[lit-ideas] Re: Counterfactual - Iraq vs Saudi Arabia
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 09:10:14 -0700
Mike:
I just got back from the dentist and don't feel like dredging through my
books and articles looking for the references, but maybe you'll take my
word. This isn't a huge point. We deliberately decided to back Saddam
against the Ayatollah because we thought Khomeini's Islamist "Revolution"
(the Ayatollah's term) a greater threat than Saddam's thuggery, but when it
looked like Saddam was going to be too successful we put the brakes on our
support of Iraq and did something, I can't recall quite what, to keep Iran
from collapsing utterly. The latter support may have been through an ally.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 7:38 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Counterfactual - Iraq vs Saudi Arabia
LH:
>>In fact, Saddam did take care of business with Iraq, but we at the time
wanted a balance of power and not the destruction of Iran; so we helped the
Ayatollah hold his own - a very murky business, but several have written
about it.<<
We helped the Ayatollah hold his own? Tell me more, tell me more. Like are
you referring to Irangate? That was just machinations by that great patriot
Ronald Reagan to subvert the U. S. Congress and wage illegal proxy war in
Nicaragua , wasn't it?
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:15 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Counterfactual - Iraq vs Saudi Arabia
Lawrence Helm: "The Ayatollah caused the war with Iraq by attempting to
spread his Islamic Revolution to the Shiites on Iran's border."
Phil responded: This is a reason, not a cause. But for the purposes of
considering
realpolitik and counterfactuals, reasons are irrelevant. Saddam
couldn't take care of business with Iran. How could he deal with Iran
and the rest of the peninsula?
Lawrence responds: No, what the Ayatollah did was an invasion in a real
sense. He sent his evangelists in among the swamp Shias, the Shias Saddam
had the most trouble with because the lived in the swamps. It would have
meant the destruction of his regime to allow the Ayatollah to continue. In
fact, Saddam did take care of business with Iraq, but we at the time wanted
a balance of power and not the destruction of Iran; so we helped the
Ayatollah hold his own - a very murky business, but several have written
about it.
Lawrence continues: "Also, he asked for and thought he got clearance from
the American ambassador to Iraq before he invaded Kuwait. That is the
famous April
Glaspie scandal. Glaspie admitted that what she told him was
confusing."
Phil responds: Again, irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. If Saddam
had been able to establish political stability in Kuwait after invading,
justifying the first Gulf war would have been far more difficult.
Saddam couldn't bring political stability in Iraq and he couldn't do
it Kuwait. How could the Americans believe he could do it in Saudi
Arabia?
Lawrence responds: Again, I disagree. This shows a relationship that
Saddam understood. He did not want to buck the U.S. This is one of the
presuppositions to my counterfactual. We could have encouraged this
relationship rather than denouncing it as Bush Sr did and recast the whole
period between then and now - if we were ruthless in our Realpolitik; which
our principles wouldn't allow, but what if they did
Lawrence again:
"You don't think he would be an attractive alternative to the Saudis,
but it was cozying up to the Saudis that got our World Trade Center
bombed -- by Saudis mostly. The pretext for the bombing was our
entering the Saudi holy land. That wouldn't have occurred if we were
still cozy with Saddam."
Phil responds: If we are playing with counterfactuals, the consequences of
Saddam
taking control of the oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well as
controlling Mecca and Medina would far exceed that of the World Trade
Center bombing. The situation would be one of ongoing war, since
Saddam never demonstrated he could win militarily, and the triumph of
Islamic extremism, since few Muslims would tolerate control of the two
holy cities in the hands of a secular Baathist. Oil would trickle out
of the Middle East, devastating the world economy far beyond what we
are seeing now. Yes, even with the WTC bombings, the Saudis look
pretty good when compared to Saddam.
Lawrence responds: But Saddam did win in Kuwait. And he would have in
Saudi Arabia. That's why the Saudis turned to us. By the way, Osama bin
Laden wanted the Saudis not to turn to us but to stand on their own. He
believed his help would save Saudi Arabia. That is part of what would have
happened. Osama would have turned his efforts to fighting Saddam and not
us. It would have been a different Jihad. Our buddy Saddam would then have
turned to us for help to stamp out those pesky Jihadists - or maybe he would
have managed that on his own.
Lawrence wrote, "In what way is being on good terms with the Saudis better
than being on good terms with a pre-Kuwait-invasion Iraq?"
Phil responds: The Saudis have demonstrated that they can bring stability
and
prosperity to the Middle East. They have managed the development of
the entire petroleum project in the Middle East providing enormous
wealth to many people. The Sauds have been very effective custodians
of the holy cities, managing the interests of both Sunnis and Shia.
On the other hand, Saddam never provided the same distribution of
wealth to Iraqi society while creating a situation of continuous
political instability in order to maintain his own privilege. The
Iranians could never tolerate Saddam controlling the holy cities so
Saddam would have to fight a multi-front war. The options would be
the stability and prosperity of the Saudis or war and political
instability with Saddam. How could the Saudis not be the most obvious
choice?
Lawrence responds: I am here assuming recent research which shows the
Saudis to be at to root of the Islamist Fundamentalist movement. The
Ayatollah's evangelism was stopped, but not so the Saudis. Everywhere you
read, if there is trouble, there you will find the Saudis, i.e., the
Wahhabis, offering to help and all they want is for you to turn to their
religion and let them build you a few Madrassas. They have been insidious
and far more effective than the Ayatollah's revolution in spreading Islamist
fundamentalism. Many think it only a matter of time before the Wahhabs are
going to have enough of the Saudi family and oust it. But for now they
think they need it. This doesn't sound like stability to me - at least not
a stability I'm comfortable with. I am much more comfortable with
old-fashioned thuggishness.
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto, California
Playing the counterfactual with,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1460 - Release Date: 5/22/2008
7:06 AM
Other related posts:
