Immaculate Deception

From http://www.iraqiaffairs.org/pages/res13.htm

Do any of you know the specifics that were so unpalatable to the US that the offer should have been rejected? I am guessing that it had to do with Israel...but would like to know the details.

Thanks,
ID

Vorkosigan

Here is a newspaper analysis:

Why Jan 9 talks failed

Bill

There is a lengthy post-war article about Aziz HERE which contains these paragraphs: My guess is that the USA went to Geneva with the UN ultimatum in hand and was totally unwilling to give anything in exchange. This view is reinforced by THIS PAGE, which is the beginning of an article for which you will need to pay to read, but which begins with the same crucial observation: Ultimately, Aziz refused to take the Bush letter home, viewing it as insulting to Saddam. And that view coincides with the script laid out on THIS PAGE, which is a PBS documentary on that particular Geneva negotiating session. At the end, the last words from Aziz are: So, it sounds to me like Aziz wanted a true negotiationi, which would address Israel and the future security needs of Iraq and what he received was an ultimatum: get out today or the war will begin.

== Bill

Loren Pechtel

Bush's actions were proper. Yes, negotiation might have been able to avoid the war but it would have been a bad thing to do. If Saddam gained by invading Kuwait that would simply be encouraging more such actions. Tyrants should not profit from their aggression.

Vorkosigan

So, it sounds to me like Aziz wanted a true negotiationi, which would address Israel and the future security needs of Iraq and what he received was an ultimatum: get out today or the war will begin.

Bill, your analysis is nothing short of incredible. Hussein's security was nowhere threatened by his neighbors, and there is NO link between Israel's legal possession of the West Bank and Hussein's illegal invasion of Kuwait. The reason that there could not be a negotiation was because there was nothing to negotiate: Iraq had to leave Kuwait, period, and invasions could not be rewarded by gains at the conference table. The only thing to be negotiated was a timetable for withdrawal, and the letter that Aziz would not forward because it told Hussein the simple truth.

The fact is this: all Hussein had to do was withdraw. But he didn't

Here is the text of the "insulting" letter:

Mr. President:

We stand today at the brink of war between Iraq and the world. This is a war that began with your invasion of Kuwait; this is a war that can be ended only by Iraq's full and unconditional compliance with U.N. Security Council resolution 678.

I am writing you now, directly, because what is at stake demands that no opportunity be lost to avoid what would be a certain calamity for the people of Iraq. I am writing, as well, because it is said by some that you do not understand just how isolated Iraq is and what Iraq faces as a result.

I am not in a position to judge whether this impression is correct; what I can do, though, is try in this letter to reinforce what Secretary of State Baker told your foreign minister and eliminate any uncertainty or ambiguity that might exist in your mind about where we stand and what we are prepared to do.

The international community is united in its call for Iraq to leave all of Kuwait without condition and without further delay. This is not simply the policy of the United States; it is the position of the world community as expressed in no less than twelve Security Council resolutions.

We prefer a peaceful outcome. However, anything less than full compliance with UN Security Council resolution 678 and its predecessors is unacceptable.

There can be no reward for aggression. Nor will there be any negotiation. Principle cannot be compromised. However, by its full compliance, Iraq will gain the opportunity to rejoin the international community.

More immediately, the Iraqi military establishment will escape destruction. But unless you withdraw from Kuwait completely and without condition, you will lose more than Kuwait.

What is at issue here is not the future of Kuwait�it will be free, its government will be restored�but rather the future of Iraq. This choice is yours to make.

The United States will not be separated from its coalition partners. Twelve Security Council resolutions, twenty-eight countries providing military units to enforce them, more than one hundred governments complying with sanctions�all highlight the fact that it is not Iraq against the United States, but Iraq against the world.

That most Arab and Muslim countries are arrayed against you as well should reinforce what I am saying. Iraq cannot and will not be able to hold on to Kuwait or exact a price for leaving.

You may be tempted to find solace in the diversity of opinion that is American democracy. You should resist any such temptation. Diversity ought not to be confused with division. Nor should you underestimate, as others have before you, America's will.

Iraq is already feeling the effects of the sanctions mandated by the United Nations. Should war come, it will be a far greater tragedy for you and your country.

