Who Armed Saddam?

[NWO Sentryman]

It's an oft-repeated canard with Robin Cook etc. believing it that Britain and America Armed Saddam.

But why is it that in both iraq wars, most of the weapons encountered were...

... Of Soviet and Chinese Origin?:eek:

[imjohn]

I think lots of folks were willing to sell arms to Saddam.

[Praktik]

The Tanker War and U.S. support for Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war#The_Tanker_War_and_U.S._support_for_Iraq)

The Tanker War started when Iraq attacked Iranian tankers and the oil terminal at Kharg island in 1984. Iran struck back by attacking tankers carrying Iraqi oil from Kuwait and then any tanker of the Persian Gulf states supporting Iraq. The air and small boat attacks did very little damage to Persian Gulf state economies and Iran just moved its shipping port to Larak Island in the strait of Hormuz.[46]

In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying "dual-use" equipment and vehicles. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.[47] President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[48] President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982.

[Praktik]

WOW

this one's meaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war

[NWO Sentryman]

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/blog/link/like-franco-saddam-is-dead/

Note the Graph.

Then explain the abundance of:

T-insert-number-here russian tanks

Mirage French fighter Jets

Mig-insert-number-here Russian fighter jets

J-7 Chinese Fighters

Type-insert-number-here Chinese Tanks

Gazelle French Helicopters

Mi-Inset number here Russian Helicopters

Russian Artillery pieces

AK-47s (Russian and Chinese)

PRKS (Russian and Chinese)

RPG-7s (Russian and Chinese)

BTR-insert-number here Russian APCs

Heck, Brazil Gave more hardware to Saddam than the US.

[Praktik]

Ya well it was a bonanza for arms dealers everywhere thats for sure.

[quadraginta]

Ya well it was a bonanza for arms dealers everywhere thats for sure.


The wiki article you cited above provides some interesting insights, not least of which is,


The United States assisted Iraq through a military aid program known as "Bear Spares", whereby the U.S. military "made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs."[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-teicher-16) According to Howard Teicher's court sworn declaration: If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United States, then the U.S. could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States, the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries... Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other countries....and ...



The "Iraqgate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqgate)" scandal revealed that an Atlanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta,_Georgia) branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banca_Nazionale_del_Lavoro), relying heavily on U.S. government-guaranteed loans, funneled over US$ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. In August 1989, when FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) agents finally raided the Atlanta branch of BNL, the branch manager, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq – an unspecified amount of which, according to his indictment, was used to purchase arms and weapons technology. The CIA had previously concealed this information from the Congress, according to senior analyst Melvin A. Goodman.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-35)
Additionally, NWO's graph in the link he cited can only tangentially be described as relevant, since it covers a 29 year period of which only 9 are particularly concerned with any U.S.military support of Iraq, and leaves unanswered the question of what support other than "weapons importations" were forthcoming from the U.S., and what involvement the U.S. had in sanctioning (or even aiding) weapons sales from other nations.

It's really a very disingenuous sort of graph.

[Simon39759]

Didn't the U.S help mostly consist of assistance, like training (including in guerilla-style warfare, ironically enough) and spare parts? As well as direct but totally off the book intervention from the special forces?

[NWO Sentryman]

i know there was some sort of dual use tech being given such as trucks and helicopters.

I also know that the US gave some intel to the iraqis.

But everyone chimes that big lie that America Armed Saddam. That annoys me.

[theprestige]

As well as direct but totally off the book intervention from the special forces?
That's an excellent question! And just as soon as you are able to show where on the book that "totally off the book" support is specified, you're more than welcome to include it in your list of things the US did for Saddam.

Unless, of course, you want me to point out that Vladimir Putin personally delivered ten times more "totally off the book" special forces support to Saddam than America ever did.

[ImaginalDisc]

i know there was some sort of dual use tech being given such as trucks and helicopters.

I also know that the US gave some intel to the iraqis.

But everyone chimes that big lie that America Armed Saddam. That annoys me.

Do you have everyone else who posted in this thread on ignore?

[Simon39759]

That's an excellent question! And just as soon as you are able to show where on the book that "totally off the book" support is specified, you're more than welcome to include it in your list of things the US did for Saddam.

Unless, of course, you want me to point out that Vladimir Putin personally delivered ten times more "totally off the book" special forces support to Saddam than America ever did.


And that's why I included it as a question, because I did not have any good source for it.

