posted
Guerilla warface is commonly defined as fighting by groups of irregular troops (guerrillas) within areas occupied by the enemy. . . . The tactics of guerrilla warfare stress deception and ambush, as opposed to mass confrontation, and succeed best in an irregular, rugged, terrain and with a sympathetic populace, whom guerrillas often seek to win over by propaganda, reform, and terrorism.
Although the term is modern, guerrilla tatics have been around for millenia. They were used against the Roman empire and were instrumental in its fall.
Historically, guerrilla tactics have been enormously successful when imployed by a people against a foreign occupying power. Thye played a key role in the American revolution, the Napoleonic wars, WW II, the Chinese revolution, the cuban revolution, the Vietnam War, and the USSR/Afgan war to name only a few. While its easy to find cases where local guerrilla fighters are able to prevail against a technologically and numerically superior foreign occupier through the use of guerrilla tactics, I'm having a hard time finding examples where a technologically and numerically superior foreign occupier is able to effectively defeat a guerrilla army.
The only possible cases I've been able to find are the Roman defeat of the Jewish rebellion during the 1st century B.C. and the US defeat of American Indians. In both these cases, victory was achieved by irradicating the vast majority of the local population and then removing them remainder from the area.
Are there any examples where a foreign occupier has been able to win stability and peace fighting against a guerrilla army without removing the civilian population.
What does this history of Guerrilla warfare have to say about the prospects for US victory in Iraq?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its difficult to find examples of large armies defeating guerilla warriors because no one cares when it happens. Otherwise they wouldn't refer to guerilla victories as miracles. For example, the Romans didn't have problems with just the Jews, they fought wars in virtually every province and subdued them all until Rome fell.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, you're absolutely right. The history of guerilla warfare has shown us that the occupiers almost never win. The only other time that you haven't mentioned that I think is a key historical event is the French occupation of Algiers. If you want to know more about that, I would recommend renting the movie titled: The Battle of Algiers. It's a fantastic film.
If history has taught us anything, it's that the "insurgents" (I put the word in quotes because it seems like a funny name for that countries citizens. What are they insurgents of?) ALWAYS win. If the people of the country are willing to sacrifice their blood, the rebels are going to win.
Take Fallujah for example. The conditions aroused out of the U.S.'s actions (not necessarily bad actions) are the epitome for where guerilla warfare thrives. It's not going to get any better.
I guess you might call the American Revolution an example where the people won, but that was more of a "family-feud" to put it than an actual take over by the British and win by the colonists.
The only time I can think of when guerilla warfare was successful was before the U.S. went into Vietnam. Before we went in, the French were trying to occupy it. The French were eventually kicked out in the decisive battle of Dien Bien Phu. In this town, the Vietnamese successfully pushed the French Garrison out of the town, and out of Vietnam. In that battle, the "insurgents" won and the French had to leave.
This is one of the only victorious battles that i've heard of won by the rebels
posted
Northern Ireland. Afghanistan (now). Peru (shining path). Guatemala and El Salvador.
Remember, there's a majority of the population in Iraq who do not support the insurgents. They may not all support the U.S., but they are not actively participating in the insurgency.
posted
Dagonee, Al Jazeera reports that 90% of the population of Iraq want the U.S. out. That doesn't neccesarily mean that they want the U.S. attacked and would happily kill a U.S. soilder, but it does mean that they probably wouldn't lift a finger to go out of their way to stop it.
Edit: The point I was trying to make is that you don't need a majority population to successfully rebel against an occupying country. Even one as strong as the U.S. History shows us that. In Vietnam far less than a majority of the people were Vietcong and we still couldn't win with over 550,000 troops. Vietnam is not that much bigger than Iraq
There are now over 150,000 American troops in Iraq (not counting the tens of thousands of paid mercinaries). It hasn't gotten any better. I just hope we learned something from Vietnam
posted
The difference is that we are not trying to make Iraq the 51st state. There is something to be said for the fact that the end of an American occupation is supposed to be a democratic Iraq, not a US colony.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think any U.S. newspaper tells how the Iraqi people feel? Al Jazeera is their newspaper and they respect it. They are the only ones who are actually doing any research on the people of Iraq. As far as I know they would have the most research of how the people feel.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Al Jezerra does a terrible job of being an impartial news source.
It is a pro-Islamic news source, telling the islamic community what it wants to hear.