Let me state, too, that the United States will not tolerate the use of chemical or biological weapons or the destruction of Kuwait's oil fields and installations. Further, you will be held directly responsible for terrorist actions against any member of the coalition.

The American people would demand the strongest possible response. You and your country will pay a terrible price if you order unconscionable acts of this sort.

I write this letter not to threaten, but to inform. I do so with no sense of satisfaction, for the people of the United States have no quarrel with the people of Iraq.

Mr. President, U.N. Security Council resolution 678 establishes the period before January 15 of this year as a "pause of good will" so that this crisis may end without further violence. Whether this pause is used as intended, or merely becomes a prelude to further violence, is in your hands, and yours alone. I hope you weigh your choice carefully and choose wisely, for much will depend upon it.

George Bush

Bill

First, it wasn't my analysis, but the results of a web search I did to answer the question posed by the opening post.

Second, it is incredible to me just how much the demonizing of Saddam continues. I paid more attention to Gulf War I than at least 99% of the population of this nation. I supported that war. But I would never assert that "there was nothing to negotiate." There were, in fact, many things to negotiate if war was to be avoided.

One of the issues, which was a proximate cause of the war, was the fact that Kuwait was engaged in cross-border slant-drilling, effectively "stealing" Iraq's oil. While I don't think that in any way justifies Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the Geneva meeting was a waste of time if all that Baker was going to do was to deliver the same ultimatum that had already been delivered many times over in the press.

Frankly, I think that the Geneva meeting was a publicity stunt. Which is more or less what the opening poster was suggesting (without saying so). I still maintain that war should be a last resort, and that if it can be avoided through true negotiations, then that ought to be the route taken. My guess is that the Geneva meeting was specifically organized to defuse this sort of criticism from people like me. This all does make me feel "used."

== Bill

contracycle

Iraq has strenuously maintained, with the backing of the Arab League, that it had cleared the invasion of Kuwait with its US allies before hand and were given the green light. This is a contributory factor to distrust of American motives in Iraq; they already feel they were knifed in the back by an ally.

Bill

Yeah, I had forgotten that whole controversy from Gulf War I. After listening to all sides beat that dead horse for months, I think I was eventually convinced that the US ambassador "mis-spoke" and gave Saddam some reason to believe that we felt that Kuwait was expendable.

== Bill

Vorkosigan

Bill, this part was YOUR analysis:

So, it sounds to me like Aziz wanted a true negotiationi, which would address Israel and the future security needs of Iraq and what he received was an ultimatum: get out today or the war will begin.

Yes, I realize there was plenty to negotiate -- after the withdrawal -- or it could have been negotiated before the war. But your view is too focused on the US. The reason Iraq did not withdraw is not that we were hardline but because Hussein did not really grasp the situation, being surrounded by yes-men, and hearing the huzzahs of the Arab world. Both parties here have equal agency.

Further, Hussein gave Kuwait an ultimatum prior to the invasion. I guess when the US, backed by the UN, gives an ultimatum, that is bad, but when Hussein gives ultimatums, that is OK. The reason the negotiations failed is clear: Aziz did not want to go back to Hussein with the truth that he had failed and he was about to go under. Iraq loitered in Kuwait six months (why he did not swallow Saudi I will never know).

Finally, it was Iraq, not the US, that was intransigent. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August. The Gulf War came in January (!). Six months went by while US intransigence forced the poor put-upon Iraqis to remain in Kuwait, when in fact they were desperate to leave.....

Second, it is incredible to me just how much the demonizing of Saddam continues.

Let's see....a man uses chemical weapons on the battlefield and against separatists at home, mercilessly slaughters his political opponents, destroys his country's economy, invades two neighbors, the second time provoking beggaring sanctions, and commits endless other crimes...


One of the issues, which was a proximate cause of the war, was the fact that Kuwait was engaged in cross-border slant-drilling, effectively "stealing" Iraq's oil.

This is a fact? Through what independent means was it established?

Vorkosigan

never been there

Just to pick a nit, you're talking about Gulf War II (aka Desert Storm). We've just had Gulf War III.

Gulf War I started at the end of the 1970s when Iraq invaded Iran (with tacit backing from the US). In number of deaths, destruction of economic potential, and ongoing fallout it was a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the Bush Wars.