[adamk]

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein - The National Security Archive
also
Documents Trace Early U.S.-Iraq Dealings - NPR

heard a report about this over the weekend on NPR, though the release is dated february 25, 2003. i thought this might make it into the breaking story, but i am sure it will be overshadowed by christmas and now, the elevated security threat indicator.

this exposes one main point for me, and i believe that addressing this issue would have enormous benefits for the WoT. namely, placing interests above morals, when fighting a war based on morals (though protecting american interests has been used a lot rhetorically).

some highlights (emphasis mine):

the declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats.

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."

from this it appears that it does boil down to simply "with us or against us". hussein existed in a state that was clearly "with" us for several years, but has fallen into "against" us, though he (his methods, tactics) has changed little in the time he was in power.

could/will our present strategy stab us in the back? does this concern anyone?

adamk

[gadster]

^^^^
this is why the trial will be so interesting. Saddam Hussein must have knowledge (and evidence?) of all sorts of dodgy dealings. It'll be a secret trial, no doubt.

[chris v]

There's good reason, beyond the reasoning of Bush, inc. to have him tried in Iraq and not The Hague. It's quite possible that a number of prominent Americans could be found complicit in the WMD use of Iraq in the late 80s if it's not a kangaroo court. He had plenty of western backing, with a wink and a nod concerning the Kurdish situation during the Iran/Iraq war, since at that time, he was considered "the lesser of two evils" when compared to the Ayatollah.

CV

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
^^^^
this is why the trial will be so interesting. Saddam Hussein must have knowledge (and evidence?) of all sorts of dodgy dealings. It'll be a secret trial, no doubt.

If public, it would be a very interesting trial that would dredge up all sorts of unwanted things.

More helpful to the present and past administrations would be either a secret trial run by the current Iraqi puppet council, or that some "accidental" mishap befall Saddam before a trial could occur.

No matter what happens, it'll be interesting.

[swrate]

Originally posted by adamk:
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein - The National Security Archive
also
Documents Trace Early U.S.-Iraq Dealings - NPR

heard a report about this over the weekend on NPR, though the release is dated february 25, 2003. i thought this might make it into the breaking story, but i am sure it will be overshadowed by christmas and now, the elevated security threat indicator.

this exposes one main point for me, and i believe that addressing this issue would have enormous benefits for the WoT. namely, placing interests above morals, when fighting a war based on morals (though protecting american interests has been used a lot rhetorically).

some highlights (emphasis mine):



from this it appears that it does boil down to simply "with us or against us". hussein existed in a state that was clearly "with" us for several years, but has fallen into "against" us, though he (his methods, tactics) has changed little in the time he was in power.

could/will our present strategy stab us in the back? does this concern anyone?

adamk

thanks

I am glad someone is posting this, because that pic has been haunting me ever since Saddam was captured.
Thus my disheartened feeling ...