September 1, 2002

OCTOBER SURPRISE?



It is a longstanding political practice that when the outcome of elections is in doubt the ruling party, of whatever designation, tries to change the cards in its favor by creating a foreign policy crisis. The assumption is that the nation will rally around the flag and you just "can't change horses in midstream." The upcoming midterm elections may well provide a great temptation repeat this time-tested paradigm. The more so since the Republicans have only a slim margin in the House and have lost the Senate by one vote. Furthermore it is also a historic fact that the party which controls the White House tends to lose rather than gain seats in midterm elections. Thus the Republicans are potentially in dire straits and their hope of gaining a solid majority in both houses of Congress may require a radical foreign policy coup. The only one that seems readily available and tailor-made is the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

I have been told that, as the saying goes, "It’s a done deal." On October 15 Saddam's government will be taken out by tactical air-borne strikes. U.S. elite forces which are already assembled in Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait plus some other sites, will drop from the sky onto Baghdad and take over. The Iraqi people will cheer like the Afghans did in Kabul and the November elections will be in the bag. When I told my informant, who is influential in Republican circles, that this sounds more like Texas Ranger Walker from the famed TV series rather than a realistic plan for battle because everything hinges on us knowing where Saddam is staying at a given moment, my concerns were dismissed with "oh we know!" Well, I'm not privy to what the President and his advisors really know, but I do remember that our mission in Afghanistan was to "get Osama bin-Laden dead or alive" and that is still in limbo.

I met my informant, whose right to privacy I intend to honor, during the early part of August when I had the opportunity to participate in an experiment of "grass roots" democracy. As a result of articles on this website, as well as others which I had submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune, I became acquainted with, Maha, a young woman who has relatives in Jordan. She and her husband are also deeply disturbed by the conditions the Palestinians have to live under in the West Bank and Gaza. She is, however, not content to merely bemoan their fate and write letters to the Tribune but she is a genuine well meaning activist in the best sense of the word. She has organized and participated in candle light vigils in downtown Salt Lake City and in addition she arranged meetings with our Representatives and Senators.

My physical condition no longer permits me to participate in candlelight vigils and protest marches but when she called me about joining a meeting with one of our senators I was most happy to oblige. I was especially interested because I had been prevented from seeing him last year by his secretaries who vigorously guard him from his constituents, as mentioned in the June 2001 installment. Since I had been unable to visit with the senator I had left a copy of Whither Zionism? with the secretaries, urging them to be sure to hand it in person to their boss. I even went the extra mile and sent an additional copy to the senator's Washington office. I was, therefore, most curious to find out what the fate of that little book had been and came armed with another copy.

As it turned out there were eleven of us who met that afternoon with our "junior" senator and he was gracious enough to listen to everyone. Attempts to meet with the senior senator had been unsuccessful because he talks only through intermediaries. But senator Bennett lent us his ears although when half an hour had passed the expected knock at the door came to let us know that we had overstayed our welcome. Nevertheless we persevered and he had to acquiesce in order not to sound too impolite. We informed him that America's unconditional support of the policies of the Sharon government is not in the best interest of either Israel or our own country, that the plight of the Palestinian people is severe and unless that issue is addressed, security for Israelis and Americans is a forlorn hope. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. We also told him that what is being done in that part of the world in America's name does not conform to the principles we as American citizens stand for and that he should be using his influence in the Senate to become a voice of reason rather than merely obeying the party leadership.

I actually was given the honor by the group to lead off with the discussion and my first question was: "Senator, have you seen this book?" while holding up Whither Zionism? He looked surprised and answered: "No." I then proceeded to tell him of my futile efforts to get this little booklet into his hands. I also told him that he ought to have a word with his staff. He should inform them that when efforts are made by his constituents to personally brief him on issues which are in the vital interest of our country and for which he will cast his vote they should be respected. I subsequently put the booklet in his hand and said: "Senator, please read it on the plane to Washington because that's all the time it takes, and then let me know what you think of it!" He smiled, said that he would but I have no illusions that he really did so. At any rate that was the last I have heard from him but I intend to send him an e-mail. Persistency paid off even for the poor widow and the hard headed judge as we can read in the gospels.