[linusrichard]

Puzzling evidence. (http://whitehouse.georgewbush.org/news/2003/images/wmd-receipt2.jpg)

[theprestige]

And that's why I included it as a question, because I did not have any good source for it.
Why even bring it up, if you have no source?

[ponderingturtle]

i know there was some sort of dual use tech being given such as trucks and helicopters.

I also know that the US gave some intel to the iraqis.

But everyone chimes that big lie that America Armed Saddam. That annoys me.

That is not the claim I see most often, and that is that the US was one of his strongest supporters, and best allies. Not that he used US manufactured arms.

[NWO Sentryman]

No i do not have everyone on ignore.

[Simon39759]

Why even bring it up, if you have no source?

Because it makes sense (we know that the U.S did at least perform one very classified mission deep in Iran territory) and is relevant to the discussion.

[quadraginta]

i know there was some sort of dual use tech being given such as trucks and helicopters.

I also know that the US gave some intel to the iraqis.

But everyone chimes that big lie that America Armed Saddam. That annoys me.

That is not the claim I see most often, and that is that the US was one of his strongest supporters, and best allies. Not that he used US manufactured arms.


NWO wants to imply that these two statements,".. America Armed Saddam." (his)

... and ...

"... he used US manufactured arms." (yours)

are equivalent, so that he can pretend to disprove the fact that we provided massive military assistance to Saddam for nearly a decade.

He also uses statements like ..."... the US gave some intel to the iraqis."

when the use of the word "some" in this context is so incredibly disingenuous as to be comic.


In conformance with the Presidential directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_directive), the U.S. began providing tactical battlefield advice to the Iraqi Army. "The prevailing view", says Alan Friedman, "was that if Washington wanted to prevent an Iranian victory, it would have to share some of its more sensitive intelligence photography with Saddam."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-spidersweb-2) At times, thanks to the White House's secret backing for the intelligence-sharing, U.S. intelligence officers were actually sent to Baghdad to help interpret the satellite information. As the White House took an increasingly active role in secretly helping Saddam direct his armed forces, the United States even built an expensive high-tech annex in Baghdad to provide a direct down-link receiver for the satellite intelligence and better processing of the information... p. 27

The American military commitment that had begun with intelligence-sharing expanded rapidly and surreptitiously throughout the Iran–Iraq War. A former White House official explained that "by 1987, our people were actually providing tactical military advice to the Iraqis in the battlefield, and sometimes they would find themselves over the Iranian border, alongside Iraqi troops." p. 38
Author Barry M. Lando says, by 1987, the U.S. military was so invested in the correct outcome, that "officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency dispatched to Baghdad were actually planning day-by-day strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force."[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-secretwar-19)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-webofdeceit-6) Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons, according to ambassador Galbraith.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-galbraith-14)
(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#Military_training))

I don't have the citation at hand, as it has been years since I read it, but I understand that we provided Saddam with raw intelligence data so sensitive and revealing of our intel capabilities that it was too secret to share with any of our more traditional military partners, including the British and the Israelis.

More thinly veiled distortion from NWO ..." i know there was some sort of dual use tech being given such as trucks and helicopters."
How about ...

About two of every seven licenses for the export of "dual use" technology items approved between 1985 and 1990 by the U.S. Department of Commerce "went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology" to weapons of mass destruction, according to an investigation by House Banking Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Financial_Service s) Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_B._Gonzalez). Confidential Commerce Department files also reveal that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_security_forces). These included computers, communications equipment, aircraft navigation and radar equipment.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-18)
... or ...


On May 25 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Banking,_Housing,_and_Urb an_Affairs) released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Commerce)." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-29)
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_anthracis)) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-30)
... or ...


Donald Riegle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_W._Riegle,_Jr.), Chairman of the Senate committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Banking,_Housing,_and_Urb an_Affairs) that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report), said: U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.
... or ...


Even before the Persian Gulf War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War) started in 1990, the Intelligencer Journal of Pennsylvania in a string of articles reported: "If U.S. and Iraqi troops engage in combat in the Persian Gulf, weapons technology developed in Lancaster and indirectly sold to Iraq will probably be used against U.S. forces ... And aiding in this ... technology transfer was the Iraqi-owned, British-based precision tooling firm Matrix Churchill, whose U.S. operations in Ohio were recently linked to a sophisticated Iraqi weapons procurement network."[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-Baker1993-33)
"One entire facility, a tungsten-carbide manufacturing plant that was part of the Al Atheer complex," Kenneth Timmerman informed the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, "was blown up by the IAEA in April 1992 because it lay at the heart of the Iraqi clandestine nuclear weapons program, PC-3. Equipment for this plant appears to have been supplied by the Latrobe, Pennsylvania manufacturer, Kennametal, and by a large number of other American companies, with financing provided by the Atlanta branch of the BNL bank."[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-36)
At some point during the whole "dual use" fiasco even the Joint Chiefs of Staff began to express concern about the dangerous technology we were dumping into Iraq. My understanding is that the Reagan administration dismissed their concerns as "ankle biters".

