A Brief History of a Long War (Iraq, 1990-2003)

Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! « Open Post | Main | Past, Present, and Future? »

November 22, 2005

A Brief History of a Long War (Iraq, 1990-2003)

Greyhawk

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is likely to be a contested topic in the American discussion for many years to come. As with any fractious issue, opinions will vary and even individual opinions will shift and change with time. That's a part of the human condition, after all, and one that flourishes in free societies. However, much less admirable efforts by many to obscure their own positions now seem to occur with increasing frequency, as do misquotes of political opponents for personal or "party" gain. Sadly these sorts of things have become common practice among those who bear much of the responsibility for the current situation. Perhaps it has become too much for them to bear, this great and terrible burden of leadership, though stepping aside and letting those of stronger, more determined convictions carry on might be even less palatable to them. Thus history is being rewritten, and free speech is being cheapened by some who employ it the most and cherish it the least - even as Americans fight and die to uphold their rights to do so.

One of the most blatant - and most effective - examples has been the highly successful propagation of the idea that the war in Iraq began as a misguided result of the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11th 2001. To achieve this feat of near-universal denial requires the dismissing of over a decade of real history - years in which a handful of Americans drew a line in the sand on distant shores - a line crossed repeatedly and re-drawn too frequently by too many hands to be forgotten so swiftly.

And it's nearly forgotten they are, those warriors of just a few short years ago. But not just yet, at least not completely. This work in progress is dedicated to my fellow members of the US military, those who stand the "line in the sand" now and those have done so for so many years past.

Look, here is what happened. Listen, here's what they said when it did.

*****

Pre-1990

July 16, 1979: Saddam Hussein becomes president of Iraq.

Sept. 22, 1980: Iraq invades Iran, launching an eight-year war.

November 1980: US Presidential elections; Republican Ronald Reagan defeats incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter.

June 7, 1981: Israeli Air Force destroys the French-built Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. The surprise attack was launched in response to growing concerns that Iraq was planning to develop nuclear weapons to use against Israel.

January 1982: Javier Pérez de Cuéllar of Peru becomes Secretary General of the United Nations.

1983: Reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces.

November 1984: Republican Ronald Reagan re-elected as President of the United States, defeating Democrat candidate Walter Mondale.

October 7, 1985: Four Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists seized the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, taking more than 700 hostages. One U.S. passenger was murdered before the Egyptian Government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for the hostages' freedom. Years later the leader of the hijackers would be discovered in Baghdad following the 2003 invasion.

1986-1989: According to Islamic sources, Osama bin Laden participates in numerous battles during the Afghan war against the Soviets as a guerilla commander, including the fierce battle of Jalalabad which led the Soviets to finally withdraw from Afghanistan. After the Soviets pull out of Afghanistan, bin Laden returns to Saudi Arabia a hero. He becomes involved in opposition movements to the Saudi monarchy while working for his family construction firm, the Bin Laden Group.

1987: Reports of chemical warfore attacks on Kurdish villages and guerrilla fighters became more frequent and detailed. Clinical evidence as well as soil samples, confirmed the use of mustard gas and the nerve agent tabun against the Kurdish population. Although the exact number of casualties is not certain, it is generally believed that several thousand Kurdish civilians and Iranian soldiers in the area were killed and several thousands more injured.

May 21, 1987: Iraqi Mirage fighter jet attacks US Navy vessel USS Stark in the Persian Gulf, hitting the ship with two Exocet missiles and killing 37 crew members. The US increases it's naval presence in the Gulf, and begins escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers.

March 16, 1988: Iraq uses chemical weapons against Kurds supporting Iran in Halabja, killing 4000, an attack which begins the Anfal campaigns against Kurdish villages (formally continuing until 6 Sept, though attacks continued until 1989). Approximately 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds are killed in this campaign, and 1,276 villages are destroyed.

August 20, 1988: Iran-Iraq war ends in ceasefire. Death toll is unknown, estimates range from 500,000 to one million; numbers of killed and wounded are estimated as high as 2 million. UN monitoring force established for Iran-Iraq border. Confirmation by UN that Iraq did use mustard gas against Iranian civilians.

Although neither side achieved victory, Iraq retained one of the largest military forces in the world, with one million troops, more than 700 combat aircraft, 6,000 tanks, ballistic missiles and chemical weapons.

November 1988: Republican Vice President George Bush defeats Democrat candidate Michael Dukakis in US presidential elections.

1990 - 1991

Aug. 2, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait and is condemned by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 660 which calls for full withdrawal.

August 6, 1990: UN Security Council passes Resolution UNSCR 66, imposing economic sanctions on Iraq, banning the importation of Iraqi goods and creating the "661 Committee" to oversee sanctions. Saudi King Fahd meets with US Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and requests U.S. military assistance.

August 7, 1990: US troops arrive in Saudi Arabia, launching Operation Desert Shield. Two naval battle groups, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS Independence, are also in the area by August 8.

Osama bin Laden is outraged by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, considered the cradle of Islam, and begins to write treatises against the Saudi regime.

August 8, 1990: Iraq declares a “comprehensive and eternal merger” with Kuwait and annexes it as its nineteenth province.

August 9, 1990: UN resolution 662 declares the annexation of Kuwait has no legal validity.

August 25, 1990 UN resolution 665 strengthens the economic embargo against Iraq.

September 5, 1990: Iraq calls for the overthrow of leaders in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

September 13, 1990: UN resolution 666 asks for continuous information on the humanitarian situation within Kuwait and Iraq.

September 16, 1990: UN resolution 667 condemns Iraqi violation of diplomatic compounds in Kuwait and demands the immediate release of foreign nationals removed from Kuwait.

September 24, 1990: UN resolution 669 imposes an air embargo on Iraq.

October 29, 1990: UN resolution 674 reiterates the condemnation of Iraqi treatment of foreign nationals and demands their release.

November 28, 1990: John Major (Conservative Party) becomes Prime Minister of Great Britain, replacing felow Conservative Margaret Thatcher, who had served since May, 1979.

November 29, 1990: UNSC Resolution 678 authorizes the use of "all means necessary" after January 15, 1991, to enforce previous UN resolutions, including that requiring Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

January 12, 1991: Congress grants President Bush the authority to wage war. The Senate vote is 52–47 in favor.

January 17, 1991: Operation Desert Storm - the air war begins with more than 1,000 sorties launching per day. Saddam Hussein declares that "The great duel, the mother of all battles has begun. The dawn of victory nears as this great showdown begins."

January 18, 1990: Iraq launches Scud missiles at Israel in an attempt to broaden the war. Ultimately 39 Iraqi Scud missiles would strike Tel Aviv and Haifa.

February 24, 1991: The ground portion of the war in Iraq begins. On February 26 Iraqi troops began retreating from Kuwait, setting fire to Kuwaiti oil fields as they flee. One hundred hours after the ground campaign started, President Bush declared a ceasefire; Kuwait had been liberated.

US forces suffered 147 battle-related and 325 non-battle-related deaths. The UK suffered 24 deaths (nine of those due to friendly fire), the Arab countries lost 39 men (18 Saudis, 10 Egyptians, 6 from the UAE, 3 Syrians, and 1 Kuwaiti), and France lost 2 men. Estimates of Iraqi casualties range from tens to hundreds of thousands.

3 March 1991: At cease-fire talks with the Iraqis at Safwan, General Norman Schwarzkopf warns the Iraqis that coalition forces would shoot down any Iraqi military aircraft flying over the country.

March 10, 1991: (Media) The New York TImes:

After the War: Politics; Another Gulf War?

The question the American soldiers ask as they board planes for home after seven months in the desert is the same one that worries the politicians that live in the region as they turn from preoccupation with military problems to the concerns of civil life.

Will we have to do it all over again? Will we have to find the money and the will, they ask anxiously, to assemble half a million troops to turn back another of Saddam Hussein's attempts to push his neighbors around?

It is the biggest unanswered question among several that hang in the air after the allies' stunningly decisive triumph in the Persian Gulf war, and it casts an ominous shadow over the jubilation here and in the United States. The man who started it all, the villain of the piece, is still around.

President Bush and the other coalition leaders elected not to push through to Baghdad to destroy Mr. Hussein's Government. Authorized by the United Nations only to oust Iraq from Kuwait, the allies went farther, fighting on despite a series of frantic peace bids until they were confident that they had shattered Mr. Hussein's best divisions. Coalition Called a Halt

But with their armies at Nasiriya and the highway to Baghdad, 150 miles away and all but undefended, the coalition leaders called a halt. Despite President Bush's inclination to compare this war to the conflict of his youth, World War II, the allies chose not to hound Mr. Hussein to death in his bunker, as they had hounded Hitler, and not to demand total surrender.

