watched Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, reporting from a WMD warehouse in Iraq, interviewing Scott Ridder, then head of the UN inspection team. He was explaining to Rather why it was taking so long to dispose of all those weapons. Its because there were so many of them. The warehouse was huge, packed to the rafters. The weapons were found, stored, cataloged, and the destruction process was taking place. See, with WMDs, you can't just throw them into the garbage, or burry them in a land fill. They need to be handled very carefully, and the process was taking place.
But it wasn't over. As the memory of the first Gulf War faded from American pop culture, so did news on the progress of the destruction. Scott Ridder was constantly arguing to the American press that President Clinton was not giving the inspectors the backing they needed to complete the mission. The fewer people paid attention, the bolder Saddam got. Finally, the team had had enough and they pulled out, leaving behind some 20,000+ tons of the stuff that had not yet been destroyed. That's not even counting any that hadn't been found yet, or any news ones that might have been produced in clandestine operations.
By the time the UN pulled inspectors out of Iraq for good on December 16, 1998 the inspectors had discovered and destroyed some 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons, 48 missiles and 817 of 819 Russian supplied long range missiles. Also tons and tons of gear used in making, weponizing and launching them. The secret chemical weapon plant at al-Hakim had produced 500,000 liters of biological agents alone, which means there was at a minimum 20,000 liters floating around Iraq.
(gift to editor: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack )
In the run up to the second Gulf War, Scott Ridder campaigned relentlessly to halt the invasion. Being one of the UN inspectors, he knew what was found and still floating around. He knew the capabilities of Iraq. He knew the efforts to which Iraq went to keep their WMD operation active. He knew there were weapons, because he saw them.
There is no doubt that no conclusive WMD evidence has been found since the fall of Saddam. Now one person might be able to deduce that there were no WMDs. From there its only a small stretch to say there never were. But its a lie, Saddam had them, Saddam used them, the UN had found many of them. The weapons existed. The question to me, is not did they exist, but where are they now?
Let's play a little game I like to use as a debating tool. Its called "what is more likely", shall we? When the US began occupying Iraq, the push was on to find the weapons and neutralize them as soon as possible. Our ever lovable CBS Evening News was back on the scene. They were interviewing one of the top scientists from Saddam's WMD program. The Dr., a woman, stated all those weapons left over by the UN had been destroyed years ago. Perish the thought, they were destroyed so long ago, she couldn't even remember when.
What makes more sense:
A) Saddam, out of the goodness of his own heart, and his compassion for humanity, destroyed all those evil weapons, but didn't want to bother the UN, so he kept the destruction quiet, and continued to suffer under the crippling restrictions of UN sanctions.
or:
B) Saddam kept his weapons, moved them underground, continued to make them as best he could under UN sanctions. When it became obvious that the US was preparing for war a second time (it took about 14 months just to get the US Army in position for the invasion), he either hid them in Iraq, sent them to allies abroad, or both.
Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Howard Dean tend to agree with option A. My money is on option B.
Now about Islamic Fundamentalism.
Part I then Part II then Part III then this one, in that order, thank you very much.
Once again, I must apologize for the lack of links and the unedited post. I'm on vacation, dammit!
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Kind of strange term if you think about it. As compared to what, weapons of minimum destruction? I don't remember exactly when it entered the popular lexicon, but it basically covers weapons that can kill vast numbers of people, with a minimal amount of effort or cost. Probably the first WMD's were the atom bombs dropped by the US on Japan. I still have debates about whether or not that was a necessary evil, or war crime. I'm of the persuasion that it saved the lives of some 3,000,000 American soldiers. Judging by Japan's history of refusing to surrender, and refusal to surrender in battles leading up to the bombings, I see no indication they would not fight to the death for their homeland.
Since that time, weapons that have been called WMDs tend to be of the flavor of nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, easily dispersed with the push of a button. Nukes blow up, big time, and cause the rubble to be radioactive. Chemical weapons usually kill you by searing any number of different parts of the human body, lungs, central nervous system, burn the skin off your body, etc. Biological weapons are usually diseases, viruses, or another type of agent found in nature that can be easily controlled by the attacker but not those on the receiving end. For example, one side has a vaccination for a disease the other side lacks.
Saddam had these weapons. I know it for a fact. I have seen the pictures on the news of the Iranian veterans with their broken and burned bodies. I've seen footage of the dead Kurds and Shiites from the 1991 uprising. They existed, guaranteed 100% true. I watched Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, reporting from a WMD warehouse in Iraq, interviewing Scott Ridder, then head of the UN inspection team. He was explaining to Rather why it was taking so long to dispose of all those weapons. Its because there were so many of them. The warehouse was huge, packed to the rafters. The weapons were found, stored, cataloged, and the destruction process was taking place. See, with WMDs, you can't just throw them into the garbage, or burry them in a land fill. They need to be handled very carefully, and the process was taking place.