In concert with some of the others I also told the senator point blank that military action on part of America to remove Saddam from power is ill advised. Even if it were to succeed it is likely to turn the Arab masses against us. This is not the way to win the war against terror but is on the contrary an open invitation for more attacks on American lives and property. At that point he became adamant and recited the well known mantra that Saddam is a dangerous madman and criminal who has poisoned his own people, has started two wars against his neighbors, has stockpiles of weapons of mass destructions, is working to get more, will have in short order nuclear capability and this must be prevented at all cost. He is sure to unleash anthrax, smallpox, the plague and other assorted ills against our country which puts us into terrible danger.

It was obvious that the senator's mind was closed and reason could not reach him. But let us look at the facts now and the Encyclopedia Britannica tends to be a reliable resource for history. When one consults it, Saddam looks actually a great deal more rational than he is being portrayed currently. What was, however, the most surprising aspect is that we owe the Middle East mess to none other than our own President Wilson and his famous 14 points. The Ottoman Empire which controlled the area was to be dismembered, Wilson told Congress on January 8, 1918. The non-Turkish nationalities of the empire should be "assured of an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development." Let us remember, however, that America was not even at war with the Ottoman Empire when Wilson already disposed of it.

When it came to divide the spoils after the war, the British and the French had no use for truly independent nations and established a series of client states. Present day Iraq was cobbled together from the former Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra but was far from ethnically uniform and served mainly British interests. The borders we now know were finalized in 1922. These were, of course, arbitrarily drawn and the biggest losers for self-determination were the Kurds. Their tribal area was parceled out to Turkey, Iraq and Iran.

The Brits wanted to have a League of Nations mandate over Iraq but the Iraqis insisted on nationhood and gave the British a hard time until independence was achieved in 1932. Initially the country was a constitutional monarchy but it was toppled by a military coup in 1958. A claim by the revolutionary government to Kuwait was abandoned in 1961 when Britain and some Arab governments opposed it. Another rebellion in 1963 brought the Ba'th party ("Revival" or "Renaissance") to power with Saddam Hussein, our "madman," as one of its prominent members. The party advocated Arab nationalism and socialism. Several other coups occurred thereafter until 1968 when the Ba'th party took control again and Saddam Hussein, with a group of armed officers arrested the chief cabinet minister, an-Nayif. Contrary to expectations he was not executed but was sent as ambassador to Morocco. The president of the Republic, Al-Bakr, remained in office until 1979 when his mantle fell on Saddam as his successor who had actually been running most of the government affairs for several years already because Al-Bakr was elderly and in poor health. Industries were nationalized, agrarian reform initiated and irrigation projects were carried out. A small private sector was permitted to exist and there was also a mixture of private and state enterprises.

But there were some domestic and foreign complications. The Kurds tried on several occasions to overthrow the Ba'th regime and in 1974 they initiated a full fledged war. They had help from the Shah of Iran who was interested in the disputed waterway of the Shatt-al-Arab. Saddam met with the Shah in 1975 and a treaty was negotiated which ended the war against the Kurds because they no longer had Iranian support.

Saddam started his presidency in 1979 by discovering a plot to overthrow him whereupon he had 22 conspirators executed while others were sent to prison. This had a salutary effect and Saddam's rule has never been seriously challenged thereafter. The reasons for the Iran-Iraq war were directly related to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Although Iraq recognized the Khomeini regime this was not mutual because the Ayatollah regarded the secular Saddam as a bad Muslim and insisted on fomenting an Islamic revolution in Iraq. There were also some minor border disputes, and skirmishes were frequent. On September 17, 1980 Saddam announced that he had abrogated the 1975 agreement with Iran, because the Iranians had already broken it. Iraqi forces invaded Iran on Sept.21-22 and also bombed various targets in that country. The UN stepped in and called for a cease-fire. Saddam agreed under the proviso that the Iranians did likewise which they were in no mood to do. From then on the war dragged on, the Iranians enlisted the help of the Kurds again and that is when Saddam, in order to protect the northern portion of his country, used chemical weapons "on his own people." This solved the problem in the north but Basra was still threatened.