The Saudis wanted to press on, and so did their Egyptian allies, high-ranking officials in Riyadh said, but the Americans, the British and especially the French feared that they would embitter Arab opinion if they seemed bent on revenge or on installing a government of their choice.
<...>
If Mr. Hussein were to make warlike noises again, he would not be told, as the State Department told him last year, that the United States was taking a neutral position. If he were then to take warlike steps, a counterattack would come at once, not after he had had months to dig in and ravage conquered territory. Or so American officials are promising.

So if the allies have not rid themselves of the Iraqi dictator, at least not yet, and if they had not engendered lasting stability in a region that has seldom known it, they appear to have done just about enough to make it unlikely that a second Persian Gulf war will erupt any time soon.

March 10 - 17, 1991: UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar dispatches an inter-agency mission to assess the humanitarian needs arising in Iraq and Kuwait. The mission reports that "the Iraqi people may soon face a further imminent catastrophe, which could include epidemic and famine, if massive life-supporting needs are not rapidly met." Throughout 1991 the United Nations proposes measures to enable Iraq to sell limited quantities of oil to meet its people's needs. The Government of Iraq declines these offers.

20 March 1991: A US F-15C shoots down an Iraqi SU-22 flying over northern Iraq.

22 March 1991: A US F-15C shoots down another Iraqi SU-22 over northern Iraq. That same day, another US pilot intimidates the pilot of an Iraqi PC-9 (a training aircraft) to eject. Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft stayed on the ground for the next 12 months.

March/April 1991: Following the end of DESERT STORM in March, Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq and Kurds in Northern Iraq rebel against Hussein's regime. Most major American newspapers urge the US to stay out of the conflicts.

THE BOSTON GLOBE:

The reports of rebellion in Iraq resemble excerpts from a textbook on regime-toppling in the aftermath of a lost war. On the streets of Basra, a tank manned by returning soldiers turns its turret toward a gigantic poster of Saddam Hussein and, to the cheers of the populace, blows a hole in the tyrant's face....

The true war aims of of the coalition that defeated Saddam's army were, in ascending order of importance, the liberation of Kuwait, the destruction of Baghdad's offensive military capabilities, and the removal of Saddam. The first two have been accomplished by force of arms. The ultimate goal, Saddam's demise, cannot be achieved by foreign troops -- although the governments of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are frequently conspiring to back their favorite Iraqi exiles in the postwar struggle for power in Baghdad....

The recycled petrodollars of Kuwait may have been paramount to Bush, but to Assad, King Fahd and Ayatollah Khomeini's successors the real purpose of Desert Storm was to cut Iraq's military down to size and replace Saddam.

For them, the decisive phase of the war has just begun. The Americans took out Saddam's communications with smart bombs; they are now trying to take out his regime with Iraqi proteges, subsidized proxies and professional hit squads.

The present struggle for power in Iraq holds two dangers for the U.S.: that Saddam will prevail, or that he will be replaced by forces equally inimical to peace and human rights. Washington has little control over the battlefield on which this political war is fought.

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES:

In the wake of Iraq's military defeat has come urban turmoil. In Basra and other cities in southern Iraq anti- government demonstrators are challenging the iron grip of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. Details are imprecise, and the partisanship of some of the sources claiming to know what is going on makes their information suspect. But some elements of the armed forces are involved, with units perhaps pitted against each other.

This political explosion was ignited by the anger and frustrations arising out of a costly, humiliating, and above all unnecessary war. To a significant but not yet fully measurable extent it is also a continuation of an ancient religious conflict. It pitted Iraq's majority Shiite Muslim population, which has never been permitted to share equitably in power, against an unyieldingly repressive regime dominated by Sunni Muslims....

If foreign armed forces must be sent into the cities to quell turbulence they should be provided by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf states. In other words they should be unmistakably Arab and Muslim.... Not only would it expose ground forces to the possible risks of urban fighting but, far worse, it would give the appearance of the West butting into an Islamic religious conflict. That would be a no-win situation, to be avoided at all costs....

No conceivable good could come from an extension of Iranian influence in Iraq. Should that occur, the region would quickly find itself facing fresh threats to its stability, just as it appeared that the crushing of Saddam Hussein's expansionist ambitions had opened the way to a calmer future. Probably -- nothing is certain in the Gulf -- the deep nationalism of Iraqis of all religious persuasions would work to oppose the aims of their ancient Persian enemy. But if disorders should give way to chaos and foreign armed intervention does become necessary, U.S. and Western forces should make sure they stay well out of it.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES:

No sooner had the guns begun to fall silent in Kuwait than they started to chatter inside Iraq. This weekend the predominantly Shiite city of Basra erupted in bloodshed between pro-Iranian, anti-Saddam dissidents and Saddam's Republican Guard. The conflict may foreshadow the Iraqi strongman's end and possibly even the end of Iraq as a unified nation-state. But however welcome the first might be, the second would be a disaster, not only for Iraq itself but also for the Middle East and U.S. interests in it.

Like many of the states designed by European colonialists and diplomats, Iraq is a hodge podge of different and antagonistic ethnic and religious groups. In the Tigris- Euphrates valley, Shi'ite Arabs predominate, and Shi'ites constitute some 55 to 60 percent of the country's 18 million people. The valley area also contains several cities that the Shi'ites, a 95 percent majority in neighboring Iran, consider among the holiest in Islam. But despite its Shi'ite majority, Iraq long has been ruled by Sunni Muslims, and resentments have festered....

As in most such "multicultural" states, the only thing that has held Iraq together has been the strong (indeed, brutal) arm of Baghdad, but these days the muscles on the arm are beginning to wither.... The return soon of dispirited Iraqi prisoners and veterans won't help stabilize the country either.

The leading figure among Iraqi Shi'ites is Hojatolislam Mohammed Bakr Hakim, who inspires the faithful from his tastiness in Tehran, perhaps aided by the more mundane assistance of the Shi'ite government there. Iran, for religious as well as political reasons, would like to get its hands on southern Iraq, but Hakim might not be the man to help them do it after all. Unlike the Iraqi Shi'ites, he is Persian rather than Arab.

Iraqi dissidents would like U.S. and other allied forces, now occupying most of southern Iraq west of the Euphrates, to intervene on their behalf, but they won't and they shouldn't. The Joint Chiefs of Staff's Lt. Gen. Thomas Kelly says allied intervention can occur only if Iraqi unrest threatens allied troops. So far it doesn't, and it probably won't. If U.S. forces did step into the quarrel, they would have to side with one group or another of the dissidents or else wind up in the embarrassing position of supporting Saddam's regime.

Yet the chaos now threatening Iraqi unity could turn the whole country into a gigantic Lebanon, leaving it the plaything of regional poseurs such as Iran, Syria and Turkey, and removing its weight in the delicate regional balance of power. If Iran managed to control Basra, Iraq's access to the sea and its ability to export its oil through the Persian Gulf would be lost, making economic recovery much more difficult or impossible.

If the United States and its allies do nothing else in the Gulf, they can't allow Iraq to be dismembered. The Iraqis themselves can resolve their differences with Saddam and his clique as they will, but President Bush and the other leaders of the allied coalition must make it clear to Iran, the other regional states and to Iraq's own disgruntled fragments that the defeated country can't be carved up.

THE BALTIMORE SUN:

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein would be of great benefit, not only to this country but to his own. That means departure of the whole apparatus of tyranny: his kin, his cronies from Takrit, the Baath Party and the secret police. This would make possible a stable security arrangement in the gulf, reconstruction credit for Iraq, personal liberty for Iraqis and settlement of other Issues....

The dismemberment of Iraq would be a disaster not only for that country but for our own. It would open insoluble strife, unleash nationalisms in conflict with each other and with religious pinions. The anarchy might destabilize all Arab gulf states and require the presence of U.S. troops next door long after Americans wanted them gone. Small wonder that Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker emphasized that the U.S. did not seek the breakup of Iraq....

British influence invented Iraq in the breakup of the Turkish Empire following World War I, assembling a nation- state out of three provinces whose populations had little in common. With their classical leaning, the English were charmed at putting back together ancient Mesopotamia and guiding it to independence as Iraq.

In the north around Mosul, the people were Kurds, Muslims but not Arabs. Putting them in Iraq separated them from Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Syria and the Soviet Union. Ever since, when one of these countries wanted to make trouble for another, it stirred up the other's Kurds. All oppose an independent Kurdistan, for which Kurds hunger.

In the center around Baghdad, a great capital in medieval times, were Arabs who were Sunni Muslims, in the Arab mainstream. Though barely a third of the people, these would rule and hold Iraq together as an Arab nation. And so they have.

