Could Saddam have been contained without Gulf War 1?

[Darranar]

I'm speaking particularly of weapons inspections and no-fly zones. Could there have been peaceful means to get him to withdraw from Kuwait and grant those concessions? If so, how?

I'm of the opinion that for humanitarian reasons Saddam and others like him need to be contained both internally and externally. They cannot be allowed to brutalize their populace freely.

Military intervention in many if not most of these cases would be extremely disasterous, as we are seeing in Iraq. Peaceful means are the best option, but what peaceful means can you use while at the same time respecting the humanitarian concerns of the populace? (So, sanctions, though peaceful means, are out of the question, for obvious reasons.)

For some of these conflicts a negotiated solution combined with great knowledge of the situation and area would work, especially for cases of genocide and regional conflicts like civil wars and border wars. Others, like the situation under Saddam, get more complex.

[xray s]

1. Of course

He could have been contained by not installing him and his Baath party in the first place.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm

[Darranar]

3. I meant after...

those wicked mistakes. And there are other dictators in the world who weren't installed by the Americans.

[xray s]

6. Once he invaded military force probably was the only way to get him out

The problem is answering this question in a historical vacuum, without context. That is how one of the worst foreign policy blunders of the 20th century (the Reagan / Bush policies of the 80's leading up to Saddams's invasion of Kuwait) becomes a huge foreign policy success in the minds of Americans.

[Darranar]

8. Okay, let me change the situation a bit...

say that Saddam is still in power. The Iraqis no longer control Kuwait, but weapons inspectors aren't in and the no-fly zones aren't in affect. How could we have made him accept such concessions? How can we make any dictator do such things (preferably without military intervention of any kind?)

[shamgar50]

56. You forget

You forget who we are. We could have made him comply. Duuuuubya didn't want him to comply. He never did.
My only hope is that this moron has another near death experience with snack foods and chokes to death.:mad:

[Darranar]

58. How could we have made him comply?

that is the question.

[shamgar50]

61. PAY attention

If we had the power to destroy his army and country we HAD the power to make him comply. We could have sent in thousands of inspectors and dared him to do something about it. If he interfered launch a couple of dozen cruise missiles, put a ten billion dollar bounty on his head. I'll bet he would have complied. Of course we'll never know because "Cowboy George" had an itchy trigger finger. :kick:

[Darranar]

62. Interesting idea

n/t

[Darranar]

59. How could we have made him comply?

that is my question.

[shamgar50]

57. You forget

You forget who we are. We could have made him comply. Duuuuubya didn't want him to comply. He never did.
My only hope is that this moron has another near death experience with snack foods and chokes to death.:mad:

[Kbowe]

52. Saddam could have been contained the same way the US has

contained two-bit dictators all through history: by treating them with the respect they don't deserve and buying them off and proping them up. We did that with Saddam before 1991 and it worked well for us. However, Saddam began to entertain thoughts of adopting the EURO as the currency of business and he was supporting the Palestinian cause. Between our greed and Israel's maddness, removing Saddam (because he and his country were so weak and we knew it) became the poster cause to establish a new order in the ME. This chaos happened because we wanted to steal a peoples' land and resources for our own purposes. Period!

[lcordero]

2. Saddam was never a threat in the first place

He was installed by the CIA. He said to Ambassador Gillespie, "mother may I?". Gillespie lied and said yes. He had it out with Kuwait. He got chased back to Iraq.

[Darranar]

4. That wasn't the point...

he never was a threat to national security; there I agree. But he was a threat to his own people. How can we help those people under the mantle of dictatorship without going on a destructive war of "liberation?" That was the basis of my question.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Bull

Saddam WAS a threat to national security, the first time, just not this time. A wild dictator sitting on much of the world's oil and threatening a lot more put him as a big threat.

[Darranar]

41. I don't get it...

he controlled a lot of oil, SO WHAT? Saudi Arabia does too.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Control

If during Gulf I, Saddam had decided to take Saudi Arabia as well, he would have controlled the bulk of the world oil supply and jeopardized the economies of the Western world.