By the mid-1980's Saddam looked mighty good to the Reagan administration, certainly better than the Ayatollah, and American help began to arrive. Another Security Council resolution in 1987 which urged Iraq and Iran to stop hostilities and return to their respective borders was accepted by Iraq but ignored by Iran. Only when Khomeini saw that the war could not be won and was afraid of an internal uprising did he accept Resolution 598 in August of 1988, but it took another ten years before all aspects of the resolution had been implemented.

During these ten years Saddam tried to raise his stature in the Arab world by cooperative agreements with his neighbors and a non-aggression pact with Saudi Arabia as well as Bahrain. It is understandable that he smarted from the Israeli attack on his nuclear reactor in 1981, while he was fighting the Iranians, and told the Israelis that if they were to attack his country again he would retaliate with chemical weapons. This upset the Reagan administration and led to strained relationships. Saddam added fuel to the glowing embers by making, in typical oriental hyperbole, inflammatory remarks about the West's hostile attitude, which paved the way for the Gulf War.

Apart from the problem with the Kurds there had been a long standing dispute about the legitimacy of Kuwait as a separate nation. As mentioned above, Iraq had, even before Saddam's ascension to power, regarded the country as one of its provinces. It was the British who had nixed the idea because they had their own fish to fry in that part of the world. Not only was there the sovereignty aspect, but there was also a dispute about two strategically located islands at the head of the gulf, and negotiations between the two countries about their fate went nowhere. In addition Iraq was in serious financial difficulties as a result of the Iran-Iraq war. It owed $80 billion, half of which was to go to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Saddam, in his naiveté, had assumed that his Arab brothers would not only forgive the debt but, in the spirit of the Marshall plan, help with the reconstruction of his country. He may well have thought that they owed him something for having saved their regimes from succumbing to an Iranian style of Muslim fundamentalism. But Arabs are not Americans and they not only left him high and dry, but also increased oil production which dropped the price and thereby reduced Saddam's revenues. The invasion of Kuwait was intended to solve his financial problems and help the cause of Iraqi nationalism. The decision was made even easier by a misunderstanding of what the American ambassador had said prior to the invasion. She seemed to have implied that America had no vital interest in this dispute.

But Papa Bush and Maggie Thatcher said "this will not stand" and the Gulf war was on. President Bush senior is now being criticized for "not having finished the job" when he had the chance to get rid of Saddam. But these connoisseurs of history fail to remember that Bush led a coalition and was acting under an UN mandate which demanded only the restoration of Kuwait's integrity. Regime change was not in the cards! In the aftermath of the gulf war Iraq was devastated. The Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south tried to get independence from Baghdad but after our initial encouragement of these efforts we withdrew support from the insurrectionists and left them to Saddam's not so tender mercies. Apparently our policy makers thought that a weak, ineffectual, but geographically intact Iraq would serve their purposes better than a dismembered one.

Since I have not examined Saddam in person I am not entitled to make a psychiatric diagnosis but from the history as presented above I find it difficult to believe that the man is irrational. Throughout his career he has acted in self-interest, like any good politician, although he has frequently underestimated his opponents. This is a not uncommon mistake to which even the Johnson administration succumbed. Let us also remember that Saddam is now 65 years old, has not embarked on any military ventures in the past ten years, and there is reason to hope that he might have learned from the mistakes of his youth. It is unlikely that he is either going to "nuke us" now or in the future, nor will he send us chemical weapons either directly or by proxy. With all the war hype which is going on nobody seems to ask the question why he would intend to attack us. He is not stupid and knows that any such act would be the end of him. He is not even likely to attack Israel, which would be the only logical target because we, if not the Israelis, would wipe him out and I do not believe that he is suicidal. If the Israelis feel threatened they have ample military resources to destroy Saddam's regime and I fail to see a reason why we ought to do the job for them.