In the south, around Basra, were Arabs who were Shiite Muslims, opposed to secular authority, their clerics trained in schools with Iranian Shiites. Shiites are the fastest-growing segment and now more than half the population. During the Iran-Iraq war, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran hoped -- and Saddam Hussein in Iraq feared -- that Shiites would detach the south from Iraq and join it to Persian Iran. They did not. Their Arab nationalism overcame their religion.

But now they are rebelling against hated tyranny. They are capable of ruling southern Iraq, but not the whole country. Saddam Hussein has sent a deputy prime minister to Tehran in a desperate bid for that regime's help in keeping Iraq and his power whole. The U.S.-led coalition has unleashed forces it cannot control. Wars do that.

Major cities in South & Kurdish areas come under rebel control but the southern revolt is crushed by 29 March and the Kurdish revolt by early April. By some estimates 1.5 million Kurds flee into Turkey and Iran.

The British newspaper The Guardian:

A monstrous crime is being perpetrated in Kurdistan. As the Kurdish people's brief springtime of freedom ends, they are, and will be, subject not only to the effects of a war waged in their own cities and towns without restraint or morality, but to the reimposition of Saddam Hussein's brutal rule and his revenge on those who have challenged him.
<...>
Yesterday Turkey's National Security Council said that more than 200,000 people fleeing Iraq, mostly women and children, were in danger of death near the Turkish border.

"Where is Bush?" was a question we must have heard a thousand times as we toiled on Monday up the slopes of the 8,000ft mountain passes that separate Iraq from Turkey. "Why did he start if he was not going to finish?" or "Why has he not finished Saddam?"

Sometimes all the bitterness and despair are compressed into the single word Bush, pronounced with a terrible resignation. The name of a man who was a hero to the Kurds only a few days ago has become almost a curse.

The Wall Street Journal would report in November, 1997:

In late March 1991, shortly after the Gulf War, Iraqis were in open revolt. Fighting erupted in all but three of Iraq's provinces, and Saddam's army was left with two days' worth of ammunition. A desperate Saddam sent one of his highest-ranking officers as a "defector" with information that Iraq's senior military leaders were on the verge of a coup but hesitated as long as they faced the threat of a revolution. Accordingly, the U.S. signaled to Saddam that he could use his air power, grounded under the terms of the cease-fire, to crush the revolt. No coup followed.

April, 1991: Osama Bin Laden flees Saudi Arabia, after being confined to Jiddah for his opposition to the Saudi alliance with the United States. He moves first to Afghanistan and then to Khartoum, Sudan by 1992 (Source: Newsweek 2/1/99). Sudan had begun to allow any Muslim into the country without a visa, in a display of Islamic solidarity. Allegedly, hundreds of suspected terrorists and ex-mujahedeen come to Sudan as a safe haven (Source: New York Times 9/21/98).

April 3, 1991: UN Security Council resolution 687 establishes the terms of the peace, including return of Kuwaiti property and prisoners, economic sanctions, and Iraqi disarmament. The resolution declares that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles, and requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.

The U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) is established to monitor compliance. The International Atomic Energy Agency is authorized to document and destroy Iraqi efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq accepts the resolution.

April 5, 1991: President Bush orders US European Command to assist Kurds and other refugees in the mountains of northern Iraq. Meanwhile, the Joint Chiefs of Staff order forces in Europe to airdrop essential supplies to displaced persons in northern Iraq by 7 April, and to prepare to deploy a US military medical unit to southern Turkey.

6 April 1991: Joint Task Force Provide Comfort formed and deployed to Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, to conduct humanitarian operations in northern Iraq. After the Kurdish revolt against the Iraqi government failed about 1.5 million refugees fled to the mountains along the border with Turkey and Iran.

7 April 1991: Combined Task Force Provide Comfort begins humanitarian operations from Incirlik AB, Turkey. The task force drops its first supplies to Kurdish refugees.

April 7, 1991: (Media) The New York Times:

Iraq Approval Starts Peace Schedule

Iraq's formal acceptance of the Security Council's Persian Gulf peace offer today meets the conditions for an immediate cease-fire and clears the way for the destruction of Iraq's most dangerous weapons, the establishment of a procedure for Iraqi reparations to Kuwait and the lifting of trade sanctions against Baghdad.

The 120-day timetable for carrying out the demands was spelled out in Security Council Resolution 687, which was adopted on Wednesday.
<...>
In accepting Resolution 687 today, Iraq has agreed never again to try to develop chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
<...>
After Iraq has handed over its weapons of mass destruction as well as its dangerous nuclear material and agreed to the financial compensation plans, the Security Council will lift the prohibition against buying Iraqi oil, allowing Baghdad to resume normal oil exports.

It will also free Iraq's frozen foreign assets, which will revert to their previous owners.
<...>
Iraq is currently free to import food and medicine, and the Council has promised to approve all requests to ship essential civilian supplies, such as spare parts for water treatment and sewage plants. Arms Ban to Be Reviewed

The Council may also authorize it to sell enough oil to pay for these humanitarian imports.

April 10, 1991: US officials warn Iraq not to interfere with relief operations of Combined Task Force Provide Comfort. No Iraqi planes (fixed- or rotary-winged) are to fly north of the 36th parallel.

April 10, 1991 UN 'safe haven' established in northern Iraq for protection of Kurds.

April 11, 1991: The United Nations announced the formal end to the Persian Gulf War.

*****

Next:
1991-1997
1998-1999 2000-2003

*****

As noted at the outset, this is a work in progress. Events, links, and quotes will be added with time.

Many collections of quotes from are available around the web. My ultimate goal is to restore such comments to their full historical and contextual frame by providing links to source documents. Please forgive me for not having achieved this yet.

Sources/other timelines:

NPR

UNSCOM. (Thanks to Chris Kornkven for pointing us in that direction.)

The goal of this effort has been to provide a list of facts and quotes, without bias or interpretation. There are those who will see such things as exactly that, and those who will claim it's exactly the opposite. So it goes.

Posted by Greyhawk at 02:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (78) |

Show Comments Here (78) |

Hide Comments

Good job, young Grey Warrior. You have done your research well. I fully support your efforts to bring Truth and Light to the discussion (of course, Indian fighting is good practice for what passes for civil discussion these days -- guns and bows on the way into the chamber, tomahawks and knives on the way out).

The Truth must be spoken again and again to counteract the propaganda used by the press and the Dhimmicrats. The war should be run and fought by Men with backbone. Not by old women who take counsel of their fears. I support you and every leader in Iraq, especially those who are telling us daily that we must not give up. It would be disastrous.

Press on, GreyHawk.

Subsunk

Posted by Subsunk at November 19, 2005 02:53 AM

Greyhawk:

Thanks for doing this research & putting it all in one place for us. Outstanding effort.

I am glad to see so many people finally trying to set the record straight after two years of the media and democrats spreading so much BS that unfortunately, many people now believe it since it has been repeated so much.

The only way to fight it is with truth, and repetition of the truth for all to see. We need to spread it wide.

Posted by Bill W at November 19, 2005 04:33 AM

Next we have to counter the "there was no plan for the peace" and the "huge mistakes were made in the execution of this war" BS.

From where I have been (working in and out of Iraq), I saw a massive effort that took place right after the war to build democratic structures in 18 provinces, build a banking system, a system of justice, rebuild infrastructure, build women's rights protections, etc, etc, etc.

A plan was laid out early on with milestones such as creating a provisional government, having that government set elections for people to develop a constitution, developing said constitution, elections to ratify or reject, and then electing a permanent government. From the beginning, I only heard the administration say this would be a long, hard road. Continuously I heard them say that.

In addition, the training of a new army, police force and national guard has been taking place to take our place. I hear people saying - well it only takes our people 8 weeks to go through basic training - why is it taking 3 years to do this? Well, gee- first we had to blow up the existing structure, since it was rife with Baathists, did not know how to fight very well, and had a non-existent NCO corps. They had no infrastructure for developing this army from scratch and manning the NCO and officer ranks. Not to mention providing the equipment and tools, quartermaster supply corps, etc, etc. Going from zero to 250,000 with functioning officer and NCO ranks is an amazing feat. (some people cite the blowup of the original army as an example of a "massive mistake" as if that is now accepted wisdom. It was a decision that could have gone either way - keep some of it or not; I believe it was right to blow it up and take the longer but more

As far as execution has gone, I have never met more professional people from the youngest to the oldest than the military people that I have met while working there. They make me proud to be an American.

Posted by Bill W at November 19, 2005 04:58 AM

What an amazing job you did on that chronology. Just wanted to stop by and thank you all for your dedication and bravery. It really is appreciated, despite what you hear on CNN. And I apologize for all the irresponsible and insipid dolts we have in Congress who are making your job harder and more dangerous. They have neither common sense nor backbone. They are a disgrace.

