Rich On Money

This is part II of my write-up as to what the real deal is about Iraq. The first President George Bush went into Iraq after Saddam Hussein   invaded neighboring Kuwait. Prior to the surprise invasion, Saddam Hussein summons American Ambassador April Glaspie to his office and inquires about how America meaning Bush feels about Iraq- Kuwait problems. He is told that America does not have an opinion, this is a regional issue. The exact reply is reported as having been, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.”

 This is the green light for Hussein to invade Kuwait. Somebody in Washington wasn’t thinking this through.  Some are now disputing that Ambassador Glaspie actually said this, but I think it is very close to the truth. Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if he believed that the United States would threaten his physical security as a result (Bush’s so called wimp factor was in play).  Saddam could hardly believe his ears. The invasion proceeded. 

Somebody did an analysis afterwards and realized that between Iraq’s oil production and Kuwait’s, Saddam would have potential pricing over the world price of oil. There’s one more point that has not been talked about. If Saddam had 100,000 troops in Kuwait, this means they would also be on the border of Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer in the world. Hussein would effectively neutralize the Saudi voice regarding oil prices by their fear of invasion just like Kuwait was invaded. The rest you know, the senior Bush invades, and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia cover the entire cost of the invasion by paying for it. 

Bush leaves Saddam in power and takes the heat for this, although we don’t know the real story. By that I mean what was the arrangement with both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia regarding Iraqi sovereignty. Why ten years later does the President’s son, George W. Bush invade Iraq? Bush publicly stated weapons of mass destruction, but there were none. There wasn’t even a hint of one. Saddam did want EVERYONE to believe he had them however, and played a very dangerous game in portraying his country as having them. 

Our invasion of Iraq was based on controlling oil once again. With Saddam gone, we might be able to install a more friendly government to the United States that would act as the hammer the way Iran acted as the hammer under the Shah’s rule. We were hoping and expecting that Saddam would take the Shah’s place as the third leg of the triangle in controlling the Mideast (US, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq). Saddam did not accommodate us, and had to go.

 Was it worth 4000 American dead, 40,000 American wounded, and the $1 trillion dollars of American treasure expended. I am sure the American defense establishment including General Dynamics, Lockheed and hundreds of other companies who have retired generals and admirals working for them would say yes absolutely, and emphatically. The rest of us, I am not so sure. 

Richard Stoyeck