That's an easy one. Saddam took her statement that the US wasn't interested in border disputes as an OK, even though Glaspie would never have said that if she'd known the way Saddam would take it.
You missed a huge point of the article, namely, that this is standard diplomatic language whenever two "friendly" countries have a border dispute. The "we have no interest" avoids pissing one of them off. It is part and parcel of diplo-speak. Tariq Aziz knew so even if Saddam didn't because Aziz was an experienced diplomat. And Aziz was present at the meeting, so there goes that part of your argument.
And you still haven't responded to the rest of the argument, how could he have misunderstood the problems he was causing the West by planting his troops next door to Saudi Arabia at a time when the West was unable to respond miitarily?
That is not naivete, that is stupidity of the first order. A leader of a country smack dab in the middle of the world's premier supply of oil who is that stupid, well-armed, and aggressive, needs to be taken out before his stupidity/irrationality causes real problems.
He may have been naive, stupid, crazy, whatever you want to call it, but at the end of the day, he had a history of taking dangerous irrational steps that required his demise before he caused real trouble as containment fell apart and his coffers got replenished with oil money.
Feel free to construct your own reality. |
