Iraqi History

sensational204

Really Experienced
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Posts
166
Taken from The Week, Jan. 31, 2003 issue:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How old is the nation of Iraq?

It is an ancient land, though a relatively new nation. Iraq is situated in what was once known as Mesopotamia, one of the cradles of civilization. in the Middle Ages, Baghdad was the cultural and political capital of a vast Islamic empire. But the nation we now know as Iraq was cobbled together less than a century ago out of three ethnically distinct provinces of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of World War I, France took its pieces and created Syria and Lebanon. The British carved their chunk into what are now Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Israel, and Iraq.

Who ruled the new country?

The British chose a king, Faisal I, to reign over the fledgeling nation. Faisal was the son of their World War I ally, Sharif Hussein of Mecca. Faisal I took power in 1921, and Iraq was officially granted independence in 1932. Many Iraqis resented the three successive kings who would rule their land, largely because they were foreigners propped up by the British. Faisal I, in turn, was not overly fond of his subjects. He described Iraq as "prone to anarchy," filled with "unimaginable masses of human beings, devoid of any patriotic idea, imbued with religious traditions and absurdities."

So how did its rulers hold Iraq together?

Through violence and intimidation. From the beginning, Iraqi rulers recognized they would need a strong military to stay in power. In 1933, the tiny Assyrian minority demanded autonomy, and the Iraqi army responded by slaughtering 3,000 Assyrians. Each of the three kings had to fend off attempted coups and keep order with military force. Finally, in 1958, the monarchy fell in a coup led by Gen. 'Adb al-Karim Qasim. The military declared Iraq to be a republic, no longer under the rule of foreign puppets. To emphasize the point, a mob shot the king and the crown prince to death outside the gates of the royal palace, then dragged the mutilated body of the prince through the streets and impaled it on the gate of the Ministry of Defense.

Was the new regime popular?

No. It gave no voice to most Iraqis, whose 24 million people are divided into three major ethnic groups and 150 tribes. Sunni Muslims, who make up just 20 percent of the population, were the favored minority under Ottoman rule, and have retained control of the Baghdad government since independence. The three monarchs and subsequent rulers, including Saddam Hussein, have all been Sunnis. Shiite Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the population, largely live in the south of Iraq, centered around the city of Basra. They've had little say in the national government. The Kurdish minority in the north is even more marginalized, and since the 1991 Gulf War, has run its territory as a state within a state.

How did Saddam gain power?

In the traditional manner -- through violence and intimidation. Born into a humble Sunni family near the town of Tikrit, Saddam was raised by an abusive stepfather, Hassan Ibrahim, known locally as "Hassan the Liar." The boy quickly earned a reputation as a brute who entertained himself by torturing cats and dogs with a hot poker. At 10, Saddam went to live with an uncle, Khayrallah Talfah, who was a former army officer. His uncle introduced the boy to politics, imparting to him principles of Talfah later spelled out in a book, Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies. Another kinsman, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, took Saddam under his wing and introduced him into the ranks of the Baath Party.

Did Saddam gain power immediately?

No. In 1959, just a year after Gen. Qasim established the Iraqi Republic, Saddam and six co-conspirators tried to assassinate him. The Attempt failed and Saddam, wounded, went into exile. He returned after his party toppled the government in 1963, with the help of army officers. Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam's mentor, took control of the Baath Party and the government in 1968. Saddam proved himself the most brutal of Bakr's henchmen. To quell one uprising of unhappy Iraqis, Saddam sent in army tanks and helicopter gunships, killing hundreds of protesters and arresting thousands, most of whom were then tortured. In 1979 Saddam forced Badr to step down, and eliminated all of his potential challengers in a bloody purge. He has been watching his back ever since. "I know that there are scores of people plotting to kill me," Saddam reportedly said shortly after seizing power. "And this is not difficult to understand."

America's old ally.

Saddam Hussein and the U.S. weren't always mortal enemies. When Iraq began losing its war with Iran in 1982, Washington feared a triumphant Iran would spread its Islamic revolution to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other strategically important oil nations. National Security Decision Directive 114 of that year stated that the U.S. would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to keep Iraq from losing the war. Intelligence agencies reported at the time that Iraq was routinely using chemical weapons on the battlefield, a clear violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Still, the U.S. began sharing intelligence with Iraq, and helped furnish it with cluster bombs. In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld -- then a special U.S. envoy, now secretary of defense -- met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad to smooth relations between the two governments. By the time the eight-year war was ended in 1988, the U.S. had even let private companies send deadly viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague to Iraq, which said it needed them for research. The U.S. samples, intelligence services now believe, served as the basis for Iraq's biological weapons program. "It was a horrible mistake then," said former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack. "But we have got it right now."

