Today marks the 22nd anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion followed months of escalating rhetoric, much of which American diplomats downplayed in the belief that Arab dictators didn’t mean what they said. Meeting with Saddam Hussein eight days before the invasion, Ambassador April Glaspie told the Iraqi dictator, “We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.” Iraqi officials subsequently claimed that Saddam interpreted Glaspie’s remarks as a pledge of non-interference and perhaps even a green light. The press made Glaspie into a scapegoat, but she was only the product of a larger diplomatic culture.
The invasion of Kuwait unleashed a cascade of events which culminated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The question both politicians and historians should ask is whether they might have headed off the invasion months or years ahead of time as the true nature of Saddam Hussein became clear.
Rather than suppress reports of Saddam’s chemical weapons use against Kurdish civilians, the Reagan administration should have cut Saddam off right then and there. But sophisticated diplomats hoped to rehabilitate Saddam, both as a means of containing Iran and also to peel Saddam away from Soviet influence.
Against a steady stream of reports suggesting Saddam’s cruelty and aggressive intent, Sen. John McCain pushed for military sanctions on Iraq. Sen. Arlen Specter decided to travel to Baghdad to talk with the Iraqi dictator. Like his senate colleagues John Kerry, Joseph Biden, and Dick Lugar, as well as Nancy Pelosi in the House, Specter believed that he had a unique ability to talk dictators back from the brink: He could engage successfully, where all others had failed. Specter met Saddam on January 12, 1990. He believed Saddam’s talk of peace, and effectively became Saddam’s useful idiot. Over the next few months, he persistently undercut McCain’s proposals to extend military sanctions on Iraq.
Saddam may today be gone, but history seems to be repeating with regard to Iran. Iranian leaders issue a steady stream of genocidal rhetoric against Israel, support repression in Syria, and question the sovereignty of Bahrain. Yet, diplomats and many academics dismiss Iranian rhetoric. While senators have largely embraced sanctions against Iran, just as Specter did almost 23 years ago, President Obama and senior administration officials still suggest that there is enough time for diplomacy to work, even as Khamenei, like Saddam before him, pushes full steam ahead with plans to fulfill his regional ambition.
As history repeats itself, the only questions are who will be the next Glaspie and how much ruin will the Obama team’s blind belief in diplomacy bring.
Has April Glaspie ever been interviewed? To what extent did President G.H.W. Bush know about her conversation with Saddam Hussein, both before and after it happened? Is she available for an interview today? nAfter Saddam Hussein set oil wells on fire and left Kuwait, he began slaughtering Kurds in the north and marsh Arabs in the south. Has anybody ever criticized Old Bush for his sudden abandonment of these people? nOld Bush is one of the most admired of recent American presidents. Yet he is the president dusring whose administration Hussein was tempted to invade Kuwait and subsequently allowed to win despite his defeat. Old Bush is also the president who was totally silent during Beijing Spring and after the Tiananmen Massacre.
"But sophisticated diplomats hoped to rehabilitate Saddam…" – you should always contain terms like "sophisticated diplomats" in quotation marks. They are not "sophisticated"; they are moronic, childish, inept beyond belief; but I'll grant that they are very good at passing off their moronic, childish, inept beyond belief selves under a veneer of "sophistication". To weak and easy influenced minds of "mainstream" commentariat, anyway.
Is this what Obama and Clinton call "smart diplomacy?" How about "naive and weak" I'd rather be feared and respected than loved and pissed on. n@zionadvocate
Intriguingly, Saddam had a legitimate claim against Kuwait, in that Kuwait had been vigorously pumping oil from the field underlying the Iraq/Kuwait border. True, Kuwait gave Iraq billions during the Iran/Iraq war, but Saddam maintained Kuwait pumped much more than the contributed amount. This was the argument that Glaspie rightly stated the U.S. "no opinion" position. If memory serves, it was Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy (one of the Senate's most partisan members) who pillorled her, To my admittedly uncertain knowledge, she has never been interviewed – that would be good basic journalism. I also seem to recall that Gorbachev and Mubarak both told Bush 41 that Saddam had promised not to use violence to settle the dispute, a reason, perhaps, that they never made much fuss about the U.S. invasion.
Iran just said it again today! they want to "annihilate" Israel. why don't the dhimmis in the Obama administration believe them? what part of "annihilate" do you not understand? n nmy daughter is in Jerusalem right now, so I have a special reason for wanting things to be peaceful. but I also understand that the minute Iran gets the bomb, Israel will never again have peace. n nso…send the planes, Bibi. send them today.
She could have said "we oppose military actions to solve problems and encourage diplomatic solutions through the UN", why did she not?
your question got answered today: Leon Panetta! "The United States does not take a position with regards to territorial disputes.” (wrt the Senkaku islands)