Iraq - Still, In Fact, Going On

Invading Kuwait wasn't such a bad idea. Saddam thought he had gotten approval from the US and had no reason to think he would be attacked. As the US ambassador April Glaspie said to him directly prior to the invasion in an effusive and obsequious meeting:

...I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

...Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions...

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/glaspie.html

Click to expand...

The situation was summarised by the NY review of books:

It seems far more likely that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait, but also from the success of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1990/11/22/iraqs-chemical-warfare/

Click to expand...

And there is a cornucopia of other evidence to suggest that Saddam had every reason to believe that the invasion of Kuwait would be ignored by his friends in Washington.

Regardless of the usefulness of your example though - having no conflicting advice may make for bad decisions, it does not ensure irrationality.

droid said:

Invading Kuwait wasn't such a bad idea. Saddam thought he had gotten approval from the US and had no reason to think he would be attacked.

Regardless of the usefulness of your example though - having no conflicting advice may make for bad decisions, it does not ensure irrationality.

Click to expand...

To quote Patrick Cockburn

"The April Glaspie cable reveals little that was not known before. She did not tell Saddam not to invade Kuwait because neither she nor anybody else thought he would be stupid enough to do so."

I was using "rational actor" in the same way it's used in economics or international relations; making decisions that maximise your self interest. So in that sense I'd categorise Sadam's policy as irrational; it couldn't be forecast based on what would best benefit him, his regime or Iraq.

hmm.. I think Glaspie's language is crystal clear actually, its about as close to explicit as you can get in diplomatic terms - and it is far from the only evidence of implicit approval, or at the very least lack of disapproval from Washington (functionally the same thing).

I was using "rational actor" in the same way it's used in economics or international relations; making decisions that maximise your self interest. So in that sense I'd categorise Sadam's policy as irrational; it couldn't be forecast based on what would best benefit him, his regime or Iraq.

Click to expand...

Not really buying this TBH. Saddam may have been a murderous thug, but the fact that he retained power for over 25 years suggests that he had ample capability to influence events to best serve his self interest. Hitler would be the classic example of your theory - the declaration of war on the US after Pearl Harbour being the prime example - leagues away from the decision to invade Kuwait.

sadmanbarty said:

So in that sense I'd categorise Sadam's policy as irrational; it couldn't be forecast based on what would best benefit him, his regime or Iraq.

Click to expand...

droid said:

Not really buying this TBH. Saddam may have been a murderous thug, but the fact that he retained power for over 25 years suggests that he had ample capability to influence events to best serve his self interest.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant to write "Sadam's foreign policy". Domestically he was very astute.

The attempt to rationalise the Saddam regime internally - particularly in the late 80s, the 90s and early 00s, and particularly from those on the Left - is incredible, and really depressing. It was a uniquely vicious dictatorship during those years, while also being uniquely dangerous, irrational and uncontained. The disaster of post-intervention Iraq has corrupted the anti-war Left to the point where they are now attempting to diminish the nature of the regime, as it existed at that point. I don't feel like I need to go into the details, but can do if needed. But it's only part of the many points being made in, say, 2002.

Is this a general point or is it directed at me?

It was a uniquely vicious dictatorship during those years, while also being uniquely dangerous, irrational and uncontained.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Do you know anything about Latin America? Indonesia? There was little unique about Saddam, and he was no more or less rational than many regional and global actors, the US & Israel included.

The disaster of post-intervention Iraq has corrupted the anti-war Left to the point where they are now attempting to diminish the nature of the regime, as it existed at that point. I don't feel like I need to go into the details, but can do if needed. But it's only part of the many points being made in, say, 2002

Click to expand...

Where is the basis for this hysterical hyperbole?

It is entirely possible to recognise the brutality of Saddam whilst opposing a dangerous, illegal and brutal war to depose him. Unlike Saddam however, the thuggish architects behind the Iraq war and a panoply of other vicious conflicts still roam freely, supported by a chorus of unrepentant useful idiots who continue to preach their bloody gospel.

The fantasy of the unhinged despot, uniquely evil, corpses flying from his sleeves as he flails his arms wildly... its a cartoon, a transparent propaganda device which ignores context and structural causes. The reality is usually far more banal.

Ironic that we do have a explicit example of irrationality here though. The idea that it's enemies should view the US as crazed and unpredictable, “irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked.” That “should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries,”... “It hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed”... according to US Strategic Command in 1995. Nixon's madman theory, arguably a central theme running through US policy since Vietnam, and self evident in the response to 911.

