Major General Brian Tarbet, in a news conference, when asked what he would say to those who lost homes in the Machine Gun Fire, said: “We say we’re sorry.” (SL tribune 9/21/10)
What he should have said was:
“A team of appraisers is en route to Salt Lake, with authority to arrange for complete coverage for your material losses. Starting Monday, they will contact those whose homes were lost, then continue until all claims are satisfied in full. I will personally be contacting you throughout the process to verify your satisfaction.
Further, all future actions involving live-fire will be accompanied by a fire suppression team, equipped with a pumper truck, a water truck, and full crews. We will also notify the Unified Fire Authority one week in advance of any live fire actions, giving them the GPS co-ordinates of the range in use. Additionally, we hereby promise not to conduct any live-fire actions on red flag days, notwithstanding our failure in the instance known as the Machine Gun Fire.
My staff is waiting at the desks in the rear of the room to take pertinent information from each of you; and they will also be providing you with a list of names, phone numbers and other information regarding the appraiser who will be working your claim. My number is at the top of each list, please call me if you feel any dissatisfaction whatever.
Thank you for your time, and again, we will be here to make this correct for you.
I will now take any questions you may have.”
That is saying “We’re Sorry” in a REAL way.
This blog contains some of my personal, political, moral, and social views of our society today. All of the posts here are copyrighted, and may not be used, copied, etc. without the permission of the author. Comments are welcome! All comments must be in a family-acceptable verbiage. Feel free to share this blog with anyone that might be interested in reading and/or discussing the material I present. Thanks for visiting. R.M. "Bob" Hartman
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Politics and Money
In my high school civics course, we were taught that individuals were selected by popular vote based upon their ability to convince the majority of voters that this candidate best could represent them in the local, state, or federal office that was open for election; and that, upon being elected, the individual would perform as to the programs and ideals that endeared him/her to the electorate. Is this still the case, or was it ever?
Current events tend me to be cynical regarding this lesson, for I now find our politicians using less of their time to talk to their constituents and more time to talk with those who may be able to open big pocketbooks, or who may be able to deliver large contributions to the favored PAC of the politician under review. As an example, observe the behavior of Utah state legislator Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman, UT), who now solicits paid speaking engagements outside of his jurisdiction, and more relevant to this point, outside of the state of Utah. In return of fees ranging from $1500 to $4500, the good conservative representative will attend, participate in, or lead discussions that support the points of view of those open pocketbooks. However, should you try to obtain an interview with him, in Utah, regarding his position on matters that have or will come up in the State legislature; you will find, as I did, that his schedule does not permit such activity.
The attendees at these out of state events he is willing to participate in will not vote in a Utah election; they are not affected in the main by his political acts, or by his votes in our Legislature. The only benefits received are (1) his support of the causes being presented at these events, and (2) his war chest for the next election.
I am not saying that Rep Wimmer is unusual, or that his actions have no precedent in politics. My theory is that money has become more important than the population our elected officials who are chosen, by the voting public, to represent the public's best interests.
The study of money in politics is not new; consider the effects of groups such as “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” or “Moveon.org”. Both (and untold others) funneled large amounts of money to support/destroy candidates over and above the actual position of the candidates. In an effort to get the “right” people elected, PAC’s have been able, legally it can be stated, to push huge donations and advertising moneys into areas without declaration of their intent to impact the voters in any election.
Why? The first, largest, and most complete answer is that running for office is extremely expensive. Consider the moneys spent to elect the President of the United States. This office pays $400,00 per year (plus benefits) and yet conservatively speaking, $1 billion was spent by the major candidates in 2008.
Certainly it can be argued that money does need to be spent, that the candidates need to have a public forum to spread their point of view and convince the electorate to vote in their favor; the media, being businesses, consider this a favorable source of revenue and naturally charge whatever the market will bear in return for airing advertisements. This is the natural order of the business of politics, and it is necessary for the candidates to raise sufficient funds to get their messages out to the public. The means and methods of raising this money, however, are the core of this discussion.
Can or should we limit the amount of money that individuals, groups, businesses, and PAC’s (as well as other unknown entities) can contribute to the election of officials? One of the candidates for Governor of Utah has proposed a strict limit of $1000.00 on any campaign contribuitions coming from all groups, businesses, etc. Is this a reasonable amount? A recent Supreme Court ruling now allows corporations to donate as if they were individual voters; however, a corporation cannot cast a ballot. Is this a proper step for our Judicial Branch of the Federal Government to take? Is this "legislating from the bench, as we often hear? It will certainly be interesting to see the politicians flip-flop on this issue, as it will get a real test this election cycle.