God bless you all and keep you safe.

Posted by Joyce at November 19, 2005 09:09 AM

I will be e-mailing the link out... gotta do our part in the war of ideas, because if we lose it will be because we lost our resolve.

Posted by Mr. K at November 19, 2005 01:36 PM

This is great man, good job! As much as it enrages me to think of the doublespeak going on by the left as I read it, it reassures my stance on how I feel towards the war.

So, I thought this war was about oil? huh? It so clearly shows how this war is not about oil, and anyone who makes that claim simply proves their ignorance.

Posted by Patrick at November 19, 2005 03:52 PM

It'll be interesting to see how the left will distort this piece...and you know they will.

Thanks for the great job, GreyHawk.

Posted by The Microchip Cowboy at November 19, 2005 04:05 PM

Most excellent collection; a good resource for those of us who don't like to see history distorted and re-written. For some reason the Wizbang trackbacks are squirrelly here, but I used this post as a basis of my thoughts about "cherry-picking" intelligence...

Posted by Bubblehead at November 19, 2005 04:39 PM

Trackbacks arent working again; *sigh* thanks Haloscan....

For those among us that believe that G.W. Bush invented the entire conflict with Iraq in his head so he could declare war or have forgotten the complex struggles that got us involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 I suggest that you head on over to The Mudville Gazette and read: A Brief History of a Long War (Iraq 1990 – 2003). Greyhawk has compiled and put together a great post about how previous Administrations and International Agencies dropped the ball on Iraq or turned a blind eye altogether to the trouble brewing thanks to Saddam.

Good Job Greyhawk, once again the voice of reason will prevail!

Posted by David M at November 19, 2005 05:07 PM

View Related Topics

January 26, 1992, Sunday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section 1; Part 1; Page 1; Column 1; Foreign Desk

LENGTH: 1878 words

HEADLINE: U.S. Secretly Gave Aid to Iraq Early in Its War Against Iran

BYLINE: By SEYMOUR M. HERSH, Special to The New York Times

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Jan. 25

BODY:
The Reagan Administration secretly decided to provide highly classified intelligence to Iraq in the spring of 1982 -- more than two years earlier than previously disclosed -- while also permitting the sale of American-made arms to Baghdad in a successful effort to help President Saddam Hussein avert imminent defeat in the war with Iran, former intelligence and State Department officials say.

The American decision to lend crucial help to Baghdad so early in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war came after American intelligence agencies warned that Iraq was on the verge of being overrun by Iran, whose army was bolstered the year before by covert shipments of American-made weapons.

The New York Times and others reported last year that the Reagan Administration secretly decided shortly after taking office in January 1981 to allow Israel to ship several billion dollars' worth of American arms and spare parts to Iran. That intervention and the decision to aid Iraq directly in 1982 provide evidence that Washington played a much greater role than was previously known in affecting the course of the long and costly Iran-Iraq war.

U.S. Asserted Neutrality

The interventions also raise questions about the White House's often-stated insistence in the early 1980's that it was remaining neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, since the United States was arming both sides in its desire to see neither side dominate the vital oil region.

In the end, officials acknowledged, American arms, technology and intelligence helped Iraq avert defeat and eventually grow, with much help from the Soviet Union later, into the regional power that invaded Kuwait in August 1990, sparking the Persian Gulf war last year.

The covert Reagan Administration decision to supply intelligence to Iraq was initially reported by The Washington Post in December 1986; the newspaper said collaboration began in late 1984. There have been numerous other reports on elements of the program since then.

But interviews over the past two months with several dozen present and former State Department, White House and intelligence officials who were directly involved in the policy confirm that the decision came much earlier, while the Administration also ignored the illegal transfer of American-made arms by Iraq's Arab allies and eventually replaced the weapons that had been shipped to Iraq.

In the interviews, it also emerged that:

*The Administration did not inform the Senate and House Intelligence Committees that the C.I.A. was passing intelligence to Iraq. Administration officials asserted that the program was nothing more than routine liaison between two intelligence agencies -- a generic and unscrutinized category of C.I.A. activity. Some committee aides, suspecting that the C.I.A. was shielding covert operations, tried without success in 1983 to gain jurisdiction over all liaison agreements.

*The C.I.A. also did not inform the committees that it had permitted American-made arms to be sold to Iraq. Starting in 1983, the agency also did not interfere as private American arms dealers began selling Iraq sophisticated Soviet arms purchased in Eastern Europe. One of the major arms brokers was Sarkis Soghanalian, a Lebanese-born Miami-based arms dealer who has been repeatedly linked in the last two decades to gun-running for the C.I.A. Mr. Soghanalian was convicted in Miami last fall of illegal arms trafficking to Iraq and is now awaiting sentencing.

*William J. Casey, then the Director of Central Intelligence, is believed by many American Middle East specialists to have traveled to Baghdad in the early 1980's for secret meetings with his Iraqi counterpart, Saddam Hussein's half-brother Barzan. A former C.I.A. official said that Robert M. Gates, now the Director of Central Intelligence, who was then a senior aide to Mr. Casey, was in charge of preparing the intelligence data for the Iraqis. The C.I.A. did not return a call asking for comment.

Secret Is Kept
At Gates Hearings

During Senate Intelligence Committee hearings last October on Mr. Gates's nomination as C.I.A. chief, neither Mr. Gates nor any of the other C.I.A. witnesses let on that the U.S.-Iraq intelligence-sharing thought to have begun in December 1984 had actually begun more than two years earlier. Nor did any witness reveal that the Reagan Administration had permitted Iraq's allies in the Middle East to ship American-made arms to Baghdad.

At one point during Mr. Gates's testimony, Senator Bill Bradley, the New Jersey Democrat, asked whether the intelligence-sharing with Iraq had amounted to a "covert action" that under law should have been made known to the intelligence committees.

"I believed at the time," Mr. Gates responded, "that the activities were fully consistent with the understanding" of the law then in effect, "as it related to liaison relationships."

The 1975 law, an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, forbids the use of C.I.A. money for covert activities "unless and until the President finds that each such operation . . . is important to the national security of the U.S. and reports in a timely fashion" to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.

One Reagan Administration official who spent dozens of hours testifying before the intelligence committees said he believed that the Iraqi program should have been presented to the committees, but was not because of a concern that the members of the committees who supported Israel would object.

Approval for Policy
'At Highest Levels'

The decision to help Iraq was "not a C.I.A. rogue initiative," a former senior State Department official explained. The policy was researched at the State Department and "approved at the highest levels," he said. The idea, he added, was not to "hitch our wagon to Hussein."

"We wanted to avoid victory by both sides," he said.

The officials say that satellite imagery, communications intercepts and Central Intelligence Agency assessments were forwarded to Iraqi commanders to show them "where the Iranian weaknesses were," in the words of one American official. The United States continued to supply top-secret intelligence until the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988.

Washington also "looked the other way," as a former American Ambassador in the region put it, as American-made arms began to flow into Baghdad from Iraq's allies in the Middle East, starting in 1982.

Jordan and Saudi Arabia sent Iraq small arms and mortars, among other weapons, and Kuwait sold the Iraqis thousands of TOW anti-tank missiles. A former C.I.A. official who worked closely with Mr. Casey recalled that "the Kuwaitis sent lots of money and lots of arms to Iraq, and it was all done with our knowledge." He also acknowledged that by 1982 the Jordanian military was routinely diverting American-made Huey helicopters to Iraq.

American officials made no effort to stop these sales, known to many in the Administration, even though American export law forbids the third-party transfer of American-made arms without Washington's permission.

The Reagan Administration had secretly changed policy toward Iran shortly after taking office in 1981, allowing the Israelis, bitter foes of Mr. Hussein, to ship American arms worth several billion dollars to Teheran. Those arms, former Administration officials now acknowledge, helped Iran defy initial predictions of a quick Iraqi victory and achieve important successes early in the war, which began with an Iraqi attack in September 1980.

Iraq's standing became precarious largely because the Soviet Union, Baghdad's longtime ally, had refused in the first two years of the war to provide it with military goods in the vain hope of gaining influence with Iran.

By late March 1982, American intelligence was reporting that Iraq was on the verge of collapse, creating fears in Washington and the region that Iran's Islamic fundamentalist Government would dominate the Persian Gulf and its huge oil reserves.

A new policy was quickly agreed upon, one senior Administration official recalled: "We don't want Iraq to lose the war." Iraq had to be aided, as Iran had been.

Nicholas A. Veliotes, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, headed the working group that was in charge of the policy. Another key player was Morris Draper, a ranking State Department expert who was President Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East then.

