posted December 07, 2004 01:04 PM            

Text and Photographs By Barbara J. Graham -

Protesters, including the Pagan Cluster,
experienced an alarming evolution in security techniques deployed at the School of the America's peace rally and prayer vigil, November 19-21, 2004 at Fort Benning Military Base in Columbus, Georgia.

Some 16,000 people participated in the annual vigil, one of the largest of the SOA Watch protests recorded.

The crowd included more college-age protesters than in the previous 14 years, SOA Watch organizers said. They attributed that presence to a greater awareness of the paramilitary training, and to the increasing violence in Iraq. SOA Watch founder Father Roy Bourgeois was joined by celebrities such as actors Susan Sarandon and Martin Sheen, and musician Amy Ray of the Indigo Girls, at the two-day demonstration.

The SOA Watch Rally has always been peaceful, making the heightened security presence incongruous and unnecessary. An increased number of police patrolled the crowd, while overhead a low flying helicopter kept up aerial observation. A skybox for stationary semi-aerial observation was also erected close to the stage.

The Pagan Cluster for this action was made up of Witches and Pagans from across the country who are called by conscience to vigil at the SOA. Engaging in magical activism, the Cluster helped build a web of life and encouraged people to write prayers of transformation upon the cloth strips. Others chalked peace labyrinths and blessings on the street. The web was provided by Vida of The Fifth Estate. The Cluster's presence at SOA protests over the years has provided increasing opportunities for expressions of Earth-based spirituality for many vigilers, and has been welcomed by SOA Watch organizers.

Police Harass the Pagan Cluster
On Saturday, police converged on the Cluster's banner, ordering the removal of its pole citing security restrictions classifying it as a weapon. SOA Watch Legal Observers quickly joined the Cluster questioning what was happening. Banner bearer Zotlynn calmly negotiated a compromise for the pole's disposition.

Later in the day, police pressured the Cluster to end the Web of Transformation ritual, using a cruiser as intimidation. In a moment of delightful irony, one policeman who had picked up a corn puppet which was marking the East, rocked in and out along with the Cluster as they pulsed to charge the web. It may have been the fastest ritual the Cluster had ever had at SOA, and it was clearly one of the most intense.

On Sunday, following the solemn and deeply moving funeral Presenté procession where the names of all the dead are called, the Cluster danced a slow and dignified Spiral Dance at the gates of Fort Benning, then scaled the fence to attach the Web of Transformation.

Pagan Cluster Activists Open "Rabbit Holes"
Three Cluster activists managed to open two "rabbit holes" beneath the fence which guarded the fort's massive stone sign. Aided by other vigilers who used their bodies to obstruct the view from police and media, the three activists scurried beneath the fence attaching crosses and pictures of victims to the tarpaulin which covered the sign. Seeing them, other vigilers quickly joined in peeling off the tarpaulin and planting a garden of crosses in the barbed wire and holly bushes. Exiting the "rabbit holes" as quickly as they had entered, the three were safely absorbed by the crowd.

The year 2000 saw the last time vigilers were allowed onto the Base, where they had traditionally staged die-ins with scores of coffins. Vigilers carrying crosses with the names of the murdered victims of SOA-trained graduates would peacefully walk deep within the Base where they were arrested, handcuffed, and processed. Most received "ban and bar orders" restricting them from entering the Base for a period of time, along with a hefty fine. Some received months-long prison sentences for their offense against a federal installation. Members of the Pagan Cluster were among those arrested.

By 2001 the Fort's gates were fenced off, preventing protester's access to the Base. In 2002 vigilers were wanded, handbags searched, and anyone wearing a bandana which veiled their face was required to remove it. In 2003 police began carrying gas masks. This year, while wanding and searching of vigilers was discontinued by court order, a doubled fence layer was erected at the Fort's gates, and an auxiliary line of chain link fencing marched down Torch Hill Road restricting access to bathrooms and shade.

t is the SOA and Who is the SOA Watch?
The School of the Americas (SOA), in 2001 renamed the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation," is a combat training school for Latin American soldiers. Over its 56 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counter-insurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics (see www.benning.army.mil/whinsec).

SOA Watch was formed in reaction to the massacre of six Jesuit priests, their co-worker and her teenage daughter on November 16, 1989, in El Salvador. A US Congressional Task Force reported that those responsible were trained at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) at Ft. Benning, Georgia. SOA Watch states that from its beginning, the mission of the SOA has been to train soldiers to protect the interests of multinational corporations and maintain the economic status quo for the few rich and powerful in the US and their cohorts in Latin America.