As always, comments are appreciated.
Current events tend me to be cynical regarding this lesson, for I now find our politicians using less of their time to talk to their constituents and more time to talk with those who may be able to open big pocketbooks, or who may be able to deliver large contributions to the favored PAC of the politician under review. As an example, observe the behavior of Utah state legislator Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman, UT), who now solicits paid speaking engagements outside of his jurisdiction, and more relevant to this point, outside of the state of Utah. In return of fees ranging from $1500 to $4500, the good conservative representative will attend, participate in, or lead discussions that support the points of view of those open pocketbooks. However, should you try to obtain an interview with him, in Utah, regarding his position on matters that have or will come up in the State legislature; you will find, as I did, that his schedule does not permit such activity.
The attendees at these out of state events he is willing to participate in will not vote in a Utah election; they are not affected in the main by his political acts, or by his votes in our Legislature. The only benefits received are (1) his support of the causes being presented at these events, and (2) his war chest for the next election.
I am not saying that Rep Wimmer is unusual, or that his actions have no precedent in politics. My theory is that money has become more important than the population our elected officials who are chosen, by the voting public, to represent the public's best interests.
The study of money in politics is not new; consider the effects of groups such as “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” or “Moveon.org”. Both (and untold others) funneled large amounts of money to support/destroy candidates over and above the actual position of the candidates. In an effort to get the “right” people elected, PAC’s have been able, legally it can be stated, to push huge donations and advertising moneys into areas without declaration of their intent to impact the voters in any election.
Why? The first, largest, and most complete answer is that running for office is extremely expensive. Consider the moneys spent to elect the President of the United States. This office pays $400,00 per year (plus benefits) and yet conservatively speaking, $1 billion was spent by the major candidates in 2008.
Certainly it can be argued that money does need to be spent, that the candidates need to have a public forum to spread their point of view and convince the electorate to vote in their favor; the media, being businesses, consider this a favorable source of revenue and naturally charge whatever the market will bear in return for airing advertisements. This is the natural order of the business of politics, and it is necessary for the candidates to raise sufficient funds to get their messages out to the public. The means and methods of raising this money, however, are the core of this discussion.
Can or should we limit the amount of money that individuals, groups, businesses, and PAC’s (as well as other unknown entities) can contribute to the election of officials? One of the candidates for Governor of Utah has proposed a strict limit of $1000.00 on any campaign contribuitions coming from all groups, businesses, etc. Is this a reasonable amount? A recent Supreme Court ruling now allows corporations to donate as if they were individual voters; however, a corporation cannot cast a ballot. Is this a proper step for our Judicial Branch of the Federal Government to take? Is this "legislating from the bench, as we often hear? It will certainly be interesting to see the politicians flip-flop on this issue, as it will get a real test this election cycle.
As always, comments are appreciated.
Free insurance? not quite
An admission here. I have been very vocal about the free insurance benefit for members of Congress. But lately, doing research, I have found that the Senators and Representatives do NOT get "free" insurance; the are part of the FEHP network and pay an average of 28% of the monthly cost for health insurance. The balance, an average of $975 per month, comes from you and me. (This program is available to most federal employees, at the same premium structure.) There are still a couple of benefits Congress gets the rest of us don't; there is no waiting period or pre-existing condition clause.
So there you have it. It's not free..but it is a lot less than most of us pay!
So there you have it. It's not free..but it is a lot less than most of us pay!
Confusion at the State Capital
Two seemingly unrelated articles in today’s (9-14-10) SL Tribune have convinced me that (a) a person should never, under any circumstances, commence to read the paper without first having had coffee and, (b) sometimes you may need a stronger drink than coffee to get past the bullshit!
So here it goes; the dots may be a little hard to follow but please bear with me. Do you remember the $101 million (Utah’s share) in school funding that was authorized by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on August 12th? (dot 1). Now, can you recall the stuffed shirts in Utah’s capitol saying they did not want or need the federal money (dot2), and that Utah immediately joined with 6 other states to sue the federal government to allow us to refuse the money (dot3)? Even though we have a $44 Million shortfall in our education budget?
