The Iran crisis: by removing Saddam, did US shoot themselves in the foot?

I can't help thinking that one of the factors that was helping to contain the growing Iran's dominance in the region was Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I know it was not of great strategic importance after the first Gulf War, and still -- there was some kind of check and balance to Iran.

Was it not a better idea to build a relationship with Saddam such that he would counter Iran's strategic dominance? We could have armed and trained his army to do the fighting.

I know it's a moot point.

That is a good point. . . we all know that Saddam was not friend of Iran. Iran until the taking of Iraq was actually lying low and not as vocal as it is right now.

One of the reasons that is making Iran so fearless is that they blame US for a war wage at Iraq for oil.

So they seem themselves in the right to protect their natural resources against the West and allies.

Yes Iran if not deal with very soon it will become another untouchable unwanted nuclear power like China and NK.

I said bomb their nuclear plants and let them start all over from scratch.

You could have saved America $200 to $400 billion and 2,500 - 3,000 GI's KIA. Maybe 15,000 WIA maimed for life. Not to mention collateral damage of 30,000-100,000 Iraqis killed. Q. Do we count “collateral damage?” Plus the destruction of 75% of Iraq's infrastructure. WOW!

But, you would not have been 'spreading democracy' as our Gifted Leader says, nor would you have made America safer and more secure and you sure as hell would not have helped Geo W win the 2002, the 2004 and maybe with his luck, the 2006 elections! His L E G A C Y rides on the Nov. 7 outcome. That’s something to “shoot” for!

And there you have the real utility of the Nine Eleven Event. A Republican Electoral Grand Slam!



[edit on 4/28/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Aelita
I can't help thinking that one of the factors that was helping to contain the growing Iran's dominance in the region was Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I know it was not of great strategic importance after the first Gulf War, and still -- there was some kind of check and balance to Iran.

Was it not a better idea to build a relationship with Saddam such that he would counter Iran's strategic dominance? We could have armed and trained his army to do the fighting.

I know it's a moot point.

Have you ever read about how Saddam and His sons and brothers treated the Iraqi people? Soccer players were killed or tortured for playing bad for cryin out loud. I think it was Uday or Quay(whatever his name is) once killed a man for flirting with a women he wanted to be for himself. He was fully trained in torture before he was ten years old. And whether it was for oil or not, I'm glad the men are dead(if they truly were this way). now hopefully the destruction ends soon and Iraq can be peaceful. I'm not religious so but i respect buddhism(which is not a religion, but a way of life), nothing but truly kind people who respect all life. unlike all religions which consist of people who torture other people, and kill people(all religions). the only people who've never had a war are the buddhists. if u take their land, they won't fight for it. they don't care about land. and they won't take land. and they won't kill a spider. kinda makes you wonder howcome more people ain't buddhists, or even semi-buddhists? i'll never be a buddhist because im not pure and i use technology and such. but ill always be more buddhist than most people because they have the right way of life. and to think the taliban blew up a buddhist structure shows they are evil. such nice people... who'd ever thought such wonderful people would have to believe in Allah to not die. If this Allah guy is real, he sure has an ego and is self-centered, for we all just need to love him and listen to him don't we? think buddhists are going to hell because they don't believe Jesus or Allah? i doubt it.....

Well as far arming either side I would definatly not go that far, thats not a policy that has worked very well for us in the past. Neither Iran or Iraq is a friend of the US. I think a more exceptal policy would have been to basically place equal sanctions on both sides, effectivly starving them both and at the same time doing nothing to stop either one from fighting the other. Starve them and let them duke it out leaving the "victor" so weak that they are basically no threat.

Originally posted by Aelita
I can't help thinking that one of the factors that was helping to contain the growing Iran's dominance in the region was Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I know it was not of great strategic importance after the first Gulf War, and still -- there was some kind of check and balance to Iran.

Was it not a better idea to build a relationship with Saddam such that he would counter Iran's strategic dominance? We could have armed and trained his army to do the fighting.

I know it's a moot point.

I think your point was already made in Washington and accepted in the 1980s under Regan. It came back to bite you in the back and would have do so again had you armed him (Saddam was not a very “stable” man, and his sons were a little worse).

Let Iraq/Iran be - Iraqi/Irani innocents suffered
Arm Iran/Iraq - Years later, Iran/Iraq bites back
Sanction Iraq & Iran - Leaders don't give two hoots, and innocents again suffer
Bomb the crap outta them (or their nuclear plants ) - Innocents suffer
Send in soldiers - World-wide outcry: Soldier's family mad, innocent's family mad, everyone mad.


Why does the US even bother? Everytime they interfered, all hell broke loose. Now they cannot afford not to interfere.

I think the U.S. shot themselves in the foot when they started implementing foreign policy created by ideologues rather than realists.

