Truth Be Told

Issue 2: The US Created Bin Laden and Hussein?

Yes friends, it's back. After reading many of the liberal arguments used against the United States for going into Afghanistan and Iraq, I've decided to give the Essay Section reading world the truth about the rise of both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden so that possibly they might understand history and come up with an original argument, and not the one hand-fed to them by the media.

First, let's go through a few common liberal arguments:

"The United States created Bin Laden! So they shouldn't be complaining!"

(While I know that that isn't exactly a direct quote, variations of it have been used)

"The US GAVE Hussein his WMD!"

"Where was this outpouring of liberation when Hussein was gassing Kurds?!"

"Why didn't anyone do anything in Afghanistan during the 90s?!"

"Bin Laden was trained by the US, they should have been ready!"

**I think you get the point. Let us move on…**

Let's begin with Saddam Hussein, who's story is a little shorter than that of bin Laden and the rise of Al-Qaida.

Hussein

The rise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq begins in 1954, when the Iraqi branch of the Ba'ath Party was established. The Ba'ath Party was a political party with three main objectives: 1) Liberation of all Arab land from non-Arabs, 2) Unification of those land into an Arab state, and 3) Creating a Pan-Arab socialist state with Baghdad at it's core. The Syrian branch shared these views as well (the only other Ba'ath Party branch.)

After World War I (1914-1918), the British moved into the area and established the borders of Iraq, allowing it to become a nation-state in the 1920's, under the control of King Faisal Hussein, brother of Jordanian King Abdullah , the sons of Arabian King Sharif Hussein. These three men have no relation to Saddam.

While the land of Arabia will come into this lovely history tale in a little, Iraq was dealing with it's own problems. By 1958, a group of military insurgents lead a coup d'etat and kill King Faisal. They establish a republic, but cannot hold on to power for long as a series of coups and civil unrest breaks out for ten years. The Ba'ath gain control of Iraq by 1963, but quickly lose it. By 1968 the Ba'ath Party finally takes complete power, solidifying its hold on Iraq in 1970. It is then that Saddam Hussein begins his rise to power.

Raised by his aunt and uncle in the small town of Tikrit, Hussein's uncle was obsessed with Josef Stalin. With this upbringing, it was near natural for him to join the socialist Ba'ath Party. A ruthless man, Hussein gained power quickly in the regime, jostling and then earning a spot on the Revolutionary Command Council. During this time, Hussein began eliminating any opposition to him and the Ba'ath Party—though mostly to him. He began within his own religious sect, the Sunni sect, murdering anyone who spoke out against him or the Ba'ath. By the time he was second-in-command of Iraq, Hussein had created an image of fear, and even his own party worried about what he would do next. Not surprising, after eliminating several key Iraqi Ba'ath members, Hussein murdered the frail old President Ahmed Hassan Bakr.

To make sure the Ba'ath Party stayed firmly in his control, Hussein (shortly after becoming president) called a meeting of all Ba'ath members. On a video you can see on CNN at least once a day, Hussein begins to read the names of members he believed to be in opposition of him, pointing them out to his forces. These men were taken outside and summarily executed.

This allowed Saddam to establish a dictatorship and extend Iraq's power by gaining land. This meant war with a particular country with a lot of oil and a lot of land.

The Shiite/Persian country of Iran.

This is common knowledge, right? Of course. But here's where the liberals like to point out where the US "created" the monster of Saddam Hussein and the US is hypocritical for the reasons she chose to go into Iraq.

After the Khomeini revolution, internal power struggles ripped the government of Iran apart. The Shiite clerics couldn't decide who should be in key leadership roles. Hussein believed this would be to his advantage—according to Dr. Whalid Phares, Hussein believed the country would collapse on itself making victory quick and easy. At this same time, the Iranians were holding hostage a group of Americans at their embassy and they had expressed their deep hatred for the USA and even the Soviets.

This created a fear for both the Soviets and the Americans, and so when Hussein powered his way across the border and engaged Iran (with no provocation), they saw a potential "ally-of-convience." Both, let me stress this, both the United States and the Soviet Union provided Hussein with conventional weapons, equipment, and money. However, contrary to popular belief, Saddam did not get any chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponry from the United States. Nor did the Soviet Union provide it—though they did assist in the creation of chemical and biological weapons.

What the US could be guilty of would be allowing Hussein to build his stockpile up. The most common event would be to point out the special envoy sent to meet with Hussein in 1983. Our current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, led it. Rummy warned Hussein about using the weapons, but what many liberals and Democrats either choose to forgot or just plain forget is that this shaky alliance was created in hopes of destroying Iran. Reagan believed that Iran would fall, and be followed by Iraq, who would suffer too much from the Iran-Iraq war. A "two-birds-with-one-stone" concept. This is not "crazy" or "insane"—it is basic Cold War policy that was prominent then. Neither the US nor the Soviet Union could have guessed the outcome that had occurred.

By 1987 both Iran and Iraq sign a ceasefire. Without hesitation, the Iraqi dictator turned on the Kurd minority in the north, who had led a rebellion against him during the war. Using weapons created by his top chemists (the most famous being the well-known and feared cousin of Saddam, "Chemical Ali" Hassan al-Majid), Saddam led a one-year murder campaign on the Kurds in the north, climaxing on March 26, 1988 when the town of Halabja was gassed.

Now, what's misconstrued by the media and liberals, is what the US's role was in the attacks. The weapons used were Iraqi, but the delivery system for some of them were American—helicopters and rocket launchers capable of firing warheads. It was what was given to him during the Iran-Iraq war. Allow me to repeat that: there was NO AMERICAN WMD given to Hussein ever. So the whole "we gave him the weapons" argument doesn't work.

The next argument would be "why didn't the US do anything after he killed the Kurds?"

The answer is hard to understand now, but in the 1980's it was simple: fear of Soviet reprisal. Reagan wasn't thrilled about Hussein's actions, but he also knew that if he was to react and attack Hussein it might cause the Soviet Union (whom Hussein was closely allied with) to retaliate to any American aggression. In other words, both countries feared starting World War III.

Following his campaign against the Kurds, Hussein then turned on the Shiite population (also the majority sect in Iraq) in the south. They too had formed a resistance movement to the Iraqi dictator and were prepared for an attack from Saddam's forces. However, they were not to stand much longer as the Republican Guard beat them back by the beginning of the 1990's.

By 1991, Hussein moved into Kuwait for oil. And the rest, my friends, is history.

Basically, the US is guilty of Cold War foreign policy, if anything. They did not give Hussein any unconventional weapons (an argument commonly used on this site and by Hollywood entertainers.), nor the US blatantly ignore Hussein's gassing of the Kurds. What the United States did do is act on the best policy it could, and that was to avoid any kind of Soviet retaliation and prevent World War III from possibly happening. Now, sure, 15 years later you can look back and say "well that was just wrong," but in the 1980s, with the Soviet Union making it's last stand in the Middle East, fears of a nuclear war was real.

So, here's how we'll work this. If you wanna flame me, please, I beg of you, make it intelligent. Use facts to back up any argument you have against me. And don't, whatever you do (if you're a liberal or Democrat or whatever) attempt to change the argument you've used previously. If you have learned something, good. That's the point. There's more in the next chapter. Other than that, just comment on the writing itself.

Next up: part II: Osama bin Laden and the creation and rise of Al-Qaida.