How not to rule the world
or, How the US government created Saddam Hussein, and how to avoid doing it again.
You can be for or against the war, for or against the president, but you can't be for or against the facts--the history of what our government has done. This brief summary of our government's involvement in Iraq is designed to give you, dear reader, a quick primer on the unfortunate chain of events that have led us to the present day. As this summary will no doubt show, removing Saddam Hussein from power will not be a solution to the problems we face unless we address the root causes--and stop playing the dangerous game of destabilizing other countries out of hunger for their resources. With Hussein out, we have a rare chance to break the cycle that got us here--but with major corporate interests such as Halliburton already gorging themselves on blood money, we're not off to a good start.
What I hope this quick recap will do is help to ignite a critical thought process about where we are now and where we're headed. No one can really evaluate what we're doing in the Middle East today without knowing what we've done in the past, and they're not teaching this stuff in school.
Note the links that accompany the summary below. They point to web sites that elaborate on the points mentioned here, and are the best sources I could find for concise and effective overviews of these key points. One more note on the history: I'm focusing here on the portion that pertains to the US government, since that applies most directly to the present day. A comprehensive survey would go back to Britain's colonization of Iraq during WWI, if not much further. But let's begin our story...
STEP ONE: THE IRANIAN COUP OF 1953
American and British intelligence services played a key role in initiating and planning a coup that deposed the democratically elected premier, Mohammed Mossadeq, and installed the Shah in his place. The main reason: oil. Mossadeq wanted a bigger share for his own country in Iran's oil interests, which were dominated by the British. What he wanted was fair--a 50-50 split--but the British refused. Then the CIA stepped in, coordinating a coup that resulted in a leader who was much more friendly toward British and newly-arrived American oil companies. More information
STEP TWO: REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ, 1963
In the late 1950s, the US government used Iraqi leader Abdel Karim Kassem as a foil against our Egyptian "foe" of the day, Gamal Abdel Nasser. When Kassem began to exhibit signs of defiance against the West, becoming belligerent and expressing a desire to challenge US supremacy in the Middle East, the US decided he had to go. Much like today, the move was opposed by many allies, but our government pressed on. Once again the CIA stepped in, attempting an assassination and subsequently supporting and providing information for rebels, who soon overthrew and executed Kassem. It was a bloody coup, as hundreds of Iraq's educated elite were killed by the CIA's thug squad of choice.
Here's where things start to get really interesting: as its instrument for the coup, the CIA chose...none other than the Baath party, now notorious as the party of Saddam Hussein. At the time, Hussein was an enterprising 25-year-old who participated in both the Kassem assassination attempt and the bloody mass-murder that accompanied the coup. Two significant developments then emerged: the US started sending arms to the new regime, and US firms began their first major involvement in Iraq's oil business. More information
STEP THREE: REVOLUTION IN IRAN, 1979
The US-installed Shah had brought a degree of economic development to Iran, but this was achieved through repressive, controlling means that left little benefit to the average Iranian--high inflation and unemployment were the chief effects--and allegedly involved the theft of billions of dollars by the Shah. Dissent against the Shah was dealt with by his brutal secret police force, called SAVAK. Popular opposition to the Shah grew, particularly among conservative Shiite Muslims who wanted the country to return to governance by Islamic law. Riots grew to such an intensity that the Shah was forced to flee the country, and he was replaced by the popular Muslim clergyman Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini reversed the US-driven Westernization of the preceding years and quickly denounced the United States as the "Great Satan." More information
STEP FOUR: THE IRAN & IRAQ WAR, 1980-1988
In July 1979, Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq after engineering the resignation of his predecessor, Hasan al-Bakr. Growing hostilities between Iraq's secular government and Iran's Islamic republic boiled over when Iraq attacked Iran in September 1980, hoping to score a quick victory. The UN Security Council called for an end to the war and for all member nations to refrain from any actions that would prolong the conflict. The USSR ceased all arms sales to both parties (the US, who had previously sold a great deal of arms to Iran, ceased when the Shah was overthrown). As the war dragged on, the US decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, and began a systematic campaign of tacit, if "unofficial", support for Iraq. The US removed Iraq from the list of states supporting terrorism, gave loan assistance, and even gave (illegally and in secret) intelligence and military support.