In interviews, some members of this group said they had authorized only the provision of intelligence to Baghdad; they insisted that they had not known that Iraq's allies would sell Baghdad American-made arms. But these officials acknowledged that even the act of supplying intelligence to Saddam Hussein was a major change in foreign policy, one that had to remain secret.

"It was agreed that the public policy of the Administration, to remain even-handed, was not in the national interest," said one official. Still, he added, "We decided that it was not in the national interest to publicly announce a change in the policy."

A Plea for Action
From Jordan's King

One former senior American policymaker said King Hussein of Jordan had persuaded the Reagan Administration to help Iraq. During the same period when the King was urging his own subjects to volunteer for service with the Iraqi Army, Thomas A. Twetten, who was the C.I.A. station chief in Amman, brought the King's entreaty to Washington.

"The King's view," recalled one American official, "was: 'Look, here's Iraq. It's got the second-largest oil deposits in the world, a highly educated population and it's the most industrialized nation in the Middle East, with a huge army. And here's this exceptional figure, Saddam Hussein, running it. And you're not giving him the time of day. Hussein can be a disaster or he can be co-opted. I believe he can be co-opted, and I'll help.' "

With President Reagan's explicit approval, the official added, high-level intelligence began flowing to Mr. Twetten for relay to Iraq through the Jordanians. Within a few months, the official added, the C.I.A. stationed its own man in Baghdad "whose sole reason for being was to handle the intelligence."

Since last spring, at least two Congressional subcommittees have been investigating American policy toward the arming of Iraq. They are asking why both the Reagan and Bush Administrations continued military support for Iraq even after the war with Iran. One of them, a House Agriculture subcommittee, is investigating the use of Agriculture Department commodity credits to underwrite the sale of American high-tech goods to Iraq. In a hearing last August, the panel's chairman, Representative Charles Rose, Democrat of North Carolina, asked whether Mr. Hussein "may have misjudged how far he could go with George Bush because of this country's arms sales to Iraq."

Sam Gejdenson, a Connecticut Democrat whose House Foreign Affairs subcommittee is investigating the export of sensitive United States technology to Iraq, has argued that the Commerce Department's export control system "did not break down."

"Saddam Hussein got the equipment that the State Department wanted him to have," he said.

It was "U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein," he added.

Posted by polish freedom fighter at November 19, 2005 05:14 PM

Trackbacks don't seem to be working, but I've linked to your post here.

Those of us who supported, and continue to support, the current intervention in Iraq, are obligated to advance our arguments based on the facts. While Greyhawk's timeline (at the moment) ends in 2003, I hope that he carries it forward, with a frank acknowledgement of the mistakes that have been made, the lessons that have been successfully learned and corrections applied, and the many real successes that have been achieved so far.

Posted by Barry Campbell at November 19, 2005 05:17 PM

"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free".

Thanks for taking the time to compile the record so all can see. Vitriol going back and forth helps no one in this country or the rest of the freedom-loving world. Only by showing the train of events leading to the war can all judge outside the lense of politics.

One suggestion: Many who now opppose the war do so on the basis that the war was mismanaged, and that we are now stuck in a no-win situation. They spin the facts to say that we are not making progress. A timeline of events during the war and up to elections recently (and next month) can certainly add a layer of record for all to judge the administration's handling of the war. As I said earlier, the truth shall set you free. Clear facts without spin will allow everyone to judge the case on its merits (or lack thereof).

Keep up the excellent work!

Posted by Dave P at November 19, 2005 05:19 PM

"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free".

Keep up the excellent work!

Posted by Dave P at November 19, 2005 05:19 PM

Nice work! Absolutely outstanding. !!!APPLAUSE!!!

Posted by Gina Cobb at November 19, 2005 05:23 PM

I am so happy that you have started working on this. Good thorough job so far. I have bookmarked the site and will use it whenever I am defending the overthrow of Sadaam.

Thanks and don't stop!

Posted by John L. at November 19, 2005 05:32 PM

Thank you for taking the time & effort to put these FACTS in one location... Churchill said "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it"...(at least I think it was Churchill). The "Professionals" in Washington would have us all forget...apparently playing around with tyrannts keeps them employed from administration to administration.

Posted by Sergeantslady at November 19, 2005 06:04 PM

Well, it's good as far as it goes, but you've conveniently left out our own actions in the Iran/Iraq war.

More here: http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/archives/000424.html

in a pretty old post on my blog.

Posted by Pierce Wetter at November 19, 2005 06:55 PM

Pierce -- there was one big reason for our limited involvement in that war.

Posted by Rich Casebolt at November 19, 2005 07:03 PM

Polish Freedom Fighter:

You need to hit the link in my previous post, as well.

I knew y'all would bring this up ... and even **IF** previous Administrations "created Saddam", we have now un-made him.

Posted by Rich Casebolt at November 19, 2005 07:08 PM

Nice job.

You might add a list of all the U.N. resolutions that Saddam Hussein broke, particularly those related to the 1991 cease-fire. U.N. Resolution 688, adopted April 5, 1991, is key. It required Saddam to end his repression and mistreatment of the Iraqi people. The other resolutions requiring Saddam to stop supporting terrorism and to return the 600 Kuwaiti POWs (and one American, Navy Lt. Cdr. Michael "Scott" Speicher) also are important.

And how about a mention of the 1991 Kurdish and Shiite uprisings?

You could add to your timeline the August 1995 defection of Saddam's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, to Jordan. Kamel al-Majid, who was husband of Saddam's daughter Raghad Hussein, revealed to the U.N. that Saddam had told his experts to keep all the documentation necessary to restart a nuclear weapons program. In February 1996, Kamel al-Majid begged Saddam to forgive him for defecting and talking to the U.N. Saddam "pardoned" him, and two days after Kamel al-Majid returned to Iraq, he was executed. (Kamel al-Majid's brother, Saddam Kamel, married to Saddam's daughter Rana, also was executed.)

You could note when terrorists Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahaman Yasin and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi first showed up in Iraq. (I don't have the dates.)

You also could add the 1996-97 start of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, designed to use oil revenues to provide food and medicine to the Iraqi people, while economic sanctions were enforced against Saddam for his failure to cooperate with several U.N. resolutions.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by Free Frank Warner at November 19, 2005 07:24 PM

Greyhawk's selective justification notwithstanding, the U.S. public knows different: The Liar-in-Chief and his co-liars sucked them into a war. Then they mismanaged it. This time, however, the Republican wingnuts are going to learn about those things they always promote, i.e., "accountability" and "personal responsibility." What goes around comes around, wingnuts. Oh, does it ever.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 19, 2005 07:55 PM

A mention should also be made that Saddam and Iraq WERE behind attacking the World Trade Center.... in 1993. Slickster's response: nothing!

Posted by SDN at November 19, 2005 07:58 PM

Moonbat: "The Liar-in-Chief and his co-liars sucked them into a war"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html

"And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq—the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy—have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals." - Norman Podhoretz 11/07/05

Posted by Fen at November 19, 2005 08:28 PM

@ pierce and polish freedom fighter

So, your view would be that if we aided any country militarily in the last 20 years, we are thereby forbidden from any military action against them?

Don't confuse the mild ironies of shifting alliances in volatile areas with a foundation for foreign policy. As with the Taliban in Afghanistan earlier, strategic support -- especially if minor -- is by nature a fickle thing for nations which are not allied but have common intersts.

I know that's fairly subtle thinking for the black & white morality of the left, but give it a try.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at November 19, 2005 09:08 PM

That reads like it was done for a grade school history project. It glosses over huge swaths of empirical, recorded history which results in absolutely zero context.

Clearly compiled to justify a personal agenda; totally unobjective. The general framing by date and action seems relatively accurate, but the quotes are quite obviously cherrypicked to support the political bent of the writer.

I'd give it a D.

Posted by gorgias at November 19, 2005 09:11 PM

Mr. Kolb and his ilk would do well to remember that simple recitation of falsehoods, distortions, fantasies and other left-wing talking points no longer work. However, I do find it most amusing that moonbats manage to wiggle into every comment section on the net, if only to scream to themselves; the rest of us are content to drag them into the light of freedom, whether or not they think they want it.

After all, if we let them drown themselves in socialism, we shall all perish indeed.

Excellent work, Greyhawk! Already passing it along to my family (including brother, presently deployed in Iraq!).

Posted by Eric W. Olsen at November 19, 2005 09:24 PM

You forgot to mention the part where the Republican's impeached Bill Clinton. By my reading of your argument ie, the war started in 1990, the Republicans impeached a sitting president during wartime. How unpatriotic can you get?

What a peice of hooey. This was started the day the US Supreme Court handed the presidency to George W. Bush and not one minute earlier. He wanted it, he's got it. Don't waste anyone's times trying to spread the guilt around now.