Namely that the US is the bad guys from the west and will fail miserably to the poor underdogs of the brave Iraqi people.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think that all the other countries (Italy, France, Spain, Germany etc..) are poor sources as well? They show the types of things (Iraqi abuse, death of innocent civilians etc...) as Al Jazeera.
ALL writing is bias whether you like it or not because there's an infinant amount of facts so just by leaving one fact out and putting another in is a bias in its own respect. I'm not saying Al Jazeera is perfect, but it does a good job reporting things that aren't shown on U.S. TV or even in it's respected newspapers
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think any U.S. newspaper tells how the Iraqi people feel? Al Jazeera is their newspaper and they respect it. They are the only ones who are actually doing any research on the people of Iraq. As far as I know they would have the most research of how the people feel.
A google search shows the inaccuracy of this statement in 10 seconds. The provisional government has its own site, BBC, Gallup/CNN, and ABC have done several polls. None of these whitewash the truth or the negative attitudes of Iraqis.
That matters more for our soul searching than it does for them. For Iraq, it doesn't matter why we went in, it does matter why we are still there. And if we are there to midwife a stable democratic state, then so be it.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are plenty of examples where the guerrillas did not win, including Vietnam. The US smashed the Vietcong; they pulled out from purely political, not military, considerations. Consider also the British rule of India, one endless round of guerrilla warfare, which they suppressed quite successfully for two hundred years. Boer War. Cossacks in Russia. Nomad horsemen everywhere, after the invention of gunpowder. American Indians - a perfect example! How likely are the Anglos to move out now, even if some tribe starts a bombing campaign? Ireland : Again, the UK could certainly have stayed, in 1921. They pulled out because they didn't feel like spilling more blood, not because they had to.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I do not believe that at all. They know why we went in. They saw the same video clips of Bush that I did.
1. Sadaam Hussein supported Al Quida. (false) 2. Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. (false) 3. Sadaam Hussein tried to get Plutonium (I think) from Africa. (false) 4. Now he's saying he wants to install a democracy which is Ironically lead by Allawi, who was a CIA agent for many years. Although he is qualfified for the job. He worked with M16 (A branch of british intellegence) and running a death sqaud for saddam's faction of Baath.
Edit: Dagonee, can you tell me who took the polls?
posted
I'm sorry I think i'm missing something. Did they interveiw the Iraqi people? Could you send me a link? I'd really appreciate it.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do a google search. I'm running off memory, but they've been linked here.
They were polls taken of the Iraqi people by asking them questions. I have no idea how the fact that there's a shooting war was handled in the sampling error.
posted
Okay. I'll look into that. As for me, it's time to study for my Primate Biology test tommorrow. Night night!
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
This line of thinking is being explored in England by the BBC. Unfortunately I can't link anything for you as the news items I'm familiar with I heard on the radio about a week ago. From what I remember the position they are putting forward is that the occupying forces are not taking the time to explore history--specifically occassions where guerrilla movements have been defeated--while devising strategy to deal with Iraq.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Guerrilla campaign is not being fought against the United States in Iraq, our casualties are only incidental when compared to the civilian casualties inflicted by the insurgents. The fact is that the hearts and minds issue that seems so up for grabs is resolved in our favor. We sell hope, the insurgents sell fear, for repeat custom hope wins every time.
It comes to this, once their constitution is in effect it will include a provision to distribute oil wealth directly to citizens after debt and urban renewal are paid for. This will put about seven thousand dollars a year in the hands of Iraqi's depending how it is sent out. Jobs, Homes, and prosperity will follow. Once the model is in place the oil pay out will only grow, and like Kuwait Iraq will be the envy of the region.
I have a friend who grew up on an army base in Saudi Arabia. I argued that capitalism will win the people of Iraq over faster than anything because almost all humans measure prosperity by material possesions. (Various religious elite notwithstanding.) Dre is convinced the Iraqis won't care about American goods becuase they live as the Koran tells them to.