In 1990 SOA Watch began in a tiny apartment outside the main gate of Fort Benning by Father Roy Bourgeois. While starting with a small group of people of faith, SOA Watch quickly drew upon the knowledge and experience of many in the U.S. who had worked with the people of Latin America in the 1970's and 80's. Today, the movement is a large, diverse, grassroots movement, rooted in solidarity with the people of Latin America, according to SOA Watch

The goal of SOA Watch is to close the SOA/WHINSEC and to change U.S. foreign policy in Latin America by educating the public, lobbying Congress and participating in creative, nonviolent resistance. The Pentagon has responded to the growing movement and Congress' near closure of the SOA with a PR campaign to give the SOA a new image. In an attempt to disassociate the school with its horrific past, the SOA was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in January 2001.

According to evidence gathered by SOA Watch, among those targeted by SOA graduates are educators, union organizers, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, "disappeared," massacred, and forced into refugee by those trained at the School of Assassins. The Army previously has held news conferences to deny protesters' accusations -- this year, no response was issued.

http://www.reclaimingquarterly.org/96/96-pol-soa.html

posted December 07, 2004 01:51 PM            

Dictatorships like the Communist Sandanistas in Nicaragua
Dictatorships like the Socialist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein
Dictatorships like the Communist dictatorship in North Korea
Dictatorships like the Communist dictatorship in Cuba
Dictatorships like the Communist dictatorship in North Vietnam
Dictatorships like the Communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union
Dictatorships like the Communist dictatorship in China
Dictatorships like the Baathist Socialist dictatorship in Syria

It seems to me that if this group or any group could get to Fort Benning, GA, then they could also get to the embassies of these dictatorships in NY and elsewhere.

posted December 07, 2004 05:04 PM            

Groups in America are really protesting the failure of communists to overthrow the democratically elected Central and South American governments and the help America has given those democracies.

Why is it Harpyr that almost all the articles you post have a definite Marxist flair and your rhetoric, i.e., training terrorists is the exact rhetoric coming off the communist groups which are the one's attempting to overthrow the elected governments by force?

I also recall that FARC, the communist narco terrorists were represented at the war protest marches organized and funded by A.N.S.W.E.R, the front organization of the Workers World Party, which makes no bones about being a communist organization.

I also recall many...some here too mentioning they signed the petition drafted by the little communist bas*ard Ramsey Clark to impeach the President.

Name one leftist group which is protesting communist dictatorships and the murder, starvation and abuse of human rights they inflict on their own citizens.

You seem to always be protesting America Harpyr...along with the actions America takes to free people from the yoke of dictatorship or to keep them free to decide their own destiny.

posted December 07, 2004 11:13 PM            

The United States is not responsible for the actions of other nations. We are not responsible for the actions of those we train in the service of their countries. Nor are we responsible for the way the nations employ those we do train in combating those engaged in attempts to overthrow legitimate, duly elected governments.

posted December 12, 2004 02:07 PM              

legitimate, duly elected governments eh?

like the one the cia overthrew in Iran?
like the one the cia helped overthrow in chile?
like the elected government in nicaragua? we paid drug dealers to support attacks on CIVILIANS in order to "destabilize" the elected government there?

BUT YOUR REFERENCE TO IRAQ IS THE MOST LAUGHABLE....

************
Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.

Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.

A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business."

A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."

British scholar Con Coughlin, author of "Saddam: King of Terror," quotes Jim Critchfield, then a senior Middle East agency official, as saying the killing of Qasim and the communists was regarded "as a great victory." A former long-time covert U.S. intelligence operative and friend of Critchfield said: "Jim was an old Middle East hand. He wasn't sorry to see the communists go at all. Hey, we were playing for keeps."

Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

******************

the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures.

The United States also sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the United States had backed against Kassem and then abandoned. Soon, Western corporations like Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum were doing business with Baghdad -- for American firms, their first major involvement in Iraq.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/morris.htm

******************
Bush Aided Iraq's Buildup
(BY DOUGLAS FRANTZ AND MURRAY WAAS)

Washington.--In the fall of 1989, when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only nine months away and Saddam Hussein was desperate for money to buy arms, President Bush signed a top-secret National Security Decision directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for $1 billion in new aid, according to classified documents and interviews

Getting new aid from Washington was critical for Iraq in the waning months of 1989 and the early months of 1990 because international bankers had cut off virtually all loans to Baghdad. They were alarmed it was falling behind in repaying its debts but continuing to pour millions of dollars into arms purchases, even though the Iran-Iraq War had ended in the summer of 1988.

In addition to clearing the way for new financial aid, senior Bush aides as late as the spring of 1990 overrode concern among other government officials and insisted that Saddam continue to be allowed to buy so-called `dual use' technology--advanced equipment that could be used for both civilian and military purposes. The Iraqis were given continued access to such equipment, despite emerging evidence that they were working on nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction.