You seriously think that the nature of Saddam's regime can be reduced to "context and structural causes" and was "banal"?

Wow.

The basis for my hysterical hyperbole is right there.

droid said:

There was little unique about Saddam, and he was no more or less rational than many regional and global actors, the US & Israel included.

Click to expand...

Here's Stephen M. Waltz summation of what a post- Cold War America, foreign policy might have looked like with realist presidents (which would presumably make them rational actors).

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/08...oked-like-iraq-syria-iran-obama-bush-clinton/

All I would say is that the US and Israel are in such powerful positions that it's not disastrous for their interests to make mistakes, which you couldn't say for most countries in the world, including Iraq. US and Israeli "irrational" behaviour is born out of (or at least enabled by) hubris, whereas in Iraq irrational behaviour was a result of Sadam's miscalculation and a political class scared to question him.

craner said:

You seriously think that the nature of Saddam's regime can be reduced to "context and structural causes" and was "banal"?

Wow.

Click to expand...

lol. No, I said that the stereotype of the crazed dictator ignores them. Its right there in black and white.

And please, find one scintilla of evidence to support your assertion that I have 'diminished the nature of the regime' considering I have repeatedly pointed out how murderous Saddam was and even suggested to Barty that his figures for deaths in the Iran war and internal repressions are far too low.

The reality is that the mechanics of most atrocities, that some of the worst crimes and their perpetrators are in fact quite 'banal'. Look at MacNamara.

Dont make me repeat the cliche.

sadmanbarty said:

Domestically he was very astute.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the impression I'd got of Saddam was that, as dictators go, he knew exactly what he was doing and was nobody's fool. Ollie C - wouldn't you agree that acknowledging this doesn't make him any less morally culpable for his brutality (which droid isn't actually quibbling with), in fact if anything makes him more culpable than a cartoon madman constantly committing atrocities on a whim while laughing uncontrollably because, well, he's mad?

And it's surely obvious that he wasn't the only bloodthirsty dictator in the world during his time in power - whether he or not he was the worst I wouldn't really like to say, but I bet there were several in Africa alone who'd give him a run for his money.

Well, where I do agree with Droid is that to reduce the nature of the regime to one man is simplistic. Where I disagree is here: the Iraqi Ba'ath regime, shaped by Saddam was an especially sadistic and mad one, even compared to, say, the Latin American dictatorships. You could point to his son Uday's incredible record of rape, murder and state plunder (this was in the 90s crime family phase) but even that wouldn't touch the Base. It was a totalitarian regime based on power and violence with no ideology left to speak of once Saddam took power. It was a regime that would make children into informers on their parents, and then if their parents were 'proved' to be 'traiters' to Saddam, would be raped and killed on video, which would be sent to the parents, to watch, before they were killed.

The whole population was wrapped up in a reign of extreme terror, state terror with a solid apparatus that would make the African dictatorships look random and chaotic. The regime, with its various agencies, and terrified citizens, were all caught in this.

There are many more things to say, too.

Compare it to the Syrian Ba'athists, who were cruel and brutal, and to an extent totalitarian, but in comparison, strategically rational, internally and externally (certainly under Hafez).

Just the stuff we know about the Iraqi Ba'athists in those decades is terrifying enough, but I suspect there's a lot more we'll never know.

This is not a case of, "yeah, I know Saddam was a bad man, but..."

It's worth watching the Saddam purge of 1979, filmed for private record, to see something historically unique unfolding. It's the most chilling footage you will ever watch. Calculated, but not rational. As a diagnosed psychopath, I can recognise the symptoms.

You need to read more about South America in the late 70's/80's. Thousands killed in death squad massacres. Organised mass murder targeted at union members & leftists. Bodies left hanging from lamposts, in town squares, piled up outside churches. Murdered families set up as tableau - heads on plates, hands nailed to tables - as warning to dissidents.

craner said:

This is not a case of, "yeah, I know Saddam was a bad man, but..."

Click to expand...

This was never said. Your point is a hastily constructed straw man, badly argued.

All I said was that he was rational. Ted Bundy was rational.

At ease, Droid, I have read about those regimes, maybe not the same books as you, but enough to not diminish their crimes or nature. But I still see Ba'athist Iraq as being on a different scale.

No, I wasn't putting those words in your mouth, but that shit is definitely happening on the Left now, and I can't not point out its idiocy.

'The Condor Years' by John Dinges is one of the best, if I am not wrong, Droid.