Posted by SF Bay at November 19, 2005 10:06 PM

Greyhawk,

I can't help but notice that, while you included almost all of the NPR timeline in your "brief history," you left out certain facts provided by NPR.

1. Without using elipses, you cut out the sentence "ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim," from the Jan. 9, 2003 entry.

2. In the Feb. 5, 2003 entry you included a White House link to Colin Powell's UN presentation without further comment and removed the NPR summary which states:

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

3. You completely omitted the NPR entry for March 6-7, 2003 which states:

The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says: "These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."
Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

Taken together, these three entries suggest that UN officials had good reason to doubt U.S. pre-war intelligence on Iraqi WMDs.

Is that why you chose not to include them? Or is there some other, better reason?

Posted by whats4lunch at November 19, 2005 10:12 PM

Good chronology but you omitted one key event...at approximately 10:10pm local on 17 May, 1987 an Iraqi Mirage fired two Exocet missles at the USS Stark killing 37 sailors.

Posted by Bill at November 19, 2005 10:18 PM

I applaud your initial effort, and look forward to the dialogue it will hopefully spark among thoughtful critics of the war.

I'd like to point out, though, that you omitted the last sentence of Nancy Pelosi's 1998 speech, making her sound more hawkish. What's missing:

"While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means."

Posted by Jim Anderson at November 19, 2005 10:29 PM

Thank you for that compilation. I would also add this very interesting speech from then-Secy of Defense Cheney in '91. (While many comments, estimating status of Iraq's WMD efforts, etc may be extremely outdated by 2002, Cheney's comments go to subjects that have not necessarily been made obsolete by subsequent events.)
-------
Dick Cheney on the Folly of Nation-Building in Iraq
From a 1991 speech for the Soref Symposium:

There have been significant discussions since the war ended about the proposition of whether or not we went far enough. Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding "no."

One of the reasons we were successful from a military perspective was because we had very clear-cut military objectives. The President gave us an assignment that could be achieved by the application of military force. He said, "Liberate Kuwait." He said, "Destroy Saddam Hussein's offensive capability," his capacity to threaten his neighbors -- both definable military objectives. You give me that kind of an assignment, I can go put together, as the Chiefs, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf masterfully did, a battle plan to do exactly that. And as soon as we had achieved those objectives, we stopped hostilities, on the grounds that we had in fact fulfilled our objective.

Now, the notion that we should have somehow continued for another day to two is, I think, fallacious. At the time that we made the decision to stop hostilities, it was the unanimous recommendation of the President's military advisors, senior advisors, that we had indeed achieved our objectives, and therefore it was time to stop the killing and the destruction.

Some have suggested that if we had spent another day in combat in the Kuwait theater, we would have changed the outcome of the subsequent conflict between the Shi'a, and the Kurds in the north, against Iraq. I do not believe that is the case. I think it is important to remember that Saddam had better than 60 divisions when the war started; that we destroyed or rendered combat ineffective in military terms about two-thirds of that force, roughly 40 divisions in the Kuwaiti theater. But he had some 20 divisions deployed in Iraq that never were engaged in the conflict. They were up along the border with Turkey, along the border with Iran, but they were never committed to the theater. And they were never there for the target of U.S. military operations. It is that residual force, plus what small force he was able to get out of the theater at the end of the war, that he ultimately used to deal with the Kurds and the Shi'a, but I do not believe one more day in Kuwait would have made that much difference.

Some have suggested that if we had gotten involved just a little bit -- for example, if we had shot down a few helicopters -- it would have changed the outcome of the conflict. Again, I think that is a misguided notion. One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage "a little bit" in a war. If you are going to go to war, let's send the whole group; let's make certain that we've got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary.

Now, if you're going to deal with the effort to change the military balance inside Iraq, if you want to really neutralize the Iraqi Army, you have to deal not only with helicopters but also with artillery, with tanks and armored personnel carriers, and with the infantry units that clearly make the Iraqi government -- even today with a two-thirds smaller army than they had a few months ago -- significantly an overwhelming presence vis-a-vis the insurgents that exist inside the country.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/009152.php

Posted by azpaull at November 19, 2005 11:57 PM

whats4lunch reveals again the penchant of some to completely disregard anything pertaining to Iraq that occurred prior to GWB's Presidency, as well as U.N. Resolution 1441, the prior use of WMD by Saddam, human shredders, etc, etc, etc. Hans Blix, I have no doubt, is an honorable man. An honorable man who tried to do a job in the territory of a megalomaniacal sociopath. Given that fact, I also have no doubt that Mssrs Blix and Co. observed precisely what Saddam wanted them to observe. At the risk of beating a horse long since dead and decayed, I might also point out that Saddam had ample opportunity and infrastructure to scatter his arsenal to the Middle Eastern winds. Lord knows the world gave him enough time.

But putting all that aside, I have to admit that what we're observing in this country is the complete polarization of the electorate. Half of whom support the current policy, with half unable to tolerate the sheer existence of George W. Bush. The result is what you see demonstrated here: endless debate over minutae.

My God, does anyone else remember the sight of innocent Americans falling out of the sky? Am I the only one who remembers the Iraqi woman executed in the middle of a soccer stadium, or the pictures of the decomposing bodies of Kurdish men, women & children?

Worse yet, is there actually ANYBODY in this country who hates the president SO much, that they can justify the deviants who sawed off the heads of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Johnson, Armstrong, the Indonesian schoolgirls...need I continue?

In any event, while I thoroughly disagree with those who would maintain that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the attacks that day were, indeed, a declaration of war (albeit not the first, mind you), made by an enemy heretofore largely unknown to us. They did not wear uniforms, nor did they swear allegiance to any recognized (or unrecognized) national government. They were terrorists, Period.

As such, if we were to have appropriately responded to that declaration, how else were we to proceed? The very nature of the enemy dictated our response: search and destroy. Iraq therefore, has become the front line. To paraphrase Brian DePalma, "You don't bring a knife to a gunfight." The enemy wishes to engage us in battle, but will not stand and fight. The enemy wishes to destroy the "Great Satan," but deliberately targeted ordinary civillians (and still does, in point of fact).

Fine. We've accepted that, and have decided that the only way to prevent them from realizing their goals is to take the war to them.

To conclude what is quickly becoming a rant, I should mention that a very interesting article appeared in the LA Times Op-Ed section about a month ago, written by a former DNC official. In it, he stated that he feared, given all the vitriol and wrangling over pre-war intel, the Democrats were running headlong into a repeat of the fall of Saigon. Specifically, the incessant calls to extricate ourselves from Iraq would inevitably, in his opinion, leave the US yet again in the role of having lost a war. Vietnam undoubtedly tore this nation apart, but not because of the protests against it. Rather, it was the failure to prevail that still pervades our psyche.

This gentleman's assertion was that instead of offering nothing but criticism, partisan tactics and calls for withdrawal, the DNC's best hope for recapturing the White House & Legislature was to begin to offer viable alternatives. Has anyone on the left yet taken him up on it?

If "WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER," than what the hell is?

Posted by Eric W. Olsen at November 19, 2005 11:58 PM

I'm a 74 yr old FEMALE retired teacher who has followed this interaction closely for years-(-Most of your comments seem to be from men) yet I and my friends are every bit as interested as the men who are cited!!!!!! It's wonderful to see it all in chronological order-- I'll save it and send it on to those I feel will listen and a few who won't!!!!!!

Thank you

Posted by Donna Loomis` at November 20, 2005 03:58 AM

All I can say is I sure wish the Liar in Chief had gotten a blowjob. Then we could impeach him.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 04:28 AM

You forgot a few key dates:

1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.

1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region.

1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability".

Early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.

1967‑: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.

1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.

1973‑75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

1978‑79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.

1979‑88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.

1980‑88: Iran‑Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly‑aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.

1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self‑defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.

1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.

1984: U.S.‑backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.

1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.

1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.

1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon.

1990‑91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted.12 To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post‑war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.

1991‑: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."

1991-: U.S. forces permanently based in Saudi Arabia.

1993‑: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self‑defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.

1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.

1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. Evidence for the chemical warfare charge widely disputed.

2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians

Posted by Ca1v1n at November 20, 2005 04:40 AM

"All I can say is I sure wish the Liar in Chief had gotten a blowjob. Then we could impeach him."

All you can say is that? No kidding. Just goes to show that when cornered by your own specious reasoning, nothing works like a good sex joke, huh?

Keep reading, Mr. Kolb. You might learn something.

Posted by Eric W. Olsen at November 20, 2005 04:43 AM

Hey Calvin,

How about them beheadings, huh? Guess those people really deserved it, right?