Ok, start your head scratching. Seem our “States Rights” governor could not wait to apply for the federal money; he filed on September 7th. Utah was one of the first states in the country to do so. (dot4)
That’s right, folks. Utah’s Attorney General filed to sue the US Government to keep us from taking the money (dot3) and the governor applied for the money (dot4). I’m a little confused, how about you? But..hang on..it’s gets more interesting. State Senate President Michael Waddoups, one of the senators that opposed the money and asked AG Shurtluff to file a suit, now says the legislature will be meeting in special session to decide how to spend the money (dot5)! Now, don’t misunderstand me; I am all for taking the money! Seems we have a “shortfall” of $44 million in our “balanced” budget educations funds. So how do you balance a budget when you have a $44 Million shortfall? (dot6) I also realize the State AG does what his boss tells him to do. So, his boss is the governor? Why would the governor sign off on filing this suit if he knew we were going to apply for and accept the money?
Let’s see..first we said we did not want the money, then we applied for it rather quickly; then we joined in a lawsuit (which Utah will lose) to keep the money out, then our Senate President wants a special session to decide how to spend the money. Where is my drink?
Now, to the other “unrelated” article. Seems our state awarded a bid for $1.1 BILLION contract to FOG (Friends of Gary’s) for the rebuild of I-15 in Utah County (dot7). Only problem is, the bids were not fair and not fairly applied for, so one of the other bidders filed suit. Utah, rich and magnanimous state that it is, paid $13 MILLION to settle out of court (dot 8). That’s right, we paid $13 MILLION to avoid the lawsuit; but we are still on the hook for an untold amount for the right to refuse federal aid to schools, which we have already de facto accepted!
I’m confused, I will admit it. We, as a state, are broke, revenues have fallen dramatically due to the recession, and yet we want to (a) refuse money for education and (b) want to spend money we don’t have to lose a lawsuit we should not be in to begin with?
If you can explain this to me, please do so. No amount of coffee can get this one past my mind.
So here it goes; the dots may be a little hard to follow but please bear with me. Do you remember the $101 million (Utah’s share) in school funding that was authorized by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on August 12th? (dot 1). Now, can you recall the stuffed shirts in Utah’s capitol saying they did not want or need the federal money (dot2), and that Utah immediately joined with 6 other states to sue the federal government to allow us to refuse the money (dot3)? Even though we have a $44 Million shortfall in our education budget?
Ok, start your head scratching. Seem our “States Rights” governor could not wait to apply for the federal money; he filed on September 7th. Utah was one of the first states in the country to do so. (dot4)
That’s right, folks. Utah’s Attorney General filed to sue the US Government to keep us from taking the money (dot3) and the governor applied for the money (dot4). I’m a little confused, how about you? But..hang on..it’s gets more interesting. State Senate President Michael Waddoups, one of the senators that opposed the money and asked AG Shurtluff to file a suit, now says the legislature will be meeting in special session to decide how to spend the money (dot5)! Now, don’t misunderstand me; I am all for taking the money! Seems we have a “shortfall” of $44 million in our “balanced” budget educations funds. So how do you balance a budget when you have a $44 Million shortfall? (dot6) I also realize the State AG does what his boss tells him to do. So, his boss is the governor? Why would the governor sign off on filing this suit if he knew we were going to apply for and accept the money?
Let’s see..first we said we did not want the money, then we applied for it rather quickly; then we joined in a lawsuit (which Utah will lose) to keep the money out, then our Senate President wants a special session to decide how to spend the money. Where is my drink?
Now, to the other “unrelated” article. Seems our state awarded a bid for $1.1 BILLION contract to FOG (Friends of Gary’s) for the rebuild of I-15 in Utah County (dot7). Only problem is, the bids were not fair and not fairly applied for, so one of the other bidders filed suit. Utah, rich and magnanimous state that it is, paid $13 MILLION to settle out of court (dot 8). That’s right, we paid $13 MILLION to avoid the lawsuit; but we are still on the hook for an untold amount for the right to refuse federal aid to schools, which we have already de facto accepted!
I’m confused, I will admit it. We, as a state, are broke, revenues have fallen dramatically due to the recession, and yet we want to (a) refuse money for education and (b) want to spend money we don’t have to lose a lawsuit we should not be in to begin with?
If you can explain this to me, please do so. No amount of coffee can get this one past my mind.