Personally, I don't know anyone devout enough in whatever religion they follow to not care about the money. H Beam Piper argues in the Fuzzy Books that a society is essentially a collection of possessions. And no matter how much they hate America, I doubt many Iraqis will turn down central air once they can afford it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the Aryans invaded India thousands of years ago, the Indians had considerably better technology, certainly better building methods. But the Aryans won, and set up a caste system with them on top. I don't know much about this, just happened to read it today.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact is that the hearts and minds issue that seems so up for grabs is resolved in our favor. We sell hope, the insurgents sell fear, for repeat custom hope wins every time.
that's funny, i had the distinct impression that the insurgecy was getting worse (didn't Bush acknowledge this yesterday), and that conditions 'on the ground' were so bad that reporters are practically unable to operate outside of armed convoys. what are we selling again, and how? we don't speak their language and all that most iraqis see of the US is an armored humvee with automatic machine guns pointed at them. and we're selling hope? we're the ones who destroyed their power grid and decimated their water supply, who plunged their economy into chaos and caused unemployment rates near 80% (this is from memory, so it might be off). if we have hope to offer it's hope that we'll fix the incredible mess that we created in the first place and i'm sorry, but that'd not exactly an appealing marketing strategy.
quote:It comes to this, once their constitution is in effect
and once peace on earth reigns we'll all live happily ever after. we'll see how the elections in january go, but based on all indications apart from the administration the outlook for a democratically elected and popularly legitimate constitutional convention is pretty bleak. talking about how peachy things will be once they've adopted a constitution isn't to far from assuming that we'd be greeted by dancing in the streets and immediate resumption of oil revenues.
quote:Once the model is in place the oil pay out will only grow, and like Kuwait Iraq will be the envy of the region.
posted
America's "model" for Iraq has already failed. The dearth of foreign investment in what America made the world's most open market shows that quite clearly. The American-drafted constitution allows for 100% foreign ownership in every industry except oil, but no one is investing because of the rebellion. One of the first things the Coalition Provisional Authority did was lay off 500,000 state employees, and after that it ensured that most state-run plants sit idle while goods are imported at greater expense from other countries, despite the fact that state-owned industry could do the same work for less (concrete is a prime example). The vast majority of the American government's contract money in Iraq is in fact going to American firms. Only a tiny fraction is actually going to Iraqis.
So now there are lots of young men who are either unemployed or don't have much to do. Unsurprisingly, lots of them are joining the rebellion.
posted
All I have to say is, If you think the Iraqis prefer the rebels who slater civilians indiscriminately to the Americans who point guns but never fire until fired upon, your nuts... they don't hate us, they just have lost faith in us and all we need to do is quicken the recovery of their infrastructure to re-instill hope into their hearts...
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well he did have connections with terrorist groups if not Al Queda itself, he did pay the families of suicide bombers, he did fire SAMs had American fighters patrolling the no-fly zone, he threatened America on several occassions, he said 9/11 was justified, and he did kill 246 Americans during the Persian Gulf War. So if you think that Saddam Hussein never attacked America considering all that I think you need a new definition for "attack."
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think what Sadaam Hussein did was right. In fact he's an evil villain. But there's no justifying beating up a kid for stepping on my shoe.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you think being complicit in the deaths of hundreds of Americans (not counting the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqis, nor the countless Iranians many of whom were civilians killed by chemical weapons) is the equivalent of stepping on a shoe, you can go ahead and argue that, but you can't say with any reasonable justification that Saddam Hussein didn't attack America. By the way, Michael Moore said so doesn't count as a reasonable justification.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a note, almost every war has had a large ammount of Guerilla tactics. Let's see here...When did Guerilla tactics fail without removal of the populace...Civil War. That's a good one. The Confederacy relied HEAVILLY on Guerilla tactics. The fact that they sucked at it contributed to their downfall. Germany did it in WWII, again, they failed. Japan did it in WWII. Yeah. We know how that ended. Frankly, every single military that sees a defeat coming uses Guerilla tactics as an opposing force shows signs of winning. The only factor that allows Guerilla tactics to work is the momentum (Read: Lack of momentum for successful Guerilla warfare) of the opposing force, the will of the people in the area to fight against that opposing force, and the skill of the Guerillas. In Iraq, the will of the people is NOT the same as the insurgents (We call them insurgents because, frankly, most of them aren't even Iraqis), our momentum is heavilly in our favor, and the skill of the Guerillas is questionable, but is increasing, as the slow increase in number of casualties per attack shows. Also, in successful guerilla warfare, the Guerillas tend to have fewer casualties than the opposing force. That is obviously not true of Iraq. The increase in ferocity that we've seen lately is in great part an act of desperation from two events, one, the loss of Faluja removed their central organization point. They now have to meet in holes in the ground as opposed to buildings. Two, the coming elections. The insurgents KNOW that there is no way their cause will be supported by a democratic vote, and such a vote will destroy them. As a result, they are trying to cause enough turmoil to prevent that vote from happening. So basically, you CANNOT say that we are going to lose in Iraq. On the other hand, I cannot say that we will win, because I don't know the exact situation over there. Everything I've heard from people who have actually served over there, however, points to the fact that the Iraqi people are supportive of our efforts to create a democracy there. If they want us out, I imagine it's because they are eager to have control of their lives without the military all over the place. I am going to say we'll win, though, because I believe more in the quality and determination of our troops more than that of the insurgents.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well he did have connections with terrorist groups if not Al Queda itself, he did pay the families of suicide bombers, he did fire SAMs had American fighters patrolling the no-fly zone, he threatened America on several occassions, he said 9/11 was justified, and he did kill 246 Americans during the Persian Gulf War. So if you think that Saddam Hussein never attacked America considering all that I think you need a new definition for "attack."