He had already conquered one oil-producing neighbor, why would he have stopped there?

[Darranar]

51. Bush could have put US troops into Saudi Arabia...

and not invaded Kuwait. Saddam wouldn't have been stupid enough to attack Saudi Arabia with US troops there.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. At the time

He sent a couple thousand troops there if I recall correctly. I think the troops in a similar role in South Korea call themselves, "Speed Bumps." It would have taken a massive buildup to make sure that Saddam couldn't attack.

[Darranar]

54. No, it wouldn't have...

they would have been tripwires to get the US into the war, and Saddam would have realized that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. You mean Kuwait wasn't?

The same thing happened. Saddam could have taken Saudi Arabia AND captured thousands of American troops. How would the U.S. have dealt with THAT?

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. "Kuwait" was a result of Western carving of ancient lands 4 fun & profit

The US supported Saddam as long as he accepted their terms on the oil and served their purpose, which then as now, was to prevent democracy in Iran.

Democracy anywhere in the ME would not be in the best interests of the US petroleum industry, or the defense industry, as governments chosen by the people in the region could not be depended on to put US business interests above the welfare of their citizenry.

Well-paid dictators and "sheikhs" on the other hand, do a very serviceable job, for the most part.

So it is difficult to answer your question, because it was never really a question of "containing" Saddam.

Without US management, if you go back to the 1950's, many countries in the region were very interested in democracy and moving toward it, some even drafting constitutions based on constitutional monarchies in Western Europe.

That would have meant a direct conflict with US interests, and US directed its activities in the region accordingly.

If you haven't done so, you might do a google search on "mossadeq" just as an example.

[Darranar]

7. Once again...

I am aware of this. But say that it is 1991, and all that has already happened. What could the USv have done then to contain Saddam peacefully? what can it do now to contain other dictators peacefully?

The question has the assumption of a liberal president and a liberal congress. There are no PNACers in the government and the oil industry has lost a lot of its political power. (Yes, this will never happen. I understand that.) What, from a purely humanitarian standpoint, can the US do to contain dictators?

[Maple]

10. Why should the US be containing

anybody...dictators or not??

Why not let the Iraqis look after Iraq, while Americans look after America?

Any major problems in the world should be dealt with by a properly financed and armed UN...not any one country.

Otherwise you end up in quagmires.

[Darranar]

12. I agree...

100% that the UN should be the primary force in such a containment. I should have specified that.

But if you want the UN to be an instrument of global justice, you have to get it a constant professional military force.

Additionally, you ahve to get some sort of powerful body within the UN that represents the people of the world and not the interests of the governments. Nothing like this exists.

[Maple]

18. Well NATO is wandering around loose

as a solution looking for a problem....that should be renamed, opened to all countries, and become the armed wing of the UN.

Trained...all the same way, and properly equipped and financed.

So the UN doesn't have to depend on peacekeepers made up of 10 volunteers from Uruguay, or 50 troops from Botswana, and a couple of thousand from Spain and so on.

However, there is no way to represent people at the UN if you don't count govts.

At the moment 191 countries are in the UN's general assembly, and there are 5 on the security council....this was the way it was set up after WWII, and there hasn't been much chance to change it since...what with Korea, Viet Nam, the Cold War and all.

[Darranar]

20. If you haven't noticed...

the way the Security Council (the only branch with any real power) is set up is completely lopsided.

Any one of the top five powers can veto any resolution, which gives then tremendous powers.

[Maple]

25. Yes, it was set up that way deliberately

And the US has vetoed more things than any of the other countries, so the veto system has worked quite well for the US overall.

It was set up that way after WWII...there have been many suggestions on how to change it since....but no matter what you do, or how you set it up, occasionally it's going to vote for or against something you disagree with. Or be perceived as unfair by somebody, somewhere.

