Saddam undoubtedly had his own risk calculus with respect to his insane Kuwait and Iran wars. What he did not understand and what made him so dangerous was the fact that he had no idea how dangerous he was perceived to be by the West, particularly armed with nukes.
Because he was not particularly worldly and was a bit nuts, Saddam did not understand the West's manner of assessing risk, which is based on deterrence. He therefore took insane risks, and did things which endangered the vital interests of the West. He did not have enough acumen to understand that endangering such interests would bring forth a strike against him. He was undeterrable, in other words, for a lot of reasons, mainly the fact that he didn't know how to play a global game on global terms.
This is what made him dangerous and is the reason he had to go. Containment was undoubtedly falling apart and he was receiving substantial revenues from oil for food which he could use for rearming himself. In the post 9/11 world, his presence in the oil-rich ME could not be tolerated.
The Glaspy thing is red herring. It's crazy to suggest that Saddam could have reasonably concluded that he had a green light to take over Kuwait and plant his troops next to Saudi Arabia with impunity, particularly given his known WMD efforts. The Glaspy incident in fact supports the notion that Saddam was undeterrable and nuttier than a fruitcake. Why in the name of everything that is rational would Saddam think he was given to OK to take over Kuwait and thereby endanger Saudi Arabia and Western economies? To base an invasion of Kuwait on this wisp is crazy.
Perhaps more importantly, Glaspy's alleged OK is irrelevant in view of the fact that Saddam is now reported to have said that he invaded Kuwait because he feared a coup d'etat from his own restless officer corps, and felt the need to keep them busy. If that doesn't convince you as to his reckless calculations and consequent dangers, I don't know what can.
He posed no threat to Russia, in fact was its client. You score no points on that argument, either. |