`Iraq is not to be singled out,' National Security Council official Richard Haas declared at a high-level meeting in April 1990, according to participants' notes, when the Department of Commerce proposed curbing Iraqi purchases of militarily sensitive technology.

Evoking Bush's personal authority, Robert Kimmittt, undersecretary of state for political affairs, added: `The president doesn't want to single out Iraq.'

And the pressure in 1989 and 1990 to give Saddam financial assistance and maintain his access to sophisticated U.S. technology weren't isolated incidents.

Rather, classified documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times show, they reflected a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by Bush--both as president and as vice president--to support and placate the Iraqi dictator. Repeatedly, when serious objections to helping Saddam arose within the government, Bush and aides following his directives intervened to suppress the resistance.

In the case of the $1 billion in commodity loan guarantees, for instance, senior Bush aides, armed with the presidential order--NSD 26--insisted the credits be approved despite objections by officials in three government agencies.

These officials warned that aid was being diverted to buy weapons in violation of American law, that the loans wouldn't be repaid and that earlier assistance efforts were plagued by financial irregularities.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r102:H25FE2-421:

posted December 12, 2004 09:40 PM            

It takes a special kind of conspiracy theorist to ignore all the warning signals that a story is just that...a story.

Further, no one from the CIA is going to go on the record and reveal top secret ops information to the press. The CIA would have his head on a pike for doing so in addition to a hell of a lot of other very unpleasant things to go along with it.

I don't give a flying flip where the following conversation took place, the probability of it being a made up out of whole cloth story is in the bold words.

Just so you get this straight Petron, the CIA won't even admit to what is classified, won't discuss the topic, the content, who was present at meetings that are themselves classified in nature or any circumstances surrounding a classified or code word document or meeting including the notes that were taken.

To reveal classified information is a major federal felony that gets prosecuted...and that's the reason it isn't done. Perhaps you recall the administration declassifying certain documents or parts of documents...DBR's, daily briefings reports so they could be turned over and discussed in the 9/11 Commission Hearing?

But now, we're supposed to believe the CIA or other government agencies or individuals made the news media a gift of classified documents?

I think not.

ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS ABOUT AID TO IRAQ (House of Representatives - February 25, 1992)

[Page: H569]
(Mr. SLATTERY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of questions about exactly what this administration's policy was toward Iraq prior to their invasion of Kuwait.

This weekend the Los Angeles Times broke a story I find very alarming. It has been spread on the newspaper pages across this country, and the story that I have with me is one carried in the Topeka Capital Journal. The headline reads `Bush Aided Iraq's Buildup,' and the other headline is `Bush Used Top-Secret Plan To Aid Iraq's Buildup.'

I call my colleagues' attention to this story because it contains some very very important information. The information is corroboration of the rumors that we heard, and that is, according to secret documents, apparently this President was attempting to help Iraq prior to their invasion of Kuwait in many ways.

[TIME: 1240]

In fact, according to this story there are members of his own administration that strongly advised him against continuing to make loans to Iraq when we had information that the proceeds from these loans were being diverted to buy arms.

What in the world was going on in the corridors of this administration?

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is time for us to ask some tough questions of the President and get to the bottom of this and find the truth. This is something the American public has a fundamental right to know.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following article from the Topeka Capital Journal of February 23, 1992:

[Page: H570]

From the Topeka Capital-Journal, Feb. 23, 1992

[FROM THE TOPEKA CAPITAL-JOURNAL, FEB. 23, 1992]

Bush Aided Iraq's Buildup

(BY DOUGLAS FRANTZ AND MURRAY WAAS)
Washington.--In the fall of 1989, when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only nine months away and Saddam Hussein was desperate for money to buy arms, President Bush signed a top-secret National Security Decision directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for $1 billion in new aid, according to classified documents and interviews.

The $1 billion commitment, in the form of loan guarantees for the purchase of U.S. farm commodities, enabled Saddam to buy needed foodstuffs on credit and to spend his scarce reserves of hard currency on the massive arms buildup that brought war to the Persian Gulf.

Getting new aid from Washington was critical for Iraq in the waning months of 1989 and the early months of 1990 because international bankers had cut off virtually all loans to Baghdad. They were alarmed it was falling behind in repaying its debts but continuing to pour millions of dollars into arms purchases, even though the Iran-Iraq War had ended in the summer of 1988.

In addition to clearing the way for new financial aid, senior Bush aides as late as the spring of 1990 overrode concern among other government officials and insisted that Saddam continue to be allowed to buy so-called `dual use' technology--advanced equipment that could be used for both civilian and military purposes. The Iraqis were given continued access to such equipment, despite emerging evidence that they were working on nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction.

