Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner.
Fundamentally, the policy was justified, as the concern was that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible.
The Reagan Administration miscalculated in their their assessment of Saddam. It was thought that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior.
To lay blame or pass judgment on the current Bush Admnistration or on Donald Rumsfeld (who was not one of the architects of the Reagan Administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy),whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations during the Iran/Iraq war is simply ridiculous.
What makes the present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers are much more conscious of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
In spending some time reading your site, you seem to have taken a particular stance without actually stating justifiable, rational or informed reasons for it. Choosing to be anti-establishment simply for the sake of being anti-establishment is no better than ignorance or apathy.
If you are indeed interested in this subject, I suggest you do not limit your research to dubious sources and opinion found on the internet, but visit your public library and spend time in the archives.
To suggest that diplomacy should have been chosen instead of military action on Iraq at this time is simply irresponsible. Saddam Hussein has proven, in many ways, most notably his invasion of Kuwait and his defiance of UN Weapons inspections for the past twelve years, that he has no respect for diplomacy -- his ambitions preclude it.
You need to educate yourself regarding this situation.
Gee, who'd have thought that dealing with a dictator would come back and bite us in the ass? D'OH!
Posted by: tj at March 31, 2003 01:57 AM"As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers are much more conscious of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
Really? Then why are they ignoring North Korea?
Posted by: tj at March 31, 2003 02:01 AM"Gee, who'd have thought that dealing with a dictator would come back and bite us in the ass? D'OH!
I am confused now. You disagree that Saddam Hussein and his regime is a threat to our country all over your site, yet you post so "eloquently" that he is a threat? Make up your mind.
You have vilified the Bush Administration for correcting a mistake of the Reagan Administration. You seem to be having difficulty in distinguing between the two. Being so blatantly anti-establishment simply for the sake of it is not something you should be proud of.
"Really? Then why are they ignoring North Korea?"
The current war in Iraq is not "the" war, as proclaimed by not only GW Bush, but the United Nations after 9/11. In "The War on Terrorism", the military action currently taking place in Iraq is simply one battle.
Furthermore, if you honestly believe that close scrutiny is not being paid towards North Korea, you are as naive as you seem. How old are you? How can one be so uninformed?
I suggest you take my advice regarding researching at your public library. You do not know your own country's history or it's modus operandi regarding foreign policy.
Shame on you.