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It doesn't require a great deal of effort, either on-line or in any decent library, to determine without any shadow of doubt the mind-numbing amount of military backing we shoveled into Iraq during the 80's.

It's okay to discuss justifications for these actions within the context of those times. It's also okay (although unlikely within the context of this thread) to concede the error of those actions and use that history as a basis to make better decisions in the future.

It is not okay to pretend that it never happened, and to try with the aid of cheap sophomoric verbal tricks to minimize and dismiss the truth out of hand.

[NWO Sentryman]

well, i stand corrected on the dual use and the intel.

But i am just sick of hearing "The US is responsibel for every single death in iraq because they armed saddam"

Source: CapitalistHolocaust and Mr1001nights.

But it was in the context of the Iran-Iraq war. Reagan and the JCS realised the ramifictions if either won, and decided to turn them on each other.

[quadraginta]

well, i stand corrected on the dual use and the intel.



A noble concession. You have earned my respect.



But i am just sick of hearing "The US is responsibel for every single death in iraq because they armed saddam"




Don't diminish that by goalpost moving.



Source: CapitalistHolocaust and Mr1001nights.




Maybe you might want to peruse different sources. There's a ridiculous extreme for nearly every viewpoint, even the ones with merit. They're not too difficult to recognize, or to disregard.


But it was in the context of the Iran-Iraq war. Reagan and the JCS realised the ramifictions if either won, and decided to turn them on each other.


This might be true, but is probably a discussion deserving of its own thread.

[Cainkane1]

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/blog/link/like-franco-saddam-is-dead/

Note the Graph.

Then explain the abundance of:

T-insert-number-here russian tanks

Mirage French fighter Jets

Mig-insert-number-here Russian fighter jets

J-7 Chinese Fighters

Type-insert-number-here Chinese Tanks

Gazelle French Helicopters

Mi-Inset number here Russian Helicopters

Russian Artillery pieces

AK-47s (Russian and Chinese)

PRKS (Russian and Chinese)

RPG-7s (Russian and Chinese)

BTR-insert-number here Russian APCs

Heck, Brazil Gave more hardware to Saddam than the US.
South Africa also sold saddam long range artillary.

[NWO Sentryman]

I was also thinking in terms of physical conventional Hardware.

As well as the French giving Saddam a whole nuclear reactor (osirak i am correct?).

[ponderingturtle]

I was also thinking in terms of physical conventional Hardware.

As well as the French giving Saddam a whole nuclear reactor (osirak i am correct?).

Why is providing hardware more important that providing the funding to buy hardware?

[NWO Sentryman]

Why is providing hardware more important that providing the funding to buy hardware?

Well, think about it. Saddam owed most of his money to Russia as they gave him the hardware.

Money can be used for many things not necessarily hardware.

The funding doesn't necessarily mean that they will buy yours.

[Praktik]

Ya those torture prisons don't run on good wishes!

Ever buy acid for a foot-dissolving tub? You'd think you'd get a break at 500 litres but its really not as much as you'd think.

[NWO Sentryman]

Ya those torture prisons don't run on good wishes!

Ever buy acid for a foot-dissolving tub? You'd think you'd get a break at 500 litres but its really not as much as you'd think.

Actually, Who gave him the money to run those prisons? The Americans? The Chinese? The Italians?

As usual in your Weltannschung dictates that America is responsible for everything bad in the universe.

[Praktik]

As usual in your Weltannschung dictates that America is responsible for everything bad in the universe.

I'm sorry I don't speak Nazi, but I find it curious that you are so familiar with the language of the Nazis...

hmmmmm

[geni]

South Africa also sold saddam long range artillary.

And North Korea sold the same to Iran.

[NWO Sentryman]

I'm sorry I don't speak Nazi, but I find it curious that you are so familiar with the language of the Nazis...

hmmmmm

Well, i know German.

sorry if this violates international law but i am mounting a pre-emptive Godwin's law.