But it wasn't over. As the memory of the first Gulf War faded from American pop culture, so did news on the progress of the destruction. Scott Ridder was constantly arguing to the American press that President Clinton was not giving the inspectors the backing they needed to complete the mission. The fewer people paid attention, the bolder Saddam got. Finally, the team had had enough and they pulled out, leaving behind some 20,000+ tons of the stuff that had not yet been destroyed. That's not even counting any that hadn't been found yet, or any news ones that might have been produced in clandestine operations.
By the time the UN pulled inspectors out of Iraq for good on December 16, 1998 the inspectors had discovered and destroyed some 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons, 48 missiles and 817 of 819 Russian supplied long range missiles. Also tons and tons of gear used in making, weponizing and launching them. The secret chemical weapon plant at al-Hakim had produced 500,000 liters of biological agents alone, which means there was at a minimum 20,000 liters floating around Iraq.
(gift to editor: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack )
In the run up to the second Gulf War, Scott Ridder campaigned relentlessly to halt the invasion. Being one of the UN inspectors, he knew what was found and still floating around. He knew the capabilities of Iraq. He knew the efforts to which Iraq went to keep their WMD operation active. He knew there were weapons, because he saw them.
There is no doubt that no conclusive WMD evidence has been found since the fall of Saddam. Now one person might be able to deduce that there were no WMDs. From there its only a small stretch to say there never were. But its a lie, Saddam had them, Saddam used them, the UN had found many of them. The weapons existed. The question to me, is not did they exist, but where are they now?
Let's play a little game I like to use as a debating tool. Its called "what is more likely", shall we? When the US began occupying Iraq, the push was on to find the weapons and neutralize them as soon as possible. Our ever lovable CBS Evening News was back on the scene. They were interviewing one of the top scientists from Saddam's WMD program. The Dr., a woman, stated all those weapons left over by the UN had been destroyed years ago. Perish the thought, they were destroyed so long ago, she couldn't even remember when.
What makes more sense:
A) Saddam, out of the goodness of his own heart, and his compassion for humanity, destroyed all those evil weapons, but didn't want to bother the UN, so he kept the destruction quiet, and continued to suffer under the crippling restrictions of UN sanctions.
or:
B) Saddam kept his weapons, moved them underground, continued to make them as best he could under UN sanctions. When it became obvious that the US was preparing for war a second time (it took about 14 months just to get the US Army in position for the invasion), he either hid them in Iraq, sent them to allies abroad, or both.
Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Howard Dean tend to agree with option A. My money is on option B.
Now about Islamic Fundamentalism.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Waking up in a new world: Part III
Editor's note: Notice that 'Part III' above? Good. Make sure you read parts I and II first. The writer is in a frenzy, churning out this magnum opus at a breathtaking pace. I'd like to take some credit for that as I frequently challenge his defense of the Iraq invasion, thus leading him to formalize his understanding of Middle East history and how he came to form his beliefs with regard to Iraq. Unfortunately I feel hoisted by my own petard, as I can no longer keep up with his Faulknerian output. Specifically, it takes some time, dear reader, to come up with relevant/interesting/funny/smart links to enhance these blog entries. Add to that the fact that I have a real job and can only work on this when I get a break, and you can see how three long posts in as many days (with another one at least on its way) can break the camel's back. I will leave unasked the question of how the writer finds the time to write all these posts. In any case, this excuse is meant to explain the lack of links and the more 'raw' look to this post. I realize now I could have probably found more than a few good links to use in the post below in the time it has taken to write this disclaimer. Oh well. If the writer promises to slow down after this extended essay, I promise to add in links later on.
Saddam after the First Gulf War.
When America finished winning one of the most incredible victories in history, forcing Saddam and Iraq to flee Kuwait in hours, everything was coming up roses for the US. Most of the troops were coming home alive and in one piece. The world-wide coalition held. President Bush was seen as a leader for a new world and a new age. Accolades were every where. Troops were marching in parades around the country. In Washington DC, injured troops were fighting the top brass for the right to march in uniform, rather than the traditional pajamas. America was on top, living large and in charge. The New World Order was in place and working. The rest of the world, led by America - always the reluctant hero - would see that no dictator could ever wage unjust war against a smaller nation again. Flowers, candy, fireworks, happy days were indeed here again.
But not in Iraq.