Actually this last time, the security council worked perfectly...the way it was meant to, and yet rarely ever does.

Astonishing...but the USSR always at loggerheads with the US no matter the question...is gone, and Russia votes on the issue now.

And China has come out of its shell and joined the world community.

[Darranar]

27. The problem of the UN...

is that instead of becoming the governing power of the world and ridding the world of war, it has become a tool for the greater powers. The only way to offset this is to have some sort of global elections, which are not likely to happen in any amount of fairness any time soon.

[Maple]

31. The UN has been working on

changes for some time...to change with the new century and all...then came the bombing of Afghanistan, and then Iraq...and all the little brush fires that have broken out since...Ivory Coast, Liberia, North Korea...kinda put everything on hold.

But of course in order to change it, you'll need the agreement of everyone....so it will be a lengthy process, and involve a lot of problems that have to be worked out one by one.

So no...since it's up to the members, it won't happen anytime soon.

It wouldn't likely involve global elections in any case. Govts represent the people of a country. In democratic countries that means they're elected. Democracy is spreading slowly...but it may never be the way all countries choose to operate.

Just because you like it, doesn't mean everyone does.

[Darranar]

42. Listen...

I generally get along EXTREMELY well with doves and non-interventionists of all kinds. But when they bring up that, I find the urge to laugh my head off. How can any country choose that FAIRLY without a democracy?

Your solution would work, in simple terms of global justice, if A: All country's popualtions were equal, and B: All countries were democracies. Otherwise, a large number of people will end up not represented or not represented in proportion to their number.

The UN is CLEARLY a flawed institution, but its the best we have now, so we have to stick with it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. 2 things. Get the oilnguns out, and flood them with stuff

Now we both know that neither of these things, much less both, will never happen, but if a miracle occurred and the US decided to use its resources for the good of many as opposed to the wealth of a few, then the thing to do would be first, stop doing harm.

That means get out. Out of the oil, out of the politics, out of the arms trade there.

The second thing, and the thing that I believe could have been done even after 1991, and could be done right this minute, if you want to encourage democracy, and defeat the mullahs, flood the place with stuff. Do it covertly and overtly, early and often. Flood them with Gap jeans and penicillin and Fritos and Dell laptops and fiberoptic cable and rice and Britney and playstations and Nikes and books.

Flood them with DVD players and surgical equipment and Spiderman and tractors and pvc pipe to fix the water system, you get the idea.

Flood them with the things the world DOES love and admire about America, the things that are good.

That would get democracy, although it would probably not be what Americans accept as democracy, and it would not make them like the things that are not good about America, like hatred and greed and bigotry.

[Darranar]

13. That was the theory I was thinking of as well...

but I was aimign more towards essentials; food, water, aid kits, the like. But your idea is reasonable.

[lcordero]

9. BTW...sanctions are just another name for SIEGE

and siege is a form of war. There is absolutely nothing peaceful about sanctions or sieges.

[Darranar]

14. I guess taht's a matter of opinion...

but it doesn't really matter, because whatever sanctions are called, we agree that they are generally unnecesary and harmful.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Sanctions and boycotts are legit

Siege is not. Sanctions are ways nations say they don't like what you are doing.

[Darranar]

43. Sanctions are ways...

nations devestate a country's economy, kill many of its people, and spread mass hunger and poverty among the populace. Sanctions against a poor country are WMDs; sanctions against a rich country aren't quite as bad, but still hurt FAR MORE than their target, which is the country's government.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. No

No nation has a right to trade with any other.

[Darranar]

72. Uh...

how not? i'm anti-globalization, but not THAT anti-globalization.

[aquart]

15. What difference did it make to us if Kuwait or Iraq owned the oil?

It still has to be sold.

[Darranar]

17. To the Kuwaitis it made a difference...

I'm talking about this from a humanitarian perspective, and not an economic one. I realize that the US government will likely never adopt this approach, but I'm speculating.