None of those things justifies the second Gulf War.
How about: Iraq never attacked Americans first. This notion of America as some upstanding moral citizen of the world that never attacks anyone first is absurd given the Bush Administration's stated doctrine of waging preemptive war where and when it likes.
quote:(not counting the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqis, nor the countless Iranians many of whom were civilians killed by chemical weapons)
Who sold him those weapons? America. Who supported him in the Iran-Iraq war, with full knowledge of what he was doing? America. America can't help the Middle East, it's spent too long screwing it up. Just get out.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Confederacy relied HEAVILLY on Guerilla tactics. The fact that they sucked at it contributed to their downfall.
Actually, at least one of them, John S. Mosby, was quite good at. The big problem with guerilla tactics was that the Confederacy's goal for the war was simply not compatible with them.
quote:Without the U.S., Iraq could not have gone to Kuwait.
Not true at all.
quote:Prior to the 1990-91 Gulf War, Iraq had developed significant ammunition, small and light arms, and gun barrel production facilities, although most industrial development efforts were focused on weapons of mass destruction. By 1987 Iraq was self-sufficient in small calibre ammunition, artillery shells, aircraft bombs, mortar rounds, rocket-propelled grenades, rockets, tube- launched rockets, mortars, propellant, fuses, and replacement barrels. Artillery research is conducted 25 kilometers South of Baghdad in the Al-Badr Factory in the town of Al-Yusufiyah.
With respect to conventional armaments, Iraq did not attempt to develop significant domestic capabilities, and even relied heavily on foreign technical support teams for servicing French and Russian aircraft. Iraq began to upgrade and maintain existing tanks and other armored vehicles. Facilities supporting these activities included Al/Ameen/Yusufiyah, Base West World, possibly Huteen, Taji, Samawa and the Al-Ameer portion of the Aqba bin Nafi State Establishment. The Taji factory complex had doubled in size by 1985, and included a forge capable of producing 1000 artillery barrels per year and armor maintenance and refit plants for the T-54, T-55, and T-62 tanks in the Iraqi inventory. The complex also included facilities for assembly of the T-72, and would eventually build armor and tank bodies. Iraq did import T-72 kits, which were intended to lead to a transition to production, though Iraq appears to lack the industrial base for such production [T-72 production resumed in 1993, assembling tanks from kits provided before the Gulf War]. Prior to 1991, production of defense articles was largely oriented on prototypes and prestige projects.
quote: None of those things justifies the second Gulf War.
You can argue that, you can also argue that the only legally defensible war is one fought completely on the defensive. You could even argue that war is never legally defensible. Regardless, stop making assertions that Iraq was innocent and never made any ill will toward the United States when I've proven that they have.
quote: Oh, and we'll keep selling you arms right up until the tanks roll across the border, too.
If the revisionists have their way the History Channel will soon depict Saddam Hussein rolling into Kuwait with M-1 Abrams and bombing with F-16s instead of the T-72s and MiG-21s that he was actually using.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either "your border dispute with Kuwait is not our concern" was a massive diplomatic flub, or the U.S. greenlit Iraq's warmongering intentions.
quote:Regardless, stop making assertions that Iraq was innocent and never made any ill will toward the United States when I've proven that they have.
I'm not asserting anything of the kind. I have said nothing about Iraq's guilt or innocence. What I am asserting is that America is not the paragon of virtue, defending oppressed peoples everywhere in the world, that you paint it to be. America acts in its own interest. Stryker's assertion that America never shoots first is patently false, regardless of the morality of shooting first.
