If any of you are at the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) conference going on right now in Madison, I strongly encourage you to stop by the following panel. Unfortunately, it’s scheduled for Sunday AM, but it should be well worth it.
Panel 58: New Perspectives on U.S.-Iraq Relations under Saddam (Room 213)
Chair: Jessica Huckabey, Conflict Records Research Center
“This Stab in the Back”: Saddam Hussein, Irangate and the United States
Hal Brands, Institute for Defense Analyses
Understanding Saddam’s Non-Use of WMD in the Gulf War
David Palkki, University of California at Los Angeles and Institute for Defense Analyses
Saddam’s Perceptions and Misperceptions: The Case of Desert Storm
Kevin Woods, Institute for Defense Analyses
Comment: Thomas Mahnken, U.S. Naval War College and Johns Hopkins University
All three of these papers draw heavily on captured Iraqi records copies of which are or will be in the Conflict Records Research Center. (Official site here.) Hal’s paper will discuss how Saddam reacted to news of the Iran-Contra scandal, in particular the fact that the United States had been shipping weapons to Iran, a country with whom Iraq was at war at the time. Though the Iran-Contra affair came to light pretty late in the Iran-Iraq War, I think is paper should encourage historians to reconsider the question of the extent to which Saddam really was our man, in our pocket, during the 1980s.
David’s paper should prove equally interesting and deals with the effects or lack thereof of the famous Baker-Aziz meeting of 9 January 1991 at which Baker issued a veiled threat–often thought to refer to the possible use of nuclear weapons–of the consequences if Iraq were to use CBW against American forces. Dave gave a version of this paper a couple of months ago at a conference at the CSIS. Here is the abstract from that talk:
Ever since the Gulf War, scholars have debated why Iraq did not use chemical or biological weapons
against Coalition forces or US allies. Many analysts have suggested that Saddam didn’t use WMD
because the ferocity of the Coalition onslaught, adverse weather, difficulties mating toxic materials with
warheads, or other factors rendered Iraq physically unable to deliver them. Others argue that US Secretary
of State James Baker’s ambiguous warning that the United States would retaliate with nuclear weapon
strikes, and/or by replacing Saddam’s regime, deterred Iraqi use. I find that Iraq was physically able to
attack Coalition forces and US allies with chemical and biological weapons, yet refrained from doing so
for fear of US nuclear retaliation. Deterrence, however, was largely existential, as Saddam considered US
nuclear strikes plausible long before US officials issued even the most veiled of threats. My argument is
based on captured recordings of private conversations between Saddam and his inner circle, declassified
US interrogation reports, defector accounts, and recently released memoirs. My findings have important
implications for the ongoing debate over the role of the US nuclear arsenal and the question of a US no first
use declaratory policy.
Kevin will talk about work that he and I did on the lessons Saddam learned from DESERT STORM, how he was able to calculate that he won that war and how these lessons may have served him poorly in the run-up to 2003. For more on that, see my previous posting here.