My Position on Operation Iraqi Freedom - Where I'm Coming From and How I Got Here

I'm not arguing against the war itself. It's started. . . it's probably 2/3 of the way done. Nothing to argue about there.

My argument is against the decisions that were made to lead us into this war, and the dubious justifications that were given to the American people and the rest of the world. I can't do anything about this war, but I'd like to see us not stumble into a similar situation again.

Pro-war folks keep touting the "facts" that condemn Saddam Hussein and justify this war. I keep hearing that, if I look at all the facts, then I would think differently.

As a matter of fact, I have looked at the facts. Looked at a lot of pseudo-factual information too. A lot of heresay, and a lot of speculation. . . and an awful lot of plain, old BS. For every conservative publication that prints "damning evidence" against Hussein, there's a liberal publication that prints contradictory arguments.

Which one to believe?

I believe neither, explicitly. I believe only what history has shown. I believe only the indisputable events, and make my own interpretation based on the social, military, and political factors at hand.

A little historical perspective to start . . .

In 1991, we did not go to war with Iraq because Hussein gassed the Kurds. That happened in 1988, two years before Kuwait, and we were supporting him then against our common enemy, Iran. Our government bent over backwards to maintain "friendly" relations with Hussein, despite the continued warnings of the CIA and other intelligence sources that to continue military and financial support of Hussein (described, accurately, as a madman) was a mistake.

Sure, the footage made for great propaganda. I know that when I saw that dead baby in her daddy's dead arms, tears came to my eyes and I wanted to strangle Hussein with my own hands. I wanted to tear out his throat with my teeth, and spit the bloody mess in his face. My own daughter was about that same age at the time.

Powerful stuff. But even when we saw it on TV, that footage was already two years old. Of course, we weren't told that. . . it was presented like fresh coverage. As in every war, we had to vilify and dehumanize the enemy. It's a prime objective of homefront psy-ops. . . AKA Propaganda.

But the fact of history is, at the time we, as a nation, barely even criticised Saddam Hussein for those actions against the Kurds. A resolution condemning the actions and urging sanctions was vetoed by President Bush (elder).

In 1991, he'd been building and using chemical weapons for over 10 years. We even provided technology and materials to assist him, because he was fighting our other enemy, Iran. We didn't say much of anything about his use of gas and chemicals against the Iranians either, although the use of such weapons is explicitly forbidden in the Geneva Protocols. (Condemnation of Iraq's possession and use of those weapons doesn't even appear in UN Resolutions until April, 1991. . . after the Gulf War. )

In 1991, we did not go to war with Iraq because they were actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program (although I believe that had more to do with it than we were told). Rumors came out, were published, but the nascient program died under the bombs of British, French, and American warplanes.

But In 1990, Saddam Hussein crossed the line. By attacking his former ally, Kuwait, he created an immediate threat to a vital link to the American economy, and posed a potential threat to our other "allies" in the region.

An aside - A brief, but minor, fuss was made of the fact that in July of 1990, our Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie pretty much told Hussein that the US wouldn't do anything to damage our relationship with Iraq. To most people, that indicated a green light to invade Kuwait. Whether Glaspie was just a fool, or whether she was trying to set Saddam up for a fall is anybody's guess. There probably aren't 50 people in the world who will ever know the truth of that one. It's a curious twist, though, and shouldn't be ignored. This is how diplomacy works, and a prime reason why I don't trust it.

The US economy IS a vital security interest for this country, and justifiably so. The loss of Kuwait as a "friendly" business environment would have been devastating. (Iran's threat to Kuwait was one of the reasons we supported Iraq in their war against Iran. )As such, we were pretty well justified in taking it to Saddam's ass. Despite some protest, there was general global support. When our troops went into battle, there was a true coalition of forces allied with them, including (and I think this is an extraordinarily important point) troops from several Middle Eastern countries.

So in 1991, we went to war with Iraq to defend our economic interests. Nothing more or less, despite the lovely diplomatic language and propagandistic spin that was put on it. It was, truly, a war for oil. That's not a necessarily bad thing. I certainly profit as much from that defense of our economy as any other American. We need only look at Russia for an example of what happens to a Superpower when the economy fails. We need to defend our economic interests, even at the cost of war.

At the end of that war, Saddam Hussein's military was essentially in shambles. His mobile armor had been decimated, his air force was completely wiped out, and his capability for waging offensive war was, effectively, gone. Sanctions from the US and UN essentially prohibited Hussein from ever building another army capable of offensive actions. This included the destruction and/or surrender of any weapons of mass destruction, and the cessation of any efforts to acquire or develop more.

We missed a boat here.

The decision was made, before that war began, to simply push Hussein out of Kuwait and to "defang the tiger". There was no plan to advance into Iraq and topple Hussein's regime at the time, due primarily to the desire to maintain the international coalition. The Arab nations would never have agreed to American and British occupation of a Muslim nation.

Subversive efforts to raise the Iraqi people against Hussein sorely underestimated the power that this "defanged tiger" still possessed. The southern Shi'ites were slaughtered when they tried to rebel against Hussein, as were the northern Kurds, in large part because they expected support from the American instigators. Echoes of the Bay of Pigs (does anybody here remember Cuba?) incident died down quickly, though. The majority of the American people are not great students of history, and are easily distracted.

So what is the point, so far, of this history "lesson"? I certainly haven't made a case against war, have I? But there is a lot of relevance in what I've just written.

Let me highlight a few points before moving on:

• We have known Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator for a very long time. . at least since the early 1980s. His terror tactics against his enemies are well-documented as far back as 1968, yet we chose to support him through the 1980s to ensure his victory against Iran.
• Our support of Iraq allowed us to "overlook" his transgressions, including clear violations of the Geneva Protocol.
• Arguably Hussein's most vile atrocity was the alleged use of nerve gas and chemical agents on the Kurds amid other accusations of ethnic cleansing. Yet our governent continued to provide support to him and his military programs.
• The 1991 Gulf War was fought to preserve a supply of oil, in an effort to protect economic stability. Despite certain apologists in the political arena, there was little doubt or subterfuge about it.
• The 1991 Gulf War was supported by a true international coalition, including Arab states.

Now let's move along. GO TO PAGE 2