Saddam Hussein and the US: A cosy Relationship gone wrong

Look at the past

The excecution of Saddam Hussein aon the day of Id marks an opportune moment to look back on his life, his brand of politics and of course, his relationship with the US which extended over three decades. I must say at the very outset that I deplore all that Saddam Hussein did in his life time, but yet maintain that the killing was not just bad politics but totally unjustified due to the fact that he did not receive a fair trial.

Saddam Hussein was born on 28th April 1937 near Tikri to a shepherd Arab family and was brought up by his stepfather for whom Saddam retained a great deal of real affection. He did not attend school till the age of 12 and learnt to read and write only in his teens. The early political formation of Saddam and men of his generation from less priveleged social backgrounds was in the Arab Socialist Baath Party which was influence deeply by Nasser's ideas of Arab nationalism. In the Arab Baath vision of politics there was no place for sectarian/religious/tribal identities. The US invasion of Iraq and its barbaric assault on the Iraqi polpulation has unravelled the carapace of pan regional Arab identity that was built up over the years, after Suez crisis of 1956.

In Iraq as well as in neighboring Iran, the Communist Parties were quite powerful and recived the full backing og the Soviets. In this deady coktail of cold war politics and Arab nationalism, Saddam Hussein plunged head long. The Iraqi monary established by the British was overthrown by General Karim Kassim, who was supported by the Communists. Though it is not clear from the primary records, there have been persistent echoes across the Arab world of Saddam Hussein being in the pay of the CIA which was trying to subvert the Iraqi government with the silent support of Nasser in Egypt. In 1959 Saddam Hussein participated in an attempted assasination of the Prime Minister of Iraq, Kassim.He escaped with a bullet in his leg and the scars of that injury remained all his life. As can be expected he was sentenced to death in absentia as he had escaped to Egypt. Had this sentence been activated and Saddam executed it would have been more just and honest. In Cairo Hussein trained to be a lawyer.

In 1963 the American backed CIA coup overhrew Qassim and this was just the first of several CIA operations in the Middle East. Saddam was back in Baghdad and the CIA provided him a list of prominent Communists and Saddam proved his mettle by tracking down and having a large number of communists killed. The Baath Party filled the political vacucum created by the eslipse of the Communists. In neighboring Iran too the CIA sponsored a coup in which a Natioanlist government was overhrown and the Shah and his blood thirst crew brought back. In 1963 Saddam Hussein became the Vice Secretary General of the Baath Party and in 1968 played an important role in the Coup that toppled the regime in Baghdad and in this coup too the US hand is suspected.

In the early 1970's Saddam Hussein was secure in his position to ease out Ahmed Bakr, a Tikriti, and became the dominant political personality. At every step he was aided by his deep and abiding links with the CIA. In fact the Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein was reviled all over the Third World as a right wing dictatorship. What was not understood by the American sponsors of Saddam Hussein was that though he was willing to play ball with the Amricans, he was at heart an Arab Nationalist. One of the first acts of Saddam Hussein in power was to nationalise the oil and petroleum wealth of Iraq, a major blow to the US interests. Now we can understand why a President with strong links to the Oil Companies like George Bush II was so eager to launch an all out war against Saddam Hussein and even collaborate in his execution.

In 1972 Saddam Hussein signed a Treaty of Friendship with the then Soviet Union He embarked upon a programme of social and economic development in Iraq which transformed Iraq from a poor backward country into a vibrant economy. Saddam Hussein was responsible for spreading literacy in Iraq and today that country has the highest rate of literacy in the middel east. He launched a programme of Cummpulsory Free Education in Iraq and instituted land reforms that completely changed the face of Iraqi socirty. In fact the UNESCO honored Saddam Hussein with its highest award for the program.