If you're fishing for my position, it is basically as follows:
1) America should have stopped funding and arming Saddam after his intentions became clear, regardless of whether or not his military was already more than up to the task. It's a moral question, not a military one.
2) America should not have told the Iraqi government that it would stay out of any Iraq-Kuwait conflict. If, instead of private assurances of non-involvement, America had promised war, Saddam might have thought the better of it. Or not -- he is, after all, a megalomaniacal lunatic -- but it couldn't have hurt to try, rather than publically promising consequences while privately saying everything would be fine.
3) Once Iraq did invade Kuwait, America and its allies did the right thing. Yup, you heard me. The right thing. (Similarly, I think the invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing to do.)
4) After the war, America should have given the aid it promised to the rebellion, rather than allowing Saddam to crush it. This would have made the sanctions unnecessary.
5) The sanctions were a bad idea that was badly implemented. Oil-for-food, while a good idea in principle, was co-opted by greedy crooks who got the contracts from the U.N.
Now, on the subject of the second Gulf War, the basic reasons I opposed it (and still think it was the wrong thing to do) were that it took troops and resources away from Afghanistan, the advent of the troubling doctrine of preemption, and the fallacious reasons offered for going when the plans had obviously been in the works well before 9/11. I oppose the continued American presence in Iraq because I actually think it's counterproductive, and the American-drafted constitution of Iraq is a pretty blatant economic experiment that has already failed.
So there's where I stand.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second, avoiding occupation was bad then but is good now? Oil for food was good because it had good intentions? This is pretty typical talk from the left. Judge us by our intentions!
We helped arm Saddam because he was at war with Iran, the two countries killed a million of each others soldiers, spending the cream of their manhood. If Iran had overrun Iraq then we might well have seen a United Islamic world, but not one with a shred of democracy in its heart.
The entire world would have seen Israel's Nukes by now and world war three might well have been an awful lot like a Crusade with Europe, and the United States and even Russia destroying Islam.
We live in an imperfect world, but never think that the intentions of men like Reagan and Bush SR. were not good. They faced realities more stark then you can imagine. Take a look at Jimmy Carter before and after his presidency and read the torment on the mans face before you think the Middle East has not had disaster potential for thirty years. Only forty ago the entire Arab world tried to "Push Israel into the Sea" makes it kind of hard on is to be their stanchest ally.
quote: Either "your border dispute with Kuwait is not our concern" was a massive diplomatic flub, or the U.S. greenlit Iraq's warmongering intentions.
What did the U.S. gain by invading Kuwait?
quote: Stryker's assertion that America never shoots first is patently false, regardless of the morality of shooting first.
Since Iraq DID attack the United States, clearly in reference to Iraq the United States did NOT shoot first. Has America historically always been in the right? No. We've had our imperialistic voyages and our treatment of American Indians was horrendous, to say nothing of slavery. None of that justifies your position on Iraq and America's relationship.
quote: 1) America should have stopped funding and arming Saddam after his intentions became clear, regardless of whether or not his military was already more than up to the task. It's a moral question, not a military one.
You've provided no credible evidence to support this assertion. If Iraq was driving M-1s instead of T-72s or flying F-16s instead of Russian and French jets then I'd believe you.
quote: 2) America should not have told the Iraqi government that it would stay out of any Iraq-Kuwait conflict. If, instead of private assurances of non-involvement, America had promised war, Saddam might have thought the better of it. Or not -- he is, after all, a megalomaniacal lunatic -- but it couldn't have hurt to try, rather than publically promising consequences while privately saying everything would be fine.
From the moment Iraq invaded Kuwait the United States was bringing motions to the UN Security Council. Clearly American threats meant nothing to Saddam. We now know that he thought American threats to remove him from Kuwait were a bluff.
quote: 4) After the war, America should have given the aid it promised to the rebellion, rather than allowing Saddam to crush it. This would have made the sanctions unnecessary.
First, America never actually promised anything to the rebellion. Second, I do agree that the United States should have liberated Iraq of Saddam Hussein right then and there, but George Bush was pressured by his coalition allies to not act. In fact, most members agreed to participate on the condition that Hussein wouldn't be removed, believing that his removal would instabilize the region. If we did remove Saddam, we would be faced with the same problems we're facing now.
quote: 5) The sanctions were a bad idea that was badly implemented. Oil-for-food, while a good idea in principle, was co-opted by greedy crooks who got the contracts from the U.N.
