Hitch

[Bradford DeLong]

>Bradford DeLong wrote:
>
>>Saddam Hussein has been effectively "contained" for the past 
>>decade--deterrence and "containment" do seem to work almost all the 
>>time, after all. But I don't like what "containment" does to the 
>>people of Iraq at all. And I am scared of what Saddam Hussein might 
>>do--I mean, launching two aggressive wars against neighbors is not 
>>confidence building, is it?
>
>Well, the first war was launched with the approval of the U.S., and 
>the second with some ambiguous (at the very least) signs from April 
>Glaspie. So things have changed a bit now, haven't they?
>
>Doug

Come on now.

When April Glaspie said that she understood that Saddam Hussein had 
to take some action to deal with Kuwaiti slant drilling, she did 
*not* mean that she understood that Saddam Hussein had to conquer and 
annex Kuwait. This "Glaspie gave a go-ahead nod for the annexation of 
Kuwait" seems to me likely to be completely false.

The claim that the U.S. pushed Saddam Hussein into attacking Iran in 
the fall of 1980 has always seemed to me to be highly unlikely, and 
advanced only by those totally deaf to political realities. Jimmy 
Carter was desperate to get the hostages out of the embassy. Jimmy 
Carter and Cyrus Vance were smart enough to know that ratcheting-down 
the tension was the best way to accomplish this--that unless they 
were willing to threaten an unlimited U.S. war against Iran, their 
chances of getting hostages back were better the less threatened the 
mullahs and the students felt. The Iraqi attack was--in Carter's and 
Vance's estimation--an  action that further radicalized the Iranian 
Revolution, and reduced chances for hostage release.

After all, were the other European monarchs trying to do Louis XVI a 
favor when they declared war on the Convention?

(Brzezinski, however, may well have been freelancing on his own, and 
may well have had a different policy than that of Carter...)

Brad DeLong