Throughout the 1970's and 1980's the USA enjoyed the closest of ties with the regime of Saddam Hussein. The Iranian revolution had overthrown the client monarchy in Iran and the USA began to build up Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against what it preceived to be the threat of the Iranian Revolution spreading into the rest of the Arab world. USA in particular stoked Saddam's ambition of becoming the preeminent power in the region. Though Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party were staunch nationalists, the Iranian Government began to fan the fires of Shiaa sectatrian opposition to Saddam Hussein. The fact that Saddam had the complete backing of the USA and other western powers throughout the 8 long years of the Iran-Iraq War which took more that 1.5 million lives.In that war Kuwait with its cash rich oil weatth had promised Iraq a sum of 30 billion US $ as its contribution to the war against Iran. Kuwait never kept the promise and Iraq was drained of its oil wealth during the course of the war. The US gave military aid to the tune of 1.5 billion US dollars to Saddam Hussein dring the Iran Iraq War. This fact is hidden in all the discussions on the US relationship with the deposed dictator. This fact also explains why Saddam was not tried for the more serious charges of war crimes during the Iran Iraq war. Had a trial been held the truth of US complicity would have come out.

The problem with Kuwait was not just the promise of the war charges. During the Iran Iraq war, Kuwait bagan side drilling the oil fields near the border with Iraq and extracted oil worth a few billion. And Kuwait was a provinve of the Ottoman Empire and Iraq has always had claims over Kuwait and trhe only reason the West created Kuwait as an independent emirate was to protect its investment in Kuwait.

It is at this point Saddam made his biggest mistake: he marched into Kuwait in earlyn 1991 thinking that the US will back him as it had done in the past. That was a major miscalculation and the UN imposed sanctions regime led to the death of more than a million Iraqis.

How will the Iraqis remember Saddam Hussein? After the passions exited by the US sponsored Idenntity politics dies down, the Iaqis will remember Saddam Hussein as a martyr killed by the USA when he asserted Arab natioanlist pride.
30,614 views 76 replies
Reply #1 Top
whatever Bahu
Reply #2 Top
This is nothing but pro-Saddam propaganda.  Most Iraqi will remember Sadam as an oppressive dictator who brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of people. 
Reply #3 Top
Most Iraqi will remember Sadam as an oppressive dictator who brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of people.


similar to the way most iranians will remember the shah...or nicaraguans the somozas...or chileans pinochet.
Reply #4 Top
similar to the way most iranians will remember the shah...or nicaraguans the somozas...or chileans pinochet.


At least you get the right thugs. Bahu cant even do that.
Reply #5 Top
Yep, nations have thresholds for how much evil they can tolerate. Oddly, you fail to point out that as Hussein's evils became more and more known to the world, the CLOSER he became to "anti-war" nations. As the US decided he was just to much of a nut to deal with, nations like France and Germany and China and others forged stronger and stronger ties.

They were meeting with him, offering gifts, sending executives from their biggest companies, etc., up to a couple of months before the US invaded. Deals to resupply his military were already inked, they were just waiting for the sanctions to be lifted eventually. China was already shipping in fiber optics to update his air defenses, which he was using to fire at coalition aircraft in the no-fly-zone.

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, Bahu, refresh my memory. Weren't you one of the ones proclaiming the suffering of the Iraqi people under sanctions before the war? Quoting hideous numbers like thousands of children dying a day, yadda yadda?

So, I have to ponder your attitude since the war, and your attitude concerning containment, and your attitude concerning the UN supplying Hussein while his people suffered. To me, the only solution that would have satisfied you would have been to leave Saddam in place, and remove the sanctions. No, I think you don't have much right to condemn the US for supporting Hussein, when obviously a continuation of Hussein's evils was your most favored outcome.
Reply #6 Top
In that war Kuwait with its cash rich oil weatth had promised Iraq a sum of 30 billion US $ as its contribution to the war against Iran. Kuwait never kept the promise and Iraq was drained of its oil wealth during the course of the war.


So now the 30 billion that Iraq owed Kuwait because he borrowed it to fund his war was a pledge from Kuwait? If I understand you correctly you are saying that the reason Iraq gave for its attack on Kuwait was the theft of its oil and to avoid paying back the billions it owed Kuwait. I like how you re-write history.
Reply #7 Top
Bahu - the way you are going on about Saddam makes me think of Col Genes obsession with Bush...you are fast becoming obsessed with all Hussein. The horse is dead already - leave it alone now.
Reply #8 Top
BRAVO!! FINALLY A FAIR AND DECENT ARTICLE ABOUT THIS GREAT MAN!!