Iraq had accepted the terms for surrender. They included UN Resolution 687 which stated Saddam would prove to the world that all his weapons of mass destruction would be destroyed. The UN formed a group of inspectors, lead by the United States, to verify compliance. President George H. W. Bush encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, throw him out, and become a member of the international community. And they tried. 21 out of 23 Iraqi provinces took up arms and started open rebellion. Saddam's army was beaten, humiliated, depleted, but not finished. Saddam may have professed that he expected to win the war against the US, but his actions say otherwise. His most fearsome forces, the Republican Guard, had never participated in the battle. I guess he figured it the war actually did come, he would loose, and he would need those troops to maintain control of his state. They were ready for battle. And battle they did. Estimates range up to 300,000 dead Shiites and Kurds, who heeded the great President Bush's encouragement to rebel. Bush - henceforth known by me as 'Bush the coward' - did nothing.
Saddam unleashed his Guards, and they slaughtered the ill-equipped, under-trained, out-matched and out-numbered rebels. And his fury was great. His Air Force strafed villages, his troops slaughtered civilians, and once again, he used chemical and biological weapons that are now said to never have existed. Ask the few lucky Iraqis who managed to get far enough away to only be scared for life by their use. It happened. Pictures of the massacres flooded the air waves. Tales of torture, slaughter, death and destruction were every where. The world was out raged. And with good reason too. Apparently, what ever terms the 'world-wide coalition' offered Saddam, failed to include that he could not slaughter a significant portion of his countries population.
The world wide outrage was so great that Bush the Coward decreed that Saddam's air force could not fly. The Iraqis countered that government officials needed air travel to get around the country and see where all these outrageous lies were coming from. Bush backed off and said no flying in the northern part of Iraq (Kurds) or the southern part (Shiites), but helicopters could fly in those regions. Now granted, Bush the Coward is from the WWII era, pre-helicopter, but you would think being head of the CIA, he would have known about helicopter gunships. Apparently not. The carnage continued.
After a while, the wild fire of war died down a bit, but it did not go out. The world moved on to other stories, other issues, other parties, things to occupy our attention. But the killing never stopped. How many people reading this know that the United States has controlled the northern and southern no fly zones since the first Gulf War? We've had troops fighting in Iraq, every day, since 1991. And to their credit, they've never lost a single flight. Every one of those soldiers came home alive. Though I doubt Iraq could make the same claim.
With the official end of the first Gulf War came other messy situations for Iraq. I don't know much about Arab culture, having never experienced it. But from what I have read, the second most humiliating thing you can do to an Arab is to defeat him. The most embarrassing thing you can do is to rub his face in it. One of the terms of surrender Saddam agreed to was to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, before the entire world, that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, he would destroy all means of producing them, and the United Nations would have inspectors verifying it. If that wasn't enough, Saddam would be forced to put into place a system proving that nothing anyone in Iraq did could possibly be confused with the planning, creation, storage or use of WMDs. Them's some tough pills to swallow. Seen on world wide media, Saddam and Iraq would have to take orders from a relatively small UN team of weapons inspectors (I don't know, 15 maybe 20). It's really tough to march at the head of the Annual Gulf War Victory Parade in Baghdad when Scott Ridder's on the phone saying "Yo, we want to see your dairy plant in Najaf, and we want to see it now."
Suffice to say, there was no love lost between Saddam and the UN weapons inspectors. On the day they arrived for their first inspection, they were greeted by Iraqi soldiers shooting weapons over their heads. In order to maintain his illusion of superiority, Saddam had to both scoff at the UN, and abide by them. Let's just say cooperation between the two parties was questionable at best. As I remember they reached a couple of points where inspectors were pulled because of lack of cooperation. There were threats to pull the inspectors. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. And there was also the real destruction of real weapons of mass destruction that Saddam actually had, and had used.
Another part of the terms of surrender stated that until Saddam bent over and took it up the butt from the UN, on world wide TV, Iraq was restricted by severe import/export restrictions, more affectionately known as "sanctions." Not really much of a problem if you're a dictator leading 20% of the population that is brutally repressing the other 80%, but it did put a crimp in his style. Fortunately, the majority of the nations that are members of the United Nations, think and act like he does. Grease a few palms here, slide some oil credits there, things get done.
Now about those weapons.
Saddam after the First Gulf War.
When America finished winning one of the most incredible victories in history, forcing Saddam and Iraq to flee Kuwait in hours, everything was coming up roses for the US. Most of the troops were coming home alive and in one piece. The world-wide coalition held. President Bush was seen as a leader for a new world and a new age. Accolades were every where. Troops were marching in parades around the country. In Washington DC, injured troops were fighting the top brass for the right to march in uniform, rather than the traditional pajamas. America was on top, living large and in charge. The New World Order was in place and working. The rest of the world, led by America - always the reluctant hero - would see that no dictator could ever wage unjust war against a smaller nation again. Flowers, candy, fireworks, happy days were indeed here again.