The plan wasn't a bad idea, neither was Oil-for-Food, but the UN proved that it was and still is corrupt.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BC, it's pretty obvious that your reading of my post was at best cursory, given that I did not actually say either of these things:
quote:Wait a second, avoiding occupation was bad then but is good now? Oil for food was good because it had good intentions?
Of course, I'm pretty used to people making these sorts of blanket assumptions and statements. One thing I will do, though, is rescind this statement:
quote:Without the U.S., Iraq could not have gone to Kuwait.
That's wrong. I shouldn't have said it. That post should have, if I'd been thinking, contained only its first sentence, and not the rest, because I've basically committed the same error that Michael Crichton did in the address of his I posted yesterday. I overdid it. If I'm going to criticize him for it, it would behoove me to not make the same mistake myself.
(Edited to clarify who I'm addressing, and to add the last sentence.)
quote:What did the U.S. gain by [Iraq] invading Kuwait?
How should I know? Ask April Gillespie (ambassador at the time), who privately assured Tariq Aziz that America would stay out of it, while publically the first Bush Administration was saying something quite different.
quote:Since Iraq DID attack the United States, clearly in reference to Iraq the United States did NOT shoot first. Has America historically always been in the right? No. We've had our imperialistic voyages and our treatment of American Indians was horrendous, to say nothing of slavery. None of that justifies your position on Iraq and America's relationship.
Iraq invades Kuwait. America invades Iraq. How is that Iraq attacking America?
quote:You've provided no credible evidence to support this assertion. If Iraq was driving M-1s instead of T-72s or flying F-16s instead of Russian and French jets then I'd believe you.
Well, back in 1991 there was a 60 Minutes documentary on the subject, which actually came up for discussion in Congress:
quote:The revelations and allegations made by Mr. Soghanalian are, and must be, extremely disturbing to every American. They are disturbing to Mr. Soghanalian. He gives a first-hand description of official and unofficial American involvement in the enormous buildup of arms to Saddam Hussein. Much of this buildup occurred after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. He gives chilling accounts of the cozy relationship among high past and present U.S. Government officials who permitted, and in some cases, actually assisted his sales of many of the lethal weapons Saddam Hussein is now using to bring death to American military personnel and civilians throughout the Middle East region.
I will say, though, that I really overdid it on this particular score. It wasn't selling arms until the tanks rolled in.
quote:From the moment Iraq invaded Kuwait the United States was bringing motions to the UN Security Council. Clearly American threats meant nothing to Saddam. We now know that he thought American threats to remove him from Kuwait were a bluff.
I've already addressed this. The Iraqi government received private assurances that America wasn't interested in getting involved. That's probably why they thought it was a bluff. As to why April Gillespie told Tariq Aziz what she did, I haven't a clue. I wish she hadn't said it, since the war might have been avoided that way.
quote:First, America never actually promised anything to the rebellion. Second, I do agree that the United States should have liberated Iraq of Saddam Hussein right then and there, but George Bush was pressured by his coalition allies to not act. In fact, most members agreed to participate on the condition that Hussein wouldn't be removed, believing that his removal would instabilize the region. If we did remove Saddam, we would[n't] be faced with the same problems we're facing now.
Those conditions wouldn't have kept America from funding the rebellion, though, just from removing Saddam directly by taking Baghdad by force. I mostly agree with you here, though.
quote:The plan wasn't a bad idea, neither was Oil-for-Food, but the UN proved that it was and still is corrupt.
Yup, that's true. But it's also all we've got.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
George Bush Sr. said he did not have a plan "to win the peace in Iraq" It would have been an add hoc series of experiments in occupation government after we won. For ten years we built our Iraq occupation plan and with minor corrections we have implemented it. An expatriate Government was built in Europe and America, economic structures were hashed out, mock constitutions meant to provide civil rights for minorities... Then we went in. In a way 9-11 provided us with a viable excuse to implement a plan that was waiting to be executed. A case of good preparation meeting opportunity.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
If the revisionists have their way the History Channel will soon depict Saddam Hussein rolling into Kuwait with M-1 Abrams and bombing with F-16s instead of the T-72s and MiG-21s that he was actually using.