LIBERALMAN
Reply #9 Top
The horse is dead already - leave it alone now


This horse may be dead, but it will ride on.  Iraq gave for its attack on Kuwait was the theft of its oil and to avoid paying back the billions it owed Kuwait. I

The mury details will eventually out. The fact is that Kuwait had signed on for the War against Iran and had undertaken to bear a part of the expenses of the Iraqi war effort. You seem to forget that the Shiaa revolution was as much a threat to the conservative sultanates of the Gulf as it was to US oil interests. Saddam felt that as a major "secular" force in the middle east, he had the political and politicaL MUSCLE TO TAKE ON Iran. And in this USA supported him to the hilt, a fact that is now forgotten.



No, I think you don't have much right to condemn the US for supporting Hussein, when obviously a continuation of Hussein's evils was your most favored outcome

I have not supported the tregime of Saddam Hussein at all. There is no difference between the regime of al Maliki and his Shiaa death squads backed by the US in the Green Zone and the regime of Saddam/
Reply #10 Top
You can say you don't support it, but then the only possible outcome you allow for morally is leaving Hussein to do whatever he wants. Sanctions, containment, regime change, all brought nothing but criticism and outrage from you. After a while, it begins to appear as if the only eventuality you would be satisfied with is Hussein back in his 1980's prime.
Reply #11 Top
There is no difference between the regime of al Maliki and his Shiaa death squads backed by the US in the Green Zone and the regime of Saddam/


Actually, there is a lot of difference, but you don't want to understand that.
Reply #12 Top
Saddam felt that as a major "secular" force in the middle east, he had the political and politicaL MUSCLE TO TAKE ON Iran. And in this USA supported him to the hilt, a fact that is now forgotten.


Forgotten by whom? All I read during the run up to the war was Saddam had no WMD and the US saying yes he did because we sold it to him. We went to war and still can't account for all the stuff we know he had, I am not talking about the stuff we and all major intel sercives around the world thinks he may have produced but the stuff Saddam admitted he had after the Gulf war. If he was being honest with us then where is the stuff? If he was being dishonest with us then we have a larger worry because the stuff we think he produced added to the stuff we know he had means there is a huge amount of chemical and biological war stock that is missing. Had he left the facilities in place and built new ones then he would have been able to hide new stocks better but he hid everything including the equipment. That is a problem!

Reply #13 Top
yall seem to be missing bahu's larger point.

based on his research--none of which has been refuted nor has anyone even attempted to do so on this thread--hussein's iraq was a product of us foreign policy. which is to say, the west (starting with the brits after wwi) is in very large part responsible for iraq becoming a rogue state. should things continue the way they've been going, we will also be responsible for it becoming a failed state.

establishing and maintaining plausible deniability in regard to the former required hussein to be prosecuted for crimes about which the scope could be most closely controlled by the court so as to prevent him from raising the issue of complicity and revealing who did what when.

while hussien appears to have committed far greater crimes than the one for which he was tried, only one death warrant was necessary; executing him rapidly as possible eliminated any ability on his part to reveal the many secrets to which he was privy.
Reply #14 Top
If he was being dishonest with us then we have a larger worry because the stuff we think he produced added to the stuff we know he had means there is a huge amount of chemical and biological war stock that is missing. Had he left the facilities in place and built new ones then he would have been able to hide new stocks better but he hid everything including the equipment. That is a problem!


exactly.

isn't there some sorta aphormism about secrets dying unrevealed with those who keep them?
Reply #15 Top
Actually, there is a lot of difference, but you don't want to understand that.


yup. there's way more shia than sunnis in the new government. neither maliki nor al-sadr wears military uniforms--yet. neither one has absolute power--yet.

give em time.

hussein's baghdad wasn't built in a day either.
Reply #16 Top
based on his research--none of which has been refuted nor has anyone even attempted to do so on this thread--hussein's iraq was a product of us foreign policy. which is to say, the west (starting with the brits after wwi) is in very large part responsible for iraq becoming a rogue state. should things continue the way they've been going, we will also be responsible for it becoming a failed state.