This latter type of support becomes more troubling as Iran begins to report Iraqi use of chemical weapons. Only a few years later did the US publicly condemn Iraq's use of such weapons, but this message was blunted by two visits to Baghdad (December 1983 and March 1984) by Donald Rumsfeld, dispatched as a presidential envoy, where various types of US support were discussed (including assistance in transporting Iraqi oil and in acquiring bank credits for Iraq). More information
STEP FIVE: SANCTIONS, 1990-2003
On August 6, 1990, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq. After Iraq was beaten back in the first Gulf War, the sanctions were left in place as part of an effort to achieve other goals such as Iraqi disarmament. A humanitarian crisis quickly developed (including over 500,000 deaths beyond the historical average of children under 5) and it became evident that Hussein was manipulating the sanctions for his own benefit. But the US and UK blocked any weakening of the sanctions so long as Hussein remained in power. The eventual lifting of the sanctions in 2003 gave the US full control over Iraq's oil industry, the final achievement of the goal first sought in 1963. More information
So how do we stop this mess?
As the quick and selective survey above indicates, our dangerous manipulation of the governments of foreign countries doesn't happen in a vacuum--just as with any natural ecosystem, destabilizing one part of it eventually affects all others. Our country's ravenous need for oil, and our government's willingness to pursue it at any cost, has led to a deepening quagmire that has dragged on through many administrations, Republican and Democrat alike. I'm in no position to make a comprehensive recommendation about how to move on from here, but there are three things our country can and should do immediately to avoid perpetuating the terrible cycle illustrated above:
1. Get out of Iraq. Our past efforts to control Iraq's natural resources directly resulted in the destabilizing of the region and the coming to power of Saddam Hussein. We are no more able now to control the situation than we were then. In an eerie parallel, Britain conquered Iraq in WWI and took control of the country's oil industry. We may fool ourselves into thinking that our current conquering of Iraq solves the problem once and for all, but the history suggests otherwise. Do we think we're above repeating it? Now that the central strategic conflict is resolved, our presence is only causing more turmoil. If we truly want to bring freedom to the Iraqis, we have to start by acknowledging their right to it--on their own terms. Can you imagine an American Revolution where Britain remained in control of the US, hand-picked our rulers, oversaw elections, and controlled all of our industries? Of course not. And if this Iraqi freedom doesn't even hold up to our own country's standards, then how can we believe in it?
2. Reduce our dependence on oil. You'll notice I didn't say "foreign" oil, because it's all the same really. Our country's excessive dependence on oil creates a dangerous addiction, and like any addict we get paranoid about maintaining an ever-increasing supply and start to do irrational things when we become afraid of losing our drug. We don't all have to drive tiny electric 2-seater cars to make this situation better--we can all, as citizens, make a real difference in our oil consumption through simple, responsible choices about what vehicles we buy and how we use them (for example, nobody in the world needs a goddamned Hummer). We as a country have enormous potential to develop less damaging, more renewable sources of energy that will not only keep us out of dangerous situations abroad, but will also increase the quality of life and health of our environment at home. Taking the high road here will require a change in mindset among many Americans, from the notion that freedom and capitalism means "being able to do anything I want" to a more compassionate view of freedom: that it's a communal concept that doesn't free us from responsibility to one another.
3. Stop planting the seeds for the next Saddam. So long as our government continues to support dictators and tyrants to achieve our economic and military goals, our efforts will be stained with hypocrisy and corruption. This will have the dual detriment of creating powerful new figures throughout the world, who will eventually threaten and oppose us, while also lowering our esteem and trustworthiness in the eyes of the world. As an example, since 2002 our government has given over $200 million to the brutally repressive dictatorship of Uzbekistan as part of our strategic maneuvers related to the latest Iraq war. Coincidentally, it's an oil-rich, largely Muslim country ruled by a secular dictator...