[FloridaPat]

16. Everyone keeps forgetting Sadam asked Bush if it was OK

to settle a border dispute with Kuwait. Had Bush been awake, he could have said no. Instead he had the ambassador say "no problem". Then there were several lies that got the American people involved emotionally - the Iraqi's throwing incubator babies on the floor and the big army they had on the Saudia Arabian border. The current war is probably the first war where the people knew it was a lie before we invaded.

[Maple]

23. Yes, Saddam had a reason for invading Kuwait

and the ambassador told him the US didn't care, and would look the other way.

Saddam must have been astounded at the sudden turn of events when he crossed the border.

[Blue_Chill]

19. If you want to contain Saddam

You wouldn't give him more control of the worlds oil supplies. What we should have done is not helped him in the first place.

[Darranar]

21. Clearly.

n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

22. Why not stop supporting dictators with money, weapons, and diplomats?

Perhaps the best way to overthrow dictators and tyrants is to stop selling them weapons, giving them money, and covering up their crimes with diplomatic support? If Bush Sr. and Donald Rumsfeld hadn't built Saddam Hussein into the monster that he is (was?) we wouldn't be having all these problems.

[Darranar]

24. Of course...

that would be a great step. But how would we contain the dictators already on this world?

[Maple]

26. We don't

Their own countries would take care of them if they weren't propped up by outside interests.

And if they can't...then they call on the UN

[Darranar]

28. And what would the UN do?

n/t

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. A UN that was liberated from the US could have potential

Granted, that's a big - and unlikely - if.

In fact, forget the UN, and imagine instead an association of every country on earth WITHOUT the US, not dependent on it in any way, US is not even a member, has nothing to do with it.

There is no "security council" made up of rich or powerful nations, there aren't any plums or perks, you'd still have political stuff going on - they'd be human beings, after all - but there would be a lot more room there for real consensus and real accomplishment, and most importantly - it wouldn't be a gussied up rubber stamp for any one country.

[Yupster]

36. First thing that UN would do would be to

call for a tax on all the world's income at a progressive rate of 60 % of any income above the average world pay of $ 200 per month. The money would be redistributed to the poorest countries of the world.

[Maple]

37. Ahh somebody want's to be

funny.

[Darranar]

44. Sorry, I disagree...

That wouldn't be an instrument of global justice at all, because 275,000,000 of the world's popualation would go unrepresented. After that, you still have the problems with the UN that you had before.

[Maple]

34. Finish the inspections

And declare the country 'clear'.... without killing several thousand innocent Iraqis in the process, and have it turn into a quagmire.

[Darranar]

45. Look...

I' talking about Gulf War 1, not two. What could the UN have done to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait, force them to accept inspections, and allow them to create no-fly zones?

[leftofthedial]

30. well for starters, Whistle Ass the First's State Department could

have not tacitly encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait.

[maggrwaggr]

32. Listen, here's what a career military officer with top-secret clearance

told me.

That back in the day, before Gulf War I, Saddam had the 5th largest Army in the world. They had the third largest number of tanks in the world, behind Soviet Union and China.

When the military would conduct war games and simulations, they didn't do it with the "Russians" or the "Chinese". They did it with Iraq.

Iraq's Army was a huge concern. They wanted to take it out. But how?

They know Saddam wanted Kuwait. So they baited him, told him they would look away if he invaded Kuwait.

It's probably the dumbest thing Saddam ever did. Because it was just an excuse for us to go in there and basically wipe out his tank army.

Which is what we did.

Remember, this was Poppy Bush.

[Alex88]

65. Didn't the The Iron Lady get Bush Senior stirred up over Sadaam?

As I recall, Bush Senior wasn't bothered much by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait until after he met with Margaret Thatcher. She convinced him Sadaam Hussein was another Hitler and that changed everything.