`Iraq is not to be singled out,' National Security Council official Richard Haas declared at a high-level meeting in April 1990, according to participants' notes, when the Department of Commerce proposed curbing Iraqi purchases of militarily sensitive technology.

Evoking Bush's personal authority, Robert Kimmittt, undersecretary of state for political affairs, added: `The president doesn't want to single out Iraq.'

And the pressure in 1989 and 1990 to give Saddam financial assistance and maintain his access to sophisticated U.S. technology weren't isolated incidents.

Rather, classified documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times show, they reflected a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by Bush--both as president and as vice president--to support and placate the Iraqi dictator. Repeatedly, when serious objections to helping Saddam arose within the government, Bush and aides following his directives intervened to suppress the resistance.

In the case of the $1 billion in commodity loan guarantees, for instance, senior Bush aides, armed with the presidential order--NSD 26--insisted the credits be approved despite objections by officials in three government agencies.

These officials warned that aid was being diverted to buy weapons in violation of American law, that the loans wouldn't be repaid and that earlier assistance efforts were plagued by financial irregularities.

Bush's involvement began in the early 1980s as part of the so-called `tilt' toward Iraq initiated by then-President Reagan to prop up Saddam in his war with Iran. Saddam's survival was seen as vital to U.S. efforts to contain the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and thwart Iran's bid for dominance in the Middle East.

Many in the American government, including Bush and Reagan, also hoped U.S. aid would gradually cause Saddam to moderate his ways and even play a positive role in the Middle East peace process.

But classified records show Bush's efforts on Saddam's behalf continued well beyond the end of the Iran-Iraq War and persisted in the face of increasingly widespread warnings from inside the American government that the overall policy had become misdirected.

Moreover, it appears that instead of merely keeping Saddam afloat as a counterweight to Iran, the U.S. aid program helped him become a dangerous military power in his own right, able to threaten the very U.S. interests that the program originally was designed to protect.

Clearly, U.S. aid didn't lead Saddam to become a force for peace in the volatile region. In the spring of 1990, as senior Bush administration officials worked to give him more financial aid, the Iraqi leader bragged that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and threatened to `burn half of Israel.'

What drove Bush to champion the Iraqi cause so ardently and so long isn't clear. But some evidence suggests it may have been a case of single-minded pursuit of a policy after its original purpose had been overtaken by events--and a failure to understand Saddam's true nature.

Much of the blame for failing to perceive Saddam's expansionist ambitions and the dangers of building him up has fallen on midlevel officials and on agencies such as the Department of Commerce, which approved the sale to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of American technology, and the Department of Agriculture, which authorized a total of $5 billion in loan guarantees.

However, classified documents from several agencies and interviews over the last two months demonstrate it was foreign-policy initiatives form the White House and State Department that guided relations with Iraq from the early 1980s to the eve of the Persian Gulf War--and that Bush and officials working under him played a prominent role in those initiatives.

For example:

In 1987, Vice President Bush successfully pressed the federal Export-Import Bank to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for Iraq, the documents show, despite staff objections that the loans weren't likely to be repaid as required by law.

After Bush became president in 1989, documents show senior officials in his administration lobbied the bank and the Department of Agriculture to finance billions in new Iraqi projects.

After Bush signed NSD 26 in October 1989, Secretary of State James A. Baker III personally intervened with Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter to drop Agriculture's opposition to the $1 billion in food credits. Yeutter, now a senior White House official, agreed and the first half of the $1 billion was made available to Iraq in early 1990.

As late as July 1990, one month before Iraqi troops stormed into Kuwait City, officials at the National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network.

A Department of Agriculture official cautioned in a February 1990 internal memo that, when all the facts were known about loan guarantees to Iraq, the program could be viewed as another `HUD or savings-and-loan scandal.'

Of the $5 billion in economic aid over an eight-year period. American taxpayers have now been stuck for $2 billion in defaulted loans.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. DORNAN of California addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

posted December 13, 2004 06:43 PM              

would you believe me if i said foxnews did a story on this whole thing years ago showing footage of an assembly where communists names were being called then they were escorted out back (to be executed by saddam we were told)

unlike SOME people who may (or may not) post here (or elsewhere)...i dont USUALLY pull my info from out of my 4&& but how bout if its a newsmax farticle?.....* phLssthfzZffyyhheerrrt!!! *

***************

Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot
Newsmax Wires
Friday, April 11, 2003
U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.
United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start..........

...........

Relationship Intensifies

The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group.

This former official said that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran in an attempt to produce a military stalemate. "When I signed it, I thought I was losing my mind," the former official told UPI.

A former CIA official said that Saddam had assigned a top team of three senior officers from the Estikhbarat, Iraq's military intelligence, to meet with the Americans.

