Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:20:01 -0800 From: Kenneth Rufo <k.rufo-AT-home.net> Subject: Re: some speculation Quentin wrote: > Imagine the problems the Middle East would be having if Hussein had been > allowed to stay in Kuwait. Iraq's weapons programs would have now had 10 > years of virtually limitless funding, practically guaranteeing huge leaps > forward in chemical and biological weaponry, and allowing for the > development and manufacture of ICBMs, putting everyone on the planet at > risk. I seriously doubt any country on Earth would be unable to produce > nuclear weapons given 10 years and the Kuwaiti GNP. > > The slaughter of the Gulf War would pale in comparison to the slaughter > Hussein would cause with even a few weapons of mass destruction. I considered if this might actually be some kind of weird flame bait, but I'm thinking not. Anyway, I think that difficulties of predicting alternate histories aside, there might be some problems here. First, there's no actual reason why Hussein staying in Kuwait is problematic in terms of his weapons production. The best argument one could make is that Hussen funded his weapons program with oil revenues, and that the money gained from these oil sales would eventually have contributed to Iraqi weapons build up. Of course, this presumes that sanctions aren't in place or that buyers with a large enough demand and large enough political clout would choose to ignore said international sanctions. It also assumes that Iraq has indigenous gas and chemical and weapons development technology, when I believe the historical record indicates that most of those technologies were provided by us. We had some cold war theory about checking Iranian hegemony and potential pan Islamic blocks in the Middle East, and Iraq, given that Saddam was indeed a crazy, power hungry dictator, was a perfect candidate. I think the late, great Bill Hicks said it best: "How did we know they had the world's third largest army, with excellent equipment to boot? Well, we looked at the receipt..." The truth is that we didn't want to deal with the jack in oil prices, so we concluded that we could buddy up with some of the Arab nations by strong-arming the same person that we had convinced to strong-arm them in the first place, except this time we could cut gas prices to back under a dollar to boot, and use up a ton of military equipment (read bombs) that we had wanted to replace with updated models anyway. It's a good gig, no? Second, there seems to be some evidence that indicates that Papa Bush actually told Saddam we wouldn't interfere with aggression in Kuwait. Enough people have commented upon such a non-interference stance post the events in the Gulf that it's something we might at least wish to consider. Third, the technical specifications for ICBM technology have almost zero to do with funding levels, but rather with certain scientific and technological supplies. The only rocket technology the Iraqis ever possessed (even we weren't dumb enough to give them any) were outdated Soviet scuds. ICBM technology is much more difficult to obtain, much more easily noticed and thwarted. Check the existing tools used to enforce the Non-proliferation treaty for more info. Fourth, there's the obvious problem of assuming that Hussein is for some reason uniquely bad in terms of possessing nuclear weapons. While I have no doubt that Hussein is a bad, bad man by most ethical standards, the record is clear: only the United States has used atomic weaponry. When the vast majority of the world wished to place a global ban on nuclear testing and development, the Republicans in the U.S. congress chose not to (despite being the ones who started the moratorium and despite the treaty having the universal support of the Joint Chiefs). We spend more on our military each year than any other country (indeed, I think you need to add a number of country together to come even close to our amount, but I can look that up for you if you like). We have the highest level of forward posturing, power projection and regional bases of any nation in the world. And we constantly engage in the very discourse you implicitly replicate: fear others with high tech military weapons (especially those crazy brown people who have control over our oil prices) while keeping meticulously silent about our own nuclear culpability. It's also interesting that you seem to associate revenue with weapons production, as if that's the natural choice for such a crazy dictator. We know that he also has a real thing for bad art and for big buildings. I suppose that we could look at the history of Iraq, and note that a couple of really big wars with Iran might make them more militaristic than other countries in the area (like maybe Israel :P), but even then we can't dismiss entirely that the military buildup would be justified by historical concerns over national defense rather than some sort of expansionist/agressive drive (your "the whole world would be threatened" claim). Fifth, it's a mistake to isolate your comparison to the slaughter of the Gulf War unless you include the slaughter that followed in its wake and continues to be practiced by Allied forces. We continue to perform "selective, preventative strikes" designed to blow up things that might facilitare a resurgent airforce. This includes many things that look like runways, including roads, and many things that look like advanced construction projects, like replacement plumbing. We label baby food and blood supplies dual use technologies and use our sanctions to stop those from entering the country. We starve a population while Hussein builds more mansions. Over 500,000 children have died of malnutrition or disease since Operation Desert Storm concluded nearly a decade ago. Baudrillard remains correct: the Gulf War did not take place in the classic sense of war. None of the objectives of war were achieved. None of the players changed in response to the military action. And the American public is largely unaware of the current health crisis and infrastructure disaster in Iraq brought on by American military action and politics. If you're looking for an easy place to start investigating the magnitude of these problems, search through any repository of UN reports on the recent living conditions in Iraq or check out www.iacenter.org. Anyway, my point. The idea that the alternate history of the Gulf might be worse reflects either a wishful amnesia on your part, a lack of information on the consequences and history of the so-called Gulf War, or some fairly heavy Western prejudices. That's not to say it's incorrect (what would be the point of debating the accuracy of a hypothetical?), just that it might be interesting to think about why the hypothetical was offered in the first place.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005