The Neocons are drinking the kool-aid, and believe what they spout about the need to export democracy.

In the old days, we would have installed or supported a friendly dictator to take care of American interests. People like the Shah, or, hey, even Saddam. As ignoble as this may seem, it was grounded in reality and it sometimes worked better than the alternative. I am not saying this would have been the case with every president, but it certainly was with Reagan and Bush Sr.

Yet in America's most vulnerable-appearing time, after 9/11, we change this strategy and try to export democracy rather than security. This may be noble, but it's not what worked for us in the past. In return, we get an Iraq that is worse than Yugoslavia after Tito.

This isn't to make a moral argument one way or the other. Not being an Iraqi who lived under Saddam, I can't say which they would prefer- Saddam or the chaos they have today. History should have pointed out, though, as the CIA tried to do, the dangers to Iraq, the region, and ultimately America, of toppling Saddam in Iraq.

It forecast that in a deeply divided Iraqi society, with Sunnis resentful over the loss of their dominant position and Shiites seeking power commensurate with their majority status, there was a significant chance that the groups would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it. And it anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including by guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam.

In addition, the intelligence community offered its assessment of the likely regional repercussions of ousting Saddam. It argued that any value Iraq might have as a democratic exemplar would be minimal and would depend on the stability of a new Iraqi government and the extent to which democracy in Iraq was seen as developing from within rather than being imposed by an outside power. More likely, war and occupation would boost political Islam and increase sympathy for terrorists' objectives -- and Iraq would become a magnet for extremists from elsewhere in the Middle East.

Yet because we had an administration that was much more idealistic than either say, Kennedy, or Reagan, replacing Saddam with a strongman is now going to look very strange. That door has been more or less closed as a publically acceptable option. Maybe this is a good thing (Mossadegh's Iran may have solved a lot of our Middle East problems- we'll never know now...), but maybe not, as the following excerpt suggests:

Rapid democratization, meanwhile, could be positively harmful in Iraq. In a Maoist people's war, empowering the population via the ballot box undermines the insurgents' case that the regime is illegitimate and facilitates nonviolent resolution of the inequalities that fuel the conflict. In a communal civil war [like Iraq], however, rapid democratization can further polarize already antagonistic sectarian groups. In an immature polity with little history of compromise, demonizing traditional enemies is an easy -- and dangerous -- way to mobilize support from frightened voters. And as the political scientists Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder have shown, although mature democracies rarely go to war with other democracies, emerging democracies are unusually bellicose. Political reform is critical to resolving communal wars, but only if it comes at the right time, after some sort of stable communal compromise has begun to take root.

Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon by Stephen Biddle, in Foreign Affairs.

I think at the end of the day you have to consider which countries are amendable to democracy and which are not. Iran for example most certainly seems to be. They are a unified people (compared to Iraq) with strong democratic traditions. In Iraq, however, this is not the case. The Iraqis never had a national domestic democratic movement of any size or popularity. When the British left Mesopotamia, it was because Iraq was devolving into secular conflict, not because they were overthrown by a united Iraqi movement, despite what the British said at the time.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by koji_K]

To me it looks more like a Shot somewhere in the Head area.

Especially for the Bush administration.

You know - if you play with Fire...

We shot ourselves right in the foot, exactly like the dew moss fed who did the same while demonstrating "fire arms safety" in school.



As was said above, dew moss feds.


Hmm, maybe if I shoot my self in the other foot...yeah.

posted by Aelita: “I think one of the factors helping to contain Iran's dominance in the region was Saddam's Iraq . . it was not of great strategic importance after the first Gulf War, still - there was some check and balance to Iran. Was a better idea to build a relationship with Saddam to counter Iran's strategic dominance? We could have armed and trained his army to do the fighting. I know it's a moot point. [Edited by Don W]

Q. Why do Americans always talk of “ . . armed and trained his army to do the fighting . . ?“ is it true America is pre-disposed to war? Is that our mantra?

Maybe. Consider: The Rev. War, 1775; War of 1812; Mexican War of 1846; Civil War of 1861; Spanish War of 1898; First World War of 1917; Second World War of 1941; Korean War of 1950; Vietnam War of 1964; Granada, Panama, Libya, of the 1980s; 1st Gulf War of 1991; Bosnia and Serbia War of 1990s; and the 2nd Gulf War of 2001; and now a threat of an Iran War in the 2006 time frame. I left out America’s numerous “Interventions” in Latin America from 1830 onward; the US troops that fought the Reds in Russia in 1919-20; the gunboat USS Penay on China’s Yangtze River, 1930s; and the endless US invasions of Haiti. Does every generation of Americans have the “right” to its own war?

