This was interesting, and I thought of Cuba. Iraq could be just perpetually isolated just like Cuba is and how our foreign policy is towards them. While it may not be the best solution, it was a relatively damage free policy in that war would be avoided and realistically it was a moderately working solution.
It would never have reflected a Cuban scenario. Cuba is an isolated island without borders. Iraq shared borders with nervous neighbors. As late as 2002, Hussein flew jets over Saudi and Jordanian airspace to flirt with defying UN rules and antagonizing U.S. response. It's incidences like this over twelve years that had us escallating troops in Saudi Arabia and further angering the fundamentalists. We could wait Cuba out until the end of time. It would not have angered a religious region where terrorism is common place. With 9/11 reminding us of our continued "offenses" in the Middle East, we could not afford to keep with the status quo.
The threat was not "Saddam Hussein." The threat was what resulted from this UN containment mission and what we had to do to keep addressing his continued defiance. It's this that facilitated sympathy for groups like Al-Queda who wanted to "defend the Muslim people." Our base in Saudi Arabia was fuel to the fire. Our bombing campaigns over Iraqi cities was fuel to the fire. To extinguish the fire, we had to take away the fuel. Of course, our business deals with the House of Saud is also fuel as is our friendship with Israel, but we can only rid ourselves of what we aren't stuck with. We weren't stuck with Hussein.
Also, I don't think Saddam was that foolish in that he would jeopardize his rule. He probably wanted to push the envelope, but I don't think he was a big threat. I think some military analyst said that 'Saddam would step out of his box, then we'd bomb him and he would become quiet again. Then after a period of time he would step out of the box again and we'd bomb him again and he'd become quiet again and this pattern would continue on and on.' I think Saddam was a nuisance, not a threat.
Exactly. And we raised the number of troops in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait every single time he rushed troops to the border, flew jets over no-fly zones, or made threats. And every single time we had to react, we ignited further hatred from those who celebrated murdered Americans on 9/11. This containment mission facilitated the threat. Al-Queda came out of the Gulf War - the precise moment we opened a base in Saudi Arabia and began baby sitting Arabs.
That's not altogether too correct. Don't forget the US has been involved in Mideast policy at times to suit our interests. We overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah. The Shah was pretty autocratic and brutal and this lead to the revolution that installed the government we see today in Iran. And we did provide necessary military support to Israel in the form of aircraft which were critical to its defense and offense. Not that I'm saying that that's bad, Israel is a good country by principles, but we do have responsibility in the Mideast. And also the first Gulf War, which was primarily motivated to protect our oil allies. We also did support Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war but we didn't intervene, so we have been involved in policy in the Mideast when it counterbalances certain countries and suits our country's needs at times.
Sure. But we did nothing as compared to the Soviets and the European powers that created these powder kegs in the region. The little that we did mostly involved dealing with Muslim leaders. They acted and they are responsible. None of this would be of such focus had Sayyid Qutb chose another to be "evil" in the 1950s. This was declared long before our time with the Shah, long before the Iran/Iraq War, and long before a base in Saudi Arabia. It was declared long before we provided arms to Israel (1967 on). What the Middle East is today is largely of European and Arab origin. We merely came along and dealt with what was provided. Our one true "sin" was placing the Shah back in power. But 31 years later, they still can't be responsible for their own actions and direction?
Negative attitudes towards the U.S. by Middle Easterners largely reflects back to the imperialism and colonialism period. During colonialism, Europeans carved out the Middle East and made Frankenstein's Monster states full of rival tribes and friction. After World War I, Arabs viewed Western Europe as breaking promises for their sweat and blood in regards to the Levant and independence in other places. By World War II, Arabs chose to ally with the Nazis if only to defy Western Europe because of mistrust. In the beginning of the Cold War, Arabs chose the Soviet Union over the U.S. because we represented the Western world. It was the Soviets that fed munitions to Israel before they switched over to provide for the Arabs, in which France became Israel's chief weapon's supplier. It was the U.S. that Turks and Iranians asked for help in order to force the Russians out of Turkey and Iran right after World War II because they wouldn't leave occupation. (the beginnings of the Cold War). By the end of the 1950s, Sayyid Qutb wrote his very influential book about the evils of American culture and how we represent all that offends Allah. This, despite the fact, that we didn't get involved with Israel as weapon's supplier until 1967 when we safe guarded Muslims in Egypt and ordered Israel, France, and Britian to back off of and go home. Eisenhower noted a "campaign of hatred against us not by the governments but by the people" of the Arab world in the wake of Sayyid Qutbs writings. At the moment we ended the Suez War (1967), the Arabs turned to the U.S. for assistance and support in the wake of Soviet failure to support properly. Had we not won the influence, hundreds of millions of Muslims in the Middle East would have shared the same oppressive and brutal fate as the Soviet Caucusus. It was the U.S. that facilitated a Muslim victory against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was the U.S. that saved Muslims in Bosnia. It was the U.S. that saved Muslims in Kuwait. All of this in the midst of Muslims becoming more and more disenfranchised with their leaders, because they could not provide the ulluma that had been promised for centuries. It took a Western power to smack down Saddam Hussein. And later it took the same Western power to provide Arabs with the first opportunity for democracy thay have ever had. All of their uprisings, coups, and rebellions against European colonial powers and declarations for freedom and democracy came down to an outsider having to provide it in 2003. There is a lot of shame and humiliation in the Arab culture and little of it deserves the U.S. as culprit.
Along the way, there was the Shah, the Iran-Iraq War, and business deals with oil. In all instances, the U.S. dealt with Muslims. We were not a colonial power - Iran the exception. We did not inject Western culture - Iran the exception. We did not prescribe culture. We did not kill democracy (Iran the exception). We did not strip freedoms - forced it in Iran. We did not instruct Hussein to invade Iran. We did not topple Arab governments to instill a friendly one for our oil deals. Muslims did all of this to themselves. With or without our existence, the Middle East would be what it is because culture is fate. But without us, it would be far worse off. By the way, Iran isn't an Arab state. It's not even Sunni, which is the source of all the rage.
So no, I don't think I'm incorrect. We are a scapegoat for people who lack the will and the religious bravery to defy their own lords. And their lords are all too happy to provide us as that convenient diversion. Iran defied the Shah and raised up Khomeini. Thirt-one years later, they still can't figure out their direction. When looking to validate the U.S. in their eyes as a source for why they [the Arab world] are such huge failures, we should keep things in perspective. It's like stating that your neighbor was just fine until you came along and placed a pebble in his front yard. Arabs have been performing cultural suicide for centuries (around the year 1000 some argue, but largely at the end of the 16th century - before Western "Imperialism").
What I'm saying is that I don't think it was worth the end result of war to go into Iraq. If people were dieing from starvation, the sanctions could be modified, or food aid could be flown in. I know Saddam was scamming the Oil for Food program, but we could have found a different solution. I'm siding with Powell, when he said "You break it, you own it" and that he was reluctant to go into Iraq versus the hawks in the administration.
For twelve years they "could" have done something but the UN did nothing. Everytime we bombed them, the UN turned away because we were defending their mandates. I don't believe Powell was correct at all. He was a dinosaur that still wanted to see things through Cold War eyes. Iraq was already broke. Our role was to keep it on life support while pretending that we had morals. In the mean time, it was fuel to the Arab fire. It was a source of hatred and rage. It was a recruitment tool. 9/11 was only a matter of time. What occurred after 2003 was largely between the Muslims. Something that was denied them through European colonialism, Cold War dictators, and then a containment mission. It's the containment mission that made us responsible for Iraqis. And Bin Laden knew he could use it.