According to Darwish, the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam's ferocious February 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days.

The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml

*************

posted December 13, 2004 07:30 PM            

quote:

---

would you believe me if i said foxnews did a story on this whole thing years ago showing footage of an assembly where communists names were being called then they were escorted out back (to be executed by saddam we were told)

---

But it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the United States government took a dim view of an Iraqi leader installing communists in his government....considering that at that point we didn't want an undue Soviet influence in the area.

There is nothing in your last post....at least the part where the US furnished intelligence to Saddam to be used against Iran that isn't common knowledge. None of that needed to come out of classified documents you referred to in a previous post.

Various allegations have been made on this forum, among them:

The US armed Saddam. That's false, most of Saddam's arsenal came from the Soviet Union and France. Planes, tanks, artillery, mortars, assault rifles, etc.

The US gave Saddam chemical/biological weapons. That's false, the US gave Iraq research reference samples of many toxins....from the CDC and other sources for medical research. The same kind of samples given out to many countries. The US did not supply Saddam with weaponized chemical or biological weapons.

To put it all in context, Iran was an enemy who had held US hostages for more than 400 days...right up until the end of the Carter administration. There was a war between Iraq and Iran. It was natural that we assisted to some degree the enemy of our enemy...which happened to be Saddam.

posted December 13, 2004 09:05 PM              

***********
pbs interview with james chritchfield

James Chritchfield is former CIA Near East Division Chief and was the leading behind-the-scenes architect of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East during the Cold War..

How did you become involved in the Middle East?
A few days before Christmas, in 1959, Allen Dulles invited me to his office. He was the director of central intelligence. After I spent ten years in Europe being involved in American intelligence, I had returned to Washington, and had joined the Central Intelligence Agency. Allen told me his conclusion that the Soviet Union, after 1955, had redirected its principal strategic interests away from the Stalin effort to take western Europe, and toward the Third World, particularly towards the Middle East. He said that he expected a full effort by the Soviet Union to establish itself physically in the Middle East. He said that the CIA had done a very effective analysis of the vulnerability left in that area by World War II. He proposed that I leave Europe, and go to the Middle East and south Asia. to be responsible for our operations there.

I had a comparable experience in Europe in the ten years after the war, so I found this an exciting assignment. Europe had become extremely stable after the Warsaw Pact. I very enthusiastically went to the Middle East. For ten full years, I was the head of the Middle East operations, starting in 1959. Allen's analysis, detailed to me before Christmas, 1959, turned out to be the reality. The Soviets did pull out all the stops in their effort to take over the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Suez Cannel, and the Arabian peninsula. But in the end, they totally failed to achieve their objective.

Why do you think they failed?

The Soviets, like the United States, did not really understand the character of Arab nationalism, and the deeply ingrained sense of independence following years of colonial experience. They also failed, as we did, to put in full perspective the impact of Islam on these new nations that were emerging in that part of the world. The Russians failed very badly when they saw the creation of Israel as essentially an instrument that they could play upon, because it created a difference between the Arabs and the United States. The Russians greatly underestimated Israel's determination to preserve their national interest, and above all, to maintain access to the Indian Ocean and through the Mediterranean to the rest of the world. And so, the 1967 war that the Soviets rather foolishly provoked turned out to be an enormous disaster to the Soviet Union. It created the conditions for Anwar Sadat to replace Gamal Nasser, and it certainly destroyed the whole Soviet initiative in the Arabian peninsula, the Red Sea, and the efforts to take Aden. So the Soviet effort failed. The United States was clearly emerging as a greater power. The United States had done more to increase its presence in the Middle East in carrying out its containment policy, than the Soviets thought we would be able to do, given our growing involvement in Asia--first, in Korea, and then later in Vietnam.

When you took over the assignment in the Middle East in 1959, how important was Iraq in the general "great game" that was going on in the Middle East? Was it a focal point of Soviet and American concern?

By 1959, Iraq was becoming important, because they had gone through one or two revolutions. The conservative monarchy established there by the British had fallen in a coup. Gamal Nassar was extremely active in the Ba'ath politics. We recognized in the Ba'ath. They were probably opposed to Egyptian nationalism, but we thought they were equally opposed to Soviet communism. Aside from that, we had no clear U.S. policy in which Iraq was either central or even very important. The Soviet effort in the Middle East tried to penetrate the Fertile Crescent from Damascus, to Baghdad, toward the Gulf, and through Egypt and the Suez Cannel to the Red Sea. So it was equally important for them to get control in Baghdad. I think the U.S. policy was essentially containment of Soviet efforts there--Baghdad was merely a piece on the board.

What about the Ba'ath Party?

