Nadine, why would it matter if Saddam didn't have sanctions against him and the no-fly zones were canceled and he was back as King Kong of Iraq, just like the bosses of Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, half of Africa, Libya, Vietnam, Cuba and so on?
Over the decades there have been any number of totalitarian murderous dictators, some of whom, including Saddam, have been good mates of the USA.
He was funding Palestinian suicide bomber families [allegedly]. He harboured Abu Nidal [until he decided to kill him]. He wanted to have as good a bunch of weaponry as he could possibly get; so what? So do most others. China is loaded up with noocular bombs and so is Russia but the USA hasn't gone after them. Nor North Korea, nor Pakistan [which was the primary supporter of the Taleban who enabled Osama to set up shop as a good buddy].
What was particularly egregious about Saddam?
I've already explained that the primary purpose of sanctions was to keep Iraq's oil off the market to maintain profitability of many oil and energy interests. It wasn't to prevent weapons of mass destruction being built. Neither was it to stop him getting too big and tough. He already wasn't big and tough enough to take on Iran, even with USA help, let alone others such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Israel with the USA looming over their shoulders.
Saddam didn't have a choice in the sanctions. He was getting them good and hard whether he liked it or not, no matter what he did. He knew that. The USA was sending spies into Iraq under cover of UN inspections and of course Saddam didn't want them snooping around, setting up targets, whatever else, and he wanted to rebuild his power as much as he could. So of course he did what he could to disrupt the USA/UN intrusion. His whole life is confrontation - it's what he does. It's what he is. See him in court. Still at it. Zero power but still at it.
$200 billion in sanctions penalties eh? Who made those sales instead of Saddam? That must have helped a few bottom lines for a few years. See what I mean?
<Your list leaves of the main motivations: reshaping the Middle East so it connects to the rest of the world, > Hmmm. I have to take that with a pinch of salt. Saddam was already well-connected and what's wrong with oil sales as a means of connection? I wonder if Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Yemen etc are to be "re-shaped" too.
I don't see how the insurgency could be cut off before it began. If Saddam's Iraq was still intact, with full oil sales and sovereignty restored, I don't see that there would have been all that much of a problem [for those not stuck in Iraq]. He would have continued to fund various terrorist acts against Israel and would have got what military power rebuilt that he could, including nukes from Pakistan if he could.
As I've said all along, I'm quite happy if the USA and COW wants to replace Saddam. I don't see why his gang should enjoy the oil profits any more than anyone else and he was a LOT less ethical than the USA Empire. American soldiers are prosecuted for tormenting prisoners of war. Saddam's gangs used the finest in English medieval torture and were NOT prosecuted. Even a mercy killing was prosecuted by the USA [the young Iraqi who had been working on a rubbish truck attacked by USA troops by mistake].
My preference was for a reconstituted UN to run the place and own the oil, but Utopia wasn't ready at the time. Plan B isn't all that bad.
Mqurice |