How about the folks who ended up as grease spots at the foot of the WTC. Got what was coming to them, huh?

Weren't you the guy I saw at the Berkely rally on Veteran's Day holding the sign that said:

"I LOVE NY - especially without the WTC."

Nice. I'll be sure to send your post along to my brother in Iraq.

Posted by Eric W. Olsen at November 20, 2005 04:46 AM

Terrific work Greyhawk! You have produced a very valuable resource.

Posted by GunnNutt at November 20, 2005 04:46 AM

I'm not exactly a fan of the Democratic Party's political cowardice and ineffectual opposition, but I do have to give them at least one thumb up for sidestepping that little stunt the wingnuts tried to pull with the withdrawal resolution. Maybe the Democrats in Washington have the right strategy, which is to not interfere with the president while he destroys himself.

After all, the Liar in Chief has insisted on doing this. The wingnuts have wasted no effort to tell everyone that the military is gung-ho. The polls indicate that three-quarters of the military voted for the Liar in Chief. No one can claim that they didn't get the money or public support they needed. True, the entire country didn't give the Hitler salute that the wingnuts demanded, by after all this is ostenisbly at least a partially-free country.

Now that it's clear to all but Rich Casebolt and his counsin Baghdad Bob that the wheels are coming off, maybe the best thing the Democrats can do is hold back and let the Idiot in Chief deal with the mess he's created. I suppose you could blame the whole thing on Michael Moore -- I wouldn't put it past the wingnuts to try -- but somehow I doubt the public will buy it.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 04:47 AM

God I love a good spin!

The Dems lack the courage of their convictions, so they manage to spin it off as a "stunt." Inside of 24 hours, here's Wilson spitting it right out like a good little sheeple. LOL

Brilliant, Nancy. Absolutely brilliant...and oh so predictable.

Posted by HollywoodNeoCon at November 20, 2005 04:51 AM

Every time I see the Fake President on the tube he digs his hole a little deeper. Today it was the same old SOS, we'll stay as long as it takes. Nice words from a guy who couldn't even be bothered to report to the Texas Air National Guard. Brave guy, ain't he? It takes a real Republican to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 04:55 AM

Once again, Wilson, you advocate the do-nothing approach ... this time, to your political allies.

It will work about as well there, as it does when applied to the security of this nation.

We have your number ... we learned the real lessons of Vietnam, that defeat can be snatched from the jaws of just victory by a lack of resolve, fomented by a fifth column who uses the conflict as a club to beat a President they loathe for other, unrelated reasons.

Ultimately, it is about who outlasts who ... both in Baghdad, and in DC.

We won't be fooled again.

Posted by Rich Casebolt at November 20, 2005 04:59 AM

Maybe you're right, but I'm sure he didn't have nearly as much fun had he flown to Oxford and spent the next couple of years smoking pot and banging a few Birds, huh?

LOL...this is hysterical!

Posted by HollywoodNeoCon at November 20, 2005 05:01 AM

Nicely done, Rich. Wish I could be as eloquent as you and Eric have been.

Whaddya expect from a left-coast exile, though?

Posted by HollywoodNeoCon at November 20, 2005 05:03 AM

So, Rich, how many thousands of American lives and how many hundreds of billions of dollars is your Idiot in Chief's pack of lies worth? And how much time should we give it? And is there anyone in your family whose life and health you're willing to so casually toss away? If so, do you really hate them so much?

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 05:03 AM

It takes a useful idiot to advocate doing nothing as the best defense for our nation.

Posted by Rich Casebolt at November 20, 2005 05:04 AM

To preserve the lives of my family (and yours, I might add), I would not only back my son's enlistment and deployment, I would do everything in my power to follow him there, NO MATTER THE COST.

Hence, the difference between Wilson's sheer hatred and ignorance, and those of us who recognize the threat when it hits you in the face.

Posted by Eric W. Olsen at November 20, 2005 05:07 AM

I'm sure he didn't have nearly as much fun had he flown to Oxford and spent the next couple of years smoking pot and banging a few Birds, huh?

Uh, they don't give Fulbright Scholarships to members of the Lucky Sperm Club. You actually need brains. Besides, word is that George W. wasn't hurting for drugs, alcohol and babes when he was going AWOL from the champagne brigade.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 05:07 AM

We take your approach, Wilson, and we throw the lives and freedom of MILLIONS of innocent people away.

Your approach is EXACTLY HOW Saddam was able to stay in power and shred people ... and bin Laden was able to grow from nothing to the perpetrator of an attack bigger than Pearl Harbor in loss of life.

As for the money ... we spend about the same amount as we have spent in OIF to date ... EVERY YEAR just to comply with our tax laws. If the money is such a concern, I trust you will get behind The Fair Tax which will eliminate those costs.

Posted by Rich Casebolt at November 20, 2005 05:08 AM

Millions of lives -- my family included.

I won't toss them away "casually" ... nor will I ignore the threat to them, as those like you did for decades and let the threat grow.

I will do my part ... in the lab, giving our warfighters the best tools for their trade I possibly can.

Posted by Rich Casebolt at November 20, 2005 05:11 AM

To preserve the lives of my family (and yours, I might add), I would not only back my son's enlistment and deployment, I would do everything in my power to follow him there, NO MATTER THE COST.

I believe the operative word in that breast-beating example of phoniness is "would". Such a ringing affirmation, Eric, that you "would." But in the meantime, you're pleased as punch to do what Republican phony patriots do best, which is to sign someone else's death warrant. Bravo, Eric! Bravissimo!

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 05:12 AM

If GWB is such an idiot, and more than half of this nation voted for him last November, than I cannot begin to imagine how hard it is for Wilson to awaken each day, in the knowledge that he lacks either the money or intestinal fortitude to actually give up all of the freedoms he has in America and repatriate to Costa Rica.

Posted by Eric W. Olsen at November 20, 2005 05:14 AM

Dear Sir,

I said "would", primarily because I do not yet have children, as if that were any of your concern. As for me, I served proudly during the Cold War, and am two years beyond eligibility for re-enlistment.

Any other questions?

Posted by Eric W. Olsen at November 20, 2005 05:16 AM

ADDENDUM:

There is word however, that the military will open up translator positions to prior-service personnel over the age of 38. If that comes to pass, than you can count on me to be there.

I'm already getting my CV together.

Posted by Eric W. Olsen at November 20, 2005 05:18 AM

Destined to be a blog clasic, thank you for your labours. The truth will be told.

Posted by Cameron at November 20, 2005 07:01 AM

I have tried to send a trackback "ping" to this post for two, but Haloscan won't let me for some reason. Anyway - here is the post that references yours and provides an additional [but briefer] history lesson.

P.S. Good job.

Posted by salt1907 at November 20, 2005 03:45 PM

Greyhawk,

Thank you so very much for compiling (and continuing to compile) this historical narrative. It may become the definitive timeline of this era of our history. Your efforts are appreciated more than you could ever know.

Hangtown Bob

Posted by Robert Campbell at November 20, 2005 03:47 PM

It will be a blog classic, alright: A classic example of an ideologue's selective blindness. "Greyhawk" is emblematic of Republican operatives whose role is to click their heels, give the stiff-armed salute and shout "Jawohl!" to every lie their Fuhrer tells. None of you would know the truth if it farted in your face. Fortunately, the rest of the public is finally waking up. Even a majority of veterans now disapproves of the Fake President's handling of the Iraq War.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 04:10 PM

You have done an excellent job of putting this war in perspective. I suspect that a lot of the criticism you are receiving from certain quarters is because they do not like being shown and then reminded that this was a war long in the making and not by just George Bush. Keep up the good work.

Posted by Steve at November 20, 2005 05:00 PM

I was originally referred to your blog through Michelle Malkin. She is a true genios and getting to the bottom of all issues especially this one. You are right that the MSM often forgets history and rewrites it to sell their own agendas (i.e. Bush Lied, Bush Stole the Election, etc.) But you have put together a timeline that is not talked about much but which surely deserves to be reveiwed by all. Thanks for this information and good luck to you in all that you do.

Posted by WolverineInPajamas.com at November 20, 2005 07:28 PM

Michele Malkin. Well, I guess you have to find someone now that "Rush" has shown how appropriate his name is and O'Leilly has joined the terrorists by inviting an al-Qaada on San Francisco's momument to the firefighters who died rescuing the city from the 1906 earthquake.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 20, 2005 10:37 PM

November 17, 2005 -- The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear... We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

November 18, 2005 -- "All of Iraq must know Iraq is free -- free from United States occupation," John Murtha said. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051119-123457-8799r.htm

And then John Murtha voted against the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

When Congress votes for war, they commit to those who pay war's highest price – our troops – that victory is when our nation leaves the field of battle. America's security remains at risk and our nation's reputation is on the line. Are we the America that cut and ran in Vietnam or the America that crossed the Rhine under fire and stayed the course to V-E and V-J Days? If we withdraw from Iraq before total victory, our enemies will grow a hundred-fold and no nation will ever trust us again when we say we are their ally.