In 1961 and 1962, we increased our interest in the Ba'ath--not to actively support it--but politically and intellectually, we found the Ba'ath interesting. We found it particularly active in Iraq. Our analysis of the Ba'ath was that it was comparatively moderate at that time, and that the United States could easily adjust to and support its policies. So we watched the Ba'ath's long, slow preparation to take control. They planned to do it several times, and postponed it.
We were better informed on the 1963 coup in Baghdad than on any other major event or change of government that took place in the whole region in those years. But we did not identify a radical movement within the Ba'ath that would, six months later, stage a kind of counter-coup, and replace the moderate elements in the Ba'ath. That was our mistake--that surprised us.

And were you also surprised, as time went on in the 1960s, by the increased violence of the Ba'ath Party? It eventually shifted from being a party of a lot of intellectuals, to being a party of some intellectuals on top of a lot of thugs.

Quite clearly after Saddam Hussein took power, America slowly developed, not a hostility, but enormous reservations about the ability of the Ba'ath to constructively bring Iraq along. But during those years, the oil companies continued to deal with Iraq, and there were a lot of American business interests.

By the end of the 1960s, what had changed with regard to the U.S. attention or interest in Iraq?

Within a year or two after the 1967 Six-Day War, our growing involvement in Vietnam became apparent. About the time that President Nixon went to Moscow, he conceived the idea of placing increased reliance in the region on Iran. On the way back from Moscow, he stopped and, in effect, said to the Shah, "We are looking to you to assume leadership in this whole region--what do you need?" The Shah was very adept at exploiting that, and we became quite a major arms supplier at that point. Our increasing involvement in Iran was part of the effort to offset our growing problems in maintaining a presence in Europe and in the Middle East, while we were so deeply engaged in Asia.

Around that time, Saddam made his trip to Moscow and signed a friendship agreement. How significant was that? What do you think he was trying to achieve, and what were the Soviets hoping to get out of that?

Saddam Hussein's trip to Moscow didn't impress us very much. By then, we had sorted out that any Arab revolutionary who needed help inevitably got the invitation to come to Moscow. All of them went, and in the end, nothing very much came of this. They became temporary Soviet clients for arms and other support in the Middle East, but we know that none of these lasted--at least they've never lasted in the sense that the Soviets intended them to last. The independence deeply ingrained in the Arab leaders, colored additionally by Islam, makes the average Middle East leader very difficult for major foreign powers to influence decisively.

Saddam was also hoping to develop his country quite rapidly. It seems like he concluded that he wouldn't get the kind of technology that he needed from the Soviets, and was actively looking for Western technology. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Of course. We were all obviously impressed that the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Lebanese were greatly ahead of the rest of their world in education, in technology, and in development in general. So we thought that Saddam Hussein might be brought along in that sense--showing increased interest in working with United States, its instruments, its companies and its government, because of the infatuation for modern technology. This was Saddam Hussein being totally pragmatic. When he was interested in making a bigger and better missile or a bomb, he wasn't interested in it to increase American influence in the region. He was interested purely in increasing his own influence. So this theme of independence comes up again and again, and is still today a very prevalent characteristic of the Middle East.

If you wanted to bring Saddam along at that time, what would be the way to do that?

At that time, the policy that we followed of trying to stabilize the area with leadership in Teheran was probably a good policy. But it didn't work, because we had underestimated the resistance to the Shah. When he was overthrown, we didn't have a very good policy that we could put forth.

And that changed Saddam's role?

I think it did change Saddam's role. It made him more ambitious, since he had the military force, the political influence. Saddam probably figured that he benefited by the break in the Shah's relation with the United States. When the Shah left Iran, this left him the opportunity to replace the Shah. There's no doubt that, in that period, he worked quite hard with our diplomats, our intelligence officers, and with our oil companies to strengthen the American position in Iraq.

And were the Americans receptive to that?

I think many of them were. There were various business groups in the United States that were dedicated to expanding our business interests. Some of the American oil companies, more than others, made a major investment of time, attention and money. Mobil Oil Company was very active during this period, in the dialogue that was very much with Saddam Hussein and his top oil people.

Should America be trying to overthrow that regime today?

We should probably not be actively attempting to overthrow Saddam Hussein at this point. We should be pursuing an almost equal dialogue with Iran, who is showing signs of change. Iraq is under great pressures, and Saddam Hussein is an aging ruler. As we go into the next century, the United States should stand back a little bit, and conduct very active dialogues with Iran and Iraq. Both of them are potentially dangerous with weapons of mass destruction, and could disrupt the whole Middle East region again.

So, if he is a threat, why not try to overthrow him?

