Full Version: Last-Minute Deal to Avert War
I just came accross an article revealing that Saddam wanted to prevent the war from happening, through a deal with the Americans.
Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War
At the end of the report, which is quite consequent, questions remain :
1. Do you think an agreement/trade/deal could have prevented the war?
2. Do you think this idea had chances to succeed in the first place?
3. Would Saddam be still in place had an agreement been reached?
4. Why didn't the CIA and the administration use that possibility?
Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War
At the end of the report, which is quite consequent, questions remain :
QUOTE
Mr. Hage wonders what might have happened if the Americans had pursued the back channel to Baghdad.
"At least they could have talked to them," he said.
"At least they could have talked to them," he said.
1. Do you think an agreement/trade/deal could have prevented the war?
2. Do you think this idea had chances to succeed in the first place?
3. Would Saddam be still in place had an agreement been reached?
4. Why didn't the CIA and the administration use that possibility?
Interesting article. However, it doesn't really lend any insight into the most critical question: Given Saddam's history, what reason was there to think that this wasn't just another delaying tactic, and that he would follow through on any agreement? Especially if such an agreement, as any workable one would have, required that Saddam step down?
Clearly, even if this wasn't another tactic, the risk that it was, was too great to consider this a viable solution to the problem. I think the administration did the right thing by ignoring this attempt at fooling the U.S.
The decision to go to war was decided back in August 2002. By March 2003, the Administration wasn't interested in any alternatives, except to make sure that we were done with the war by the time the summer heat set in.
But I also agree that any back-door contact from Saddam was not worthy of pursual. He'd done too much lying and deception up until that point.
But I also agree that any back-door contact from Saddam was not worthy of pursual. He'd done too much lying and deception up until that point.
Ok, do you have any evidence that this was a plan to make the U.S. look foolish? Furthermore, I'm not really sure how capitulating to the U.S. would damage the U.S. image...
Hmmm, saving a few thousand innocent lives while at the same time possibly allowing for democracy to enter into a country. No, that's not worth risking when you can just bomb them into complacency.
QUOTE
But I also agree that any back-door contact from Saddam was not worthy of pursual.
Hmmm, saving a few thousand innocent lives while at the same time possibly allowing for democracy to enter into a country. No, that's not worth risking when you can just bomb them into complacency.
1. Do you think an agreement/trade/deal could have prevented the war?
2. Do you think this idea had chances to succeed in the first place?
3. Would Saddam be still in place had an agreement been reached?
4. Why didn't the CIA and the administration use that possibility?
The answer is a simple "No" to your first three questions. As to your fourth question, it was reported on the morning news that officials from our government tried unsuccessfully to set up numerous meetings with officials from Saddam's government based on this supposed desire to prevent war and those Iraqi officials were no-shows every time.
As an aside, Saddam Hussein was convinced by French and Russian officials that their governments would be able to block an invasion with vetoes and delaying tactics at the security council.
He had no reason to try to reach an agreement with the US. He thought he had one with France and Russia.
2. Do you think this idea had chances to succeed in the first place?
3. Would Saddam be still in place had an agreement been reached?
4. Why didn't the CIA and the administration use that possibility?
The answer is a simple "No" to your first three questions. As to your fourth question, it was reported on the morning news that officials from our government tried unsuccessfully to set up numerous meetings with officials from Saddam's government based on this supposed desire to prevent war and those Iraqi officials were no-shows every time.
As an aside, Saddam Hussein was convinced by French and Russian officials that their governments would be able to block an invasion with vetoes and delaying tactics at the security council.
He had no reason to try to reach an agreement with the US. He thought he had one with France and Russia.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Nov 6 2003, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE
But I also agree that any back-door contact from Saddam was not worthy of pursual.
Hmmm, saving a few thousand innocent lives while at the same time possibly allowing for democracy to enter into a country. No, that's not worth risking when you can just bomb them into complacency.
Of course nothing is ever that simple. If this was a credible offer by the Iraqis, why not make it public?
I believe amf's point was that Saddam, possibly more than any other man the UN had ever dealt with, had demonstrate his lack of trustworthiness quite thoroughly. Why even mention that silly straw man?
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Nov 6 2003, 08:02 PM)
Ok, do you have any evidence that this was a plan to make the U.S. look foolish? Furthermore, I'm not really sure how capitulating to the U.S. would damage the U.S. image...
Hmmm, saving a few thousand innocent lives while at the same time possibly allowing for democracy to enter into a country. No, that's not worth risking when you can just bomb them into complacency.
QUOTE
But I also agree that any back-door contact from Saddam was not worthy of pursual.
Hmmm, saving a few thousand innocent lives while at the same time possibly allowing for democracy to enter into a country. No, that's not worth risking when you can just bomb them into complacency.
No one said that this was an attempt to make anyone "look foolish". What is being said here is that there was too much risk involved in trusting this contact to make it worth pursuing? It's similar to you not walking out into a busy street; it will save you time, but the risk is such that the time saved does not outweigh the cost that could potential be incurred.
Fascinating article.
Question responses,
#1 - An agreement, by definition, would have prevented the invasion.
An agreement would only last until the USA saw going to war as outweighing the agreements terms or further violations by Saddam.
#2 - The idea of back-channel negotiations should have a chance of preventing war. This was shown, arguably, by the Cuban missle crisis back channel meetings between ABC News correspondent John Scali and alledged KGB agent Aleksandr Feklisov.