What would happen if Saddam fell?

The U.S. plans for the military to keep order for at least 18 months, whole giving the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds time to set up a provisional government. Many Iraqis warn that it won't be easy to establish a peaceful democracy in a land accustomed to violent coups and steeped in long-standing blood feuds. After the Persian Gulf War, Shiites in the south slaughtered government supporters until Saddam's troops crushed the rebellion. In the north, Kurds rose up against the battered regime, and they are already training to resume the fight, amid talk of autonomy when Saddam is gone. "After Saddam Hussein, the country will face terrible anarchy, political and religious," an Iraqi Shiite told the Los Angeles Times. "If the Americans leave, there will be civil war," another Shiite said. "If they stay, there will be civil war."
 
I found that part about Donald Rumsfeld particularly interesting. Am I the only one who really distrusts him? He comes across as a condescending and bumbling idiot in his press conferences. And then his involvement in this and the Vietnam War all make me very uneasy about him being in the position that he's in now. Of the top level cabinet people I see on tv, he's the one I have the least faith in.

But reading this also made me think of something else. It made me realize why the U.S. might be so reluctant about sharing some of its information on Iraq. Due to our past relationship with Iraq, I bet we probably have a lot of spies there who supply us with information. So if that's how they know a lot of what they know, it's reasonable that they wouldn't want to compromise their sources by telling too much. Also, if in fact the U.S. supplied them with these weapons in the 80s, it could be embarrassing for us to reveal how Iraq got some of these weapons. It would be like saying, "well I know you have such and such weapons of mass destruction because we gave them to you."
 
sensational204 said:
I found that part about Donald Rumsfeld particularly interesting. Am I the only one who really distrusts him? He comes across as a condescending and bumbling idiot in his press conferences. And then his involvement in this and the Vietnam War all make me very uneasy about him being in the position that he's in now. Of the top level cabinet people I see on tv, he's the one I have the least faith in.

But reading this also made me think of something else. It made me realize why the U.S. might be so reluctant about sharing some of its information on Iraq. Due to our past relationship with Iraq, I bet we probably have a lot of spies there who supply us with information. So if that's how they know a lot of what they know, it's reasonable that they wouldn't want to compromise their sources by telling too much. Also, if in fact the U.S. supplied them with these weapons in the 80s, it could be embarrassing for us to reveal how Iraq got some of these weapons. It would be like saying, "well I know you have such and such weapons of mass destruction because we gave them to you."

Actually, it was the Iraqi development of WMD and the willingness to use them that caused, in part, the split between Washington and Bagdad.

Most of the technology for the WMD came from europe, particularly France and Germany, who strangely enough are the ones bucking against going into Iraq now.
 
That's not true Roseville. We extended diplomatic ties to Iraq even after it was known that they were using Chemical Weapons against the Iranian in their war with them. And I wouldn't doubt in the slightest that the US at least helped supply them with the technology to create them.
 
I don't think Rumsfeld is bumbling at all. He's in total controll. Condescending, yes. I'd say bordering on meglomanical. He scares me as much as Ashcroft.

There are so many of the world's "hot spots" that can trace their roots to 19th century European imperialism. Vietnam, Rwanda, Congo, Zimbabwe, the Middle East, to a lesser extent Cyprus. The list goes on and on.
 
Thanks sensational204, most of that I already knew from a friend of mine with a masters in international poli-sci, but I was missing a few details. What scares me about the future of Iraq is that the US has a very bad track record when it comes to overthrowing regimes. It usually causes several decades of civil war. I don't see anything keeping this from happening in Iraq. Also, if Saddam has killed everyone in the country who might become a challenge to him, who is left in that country who coule rule effectively and fairly? Last of all I fear that decades from now, we will all look back on this as another black mark on the history of our nation.
 
sensational204 said:
That's not true Roseville. We extended diplomatic ties to Iraq even after it was known that they were using Chemical Weapons against the Iranian in their war with them. And I wouldn't doubt in the slightest that the US at least helped supply them with the technology to create them.

That's not true. We maintained diplomatic ties with Iraq which already existed. We developed those ties for only one reason: because Iraq was the only nation in the region which could stand against Iran which was at the time a much larger threat (a threat which turned out to be quite valid). When that threat was done we regrouped and reassessed our policy toward Iraq.

It was, at the time a matter of which brutal ruler we'd have to back. We picked the one who wasn't exporting his brutality. It was dirty and largely unavoidable diplomacy at the time.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds


By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01


High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."
 
Back
Top