We have not refuted the allegation that the moon is made of green cheese either. Do we have to for those who chose not to believe? Apparently. He spews a lot of allegations, with no supporting documentation. I guess that is why you like him. The seriousness of the allegation negates the necessity for proof of it?

Same old buzzer.
Reply #17 Top
He spews a lot of allegations, with no supporting documentation


you're disputing the chronology of hussein's cv?

what's next...defining what 'is' is?
Reply #18 Top
Please provide proof that he didn't receive a fair trial. You are so full of shit that you have ceased to be amusing.
Reply #19 Top
you're disputing the chronology of hussein's cv?

what's next...defining what 'is' is?


No, that is your forte'. Please reread my response and then provide proof of his ALLEGATIONS. Did I say chronology? Geez, I guess I cant spell, or you cant read.
Reply #20 Top
Please provide proof that he didn't receive a fair trial.


You honestly feel that he did? The judges gave consistent preferential treatment to the prosecution, defence lawyers were assassinated, the defence was barely given an opportunity to argue its case and it was blatantly obvious that no jury in the country would give him a fair trial.

His obvious guilt doesn't excuse the circus that passed for a trial. They may as well have just pronounced judgement on the first day. From the moment he entered the courtroom it was a foregone conclusion.
Reply #21 Top
Saddam had more of a fair trial than he ever gave any of his victims.  
Reply #22 Top
Did I say chronology? Geez, I guess I cant spell, or you cant read.


or...your comment #16 is so typically vague and ambiguous (to provide you with lots and lots of wiggle room as anyone foolish enough to question your take on anything quickly learns) it's impossible to determine what exactly you're refusing to refute.

shall we start with hussien's date of birth? his father's name?

how about cia involvement in the 1963 coup, one consequence of which was saddam being named vice-secretary general of the victorious baath party (a crucial step in his trek to the top)?

works for me. grab a hunk of green cheese and enjoy the read:

In fact there is a primary source on the U.S. side who is on record as admitting that the CIA knew all about the coup ahead of time and so well in fact that it proves that they had "at least unofficial complicity in the plot."

Writing in his memoirs of the 1963 coup, long time OSS and CIA intelligence analyst Harry Rositzke presented it as an example of one on which they had good intelligence in contrast to others that caught the agency by surprise. The Ba’ath overthrow “was forecast in exact detail by CIA agents.”

"Agents in the Ba’th Party headquarters in Baghdad had for years kept Washington au courant on the party’s personnel and organization, its secret communications and sources of funds, and its penetrations of military and civilian hierarchies in several countries…
CIA sources were in a perfect position to follow each step of Ba’th preparations for the Iraqi coup, which focused on making contacts with military and civilian leaders in Baghdad. The CIA’s major source, in an ideal catbird seat, reported the exact time of the coup and provided a list of the new cabinet members.
…To call an upcoming coup requires the CIA to have sources within the group of plotters. Yet, from a diplomatic point of view, having secret contacts with plotters implies at least unofficial complicity in the plot."

Harry Rositzke, The CIA’s Secret Operations: Espionage, Counterespionage, and Covert Action (Boulder, CO: 1977), 109-110.

There is also career Foreign Service Officer James Akins (Second Poliitcal Secretary in the embassy at Baghdad during the 1963 coup) who has confided to a number of scholars "off the record" that the CIA was actively involved.

I know this because I talked to some of the scholars and I have read everything I know of that has been published on the CIA involvement in the coup. I wrote my master's thesis about this entitled, "U.S. COVERT INTERVENTION IN IRAQ 1958-1963:
THE ORIGINS OF U.S. SUPPORTED REGIME CHANGE IN MODERN IRAQ." This is published and available in the library at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona California and I would be glad to make an electronic version available to this blog.

For the paper I conducted an oral history and heard very similar sounding denials from Ed Kane. Ed Kane was the head of the Iraq Desk in Washington for the CIA at the time. In my paper I publish the details of my interview with him and document the fact that he is lying. There is also many other sources with more or less compelling evidence of CIA complicity so much so you just have to read the paper.

