Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JHB

(38,373 posts)
25. See the Wesley Clark interviews in this thread...
Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:25 AM
Mar 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017106588

He recounts a 1991 conversation he had with Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon (Wolfo was the #3 man there at the time), where PW laments not ousting Saddam and has his eye on "cleaning up" the old Soviet client states in the region. That view can be seen later in the policies PNAC advocated, and under Dubya they had the chance to try it.

I don't have the timing for the first video, but on the second it starts at the 3:10 mark.

Clarke also notes that this conversation took place just after the Shia uprising, also noting that we provoked it then stood aside. The thing to remember with that incident is that (Poppy) Bush had been fishing for a coup d'etat by the Iraqi military or elements within to oust Saddam. That would let him declare victory and go home with Iraq safely in the hands of a new friendly dictator or junta, even if that was just as bad or worse for the average Iraqi.

However, one thing Saddam was good at was preventing anyone else from gaining enough of a power base to challenge him. Nobody in the army stuck their neck out into the chopping block, but the shias took Bush up on his invitation to rise up. They wouldn't be quite so easily influenced, though, and the uprising threatened to split the country in three (the third being the Kurdish area). So Bush had our forces stand by while Saddam put it down, and the country (& and our forces' mission there) stayed in limbo for the next 10 years, apparently waiting for Saddam to keel over of his own accord. That also kept us in Saudi Arabia, and one of the things that had Osama bin Laden in a lather was our infidel presence in holy (to him) lands. So Poppy's non-solution was one of the things fueling al Queda. Huzzah!

One of the big alarm bells with the 2002(3?) authorization of force (other than its passing in the first place) was how geographically open-ended it was. If he had the chance, Bush could have used it to push on to the other countries on the neocon list.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't know the logic, but empirical evidence suggests that Islamic fundamentalist government... JVS Mar 2013 #1
Arundhati Roy is saying similar things... HiPointDem Mar 2013 #2
Why do you think it is? UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2013 #3
That's an interesting question and I don't have an answer. I've gotten this far: HiPointDem Mar 2013 #5
Because the Neocons in think tanks are the ones who were too stupid to teach at Chicago? Recursion Mar 2013 #23
Perhaps because The Straight Story Mar 2013 #4
When Saddam left the dollar for payment for oil he sealed his fate and that of Iraq Fumesucker Mar 2013 #8
Good point and thanks for reminding me of that (nt) The Straight Story Mar 2013 #9
yes, that's part of it but I think it's more than a coincidence that so many NoMoreWarNow Mar 2013 #11
Arrogance and a limited understanding of the dynamics of the region. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2013 #6
I doubt it. Because they keep doing the same thing, despite the example of repeated HiPointDem Mar 2013 #7
perpetual war, which is good for govt and bankers NoMoreWarNow Mar 2013 #10
It is human nature that people do not like living under repressive kings/dictators. pampango Mar 2013 #12
most of humanity lived under repressive dictators for most of history. and the repressive HiPointDem Mar 2013 #17
We supported Mubarak for decades and Egyptians showed they were quite ready to overthrow him. pampango Mar 2013 #26
Good points. We'll have to see the what the outcome is like. stevenleser Mar 2013 #21
"unpredictable democratic governments" Paul E Ester Mar 2013 #35
Follow the money - Saudi Arabia gains. Who do you think owns many multinational oil corps along leveymg Mar 2013 #13
So you're saying U.S. polititians are overthrowing secular governments in the Middle East UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2013 #15
i think he's saying the us is hand-in-glove with the saudis to stabilize SA HiPointDem Mar 2013 #18
Essentially, yes, we are viewed by the Saudis as hired mercenaries. Useful, but only to a point. leveymg Mar 2013 #22
I've been reading these comments for a few years now. UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2013 #14
Part of it is their Cold War mindset of the neocons JHB Mar 2013 #16
That's an interesting theory. UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2013 #20
See the Wesley Clark interviews in this thread... JHB Mar 2013 #25
Whatever it gains by keeping America Fundamentalist Jesus. nt valerief Mar 2013 #19
To weaken them, basically. "Divide and rule". It's quite old. bemildred Mar 2013 #24
From what I read about Egypt, the Islamists provided a social safety net Lydia Leftcoast Mar 2013 #27
Well said. Dictators (and their foreign supporters) in the region have created the Islamist pampango Mar 2013 #32
"It's all the Republicans' fault." AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #28
Because democracies are inherently unstable... Wounded Bear Mar 2013 #29
Continued instability and war, which feeds the MIC /nt demwing Mar 2013 #30
You're assuming. atreides1 Mar 2013 #31
I do not know what the gambit is all about Puzzledtraveller Mar 2013 #33
Economic hegemony Cal Carpenter Mar 2013 #34
they are only interested in creating chaos in secular governments (including the US) librechik Mar 2013 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Question: Why would the U...»Reply #25