#3 - I Havent the foggiest idea.
#4 - I dont think the Bush administration was willing to delay an already predetermined invasion by cluttering the agenda with negotiations, be they real or stalling tactics.
Question responses,
#1 - An agreement, by definition, would have prevented the invasion.
An agreement would only last until the USA saw going to war as outweighing the agreements terms or further violations by Saddam.
#2 - The idea of back-channel negotiations should have a chance of preventing war. This was shown, arguably, by the Cuban missle crisis back channel meetings between ABC News correspondent John Scali and alledged KGB agent Aleksandr Feklisov.
#3 - I Havent the foggiest idea.
#4 - I dont think the Bush administration was willing to delay an already predetermined invasion by cluttering the agenda with negotiations, be they real or stalling tactics.
1. Do you think an agreement/trade/deal could have prevented the war?
No as this was just typical Saddam yet again.
2. Do you think this idea had chances to succeed in the first place?
No. A deal brokered by a Lebanese businessman less than 3 weeks to war in which...
3. Would Saddam be still in place had an agreement been reached?
No.
4. Why didn't the CIA and the administration use that possibility?
the CIA and administration had every reason to believe Saddam would make whatever promise he could to retain power and continue on the same course for another 12 years. France and Russia both on the side of Saddam had always assured Saddam he could that outlast the US. with sanctions and now with their help.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/...7708137292.html
No as this was just typical Saddam yet again.
2. Do you think this idea had chances to succeed in the first place?
No. A deal brokered by a Lebanese businessman less than 3 weeks to war in which...
QUOTE
US Customs inspectors discovered an undeclared semi-automatic .45 calibre pistol and four stun guns in his luggage
?? Credible? Saddam was well known for last minute "deals" only to start up again with deception and delays all while the baathist torture/rape chambers and shedders continued to operate and his support of terrorism flurished. 3. Would Saddam be still in place had an agreement been reached?
No.
4. Why didn't the CIA and the administration use that possibility?
the CIA and administration had every reason to believe Saddam would make whatever promise he could to retain power and continue on the same course for another 12 years. France and Russia both on the side of Saddam had always assured Saddam he could that outlast the US. with sanctions and now with their help.
QUOTE
Former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, who surrendered in April, told interrogators that after meeting Russian and French intermediaries in late 2002, Saddam was convinced he could avoid a war.
Aziz, whose family have been spirited out of Iraq to a secret location by the US, is said to have told interrogators that Saddam was assured that Russia and France would block a US-led war through delays and vetoes at the United Nations.
Aziz, whose family have been spirited out of Iraq to a secret location by the US, is said to have told interrogators that Saddam was assured that Russia and France would block a US-led war through delays and vetoes at the United Nations.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/...7708137292.html
I find a couple of things a little hard to swallow from that article.
First off, Richard Perle was informed and Perle went back to Washington to discuss it but was rebuffed by the hawks.
Wasn't Perle one of the the leading "hawks"? If he really was interested in investigating this angle and found it credible, what "hawks" would have been more hawkish than him?
I think we were quite clear that inspectors were not the answer. A complete and full accounting of the WMDs and other banned weapons was needed. publicly, not in some back door deal...
Wasn't Saddam just re-elected in 2002? By a 100% vote with a 100% voter turnout?
Encyclopedia: Saddam Hussein
Of course, THIS time an election would have been legitimate....
Saddam was a known liar, cheat, and deception artist. There was no reason to trust him in some back door deal.
First off, Richard Perle was informed and Perle went back to Washington to discuss it but was rebuffed by the hawks.
Wasn't Perle one of the the leading "hawks"? If he really was interested in investigating this angle and found it credible, what "hawks" would have been more hawkish than him?QUOTE
Mr. Obeidi told Mr. Hage that Iraq would make deals to avoid war, including helping in the Mideast peace process. "He said, if this is about oil, we will talk about U.S. oil concessions," Mr. Hage recalled. "If it is about the peace process, then we can talk. If this is about weapons of mass destruction, let the Americans send over their people. There are no weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Obeidi said the "Americans could send 2,000 F.B.I. agents to look wherever they wanted," Mr. Hage recalled.
Mr. Obeidi said the "Americans could send 2,000 F.B.I. agents to look wherever they wanted," Mr. Hage recalled.
I think we were quite clear that inspectors were not the answer. A complete and full accounting of the WMDs and other banned weapons was needed. publicly, not in some back door deal...
QUOTE
He said that when he told Mr. Obeidi that the United States seemed adamant that Saddam Hussein give up power, Mr. Obeidi bristled, saying that would be capitulation. But later, Mr. Hage recounted, Mr. Obeidi said Iraq could agree to hold elections within the next two years.
Wasn't Saddam just re-elected in 2002? By a 100% vote with a 100% voter turnout?
QUOTE
According to some official reports, Saddam appeared to have enjoyed great popularity within Iraq. A 2002 referendum, asking whether he should continue to lead Iraq, claimed 100% of voters thought he should, and that the turnout was 100%, with international media releasing pictures of Iraqi women voting in their own blood. However, he was the only presidential candidate on the ballot and voting was mandatory.
Encyclopedia: Saddam Hussein
Of course, THIS time an election would have been legitimate....
Saddam was a known liar, cheat, and deception artist. There was no reason to trust him in some back door deal.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.