Bill Zeman
[email protected]
**

**blatantly copied verbatim from juan cole's 'informed consent' forum

informed consent
Reply #23 Top
Saddam had more of a fair trial than he ever gave any of his victims.


A fair trial is not merely one that is fairer than an atrocity. It is a trial based on principles of justice and fairness. It is a trial that gives due process. It is a trial where the law is held to be more important than anything else.

If the law is not respected in a trial than we have no right to call it fair or just. The ends do not justify the violent rape of the English language even if you do feel they justify the means.

As a conservative I would have thought you would be against the growing meaninglessness of contemporary English. Isn't culture and language something you're supposed to be in favour of preserving?
Reply #24 Top
based on his research--none of which has been refuted nor has anyone even attempted to do so on this thread--hussein's iraq was a product of us foreign policy. which is to say, the west (starting with the brits after wwi) is in very large part responsible for iraq becoming a rogue state. should things continue the way they've been going, we will also be responsible for it becoming a failed state


I agree with you and many seem to forget the fact that Saddam enjoyed a warm relationship with the US thanks fiirst to the ColdWar and subsequently the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Unfortunately the US could not decide whether it should continur to back Saddam after he begabn to re assert his independence or the tranform him into a depot and dethore him during Operation Sesert Storm. Then the WMD came in handy.

Please provide proof that he didn't receive a fair trial. You are so full of shit that you have ceased to be amusing.


The fact thst the crime he was tried for were brought on to the statutes retrospectivel;y, the fact that the Defece was intimidated and procedures were changed to suit the procecution all adds up to an unfair trial Mr Mason. I am sorry that you are not able to see the injustice in the whole affair, though from your other writings on the blog I do get the imptression that you have quite a sense of right and wrong. I can quote the immortal words of Rick in Casabalnca: "You sound like a man despartely trying to convince himself that he is right knowing all the while that yoyu are wrong".

Thank you Kingbee for the excellent response.
Reply #25 Top
You honestly feel that he did? The judges gave consistent preferential treatment to the prosecution, defence lawyers were assassinated, the defence was barely given an opportunity to argue its case and it was blatantly obvious that no jury in the country would give him a fair trial.


Before I can even hope to agree with this statement I first want to know the extent of your knowledge of Iraqi law. It may not seem fair in your part of the world but your laws are different that thiers. When Saddam ran the country a fair trial would be given but the outcome would have been determined before the trial started. At least for those lucly enough to have a trial.

how about cia involvement in the 1963 coup, one consequence of which was saddam being named vice-secretary general of the victorious baath party (a crucial step in his trek to the top)?


How about Saddam's choice to take over the government by breaking the law. This got him a death sentence causing him to flee the country. Was the CIA at fault there as well?

I agree with you and many seem to forget the fact that Saddam enjoyed a warm relationship with the US thanks fiirst to the ColdWar and subsequently the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Unfortunately the US could not decide whether it should continur to back Saddam after he begabn to re assert his independence or the tranform him into a depot and dethore him during Operation Sesert Storm. Then the WMD came in handy.


Are you sure you understand how diplomacy works? You seem divoid of this knowledge. Diplomacy is the advancing of national goals internationally. Doing what is in the best interest of a nation. It served a nations interest to have madmen on a leash at one time. Goals change and those madmen are either killed or cut loose. Every nations does this, the more powerful the nation the more powerful the madmen on the leash. When those madmen bite thier owner or are no longer of value to a nation they are destroyed. This has been the case for over 100 years. What I don't understand is why you think this is either shocking or unique to America? America had a cozy and warm relationship with they USSR because it was in our interest to do so. When Europe feard the USSR it was in thier best interest to beg America to join NATO which made our friend the USSR an enemy that we had to destroy. The USSR started training and funding terrorist around the world in order to combat NATO without getting its hands dirty. Some of those terrorist trained their people and now we have AQ. Hammas was started by people that were trained by people trained by the USSR. Yet In your mind America is the only evil in the world. I believe this comes from a serious lack of understanding and context of the history you blindly quote.