We don't really have the means to overthrow him without leaving the policy of containment, in which, inherently, you don't go around attacking people or shooting them, unless they've threatened you directly, as he did in Kuwait. It isn't credible to try and overthrow Saddam Hussein, unless there is some credibility in an announced change of policy towards the use of force. The United States using force in the world today, including in Iraq, is not a very good answer. We should be very laid-back, as we go into the next century. We should have a growing dialogue with Saddam Hussein, and with the moderates in Iran, and coordinate these very carefully with all of the other Arab leaders. We should see if we can gradually move them together to end the current sharp division and hostility that is present in Iran and Iraq.

To what extent has American policy toward Iraq become too personalized towards Saddam Hussein?

When a government personalizes an attack on a leader like Saddam Hussein, in a country like Iraq that is inherently quite nationalistic, and has attitudes that are reinforced by its religion, then attacking the leader makes his task of staying in power simpler. A quiet dialogue engaging other nationals is much more effective.

When was the end of Soviet attempts to gain a foothold in the Middle East?

If you had to fix a point when the when the Soviet influence was destroyed in the Middle East, it would have to be the 1967 war. You remember that Khrushchev made his famous statement that Israel was a bone in his throat. That war was the turning point, but it was only one of many things that happened. With Nasser's death, there was a shift of influence to the Shah, to King Faisal in Saudi Arabia, and to Sadat in Cairo, which produced a change in the environment in the Middle East. The Soviet position was significantly downgraded. But it was the 1967 war that was the beginning of the end.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/critchfield.html

posted December 13, 2004 09:32 PM              

U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Second Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War

INTRODUCTION

In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors identified many U.S.- manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs

The United States provided the Government of Iraq with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile- system programs, including 6) chemical warfare agent precursors; chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans); chemical warhead filling equipment; biological warfare related materials; missile fabrication equipment; and, missile-system guidance equipment.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm

posted December 13, 2004 09:57 PM            

First, the Shah of Iran was not simply overthrown. The radical Islamic fundamentalists had the help of the bubble brained moron Jimmy Carter who withdrew US support for the Shah. Carter, an idiot, didn't seem to get it that the Shah's prisons were full of not regular Iranians but radical Islamic fundamentalist elements who were attempting to overthrow his government. It is undeniable that Jimmy Carter ushered in the lead elements of radical fundamentalist Islamic clerics into power in the Middle East. Wonder just who the hell Carter thought was going to step into the vacuum when the Shah was forced out of power in Iran? Carter destabilized the entire Middle East.

Critchfield also said to leave Saddam alone because he could be contained and I'm sure the thinking was that Saddam wouldn't live forever. Two problems with that thinking is that Saddam had 2 psychopathic homicidal sons who would have taken over Iraq for one and two, at the time of this interview, Saddam was in the process of skimming more than 20 billion dollars off the oil for food program and using the money to bribe the UN, the French, the Russians and possibly, the Germans to remove the UN sanctions so he could retool his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Part of those bribes were to insure there would be no security council resolution calling for his removal. He only forgot one thing and that was that there already was an active security council resolution in the form of a cease fire agreement which called on Saddam to disarm and live up to the other provisions of the cease fire resolution...which he did not do. Effectively a state of war still existed between UN member nations and Iraq and that wasn't a good detail to forget.

Lastly, at the time of the Critchfield interview with PBS, the official policy of the United States called for the removal of Saddam Hussein. That policy was spelled out in a Congressional Resolution in 1998.

posted December 13, 2004 10:34 PM              

*************
Pahlavi was returned to power in Iran after he had fled the country in 1953. This was achieved by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh with the aid of a CIA covert operation, codenamed Operation Ajax. Pahlavi maintained good relations with the United States, but experienced conflict with traditional Iranian Muslim views on alcohol, gambling, and pre-marital sex, all of which he refused to ban. The regime was renowned for its corruption and its brutal practices that, in response, witnessed protests in Iran and elicited criticism from many parts of the global community.

In 1978, a series of protests, triggered by a libelous story attacking Khomeini in the official press, created an escalating cycle of violence until, on December 12, over two million people filled the streets of Tehran to protest against the Shah. The army began to disintegrate as conscripts refused to fire on demonstrators and began to switch sides. The Shah agreed to introduce a more moderate constitution, but it was too late for compromise. The majority of the population was loyal to Khomeini, and when he called for a complete end to the monarchy the Shah was forced to flee the country on January 16, 1979. Khomeini returned to Iran on February 1, invited by the anti-Shah revolution already in progress,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution

posted December 14, 2004 08:31 PM              

soon after, the cia handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to replace him in a coup
Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi was APPOINTED by the shah...

posted December 15, 2004 11:36 AM            

Oh yeah, Mossadegh was a real democrat!