Friday, September 3, 2010
It's Over, We Hope
The second longest war in the history of the United States is, at least in theory, drawing to the end. The last combat brigades have left the country of Iraq, without achieving many of the goals originally outlined, save the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s government, an act which made physical living conditions worse for the majority of the civilian population; and the protection of the oil fields. President Obama has announced the end of combat operations, sans aircraft carrier and “chauffer driven” fly in.
Originally created as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia as a result of the First World War by the League of Nations in 1921, and increased to its present geography in 1925, the Republic of Iraq was granted independence in 1932. Saddam Hussein assumed the office of President in 1979 after a coup (22 July 1979) in which he ordered the arrest and eventual execution of the “fifth column”, a group of Ba’ath party members he suspected were not loyal to him.
Until the overthrow and exile of Mohammad Reza Shah of Iran, and the return to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, (1979) the United States had supported Iran, financially and militarily, to be its ally in the Mideast strategy of containing the Soviet Union. Iraq, concurrently, had been an ally of Russia, receiving aid from the Soviets, financially and militarily. Saddam had begun the process of modernization of Iraq, while the deputy (vice-president) of Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr (whose resignation was orchestrated by Saddam and the leaders of the Ba’ath party as a result of his attempts to join with Syria to create a large Arab National state); Saddam used oil revenues created by the nationalization of the foreign business interests in 1972 to fund massive infrastructure projects and provide free education to citizens, including women. The “Energy Crisis” of 1973 greatly increased the revenues flowing into Iraq and this furthered his programs of modernization.
The shift in the Mideast balance of power in 1979 as a result of the Islamic Revolution in Iran caused the United States to re-examine its relationship with Iraq, and diplomatic overtures were successful. President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, spoke with Hussein in Iraq in 1980, telling him “we see no fundamental incompatibility between the United States and Iraq..we do not feel American-Iraq relations need to be frozen in antagonisms”, which resulted in a strategic alliance between United States and Iraq, with aid flowing from the United States to Iraq. Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the aid exceeded $80 billion during the two president’s terms, (1) including “dual-use” chemical and biological materials.
For seven years, 4 months, and 30 days we have been involved in a foreign civil crisis of our own making. We helped put the Ba’ath party into power in 1963, following an unsuccessful CIA- backed coup in 1959, in which Saddam Hussein was a major player. His failure to wait until the President of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim, was in a position to be shot- by Saddam- and Saddams’ capture thereafter, put Saddam in jail. He was released in 1962; and began his immediate rise to power in the Ba’ath party. In 1963, again in a move backed by the CIA, the Ba’ath party executed a coup, successfully, and they came to power. In exchange for CIA help and money, the United States received models of soviet MIG fighters and tanks, which we had not seen before; these models helped us develop new anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. Abd al-Karim Qasim was dead, his senior advisors executed, and the Ba’athists were in control of the government of Iraq.
The United States, however, was more focused on its puppet, the Shah of Iran, and Iraq fell out of the window of US operations. Iraq approached the Soviet Union for aid and assistance, which Moscow was more than pleased to supply, to counter the American-friendly Iran. Until 1979, the fall of the Shah of Iran, and the return of and rise to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, the United States played the Iran card to the hilt. The game changed with the taking of hostages during the Carter administration, and we (the US) felt we needed a new ally in the Middle East. We turned our attention to Iraq; at a very fortunate time, as the USSR was in its death throes, and Iraq wanted to continue modernization, even westernization. Saddam opened his arms, and we opened our treasure chest, to the tune of $80 BILLION in aid and military supplies, which Iraq desperately needed during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). This aid included so-called “dual-use” chemical and biological materials such as nerve gas, West Nile Virus, anthrax, bubonic plague, mustard gas, sarin and VX.(2) Meantime, in a strange, convoluted action, the United States supported the Iranians with arms in the Iran-Contra movements to support the anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua (3). At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had depleted most of its financial reserves, and needed money to support itself; it looked at Kuwait and its relatively large oil reserves as an appropriate source of revenue. The US government, when made aware of Iraq’s intentions, instead of telling them NO, sent April Glaspie to meet with Saddam Hussein on April 25, 1980. Here is the pertinent portion of the official transcript of that meeting:
“Transcript from Hussein/Glaspie meeting
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 (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: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. (Secretary of State) James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?. (Saddam smiles)”
This resulted in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the first incursion of coliation forces into the Middle East (in the current time period). So why did we go to war with Iraq a second time? Was it the “possesion of weapons of mass destruction”, which was refuted by the US-led Iraq Survey group, the alleged financial support of Palestin suicide bombers, the human rights issues, to obtain the oil and gas supplies, or to install a democracy in the Middle East, or all of the above? We, the general population of the United States, are left to draw our own conclusions concerning the true cause of the invasion.