[Praktik]

well next time check someone's posting history before you casually assert an MO that doesn't apply

[quadraginta]

Well, think about it. Saddam owed most of his money to Russia as they gave him the hardware.

Money can be used for many things not necessarily hardware.

The funding doesn't necessarily mean that they will buy yours.


Did you overlook my earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5173366&postcount=7), with the quote about "Bear Spares", or forget it?

We put an entire operation in place with the express purpose of helping Iraq do exactly that. Buy Soviet made military equipment, munitions, and parts which melded with the Soviet equipment they had from earlier decades when Saddam hadn't been our buddy, but rather the meanie who was picking on our buddies the Iranians. (I know, its hard to keep up with the storyline without a program.)

Here's some more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#Military_training) on that same subject.


With the UN-imposed embargo on warring parties, and with the Soviet Union opposing the conflict, Hussein found it increasingly difficult to repair and replace hardware damaged in battle.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-25)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-26) According to Kenneth Timmerman, "Saddam did foresee one immediate consequence of his invasion of Iran: the suspension of arms supplies from the USSR."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-deathlobby-3) When he launched his attack, the Soviets were busy playing games in Iran. They were not amused that the Iraqis upset their plans. For generations the KGB had been working to penetrate Iran's Shiite clergy. In February 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took power and threw the Americans out of Iran, the Soviets stood to gain more than they had ever believed possible. ... KGB boss Yuri Andropov [had] little difficulty in convincing Brezhnev and Kosygin to agree to an embargo on arms to Iraq... p. 83-84

So. Not only was it clear that Iraq was indeed buying arms from other sources with money from us, but we were intent on helping them do it in direct contravention of UN sanctions we ostensibly supported.

Do you see the irony of your post?

[Praktik]

Ah quadraginta - I see you're from the "blame America first" crowd.

How boring...

;)

[NWO Sentryman]

I stand corrected on the dual use, but if you are citing Wikipedia, that doesn't help your credibility.

I said money, not Bear Spares.

You try to make it sound like the US was responsible for every single death in the Iran-Iraq war.

[quadraginta]

Ah quadraginta - I see you're from the "blame America first" crowd.

How boring...

;)


:D

[ponderingturtle]

I stand corrected on the dual use, but if you are citing Wikipedia, that doesn't help your credibility.

I said money, not Bear Spares.

You try to make it sound like the US was responsible for every single death in the Iran-Iraq war.

You are the only one saying that. It is a simple fact that Saddam was an ally of the US at the time, and a significant one. And the US was one of his top allies as well.

So sure we were willing to over look a few crimes against humanity, including ones we latter charged him with at the time.

[NWO Sentryman]

You are the only one saying that. It is a simple fact that Saddam was an ally of the US at the time, and a significant one. And the US was one of his top allies as well.

So sure we were willing to over look a few crimes against humanity, including ones we latter charged him with at the time.

Hey, it was like the USA's relationship with the USSR in WW2.

We were willing to overlook Molotov ribbentrop and the Katyn Forest as well as other crimes during the war.

I thought Saddam was a Chinese/Russian lapdog.

Well, Captitalistholocaust and Mr1001nights also say the us is responsible for every single death in iraq)

[theprestige]

Because it makes sense (we know that the U.S did at least perform one very classified mission deep in Iran territory) and is relevant to the discussion.
It only makes sense if it actually happened.

And it's only relevant to a discussion of what actually happened... if it actually happened.

[geni]

I thought Saddam was a Chinese/Russian lapdog.


No. His politics were nominaly left wing but well short communism. Saddam was to a large extent his own man. The amount of oil iraq has will by you a significant degree of freedom to maneuver. Just so happened that when Saddam went on his spending spree china and USSR were better capitalists than the US.

[ponderingturtle]

Hey, it was like the USA's relationship with the USSR in WW2.

We were willing to overlook Molotov ribbentrop and the Katyn Forest as well as other crimes during the war.

I thought Saddam was a Chinese/Russian lapdog.

Well, Captitalistholocaust and Mr1001nights also say the us is responsible for every single death in iraq)

Not in this thread they haven't. Just because someone believes it does not mean it is not a strawman argument.

[quadraginta]

I stand corrected on the dual use, but if you are citing Wikipedia, that doesn't help your credibility.


The wiki article is just chock full of references, citations, and documentation of its statements. Your general condescension merely because the source starts with Wikipedia is a pretty sorry excuse for a rebuttal. Many of those quotes came from the U.S. government and its representatives.