But not in Iraq.
Iraq had accepted the terms for surrender. They included UN Resolution 687 which stated Saddam would prove to the world that all his weapons of mass destruction would be destroyed. The UN formed a group of inspectors, lead by the United States, to verify compliance. President George H. W. Bush encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, throw him out, and become a member of the international community. And they tried. 21 out of 23 Iraqi provinces took up arms and started open rebellion. Saddam's army was beaten, humiliated, depleted, but not finished. Saddam may have professed that he expected to win the war against the US, but his actions say otherwise. His most fearsome forces, the Republican Guard, had never participated in the battle. I guess he figured it the war actually did come, he would loose, and he would need those troops to maintain control of his state. They were ready for battle. And battle they did. Estimates range up to 300,000 dead Shiites and Kurds, who heeded the great President Bush's encouragement to rebel. Bush - henceforth known by me as 'Bush the coward' - did nothing.
Saddam unleashed his Guards, and they slaughtered the ill-equipped, under-trained, out-matched and out-numbered rebels. And his fury was great. His Air Force strafed villages, his troops slaughtered civilians, and once again, he used chemical and biological weapons that are now said to never have existed. Ask the few lucky Iraqis who managed to get far enough away to only be scared for life by their use. It happened. Pictures of the massacres flooded the air waves. Tales of torture, slaughter, death and destruction were every where. The world was out raged. And with good reason too. Apparently, what ever terms the 'world-wide coalition' offered Saddam, failed to include that he could not slaughter a significant portion of his countries population.
The world wide outrage was so great that Bush the Coward decreed that Saddam's air force could not fly. The Iraqis countered that government officials needed air travel to get around the country and see where all these outrageous lies were coming from. Bush backed off and said no flying in the northern part of Iraq (Kurds) or the southern part (Shiites), but helicopters could fly in those regions. Now granted, Bush the Coward is from the WWII era, pre-helicopter, but you would think being head of the CIA, he would have known about helicopter gunships. Apparently not. The carnage continued.
After a while, the wild fire of war died down a bit, but it did not go out. The world moved on to other stories, other issues, other parties, things to occupy our attention. But the killing never stopped. How many people reading this know that the United States has controlled the northern and southern no fly zones since the first Gulf War? We've had troops fighting in Iraq, every day, since 1991. And to their credit, they've never lost a single flight. Every one of those soldiers came home alive. Though I doubt Iraq could make the same claim.
With the official end of the first Gulf War came other messy situations for Iraq. I don't know much about Arab culture, having never experienced it. But from what I have read, the second most humiliating thing you can do to an Arab is to defeat him. The most embarrassing thing you can do is to rub his face in it. One of the terms of surrender Saddam agreed to was to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, before the entire world, that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, he would destroy all means of producing them, and the United Nations would have inspectors verifying it. If that wasn't enough, Saddam would be forced to put into place a system proving that nothing anyone in Iraq did could possibly be confused with the planning, creation, storage or use of WMDs. Them's some tough pills to swallow. Seen on world wide media, Saddam and Iraq would have to take orders from a relatively small UN team of weapons inspectors (I don't know, 15 maybe 20). It's really tough to march at the head of the Annual Gulf War Victory Parade in Baghdad when Scott Ridder's on the phone saying "Yo, we want to see your dairy plant in Najaf, and we want to see it now."
Suffice to say, there was no love lost between Saddam and the UN weapons inspectors. On the day they arrived for their first inspection, they were greeted by Iraqi soldiers shooting weapons over their heads. In order to maintain his illusion of superiority, Saddam had to both scoff at the UN, and abide by them. Let's just say cooperation between the two parties was questionable at best. As I remember they reached a couple of points where inspectors were pulled because of lack of cooperation. There were threats to pull the inspectors. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. And there was also the real destruction of real weapons of mass destruction that Saddam actually had, and had used.
Another part of the terms of surrender stated that until Saddam bent over and took it up the butt from the UN, on world wide TV, Iraq was restricted by severe import/export restrictions, more affectionately known as "sanctions." Not really much of a problem if you're a dictator leading 20% of the population that is brutally repressing the other 80%, but it did put a crimp in his style. Fortunately, the majority of the nations that are members of the United Nations, think and act like he does. Grease a few palms here, slide some oil credits there, things get done.
Now about those weapons.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)