Here are some hard facts about this war:
The cost of human lives has been staggering: over 4,600 coliation servicemen/women killed as well as 1,300 plus contractors; over 42,000 soldiers and contractors were wounded. Iraq military casulities range between 68,000 and 100,000. An unknown number of civilians were killed, although estimates from various sources point to civilian death toll ranges of 95,000 to 103,000.
Why? And what have we gained or learned for this conflict? We did succeed in removing from power a dictator who abused human rights, and replaced him with a weak, ineffective, allegedly corrupt government that does not have the support of the population at large. Additionally, we secured the oil fields and put into place long term agreements with this new government that should allow US and British oil-based interests to profit for years to come. We should have learned that the Middle East is a region historically bound in conflicts of religion and tribal control; as westerners, we have no appreciation or understanding of how these important these conflicts are, how they play out in this region. In our attempt to install democracy, we have downplayed the significance of tribal and religious influence on the lives of the population, and have again made the same mistakes of the colonial rulers; we have taken populations that are not inter-related, interconnected, and imposed upon them our view of how they should relate and connect. Is this not supreme ignorance on our part, an arrogance that we know what is best for other peoples, and they should follow our example? We failed, miserably in my opinion, to learn from history: no foreign power has ever been suscessful in control or rule in the Middle East, therefore we repeated the same mistakes. I won’t deny that Saddam Hussein was a dictator, or that he should not have been removed from power, but given the ability and willingness of the population to revolt, as has occurred there many times, I have no doubt that he would have fallen without our intervention.
Saddam is gone, to be a footnote in history. I hope that our leaders, now and in the future, learn from this tragedy and never repeat this type of error in judgement. I hope..but I am not holding my breath.
Sources
1 Peter W. Galbraith ; 2006 (31 August 2006). "The true Iraq appeasers - The Boston Globe
2 New York Times, August 18, 2002
3 Tower Commission report to the President, February 1987
Originally created as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia as a result of the First World War by the League of Nations in 1921, and increased to its present geography in 1925, the Republic of Iraq was granted independence in 1932. Saddam Hussein assumed the office of President in 1979 after a coup (22 July 1979) in which he ordered the arrest and eventual execution of the “fifth column”, a group of Ba’ath party members he suspected were not loyal to him.
Until the overthrow and exile of Mohammad Reza Shah of Iran, and the return to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, (1979) the United States had supported Iran, financially and militarily, to be its ally in the Mideast strategy of containing the Soviet Union. Iraq, concurrently, had been an ally of Russia, receiving aid from the Soviets, financially and militarily. Saddam had begun the process of modernization of Iraq, while the deputy (vice-president) of Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr (whose resignation was orchestrated by Saddam and the leaders of the Ba’ath party as a result of his attempts to join with Syria to create a large Arab National state); Saddam used oil revenues created by the nationalization of the foreign business interests in 1972 to fund massive infrastructure projects and provide free education to citizens, including women. The “Energy Crisis” of 1973 greatly increased the revenues flowing into Iraq and this furthered his programs of modernization.
The shift in the Mideast balance of power in 1979 as a result of the Islamic Revolution in Iran caused the United States to re-examine its relationship with Iraq, and diplomatic overtures were successful. President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, spoke with Hussein in Iraq in 1980, telling him “we see no fundamental incompatibility between the United States and Iraq..we do not feel American-Iraq relations need to be frozen in antagonisms”, which resulted in a strategic alliance between United States and Iraq, with aid flowing from the United States to Iraq. Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the aid exceeded $80 billion during the two president’s terms, (1) including “dual-use” chemical and biological materials.