[Alex88]

66. Didn't the The Iron Lady get Bush Senior stirred up over Sadaam?

As I recall, Bush Senior wasn't bothered much by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait until after he met with Margaret Thatcher. She convinced him Sadaam Hussein was another Hitler and that changed everything.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

33. He was contained. Reagan sent him to Iran and Bush let him into Kuwait.

Saddam offered to leave Kuwait under perfectly acceptable conditions before Gulf War I but Bush the First didn't accept the terms because he needed to get a firm foothold in the middle east for future purposes (see Gulf War/Bush II) so he went in and kicked Saddam's ass but left him in power as a place holder in the region.
Saddam had indeed dutifully reported to his BOSS(!) by notifying the US he wanted to invade Kuwait (because Kuwait was screwing with oil prices in several ways and it was costing Saddam money) but there was a miscommunication when he notified Ambassador Gillespie of his intent to go into Kuwait and she declared 'none of our concern.' Now remember, he had a long history of working with the CIA in grabbing power in the first place and then killing 3000 people the CIA wanted eliminated in Cold War Iraq. And he was encouraged by the US and Saudi Arabia to invade Iran to keep the Iranian Revolution (a backlash against a CIA-installed Cold War dictator, the Shah, who's secret police were trained by the father of Gulf War 'hero' General Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf) from sweeping away the Saudi rulers who the US got oil from. In fact, Saddam was aided in the war against Iran with intelligence and bio- and chemical-WMD's!!!(See the photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 80's as an envoy of Good Fucking Will from Reagan.) The US aided Iran, too, so neither side would win and just be weakened by mutual mass slaughter. Over a million people died in this long expensive war. The war with Iran drained Iraq economically which is why Saddam went into Kuwait in the first place.So when he wasn't told 'NO' by the people who usually send him to kill, he understandably took that as a 'YES' and invaded Kuwait. So Saddam was eliminated as a military power in the region by Gulf War I and the 12 years of sanctions which killed several hundred thousand Iraq civilians from depleted uranium munition cancers and diseases from lack of clean water, medicine and general poverty. Saddam was completely contained but Bush the First fucked up and let him get out of the box. Millions died as result in the political aftermath...Pretty fucking ugly US complicity in mass slaughter of Arabs to maintain an oil-based economy, isn't it?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

38. What maggrwaggr says in post #32 supports this. Attrition of capacity.

Attrition of Saddam's military capacity and coming into the neighborhood makes Machiavellian sense for the BFEE.

[BeFree]

35. Remember the Soviet Union?

Ya know the big old evil empire we never dropped a bomb on? Methinks since we pretty much did away with them we could have done the same to the regime in Iraq. Of course Iraq was much easier prey.

[Darranar]

46. Okay...

Maybe I should rephrase the question a bit.

This country has made foreign policy blunders in the past. Whether from those or not from those, dictators are currently in brutal control of many countries.

Say, through some miracle, an untra-left winger like Kucinich is elected in 2004, and again in 2008. He solves a large number of the glaring domestic problems in this country, and the economy is booming, education is in great shape, and general properity and happiness is everywhere.

In the election of 2012, another left-wing Democrat comes to office. He wishes to stop dictators from spreading their tyranny and also to stop them from being able to freely slaughter their own people. (The energy policy of the US is much better now, with electric cars and solar-powered power plants, so much of this country's dependance on oil is gone.)

What can he do to accomplish those goals without being forced to use military intervention, now that the country's rescources are more freed up?

I understand that this situation is HOPELESSLY optimistic, but that's not the point.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Cut off trade

With all of those nations and encourage our allies to do the same. If you get enough nations to do it, cut off trade from those who won't do so.

North Korea is a good place to start. No trade and no aid.

[Darranar]

50. And, of course...

as Madeline Albright put it so brilliantly, all casualties will be "worth it." No, sorry. Mass slaughter of a population due to hunger won't do it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Slaughter

Unfortunately, it happens all the time around the world. People starve, people die in war, people die of disease like AIDS. We allow it to happen because there is so much that it is almost impossible to stop it.