I said money, not Bear Spares.
Is your inability to discern the point being made an honest shortcoming or willful refusal. ("Nyah. Nyah. My eyes are closed!")

You try to make it sound like the US was responsible for every single death in the Iran-Iraq war.

Yawn.

I did no such thing, and you are perfectly aware of that.

You don't improve the weaknesses of your arguments by augmenting your distortion and denial of the facts with distortions and fabrications about my position.

[NWO Sentryman]

That was my shortcomings regarding bear spares and my inability to differentiate financial aid from them.

I was referring to Capitalistholocaust and Mr1001nights with regards to the evey single death claims.

[Praktik]

and also me! you lumped me in there too (unfairly I might add)

[ponderingturtle]

That was my shortcomings regarding bear spares and my inability to differentiate financial aid from them.

I was referring to Capitalistholocaust and Mr1001nights with regards to the evey single death claims.

Now where were these claims made?

[NWO Sentryman]

Now where were these claims made?

Captialistholocaust's video "The United States of Holocaust Deniers"

Mr1001nights Video "tribute to the iraqi victims of the US invasion"

[quadraginta]

That was my shortcomings regarding bear spares and my inability to differentiate financial aid from them.

I was referring to Capitalistholocaust and Mr1001nights with regards to the evey single death claims.


Okaaayyy.

Well, you can certainly understand my confusion when you responded to my post with this ...

<snip>

You try to make it sound like the US was responsible for every single death in the Iran-Iraq war.


Note the word I highlighted.

I'm not sure who these other entities you are referring to might be, but you weren't very clear that you were addressing them in that post.

Or you are lying.

[NWO Sentryman]

Sorry about the Ad hom. mr1001nights was the last person i heard go on about the America Armed Saddam canard and blamed the US for every war since its inception.

I stand corrected on many things today.

[imjohn]

I think the interesting question is whether it was OK to fund Saddam as an annoyance to Iran. Was it OK to aid the mujahadeen in Afghanistan? At one point we considered those men as heroes and allies. Now they are terrorists.

Personally, I think it may be OK to play at that type of politics, but the blowback can be horrible, as we have seen.

[Praktik]

I think the interesting question is whether it was OK to fund Saddam as an annoyance to Iran. Was it OK to aid the mujahadeen in Afghanistan? At one point we considered those men as heroes and allies. Now they are terrorists.

Personally, I think it may be OK to play at that type of politics, but the blowback can be horrible, as we have seen.

Well that's just it. The idea was that playing with the enemy of my enemy is that it is a distasteful thing that must be done to further the national interest.

But what we have seen is that the national interest was usually pursued with a short-term view. The blowback came to damage the national interest in the long term.

So yes, it may be "ok" but I think the biggest problem was being short-sighted, and things like say, supporting the Shah of Iran or the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan had long-term negative consequences that may very well outweigh the short-term benefits accrued earlier on.

[geni]

Well that's just it. The idea was that playing with the enemy of my enemy is that it is a distasteful thing that must be done to further the national interest.

But what we have seen is that the national interest was usually pursued with a short-term view. The blowback came to damage the national interest in the long term.

So yes, it may be "ok" but I think the biggest problem was being short-sighted, and things like say, supporting the Shah of Iran or the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan had long-term negative consequences that may very well outweigh the short-term benefits accrued earlier on.

The long term negative consequences of backing Saddam against Iran was the invasion of Kuwait which we had the capacity to deal with.

[Praktik]

The long term negative consequences of backing Saddam against Iran was the invasion of Kuwait which we had the capacity to deal with.

Sure, but then American troops were stationed to monitor the no-fly zones, and in Saudi Arabia - which turned into a major OBL irritant. Keeping Saddam contained meant standing aside and letting the Shiites get murdered in the thousands to keep the status quo unperturbed when they rose up - the bitter fruit of which came home to roost in the early days of the occupation.

Just saying that as much as it makes short-term sense to do something we have a few examples, like supporting the Shah in a coup and supporting OBL that didn't work out so well.

Hindsight is also 20/20 and all that but one would hope that American planners have learned something from the blowback and will be more careful when such gamesmanship is considered in the future. I should also state that even though I'm lefty peacenik in my heart I'm a realist in my brain of the Neibhur variety and so can understand that balance of power will dictate working with the "enemy of my enemy" - just saying that sometimes doing that will potentially harm the balance of power in the future if not carefully managed.