For seven years, 4 months, and 30 days we have been involved in a foreign civil crisis of our own making. We helped put the Ba’ath party into power in 1963, following an unsuccessful CIA- backed coup in 1959, in which Saddam Hussein was a major player. His failure to wait until the President of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim, was in a position to be shot- by Saddam- and Saddams’ capture thereafter, put Saddam in jail. He was released in 1962; and began his immediate rise to power in the Ba’ath party. In 1963, again in a move backed by the CIA, the Ba’ath party executed a coup, successfully, and they came to power. In exchange for CIA help and money, the United States received models of soviet MIG fighters and tanks, which we had not seen before; these models helped us develop new anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. Abd al-Karim Qasim was dead, his senior advisors executed, and the Ba’athists were in control of the government of Iraq.
The United States, however, was more focused on its puppet, the Shah of Iran, and Iraq fell out of the window of US operations. Iraq approached the Soviet Union for aid and assistance, which Moscow was more than pleased to supply, to counter the American-friendly Iran. Until 1979, the fall of the Shah of Iran, and the return of and rise to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, the United States played the Iran card to the hilt. The game changed with the taking of hostages during the Carter administration, and we (the US) felt we needed a new ally in the Middle East. We turned our attention to Iraq; at a very fortunate time, as the USSR was in its death throes, and Iraq wanted to continue modernization, even westernization. Saddam opened his arms, and we opened our treasure chest, to the tune of $80 BILLION in aid and military supplies, which Iraq desperately needed during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). This aid included so-called “dual-use” chemical and biological materials such as nerve gas, West Nile Virus, anthrax, bubonic plague, mustard gas, sarin and VX.(2) Meantime, in a strange, convoluted action, the United States supported the Iranians with arms in the Iran-Contra movements to support the anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua (3). At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had depleted most of its financial reserves, and needed money to support itself; it looked at Kuwait and its relatively large oil reserves as an appropriate source of revenue. The US government, when made aware of Iraq’s intentions, instead of telling them NO, sent April Glaspie to meet with Saddam Hussein on April 25, 1980. Here is the pertinent portion of the official transcript of that meeting:
“Transcript from Hussein/Glaspie meeting
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 (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: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. (Secretary of State) James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?. (Saddam smiles)”
This resulted in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the first incursion of coliation forces into the Middle East (in the current time period). So why did we go to war with Iraq a second time? Was it the “possesion of weapons of mass destruction”, which was refuted by the US-led Iraq Survey group, the alleged financial support of Palestin suicide bombers, the human rights issues, to obtain the oil and gas supplies, or to install a democracy in the Middle East, or all of the above? We, the general population of the United States, are left to draw our own conclusions concerning the true cause of the invasion.
Here are some hard facts about this war:
The cost of human lives has been staggering: over 4,600 coliation servicemen/women killed as well as 1,300 plus contractors; over 42,000 soldiers and contractors were wounded. Iraq military casulities range between 68,000 and 100,000. An unknown number of civilians were killed, although estimates from various sources point to civilian death toll ranges of 95,000 to 103,000.
Why? And what have we gained or learned for this conflict? We did succeed in removing from power a dictator who abused human rights, and replaced him with a weak, ineffective, allegedly corrupt government that does not have the support of the population at large. Additionally, we secured the oil fields and put into place long term agreements with this new government that should allow US and British oil-based interests to profit for years to come. We should have learned that the Middle East is a region historically bound in conflicts of religion and tribal control; as westerners, we have no appreciation or understanding of how these important these conflicts are, how they play out in this region. In our attempt to install democracy, we have downplayed the significance of tribal and religious influence on the lives of the population, and have again made the same mistakes of the colonial rulers; we have taken populations that are not inter-related, interconnected, and imposed upon them our view of how they should relate and connect. Is this not supreme ignorance on our part, an arrogance that we know what is best for other peoples, and they should follow our example? We failed, miserably in my opinion, to learn from history: no foreign power has ever been suscessful in control or rule in the Middle East, therefore we repeated the same mistakes. I won’t deny that Saddam Hussein was a dictator, or that he should not have been removed from power, but given the ability and willingness of the population to revolt, as has occurred there many times, I have no doubt that he would have fallen without our intervention.
Saddam is gone, to be a footnote in history. I hope that our leaders, now and in the future, learn from this tragedy and never repeat this type of error in judgement. I hope..but I am not holding my breath.
Sources
1 Peter W. Galbraith ; 2006 (31 August 2006). "The true Iraq appeasers - The Boston Globe
2 New York Times, August 18, 2002
3 Tower Commission report to the President, February 1987
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)