um...no. The US wasn't trying to make Iraq the dominant power in the region... they just wanted Iran to be stymied at Iraq's border so they couldn't sweep down around the Gulf. The war ended up being just about ideal for the US in that neither side gained anything. It's notable that the US had practically nothing to do with Iraq before the war, and not much to do with them afterwards. The aftermath of the war was handled badly, for certain, mainly in that the US didn't make it clear that we wanted Iraq to stay out of Kuwait. A stronger and clearer message would have saved a lot of grief...The U.S lost their "puppet" in Iran and funded Iraq to make them the more dominate power in the region as Iran held that title before (and I'd say still does) in the middle east. In terms of what they should have done it depends on how you look at it. If you look at it purely strategically then yes, as they were trying to keep have a nation friendly to them the dominate power in the region, if you look at it in most other ways then no, just because of the war itself and the aftermath that it caused.
Should the US (and other nations) have supported Iraq during its war against Iran?
I know they did. I'm asking if their support was justified.So the answer is that the US and other nations did in fact support Iraq
No launching aggressive war even against a nasty state is wrong.
It was not an aggressive war it was declaired in defense of an Ally. The difference was made clear by the Neurenbug tribunural.The Anglo-French have some explaining to do then over 1939.
I know they did. I'm asking if their support was justified.
I know they did. I'm asking if their support was justified.
Ironically, it would have also resulted in Iraq successfully building nuclear weapons a couple of years later.A stronger and clearer message would have saved a lot of grief...
No; after all, it was in U.S. interests to prevent Iran from installing a puppet regime in Iraq.Should the US (and other nations) have supported Iraq during its war against Iran?
the realpolitik part is right, the revenge part isn't; it wasn't the main goal anyway.In realpolitik terms then the war was useful as revenge against Iran (from the US point of view)
this was the main goal.No; after all, it was in U.S. interests to prevent Iran from installing a puppet regime in Iraq.
No; after all, it was in U.S. interests to prevent Iran from installing a puppet regime in Iraq.
However, we should have overthrown Saddam Hussein back in 1991.![]()
the realpolitik part is right, the revenge part isn't; it wasn't the main goal anyway.
this was the main goal.
It's still worth it, IMHO. Indeed, I would rather have a more influential Iran in the Middle East than have Saddam Hussein remain in power. Basically, Saddam was too much of a nuisance for us--we had to constantly monitor him for years after the Gulf War.But overthrowing Hussein meant a shiite dominated Iraq, which naturally gravitated toward Iran, as we've seen. The present regime in Baghdad may not be "a puppet" of Iran but the latter sure has more influence in Iraq than it did under Saddam.
not so much 'keeping it in chaos' as in 'hoping both sides lose'. Which is pretty much what happened. Both sides ended up weaker and poorer, and Iran never swept through Iraq down into the rest of the Gulf states. The problem was the aftermath, and the US blew it completely there by not making it clear to Saddam that we didn't want him invading Kuwait...You,re more confident than me that US policy at the time had a Main goal. unless it was keeping the region in Chaos of course - they armed both sides!
It's still worth it, IMHO. Indeed, I would rather have a more influential Iran in the Middle East than have Saddam Hussein remain in power. Basically, Saddam was too much of a nuisance for us--we had to constantly monitor him for years after the Gulf War.
Basically, I'd prefer to deal with one more powerful adversary than to deal with two adversaries. Plus, even a more powerful Iran is easier to manage than Saddam was.
hmm well to a certain extent it did, and so did other western nations. A bad choice, which would have been made even worse by active military supportShould the US (and other nations) have supported Iraq during its war against Iran?
I don't think the OP is arguing that we didn't, but whether it was the correct thing to do. As I've noted before, it wasn't a great choice, but it was the best of a bad set of choices...hmm well to a certain extent it did, and so did other western nations. A bad choice, which would have been made even worse by active military support