[geni]

Sure, but then American troops were stationed to monitor the no-fly zones, and in Saudi Arabia - which turned into a major OBL irritant.

Neither of those were really required. Post gulf war Saddam was weakened enough that Saudi Arabia could defend itself. The Kurds as always were expendable.


Keeping Saddam contained meant standing aside and letting the Shiites get murdered in the thousands to keep the status quo unperturbed when they rose up - the bitter fruit of which came home to roost in the early days of the occupation.

Only a problem when we chose to occupy the place. We didn't have to.

[Praktik]

Only a problem when we chose to occupy the place. We didn't have to.

This is true..:)

[WildCat]

Just saying that as much as it makes short-term sense to do something we have a few examples, like supporting the Shah in a coup and supporting OBL that didn't work out so well.
Did it work out better than if either of the other 2 likely possibilities had happened - either Iran becomes a client state of the USSR (the KGB was also trying to implement a power play of their own) or the Islamists gained power 25 years earlier than they did?

Iran wasn't about to transform into Denmark.

[Praktik]

My answer to that, with the benefit of hindsight, is no. I think not installing the Shah would have worked out a lot better, even if that meant the soviets had more influence in Iran.

[NWO Sentryman]

Well, the geopolitical ramifications of a Soviet Iran would have been immense, with Containment broken down.

The Soviets, exploiting the hole in the net, would have then expanded through the middle east and caused a lot more damage than Ajax.

[Polaris]

Sure, but then American troops were stationed to monitor the no-fly zones, and in Saudi Arabia - which turned into a major OBL irritant. Keeping Saddam contained meant standing aside and letting the Shiites get murdered in the thousands to keep the status quo unperturbed when they rose up - the bitter fruit of which came home to roost in the early days of the occupation.

Just saying that as much as it makes short-term sense to do something we have a few examples, like supporting the Shah in a coup and supporting OBL that didn't work out so well.

Hindsight is also 20/20 and all that but one would hope that American planners have learned something from the blowback and will be more careful when such gamesmanship is considered in the future. I should also state that even though I'm lefty peacenik in my heart I'm a realist in my brain of the Neibhur variety and so can understand that balance of power will dictate working with the "enemy of my enemy" - just saying that sometimes doing that will potentially harm the balance of power in the future if not carefully managed.

The US never supported OBL.

[Simon39759]

The US never supported OBL.


During the days of Maktab al-Khidamat when they were both opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA had a program 'Operation Cyclone' to finance Afghan resistance groups through the Pakistani secret service.


Which seems quite indirect, but, heh, that sort of was the point.

[Polaris]

During the days of Maktab al-Khidamat when they were both opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA had a program 'Operation Cyclone' to finance Afghan resistance groups through the Pakistani secret service.


Which seems quite indirect, but, heh, that sort of was the point.

Exactly, Afghan resistance - meaning Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, because he was the ISI's boy. And to a lesser degree Dostum (and a much lesser degree to Massoud). Remember the ISI was playing a double-game. Getting the USSR out of Afghanistan was only half of it. The other half was putting a pro-Islamabad government in Kabul (hence Hekmatyar and later the Taliban) to turn that country into a strategic-withdrawal point for Pakistan in case of a major war with India.

The Arabs who went to Afghanistan were financed by Arabs - who matched the $2 billion the US gave, dollar for dollar. That money went to OBL and others like him, directly, or went to the ISI to fund those already mentioned. Frankly, OBL wouldn't have taken American money even then.

[Wolrab]

My answer to that, with the benefit of hindsight, is no. I think not installing the Shah would have worked out a lot better, even if that meant the soviets had more influence in Iran.

I agree. The Soviets would have probably have had free elections and a moderate government would have been formed. And they all lived happily ever after.

[theprestige]

During the days of Maktab al-Khidamat when they were both opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA had a program 'Operation Cyclone' to finance Afghan resistance groups through the Pakistani secret service.


Which seems quite indirect, but, heh, that sort of was the point.
Out of curiosity, what was sort of the point?

[Praktik]

I agree. The Soviets would have probably have had free elections and a moderate government would have been formed. And they all lived happily ever after.

Sarcasm?

What elections and "happily ever after" occured after the US/UK backed coup?

EDIT: actually don't bother replying. We'd be contributing to a derail! If this is something you'd like to discuss meaningfully feel free to start a thread and I will be happy to contribute my rationale. Hint: it has nothing to do with how lovely I think the Soviets were. People who hold views different from yours are not always resting their cases on idiotic foundations.

