This n' That

 Note: I entitled this blog post "This n' That" because I'd planned on venting about a few things.  But topic number one ended up taking too much time.  I have a job and a rather long commute and a "side hustle" and venting here is just venting here.  It's an outlet for pressure, but that's about it.

1.  The First USA-Iraq War

In July of 1990 the Soviet Union was crumbling.  It had about a year and a half left to it before its dissolution on December 25th, 1991.  At that point, its last Premier, Mikhail Gorbachev was signalling the end of the Cold War and was attempting the transformation of the USSR into something resembling a Scandinavian social democracy.  (He failed of course.)

But the era of two military super-powers locked in a pereptual stand-off was clearly at an end.  The re-unification of West Germany and East Germany was already underway.  There was talk of a "peace dividend" now that the great political-ideological-international rivalry between the USA and the USSR was coming to a close with the USA the winner.

Obviously this wouldn't suit the Military Industrial Complex.  Cost-plus contracts; endless waste; gargantuan levels of corruption.  All on the taxpayers' dime.  Why squander the people's money on healthcare for them? Or housing?  Or education?

It's in that context that we should look at the meeting between Saddam Hussein and US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie.  

July 25, 1990 – Presidential Palace – Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship – not confrontation – regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?

Saddam Hussein – As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein – If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam massed troops to invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

It is beyond ludicrous to suggest that Glaspie was not luring Saddam Hussein into a trap for her master George H.W. Bush.  (Though, not surprisingly, many of her fellow imperialist diplomats have attempted to do exactly that.)  It is said that this meeting hadn't been planned, that Glaspie had been summoned by Saddam, that her superiors in the USA were asleep at the time.  As if both Glaspie and the Secretary of State and the President had noticed Saddam's build-up, were anxious about it, but hadn't developed any further thoughts on the matter.  As if Glaspie as an expert on the Middle East and the goddamned US Ambassador in Baghdad didn't know what Iraq's claims on Kuwait were.  As if "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts such as your dispute with Kuwait" is just a diplomatic way of saying nothing and NOT a clear expression of indifference to a threatened invasion!  

Now, I remember one time when I mentioned this (either online or in a meat-space conversation) that some silly person thought that I was justifying Saddam Hussein.  So let me state unequivocally, with my voice not quivering, that's not my point.  My point is that the Bush I Administration orchestrated Saddam Hussein into following his already formulated plan to invade Kuwait so that they could respond with a war that would provide continued justification for the Military-Industrial Complex.  It could establish George Bush Sr.'s "New World Order" ("What we say goes!")  That Chomsky link goes on to talk about the Establishment celebration of the death of the "Vietnam Syndrome."

The same Times reporter goes on to quote the gallant champion [H.W. Bush]  himself: “By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.” The second national newspaper joined in, applauding the “spiritual and intellectual” triumph in the Gulf: “Martial values that had fallen into disrepute were revitalized,” and “Presidential authority, under assault since Vietnam, was strengthened.” With barely a gesture towards the dangers of overexuberance, the ultraliberal Boston Globe hailed the “victory for the psyche” and the new “sense of nationhood and projected power” under the leadership of a man who is “one tough son of a bitch,” a man with “the guts to risk all for a cause” and a “burning sense of duty,” who showed “the depth and steely core of his convictions” and his faith that “we are a select people, with a righteous mission in this earth,” the latest in a line of “noble-minded missionaries” going back to his hero Teddy Roosevelt — who was going to “show those Dagos that they will have to behave decently” and to teach proper lessons to the “wild and ignorant people” standing in the way of “the dominant world races.” Liberal columnists praised “the magnitude of Bush’s triumph” over a much weaker enemy, dismissing the “uninformed garbage” of those who carp in dark corners (Thomas Oliphant). The open admiration for fascist values is a matter of some interest.⁹

For 20 years, there have been vigorous efforts to “kick the Vietnam syndrome,” defined by Reaganite intellectual Norman Podhoretz as “the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force.” He thought the disease was cured when we were “standing tall” after our astounding victory in Grenada. Perhaps that triumph of martial virtues was not enough, but now, at last, we have kicked these sickly inhibitions, the President exults. “Bush’s leadership has transformed the Vietnam Syndrome into a Gulf Syndrome, where `Out Now!’ is a slogan directed at aggressors, not at us” (Thomas Oliphant); we were the injured party in Vietnam, defending ourselves from the Vietnamese aggressors, from “internal aggression” as Adlai Stevenson explained in 1964. Having overcome the Vietnam syndrome, we now observe “the worthy and demanding standard that aggression must be opposed, in exceptional cases by force,” Oliphant continues — but, somehow, we are not to march on Jakarta, Tel Aviv, Damascus, Washington, Ankara, and a long series of other capitals.¹⁰

So, quite clearly, the MIA wanted an excuse for war.  Saddam Hussein was manipulated into thinking the USA had given him a green light to invade Kuwait and when he did, he was the "New Hitler," a "mad-man" with whom negotiations were pointless.  And Baghdad was bombed and retreating Iraqi soldiers were massacred from the air on the "Highway of Death."  And that tided things over until the dissolution of Yugoslavia could provide for some further US-American pomposity.  Then the "Great Bullshit War on Terror" which (insanely) included the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  But all the horror and death and futility of these abominations soon soured the US-American people on them.  Luckily for the US oligarchy, Vladimir Putin has been demonized for well over a decade and, evidently, a sizeable portion of the human race is so goddamned fucking stupid that the histrionic ravings of Rachel Maddow and other shameless propagandists are enough to get them braying like jackasses about how maybe a nuclear war is a worthwhile response to whatever atrocities, real or fabricated, that Putin has committed.

Remember, ... in Iraq-Kuwait as in Russia-Ukraine, there is to be no negotiation.  No diplomacy.  Just war, war, war.  This is evil.

2.  Russiagate Re-visited

I'll finish this later.  (Spoiler alert: I won't.)