"After negotiations for higher oil royalties failed, on March 15, 1951 the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry, and seize control of the British-owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Prime minister General Haji-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds. He was asssassinated on March 7, 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam. A while later, the Majlis voted for Mossadegh as new prime minister. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah was left with no other option but to give assent to the Parliament's vote. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets."

"Despite the economic hardships of his nationalization plan, Mossadegh remained popular, and in 1952 was approved by parliament for a second term. Sensing the difficulties of a worsening political and economic climate, he announced that he would request the Shah grant him emergency powers. Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh asked the Shah to grant him full control of the military, and Ministry of War. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation."

"Taking advantage of his atmosphere of popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's radical Muslims, as well as the Iranian Communist Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies, although both relationships were often strained."

"Mossadegh became aware of the plots against him and grew increasingly wary of conspirators acting within his government. He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. The vote was clearly rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side. This was in turn cited by US- and British-funded opposition press as a reason to remove Mossadegh from power. Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mossadegh's "emergency powers" were extended.Inside Iran, Mossadegh's popularity was eroding as promised reforms failed to materialize and the economy continued to suffer. The Tudeh Party abandoned its alliance with Mossadegh, as did the conservative clerical factions.To remain in power Mossadegh knew he would have to continue consolidating his power. Since Iran's monarch was the only person who constitutionally outranked him, he perceived Iran's 33-year-old king to be his biggest threat. In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and fired the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossdegh refused to quit, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy."

posted December 15, 2004 03:49 PM              

quote:

---

Various allegations have been made on this forum, among them:

The US armed Saddam. That's false, most of Saddam's arsenal came from the Soviet Union and France. Planes, tanks, artillery, mortars, assault rifles, etc.

The US gave Saddam chemical/biological weapons. That's false, the US gave Iraq research reference samples of many toxins....from the CDC and other sources for medical research. The same kind of samples given out to many countries. The US did not supply Saddam with weaponized chemical or biological weapons.

---

...Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and her satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased more equipment from the Soviets and their allies, as well as from the People's Republic of China, France, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including European facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons).

Much of Iraq's financial backing came from other Arab states, notably oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with weapons and economic aid, and normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War).

In particular, the United States, along with its allies (among them Britain, France and Italy), provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons and the precursors to nuclear capabilities.

The United States also engaged in a series of naval battles with Iranian forces in 1987 and 1988. The cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988.

The American government said that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat which had been in the same general area as the civilian plane shortly beforehand.

Perhaps the most important support for Iraq was allowing the neutral oil tankers heading to Iraqi ports to fly the American flag, and thus be safe from Iranian attack, guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.

The American government had, at the same time, also been secretly selling weapons to Iran; first indirectly (possibly through Israel) and then directly (for details see the Iran-Contra Affair)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

* Iran-Contra Affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

posted December 16, 2004 01:46 AM            

You need to learn to read with comprehension Petron. My reference to a real democrat, speaking of Mossadeq was due to his attempts to take over the government of Iran.

quote:

---

like i said, your much vaunted electoral college only eliminates one of the middlemen, your still only electing a body who appoints your president

---

Thanks for pointing out that it's my electoral college and not yours. Another indication of your low opinion of our system of government.

posted December 16, 2004 04:01 PM              

perhaps if you didnt continuously make such ignorant, uninformed, unsourced statements, i wouldnt have to keep coming into threads and pointing out the truth to you....

posted December 19, 2004 01:08 PM              

*******
In the 1980s, Honduras served as a base for CIA operations against Nicaragua, which included contra rebel attacks and the mining of the harbors. To protect U.S. assets in Honduras, such as contra rebel bases and military installations, the CIA helped train Honduran military officers.
John Negroponte, who was ambassador to honduras, is now ambassador in iraq....lol
********

Iran-Contra: Reagan uninformed; subordinates indicted
Late in 1986 the administration admitted that it had been secretly selling arms to Iran, with some of the profits possibly going to the guerrillas in Nicaragua. Reagan claimed that he had not been informed of the Iran-contra link. The two policies-selling arms to Iran in apparent exchange for hostages and sending arms to Nicaragua-triggered multiple investigations.
[The official 1987 report] depicted Reagan as confused and uninformed, and concluded that his relaxed “personal management style” had prevented him from controlling his subordinates. Congressional committees heard testimony that Reagan did not know of the diversion of funds. Most committee members signed a majority report in Nov. 1987 asserting that although Reagan’s role in the affair could not be determined precisely, he had clearly failed to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Poindexter, North, and others were indicted in the affair.

posted January 20, 2005 03:30 PM              

Good day all

------------------
~*~ Cusp: Gemini/Cancer, Cancer rising, Taurus moon ~*~

Let's go...