[Polaris]

Out of curiosity, what was sort of the point?

He was claiming that the US supported OBL.

[theprestige]

He was claiming that the US supported OBL.
Well, in the same way that US public schools supported a 12 year-old who later in life robbed some banks, of course they supported OBL. But that's pretty well known already, isn't it? And not really all that interesting, either?

[Whiplash]

Not in this thread they haven't. Just because someone believes it does not mean it is not a strawman argument.


Ya know, I often find myself reeling at the way people talk about reality as if it's an entirely different plane of existence than the one I live on. I can't count the number of times I heard or read someone on the left saying something like "And who SOLD those WMD to Sadam?".

And yet, it's something that apparently no one ever said or thought. Seriously, it's not the first time this has happened to me here.. where people act shocked and indignant that anyone said certain things that were being said practically daily, everywhere you go. Like some of the most heinous BS about Bush Jr. Suddenly no one ever said those things. It was all in our imaginations.

[quadraginta]

Well, in the same way that US public schools supported a 12 year-old who later in life robbed some banks, of course they supported OBL. But that's pretty well known already, isn't it? And not really all that interesting, either?


I agree with your first point. Bin Laden was not a direct agent for the U.S. in Afghanistan, but I don't think I concur with the main thrust of your analogy.

The U.S. was quite aware of the nature of the Taliban, and of the threat of religious extremism in the region. At least we should have been. After all, it has been a core factor in Afghani nationalism for nearly 200 years, since well before the first time the Brits got their butts handed to them there. The Taliban were allies of convenience, and they received our support the same as other power groups fighting the Soviets did.. If we hadn't ignored Afghanistan after our own interests were satisfied the Taliban might not have been able to seize control in the aftermath of the Soviet war. The Taliban's sympathies were always far more aligned with bin Laden than they ever were with ours.

A more apt analogy than yours would be of a Police Dept. hiring a local gang to keep out-of-town thugs from moving into a neighborhood, and then turning their backs on the neighborhood after that one chore was accomplished. Al Capone just happened to be in the gang they hired.

I do think that this is interesting. Boneheaded misunderstanding and mishandling of regional politics has been the hallmark of most of our biggest international blunders, and we don't ever seem to 'get it'.

[quadraginta]

Ya know, I often find myself reeling at the way people talk about reality as if it's an entirely different plane of existence than the one I live on. I can't count the number of times I heard or read someone on the left saying something like "And who SOLD those WMD to Sadam?".

And yet, it's something that apparently no one ever said or thought. Seriously, it's not the first time this has happened to me here.. where people act shocked and indignant that anyone said certain things that were being said practically daily, everywhere you go. Like some of the most heinous BS about Bush Jr. Suddenly no one ever said those things. It was all in our imaginations.


I think you're suggesting that the U.S. didn't sell WMDs to Saddam. My apologies if I have misunderstood.

We did, of course.

Maybe not all set up and ready to go off, maybe not everything that Saddam got, but that's a distinction looking for a difference. Five years after the Iran-Iraq war our own Senate confirmed exactly that. We did it with the Reagan administration's cheerful and enthusiastic encouragement for pretty much the entire war.

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#Chemical_and_Biological_exports)

On May 25 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Banking,_Housing,_and_Urb an_Affairs) released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Commerce)." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-29)
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_anthracis)) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-30)


Donald Riegle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_W._Riegle,_Jr.), Chairman of the Senate committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Banking,_Housing,_and_Urb an_Affairs) that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report), said: U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention) sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war#cite_note-31)


Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[Simon39759]

Out of curiosity, what was sort of the point?

To make this support of the Afghani's militia indirect and difficult to track. Plausible denial, I guess, for when the Soviet start bitching.

[paulheinze]

I was also thinking in terms of physical conventional Hardware.

As well as the French giving Saddam a whole nuclear reactor (osirak i am correct?).

And German companies gave Saddam the tools to produce WMDs.

[Polaris]

I agree with your first point. Bin Laden was not a direct agent for the U.S. in Afghanistan, but I don't think I concur with the main thrust of your analogy.

The U.S. was quite aware of the nature of the Taliban, and of the threat of religious extremism in the region. At least we should have been. After all, it has been a core factor in Afghani nationalism for nearly 200 years, since well before the first time the Brits got their butts handed to them there. The Taliban were allies of convenience, and they received our support the same as other power groups fighting the Soviets did.. If we hadn't ignored Afghanistan after our own interests were satisfied the Taliban might not have been able to seize control in the aftermath of the Soviet war. The Taliban's sympathies were always far more aligned with bin Laden than they ever were with ours.

