Should the US have supported Iraq in 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...
how was supporting a country to carry out an unprovoked attack on another country, that had not attacked it a "best" choice?. All it did was add to the long list of British and US interventions that caused more trouble than they ever stopped, including overthrowing the Iranian government on several occasions. Perhaps if we had not tried so hard to undermine left(ist) governments in the Muslim world, including Iran on several occasions, Afghanistan, and earlier Iraq (and later the PLO) often by siding with religious fanatics, or fascists like the Baathists, just because they opposed communists/socialists/nationalists there would now be rather less islamist terrorism. Similarly if Iran had been defeated I doubt whether a better government would have emerged as a result, there would have been a further escalation.
 
how was supporting a country to carry out an unprovoked attack on another country, that had not attacked it a "best" choice?
note that we didn't give any support to Iraq before the war or help them start the war... our support came when the war had turned against Iraq and the idea of Iran conquering through Iraq and being within striking distance of the other Gulf states was a hideous idea. What we really wanted out of the war was what we got... a stalemate with both sides exhausted and the borders standing as they were before. We weren't really looking to have Iraq conquer Iran... that was pretty much impossible at the time.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
With the exception of the 1990-91 period, he wasn't much problem; he was even a quasi ally in the '80s. And he was effectively neutralized after '91. Frustrated by his failure, after '91 he spent a lot of time writing fantasy novels.

Actually, I would consider his construction of nuclear weapons up to 1991 to be a problem.

Also, while Saddam might have spent a lot of time after 1991 writing fantasy novels, his country was still a problem for the U.S.; indeed, this is why we spent the entire 1990s constantly monitoring Saddam, enforcing no-fly zones, et cetera.

That's debatable. Iran has pretty big ambitions, and is presently extending its influence farther than Saddam ever did.

That's unsurprising given Iran's size, though. Indeed, Iran's behavior in Iraq and Syria reminds me a bit of Germany's behavior in Austria-Hungary during World War I.

Saddam may have seemed untrustworthy after 1990, but had the US negotiated after '91 it might've been able to use him as a renewed counter to Iran so that the "two adversaries" canceled each other out in a sense.

Perhaps; however, the U.S. would have still had to constantly keep an eye on him to make sure that he didn't restart his nuclear weapons program or invaded any countries.

Also, his Faith Campaign in the 1990s and beyond has me worried; indeed, what if some users here are correct in their claim that Saddam Hussein's Faith Campaign significantly helped contribute to the radicalization of Iraq's Sunni Arab population after 1991?
 
Actually, I would consider his construction of nuclear weapons up to 1991 to be a problem.

Not necessarily a serious one. Other nations in SW/S Asia--Israel, India, Pakistan--already had such weapons. Considering that the first was a potential adversary, it was reasonable to seek a comparable capability or deterrent. Saddam wasn't that crazy; he wasn't behind 9/11.

Also, while Saddam might have spent a lot of time after 1991 writing fantasy novels, his country was still a problem for the U.S.; indeed, this is why we spent the entire 1990s constantly monitoring Saddam, enforcing no-fly zones, et cetera.

Yeah but basically he had been contained, and had lost much of his capability.

Perhaps; however, the U.S. would have still had to constantly keep an eye on him to make sure that he didn't restart his nuclear weapons program or invaded any countries.

After the shellacking he got in '91 I think Saddam would've been less prone to adventurism and more respectful of the US.

Also, his Faith Campaign in the 1990s and beyond has me worried; indeed, what if some users here are correct in their claim that Saddam Hussein's Faith Campaign significantly helped contribute to the radicalization of Iraq's Sunni Arab population after 1991?

I suspect the faith campaign was intended to divert the attention of Iraqis from their economic straits, thereby reducing the threat of an uprising. Had the US negotiated with Saddam after '91 and lifted most sanctions, there might have been a need for one.
 
Top