No doubt the US wasn't on the side of the angels when it seemingly decided that fascistic Baathism was superior to Islamic theocracy (or when it decided that the KR were somehow better than the Vietnamese). However, it also seems clear to me from articles like Mark Bowden's "Tales of the Tyrant" (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm) that Hussein didn't need to be goaded into the Iraq-Iran war, and that Hussein also didn't need much help from anyone to make Iraq (even by the dim standards of Middle Eastern depotism) an unpleasant place to live.
*******************************
Like a FischerSpooner performance this looks good and sounds good.
Ah, but is it good? Does the idea stand up to scrutiny?
We can perform a sort of experiment. Let's take the underlying, Pontius Pilate-esque washed hands assumption - Saddam was a bad man and didn't need any help from the US to be bad, so maybe immoral foreign policy was not the root cause of woe - and plug and play it into another scenario.
....
Years ago, I lived in a rough neighborhood where youthful narcotics dealers sold their stuff and battled amongst themselves for control of choice marketing spots. These guys were not marksmen and so, too often, people minding their own business were wounded and killed as these armed men and children turned their glocks and tek 9s against each other and missed.
We can agree that these young men were mad, bad and dangerous to know.
Suppose I stepped in and said, "gentlemen, I'll provide you with better weapons, ones with laser sights, along with training in the proper use of your new toys. Hell, I'll even help you upgrade your killing power by giving you the good stuff - rocket launchers, surface to surface missiles, land mines - you'll be Scarface on fucking super steroids!"
The boys happily agree and the flow of blood continues, indeed, even increases.
They were bad news before I arrived yes? So, during the trial, I can say with a straight face, "well, they were already bad you see. If I'm guilty of anything, it's only helping an already bad bunch who surely would have done awful things even in my absence."
Later, at a press conference, one of my most ardent supporters, a certain Mr. Weiger, states "he's done some good things in the past and, this unfortunate incident notwithstanding, I think he'll do some good things in the future. Imagine what would have happened if he hadn't stepped in? Besides, I hear that there's a guy around the corner who's done the same thing."
.......
By arming, aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein, the United States, through it's foreign policy, became co-creators WITH Saddam of whatever crimes he committed. It took disobedience - the invasion of Kuwait - to break this fell marriage. There was no change of heart based upon a reconsideration of the morality, no deviation from the course.
You say there was some choice made between Ba'athist fascism and Islamic theocracy? I doubt the historical accuracy of this but let's accept it for the sake of argument. Were there only two such choices?
Like the ronin Itto Ogami, presented by a treacherous Shogun with two, equally bad choices, the US could have chosen a third option that did not involve aiding anyone who commits atrocities.
Not merely "not on the side of angels" but firmly, with no equivocation, on the side of the most bloodthirsty demons. In this way, internal freedoms aside, the US is like every other great power that has ever had its day under the sun. From the city of Ur and on down the line.
There is no American exceptionalism - regardless of the happy, 'we'll get it right some day' dreams of liberal warriors - when it comes to actions on the world stage.
DRM
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com