A more apt analogy than yours would be of a Police Dept. hiring a local gang to keep out-of-town thugs from moving into a neighborhood, and then turning their backs on the neighborhood after that one chore was accomplished. Al Capone just happened to be in the gang they hired.

I do think that this is interesting. Boneheaded misunderstanding and mishandling of regional politics has been the hallmark of most of our biggest international blunders, and we don't ever seem to 'get it'.

Except that the Taliban didn't exist until years after the end of the Soviet-Afghan War. They were a different animal from the Mujahideen. Part of the reason they came to be and were so successful was because the Muj did such a piss-poor job of running Afghanistan after Ivan left.

[Marduk]

It's an oft-repeated canard with Robin Cook etc. believing it that Britain and America Armed Saddam.

But why is it that in both iraq wars, most of the weapons encountered were...

... Of Soviet and Chinese Origin?:eek:

I think if you google the "Bear Spares program" you might find an answer to that
;)

[quadraginta]

Except that the Taliban didn't exist until years after the end of the Soviet-Afghan War. They were a different animal from the Mujahideen. Part of the reason they came to be and were so successful was because the Muj did such a piss-poor job of running Afghanistan after Ivan left.


Your response seems to disregard this part of my post ...

If we hadn't ignored Afghanistan after our own interests were satisfied the Taliban might not have been able to seize control in the aftermath of the Soviet war.


The founder of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar, was a mujahideen. Not "a different animal". So were the various groups and individuals he pulled together as followers. The Taliban was an "animal" that rose to dominance of the pack of mujahideen in post Soviet Afghanistan. Essentially an ethnic Pashtun group with the strength and cohesiveness to achieve supremacy in the inevitable tribal squabbles after the end of the war. The primarily Pashtun ethnicity of the Taliban is of particular note in the current war, because it explains the difficulty of the border issues. Afghanistan's border with Pakistan is a completely artificial one, created by and for European political interests without any regard for the centuries old cultural and political realities that existed there. When you think "Taliban" it isn't inappropriate to think "Pashtun", and from the Pashtun perspective that border is someone else's idea.

Your use of the term "mujahideen" in this context suggests a basic misunderstanding of its meaning. There was not a "mujahideen" group in Afghanistan. There were groups which were mujahideen acting in resistance to the Soviets. After the Soviet withdrawal these groups began to fight among themselves for local supremacy. This is not a surprise. It has been the tradition in Afghan politics (which is tribal, much more than national) for centuries. These groups, for the most part are also centuries old, at least inasmuch as the constantly shifting tribal alliances can be considered groups.

The Taliban "came to be" as a result of such alliances coalescing around a group which appeared to successfully combat the general lawlessness that resulted from the power vacuum of the Soviet defeat. Western powers, the U.S. not least among them, did nothing to address this power vacuum, a pattern of disinterest which has characterized European involvement in the area. These interests have always regarded Afghanistan as nothing more than a pawn in global politics and have exhibited a stellar disregard for any internal issues until such issues become an inconvenience.

Mullah Mohammed Omar took advantage of anti-European religious fundamentalism which was deep seated in Afghan culture. These were not recent, post WWII developments, but rather extend back to the early 19th century British invasions of the country. Omar blended this distrust with elements from other radical anti-European Islam offshoots such as the Deobandi and the even older Wahhabi. Afghanistan, devastated by the Soviets and torn apart by local warlords battling for a piece of the action, could not have been a more fertile soil for him.

The thing is, he didn't plow that soil. He didn't even plant it. He just reaped the harvest. The other thing is that neither the plowing nor the planting were the work of the mujahideen.

[Simon39759]

It is my understanding that they were multiple factions with different agendas all fighting the Soviet occupation. The Talibans, the group that was to become the Talibans, were but one of these factions.
The most famous among the non-Taliban faction probably is Massoud's Northern Alliance.

After the war, as usual, the various factions vied for control. And, while the Talibans were initially excluded from the government; they ultimately won.


I know that the U.S did support at least some of these Mujahideen factions through the ISI, but I am not sure which ones.
I remember reading that the U.S tended to favour religiously motivated groups, in contrast to the Northern Alliance, that they thought would be more dedicated. But, I am not sure how accurate this statement is. Also, 'religiously motivated' does not necessarily means 'Taliban'. The former government that opposed the Talibans was called "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan".