Could the US have made a deal with Saddam?

[skeptical]

Before anyone goes crazy on me, yes, I agree that Saddam was a murderous, bloodthirsty dictator who was about as morally corrupt as any ruler in modern history. Ok, I get that. I understand. He was a really, really, really, evil piece of crap. However, we have made deals with evil pieces of crap when it suited our purposes in the past and continue to do so: Stalin, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, the mujahideen in Afghanistan, Saudi princes, etc. So yes, he was a evil piece of crap, but maybe he could have been "our" evil piece of crap.

Now that that's out of the way...

I have been browsing through the Iraq Survey Group report, and it had some interesting information collected from interviews with Saddam. Granted, anything Saddam said should be taken with ample salt, but still, its interesting. According to the report, Saddam _was_ interested in WMD, but primarily as a deterrent against Iran, and secondarily against Israel. This makes sense, given the long animosity between Iraq and Iran.

So, it made my wonder, could we have just made a deal with Saddam to leave him in power but essentially give the US unfettered access to Iraq and be "our guy" in the Middle East, similar to the role he appeared to be playing in the 80's when Iran was bad guy number one?

This may sound ridiculous, but the more I think about it the less far fetched it seems. The terms of the deal could have been simple: Saddam would get to remain in power, he would get the weapons he needed from the US to counter any Iranian threat, sanctions would be lifted, he would give the US unfettered access to ALL weapons locations, he would allow a US base in Iraq and he would agree to assist the US against any and all terrorist groups. Any violation of the terms of the agreement in the slightest way would be met with swift military action. This would be aided by the fact that the US would already have a base of operations in country.

If a deal could have been brokered, the benefits could have been:

1) MUCH cheaper to have a foothold in Iraq
2) An easy way to ensure that Iraq had no WMD's
3) A strongman in control in a volatile country of importance to us
4) A check against rising Iranian power
5) A strong ally in the region to assist in the fight against terrorists

Of course, Saddam would likely try to wriggle out of as much as possible, but given the presence of large numbers of US soldiers and advisors in his own house, it is doubtful that he could have gotten away with much. Plus, if he was getting all the weaponry he needed from the US and we promised not to try and overthrow him, what purpose would be served by biting the hand that was feeding him?

The only negatives I see are:

1) Western world opinion would have been extremely negative about the US making a "deal with the devil"
2) A lot of internal political opposition to dealing with a dictatorship
3) We would have to remain constantly vigilant for game playing of the terms

All things considered, if a deal could have been brokered, I can't see why it would have resulted in any more negatives than the current situation, and quite a few more positives.

Ok, let the sh%tstorm begin.

 

[Zep]

Good argument!

Politically it would have been TOTALLY unacceptable, but good argument!

 

[nzric]

I like your thinking!

Would make a good exercise in alternate history, e.g. pre-GW#1:

Ripped straight from Wikipedia: Kuwait had heavily funded Iraq's eight year-long war with Iran. By the time the war ended, Kuwait decided not to forgive Iraq's US$ 65 billion debt. An economic warfare between the two countries followed after Kuwait increased its oil production by 40 percent. Tensions between the two countries increased after Iraq alleged that Kuwait was slant drilling oil from its share of the Rumaila field. On 2 August, 1990 Iraqi forces invaded and annexed Kuwait.

....The world community, led by the US, is "shocked" at Kuwait taking economic advantage of a key ally in the war on terror (although it's called something different in 1990) against the evil Iran. The forces of the world economy charge in to force Kuwait to stop their slant drilling (despite finding no evidence) and to implement a fair and just payment system for Saddam Hussein's Iraq to honor...

 

[gtc]

Hmm, Saddam would have been concerned about what his neighbours and, to a lesser extent, his public thought about him.

Would he look like too much of a US lackey?

 

[gumboot]

I think you're "negatives" are missing the most obvious and most important one. The Arab states would have hit the roof, particularly Saudi Arabia. Iraq was never that important to the USA. Certainly not important enough to put Saudi Arabia off side.

 

[Darth Rotor]

he would allow a US base in Iraq and

Deal breaker if you have any understanding of who Saddam Hussein is/was.

Non starter.

Also, unnecessary.

The US already had bases in the PG, developed with various Emirs and Sheiks during the 80's.

The Brits likewise, dating from earlier ties with various kingdoms.

DR

 

[skeptical]

I think you're "negatives" are missing the most obvious and most important one. The Arab states would have hit the roof, particularly Saudi Arabia. Iraq was never that important to the USA. Certainly not important enough to put Saudi Arabia off side.

But, the only reasons I see that we are in bed with the Saudi's in the first place are:

1) oil
2) a ME base of ops

If we could have gotten both of those from Saddam, why would we care about the Saudis?

Also, why do you think the Saudi's would have been so upset? Religious differences or something else?

 

[linusrichard]

Interesting to point out that Saddam actually ran the invasion of Kuwait by our ambassador to Iraq, who basically said that he could do what he wanted and we wouldn't really care.

We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.

It turned out we did have an opinion. Who knew?

 

[skeptical]

Deal breaker if you have any understanding of who Saddam Hussein is/was.

Non starter.

You may be right. I agree it would have been a hard sell. However, if he was convinced it was that or overthrow, I'm not certain he would not have gone for it. Despite his megalomania, he also had a pragmatic streak.

We could have agreed to have the base in Kurdish controlled territory for example to make it easier to swallow, and he could have spun it however he wanted to save face.

Also, unnecessary.

The US already had bases in the PG, developed with various Emirs and Sheiks during the 80's.

The Brits likewise, dating from earlier ties with various kingdoms.

DR

But, wouldn't a base in Iraq have assisted us in keeping a watchful eye on Saddam and also have given him more incentive to toe the line given significant US troops already close at hand?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

The only negatives I see are:

Others I would add:
Loss of the opportunity to spends a half a trillion dollars (to date).

Loss of the opportunity to control the largest material prize in history.

LLH

 

[skeptical]

Hmm, Saddam would have been concerned about what his neighbours and, to a lesser extent, his public thought about him.

Would he look like too much of a US lackey?

Good point, I thought about that as well. I think a lot would have depended on how it was presented. The US could have approached him through intermediaries to broker a deal. Then there is a public announcement that we were now completely satisfied that he had abandoned his WMD and had reached an agreement to lift sanctions. This would then give him credibility that he had "won" the long struggle against sanctions.

Then the US announces an agreement to put a base in the Kurdish area of Iraq. This can be spun by both the US and Saddam in such a way that it makes us both look like we got what we wanted.

The weapons deals are access to potential WMD sites could have been kept essentially secret, we could funnel personnel and weapons through the new base with little scrutiny.

 

[skeptical]

Others I would add:
Loss of the opportunity to spends a half a trillion dollars (to date).

Loss of the opportunity to control the largest material prize in history.

LLH

I like your first one.

Not sure I understand the second. Was that intended to be ironic as well? Sorry if I'm being dense.

 

[skeptical]

Interesting to point out that Saddam actually ran the invasion of Kuwait by our ambassador to Iraq, who basically said that he could do what he wanted and we wouldn't really care.


It turned out we did have an opinion. Who knew?

Ah yes, the famous "green light" communication. I read that she claims that her statement was simply diplomatic speak and that anyone in the diplomatic world would have understood she was not giving a go ahead. I find that hard to believe. You can certainly be diplomatic without saying we have "no interest". That whole incident still seems odd to me.

 

[WildCat]

Interesting to point out that Saddam actually ran the invasion of Kuwait by our ambassador to Iraq, who basically said that he could do what he wanted and we wouldn't really care.



It turned out we did have an opinion. Who knew?

Taken completely out of context. It was followed by:

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can only see that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not in the spirit of confrontation - regarding your intentions.
I simply describe the concern of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.

Source.

Glaspie clearly did not "give permission" for Iraq to invade, and was expressing concern about the troop buildup. And later on, Hussein assured her that no action would be taken at least until talks failed:

Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.

Of course, Saddam lied and Iraq did invade a few days later.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I wonder what would have happened after the invasion of Kuwait, had Saddam offered to sell oil to Occidental at half price...