History 101. Germany began to compete with France and the UK in the Middle East in the late 1890s. Battleships were the super weapons of the day. Propulsion was changing from coal to oil. The Middle East was awash in oil. Germany built the Berlin to Baghdad Railroad to compete with Agatha Christie’s favorite, the French Paris to Istanbul Orient Express train. Persia also had oil. Germany promised to extend the railroad from Baghdad to Tehran. Then World War One intervened. Germany was defeated. The English and French took all of Germany’s African colonies and its other interests outside Germany proper. Baghdad fell under the “sphere of influence” of Great Britain. As did Persia. But Persia was not part of the defeated Ottoman Empire as had been Baghdad and Iraq. Persia was one of the oldest - if not the oldest - continuously free or politically coherent countries on the planet. Certainly after the time of Alexander the Great. You know the consequences of the misplaced trust the Allies put in Germany’s Weimar Republic, and how its failure “birthed” the great tragedy of Germany and the world, Adolph Hitler. The Shah of Persia, not unlike many others in the region, became greatly enamored with the Nazi movement. In fact, he was so much impressed with Herr Hitler that he renamed Persia to be known as Iran. “Iran” is the anglicized version of the German word for Aryan. The super race. After the demise of Nazism in Germany in 1945, the Iranians managed to peacefully de-throne the discredited and pro-Nazi shah. In 1950, the first free election ever was held in Iran. The people voted for a socialist regime. The Prime Minister was a PhD named Mohammad Mossadegh. In 1953, he proposed to nationalize the Iranian oil fields which at that time the British held the concession - note that word, “concession.” After War 2, Britain was broke. The British asked the US for help to preserve its favored position in Iran. Pres. Truman refused. Britain asked again after the 1952 election, Pres. Eisenhower agreed. The CIA manipulated the overthrow of Mossadegh and re-installed the former shah’s son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Autocracy was alive and well, to the anguish of Iranians but thanks to America! In 1979, the Shah was suffering from cancer. Other Muslim countries would not allow him in for treatment. The US allowed him here, which infuriated the Iranians who had suffered much under his harsh and brutal rule. Nearly 3 decades which was sustained and implemented by a dastardly secret police as bad as they come, known by its acronym, SAVAK. The Iranians joyfully called back its spiritual leader from exile in Paris, Ayatollah Kohmeni. Iranians found out too late, the Ayatollah had his own agenda. Then followed the 444 days of our hostages in Tehran, and the ultimate triumph of the Islamic State in Iran. END of H101.

Which brings us to today. Anyone in Iran who lived through the CIA intervention of 1953 has good cause to hate the American government. But Iranians do not hate Americans. It is our government which has abused them. Iranians know that, but Americans don’t always know the distinction.

I have said all that to say this. Geo W Bush has manufactured Iran into another security issue in yet another electoral ploy. The Nine Eleven Event saved his presidency in 2002, it saved him again in 2004, but Iraq is wearing thin, becoming long in the tooth, as they say. North Korea, although a more immediate threat to the world, is too far from W-DC for Americans to know or care much about.

Ooops! Too many words. Uh, characters.


[edit on 4/30/2006 by donwhite]

Which brings us to today. Anyone in Iran who lived through the CIA intervention of 1953 has good cause to hate the American government. But Iranians do not hate Americans. It is our government which has abused them. Iranians know that, but Americans don’t always know the distinction.

I have said all that to say this. Geo W Bush has manufactured Iran into another security issue in yet another electoral ploy. The Nine Eleven Event saved his presidency in 2002, it saved him again in 2004, but Iraq is wearing thin, becoming long in the tooth, as they say. North Korea, although a more immediate threat to the world, is too far from W-DC for Americans to know or care much about.

But not so Tehran. Geo W - serendipity again - has a partner made in Heaven, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran has a parliamentary system of governance. The president is head of state, which is almost an honorary post. The office has no real power. In this Islamic Republic, the real power is in the hands of the Ayatollah.

Americans seem unwilling to distinguish between presidents and prime ministers. That lazy streak makes it possible for people like Geo W to deceive and manipulate the American voter. All this brouhaha over Tehran and uranium enrichment will end on November 8, the day after the 2006 election. As Geo W showed us in India, the Non-Proliferation Treaty is an electoral tool, not an obligation of honor.

We didnt necessarily shoot ourselves in the foot. If another Iran-Iraq war broke out, Iraq would have been decimated. Their military was in shambles. Needless to say Desert Storm was necessary, decimating their military and getting them out of Kuwait was the right thing to do. This is really a great question, I never thought of it this way at all. But now it poses another. Say we didnt remove Sadaam, would we support him wiht weapons to offset our percieved threat of Iran? I doubt it. Its kind of a pickle. Isreal is the only nation in the region that can offset an Iranian threat. Assuming that is Irans intentions of course.

So what do yall say? Would we have continued to support Sadaam as in pre 1991 against Iran if we didnt remove him now?