The choice is clear: we stay on the battlefield, as a nation, no matter how long and no matter how painful, or we bring home every troop from every corner of the world. In the War on Terror there is no place to run from here. We fight them abroad or we bar the door and wait for our enemies to come again.
http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/WaronTerror.html#they_have_drank_the_Kool_Ade

Wilson Kolb, if you wish babble about how "Bush lied" as you dig a foxhole outside your home, do so. Better men and women will go and do what is necessary to keep it from doubling as your grave.

Posted by Tim Sumner at November 20, 2005 11:45 PM

I'm no republican but it never ceases to amaze me at the lefts continued ignorance due to their blind rage at the President of the United States. You have a man if office that is engaging the enemies of the world. It is an ongoing battle that will likely never end. Iraq is the current location and in spite of the fools who believe inaction against terrorism is an option, please move to France and join up with anyone over there. You'll recieve a warm reception if you don't mind the stench of burning tires and flaming idiots!

We have a duty to continue until we finish, what has been ongoing (and not only Iraq) for years now. Their is no honor and no resolve by running away. The mistakes learned from Viet Nams war history, should be required reading and burned into the brains of the cowards who's malicious distortions of truths continue to undermine our current military efforts. And then say "we support the troops" not the war. You don't even know you are lying when such absurdities are pouring from your cake hole! It' ok though. It's not your fault, that's the beauty of being stupid.....with all due respect!

Whiners are made not born. They are created from all walks of lifelessness. Personal attacks on people such as Michelle Malkin, Rush, Oreilly, and many, many others who are trying to provide depth and analysis for a better understanding serve no one and no thing, unless you consider childish screaming and ranting helpful. This is in no way intended to insult anyone who practices this pointless pattern of personal insults, just a fact that if dialogue of intelligent design is beyond your ability, feel free to leave or STFU. If you truly want to help and get our people back ASAP, stop hunting them down with such insipid behavior and evil words! If you are so oppposed to helping and creation of something good (not just in Iraq), then please identify your purpose and goals. What plan do you have for the problems that face the good people around the world?

It is not some country border on a map or a political alliance that can save you from a terrorist action. It never has been and never will be! It's the actions of people trying to do good things and stop bad people. We are trying to make and keep the world a better place for all, unfortunately this includes those who will not stop trying to destroy us by word and deed! That may be the achilles heel of democracy and lucky for those who practice evil.

Good job Grey Hawk on your compilation of the history and the unreported history and successes being accomplished daily! SEMPER FI!

Posted by Forest Hunter at November 21, 2005 01:40 AM

Wilson, you name calling yellow bellied boob. (How do you like some names thrown at you?)You sound like a real Facist, but of course you are too bent to even be considered one of them. No respect for yourself or anyone else. Why don't you go post on Daily Chaos and make their day--and leave us alone. You make my soul ache. I will of course receive more name calling from you for even daring to comment. Now to something important, very good time line, am printing and forwarding. Thanks so much for your efforts.
P. S. These posts would work better if everyone ignored the trolls and spoke to the intelligent posters.

Posted by Judith at November 21, 2005 01:57 AM

I was with my wife's friends in Hong Kong this past Christmas when the Iraq war came up. They were teasing me a little about Bush and the lack of WMD. They were shocked when I responded that WMD wasn't the only reason to go and that we have been in a shooting war with Iraq for most of the past 10 years (prior to the invasion). It's something that most people didn't know because nobody reported it. Thanks for summarizing what's happened between the "first" and "second" Gulf Wars.

Posted by Andrew C at November 21, 2005 03:07 PM

SF BAY says...
"What a peice of hooey. This was started the day the US Supreme Court handed the presidency to George W. Bush and not one minute earlier."

So your interpretation of Federal law would have allowed the State Supreme court of Florida (all Democrats) deciding who became President of the United States of America? When dead Chicago voters helped the Democrats in the 1960 election to Kennedy, Nixon decided not to tear the country apart and challege the issue. That Nixon, what a classy guy.

Re: the War
All the historians that I have talked to or read say that WWII started at the end of WWI. The Armistace did not "end" the First World War which is the primary reason it started up again twenty years later with virtually the same sides. A similar situation followed Operation Desert Storm. Vietnam didn't start with John Kennedy and the Crusades were not started by Richard the Lion hearted and Saladin. You can deny the truth but you cannot change it.

Since the hate filled left (and I don't include SF Bay and all liberals in this catagory) is working so hard to get us another Vietnam, I will leave you this this little historical insite. When asked what WWII would be called (at the time WWI was called "The Great War") Churchill said "the unessesary war" because Great Britian acting alone could have stopped Hitler in 1936. By 1939 it was too late for the Allies to stop him. Maybe Saddam would have reformed and sang "Kumbuya" with the world. Chamberlin believed the same about Hitler.

Posted by tyree at November 21, 2005 07:27 PM

Appreciate the fine work. Please include one additional important item. The attack on the Frigate Stark (March 17, 1987) and the death of 35 American Sailors. See
http://www.usresolve.org/uss-stark-ffg31.php
From that day we had the right to do anything we wanted to and in Iraq.

Posted by Remember at November 21, 2005 07:47 PM

I second the above. The attack on the USS Stark was an act of war against the US.

Posted by Mike D in SC at November 21, 2005 08:29 PM

Also, it was actually 37 sailors who died in this attack. 35 were brought home, 2 were lost at sea.

Posted by Mike D in SC at November 21, 2005 08:38 PM

Wilson Kolb, if you wish babble about how "Bush lied" as you dig a foxhole outside your home, do so.

No one's going to invade my house, with the possible exception of domestic wingnut fascists bent on suppressing free speech.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 21, 2005 09:34 PM

Maybe Saddam would have reformed and sang "Kumbuya" with the world.

You don't even know the first thing about the Iran-Iraq War. The Iraqis were losing badly, and Iran was on the brink of crushing them. That's when Saddam used the chemicals. He turned the battle around, and then Iran negotiated the truce. Soon afterwards, your Idiot Secretary flew to Baghdad and congratulated Saddam on a job well done. You might recall that the U.S. was Saddam's "ally" during this period.

Not that any of this matters to the Jawohl! crowd. After all, Eurasia is our friend. Eurasia has always been our friend. Smash Goldstein!

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 21, 2005 09:38 PM

Since the hate filled left (and I don't include SF Bay and all liberals in this catagory) is working so hard to get us another Vietnam

Sorry, but I'd say your Liar in Chief has accomplished that one all by his incompetent, AWOL, alcoholic self.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 21, 2005 09:40 PM

Wow. I forgot how angry some drunks can be, and how much they hate those who found the will and grace to pull away from the bottle.

Posted by MonkeyBoner at November 21, 2005 11:18 PM

Wow. I forgot how angry some drunks can be, and how much they hate those who found the will and grace to pull away from the bottle.

I agree totally. Some of them get so angry they start wars. For more on Bush's drinking, go check page 19 of the Sunday, Oct. 30, 2005 issue of The New York Times Magazine:

What about his drinks?
"When he asks for a vodka on the rocks, it's our guys who mix it from our own supply that we have to bring all the way around the world with us. Nobody knows that."

As I'm sure you know, vodka is the overwhelming choice of secret drunks everywhere. They think people can't smell it.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 22, 2005 05:24 PM

So, this is the best you can do, Herr Wilson Goebbels ... talk about the President in the context of drinking?

Running out of Big Lies, I surmise, so you're now recycling old MoveOn/Soros anarchist mob talking points ...

... Wilson wanna cracker?

Posted by Rich Casebolt at December 2, 2005 05:52 AM

July 16, 1979: Saddam Hussein becomes president of Iraq. 100% vote? No hanging bodies? Recent elections seemed a fairer vote despite efforts to disrupt them.

Posted by stackja1945 at December 2, 2005 12:20 PM

Thank you so much for taking this on!!
Just wanted to let you know that I posted about it today at http://youbetchaimapam.blogspot.com/2005/12/some-grist-for-mill.html

Excellent!

Posted by yankeemom at December 4, 2005 06:11 PM

Words cannot express my gratitude for this timeline and history...

Posted by Desert Rat at December 7, 2005 04:44 AM

Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(78) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)

More Books Here

November 22, 2005

A Brief History of a Long War (Iraq, 1990-2003)

Pre-1990

1990 - 1991

Next: 1991-1997 1998-1999 2000-2003

Next:
1991-1997
1998-1999 2000-2003