Given limited resources, I would rather we save those in nations that don't threaten us with nuclear fire.

[Darranar]

70. But this time...

we're causing it.

[shamgar50]

60. For starters

How about assassination or a bounty. Do you really think Saddam would have remained in power with a ten billion dollar bounty on his head (cheap compaired to what this fiasco is going to cost us). Can you imagine the pants shitting that would be going on among dictators around the world. Not a single one would feel safe.:evilgrin:

[Darranar]

47. Kick

:kick:

[Ein]

63. He offered to leave during the air raids.

We gave him no reply. I think he offered to leave when we were threatening him.

Other than that I believe Saddam asked someone in the Bush admin if it would piss us off, if I remember she said "Go Ahead" or "I don't care".

G.W. Bush needed a show of force.

[Ein]

68. Slant-drilling

I forgot to mention. From what I remember Kuwait was drilling diagnolly across thier border to tap Iraqi oil reserves.

[Alex88]

67. Good question

Ideas to consider:

1. Should Iraq, be Iraq? Its borders were drawn up by the British at the end of WWI. Countless countries exist now that didn't then. If the Kurds, for example want independence, should the US stop them? The UN supports the rights of a people to independance if certain conditions are met. Turkey would object to Kurdish independance, but they receive aid, military technology, and the NATO shield from the US and those benefits could be withheld if they objected. Frankly, a dictator is necessary to keep Iraq together and the US is lying when it claims it wishes the people of Iraq to be free.

2. Do trade sanctions help or hurt a brutal regime? If the population is struggling just to survive, as a result of trade sanctions, how can they challenge the ruler, who is less so or not effected by them? The only time I can think of where the imposition of US trade sanctions was followed by a weakening of a government was in the case of Appartheid South Africa. I've been intending to look into why the results there were different. Trade sanctions have been in place in Cuba ever since the revolution over 40 years ago and Castro is still in power.

3. The US has no trade relations with Iran, a huge country next door to Iraq whose people are Shiite Moslem. If they had trade relations, wouldn't the Shiites in Iraq across the border benefit and be in a better position to change their government?

4.Regarding your hypothetical scenario of having the dream President.
As I imagine you know, the US and worldwide arms industry is big, big business. The US is the biggest supplier and profiteer of those weapens and much of them have always ended up in the hands of dictators. A President who put a stop to that and also supported and signed arms sale treaties with other arms trading countries, would do much to put the dictatorships out of business, in my view.

5.Contrary to what one has heard from our government and the supporting media, their are worse dictators in the world than Sadaam Hussein. Suggesting otherwise serves objectives of our government and various other interest groups.
A couple related points, though not the basis for my previous statement. The CIA agent who first put together the report on the gassing of the Kurds says only the Iranian's possessed that kind of gas and the civilian exposure was a battle casualty in a town near the important commodity of water, not an intended consequence. In any event, the US has done far worse and is doing worse. Just something to consider. Also, Seymour Hersh has said the claim that Hussein tried to kill Bush Senior is weak. BTW, where are all those surgically created Sadaam Hussein doubles?

Finally, I respect your pursuit of ethical solutions to world problems. Those who say that only an evil or bad means will give the desired good end to a problem are normally either ignorant of important relevant facts or not very interested in their being a good means, in my view.

Regards,

Alex88

[Darranar]

71. I can agree with that...

It would certainly solve many problems to cut off arms sales to almost all nations. Cracking down on arms smuggling would also be useful.

[dansolo]

73. We could have not goaded him to invade

I am convinced that the Kuwaitis instigated the whole thing of the White House. Saddam probably wouldn't have invaded if the Kuwaitis respected their borders and didn't slant drill into Iraqi territory, and he definitely wouldn't have invaded if Bush Sr. had made it clear that it would not have been tolerated, instead of claiming that it was merely a local matter and that the US wouldn't get involved.