Regardless whether it's October 15 or some other date, President Bush seems to feel obligated to finish the job his father had supposedly left undone. It looks like that he has already painted himself into a corner by all the bellicose rhetoric and he may now feel that face has to be saved and bombs have to fall. UN approval is neither regarded as necessary nor desirable. All that is needed now is an event which leads to some loss of American equipment or lives, which can be used to infuriate the public. But that should present no problem inasmuch as ample precedents exist how a casus belli can be manufactured at a moment's notice. Incidents at the no-fly zones, for instance, could readily provide the analogue of a Gulf of Tonkin event which served the Johnson administration so well in its quest to justify expansion of the war in Viet Nam.

Let us now assume for the sake of argument that everything goes miraculously well, it's all over within a few days before Saddam can send rockets loaded with biologic weapons to Israel, which he would surely do under other circumstances, and there is only relatively minor "collateral damage" among the civilian population. Saddam is dead and the Ba'th party gone, then what? We will install the analogue of a Karzai regime in Baghdad but it is not likely to have much control over the rest of the country. The government will be regarded as an illegitimate stooge for American interests, and Muslim fanatics, as well as Iraqi nationalists will do their best to destabilize it. The Kurds will in all likelihood want their independence but that will create a problem with our NATO ally Turkey because the Kurds may want to have their Turkish brethren in their own nation. This is what President Wilson had promised them after all. The same secessionist trends apply to the Basra district. The Shiites living in the area may want to join their fellow Shiites in Iran and that is likewise not in our interest. Who wants to make Iran stronger than the country already is? The next "war of liberation" against Iran is then automatically preprogrammed. Is that what the "Bushies" really want?

The British tried to control the Middle-East with governments of their choice. They failed! What is the reason to believe that we will be more successful? The fundamental problem is that we expect that everybody in the rest of the world has to think like us and when they don't they ought to be made to do so. It won't work. Oriental traditions are different from ours and cannot be shed by an executive fiat from Washington. We also ought to realize that Iraq, which basically is the ancient Mesopotamia, has produced the first great civilization this world has known. Americans see only the current situation but people in that part of the world have longer memories. They view themselves as the descendants of the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians who have ruled their countries long before there was a Western civilization which is actually in part derived from them. Before there was a Moses there was a Hammurabi and it was his laws, including the famous eye for an eye, which became incorporated into the Bible. If we have our pride so do they have theirs.

While I am highly skeptical of a military solution to our fight against the "axis of evil," there is, of course, another point of view as expressed, among others, by Mr. Podhoretz in the current issue of Commentary. He loves the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive strikes and firmly believes that the "Afghan model" will work. Once Baghdad is liberated Iran will fall on its own accord, as the next domino, and by implication so will the other Muslim regimes we are not fond of. Apparently the supporters of al Qaeda will then either see the light of democracy or just whither on the vine. Well, anything is possible, what is likely is another matter. It would, therefore, behoove the hawks in our administration, and especially President Bush, to remember that it takes only one party to make war but two to make peace. Once war starts in earnest there is no way of knowing how and when it will end.

Will there be the mentioned October surprise? No one can know for sure but the world may well be confronted sooner or later with a fait accompli. We, the citizens and taxpayers in whose name all of this being done, have just as little influence on the actions of our government as the Germans had under Hitler. But in contrast to those days democracy allows us to raise our voices in warning. If and when the war comes it will hardly be a surprise for anyone any more. The only real surprise would be if reason won out over passion.
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.
 
 

Please E-mail this article to a friend

Return to index!