The Secret Deals of the Gulf War

Pages: 1 2

Stroilov: They developed a very peculiar theory at that time – which, unfortunately, became universally accepted by now. The theory is that a military intervention is ‘legal’ only if it is authorised by the UN; and therefore, you need a very wide global coalition in order to attack some petty dictator like Saddam in 1991 or Gaddafi now. Time and again, this approach leads to disastrous results. In 1991, it prolonged the life of Saddam’s regime for another 12 years. In the documents, we can see why that happened: the Soviets and the French put the pressure on Bush not to go beyond liberation of Kuwait, i.e. strictly follow the UN resolution.

Today we know this approach led to all sorts of disasters, including several further wars, and millions of people lost their lives because Saddam had been allowed to stay in power. And yet, when the West had to intervene in Libya this year, we took the same absurd approach: asked for UN authorization, for an Arab League authorization, and obtained all sorts of resolutions to tie our hands. It was ‘legal’ to bomb Gaddafi’s forces while they advance but ‘illegal’ to bomb them while they retreat. It was ‘legal’ to kill Gaddafi by accident but ‘illegal’ to kill him deliberately. As a result, it took many months for the whole might of the Western world to defeat a petty backward dictatorship.

In the documents of the Gulf War, we can see the detailed mechanism of a cumbersome and unfriendly coalition practically sabotaging the war; and even more importantly, we find the explanation why America agrees to that. Bush and Baker had a peculiar idea which they called ‘the new world order,’ introduced and supported by UN as a ‘prototype of the world government,’ to use Gorbachev’s expression. It was agreed between the world leaders at the time that America must no longer be a ‘global policeman,’ and the role should be gradually taken over by a UN-based world government.

Of course, you cannot fight a real war on the basis of such utopian ideas. On the one hand, Saddam fully exploited its weakness by making a very logical argument: well, if UN resolutions are now taken seriously and implemented by force, why do you start from me and not, for example, from Israel? After all, there is plenty of UN resolutions against Israel. On the other hand, the wide coalition opposing him inevitably included a powerful anti-American and anti-Israeli wing, led by Gorbachev, Mitterrand and Mubarak. They joined the coalition for real politik reasons, but between themselves, they openly said they did it only to ‘restrain the Americans.’ That is why the US had to agree to all those secret talks with Saddam, promise all these concessions at the expense of Israel, and eventually had to turn back from the gates of Baghdad and not overthrow Saddam. Even after Bush himself appealed to the Iraqis to revolt against Saddam and they did so, he abandoned them and left them at Saddam’s mercy just because a further military intervention would upset the Soviets and the French. The massacre that followed was the first bloody fruit of the ‘new world order’ utopia.

FP: Do you think similar things are happening with Libya now?

Stroilov: Of course. After reading these documents, you can see these events are simply inevitable in a global coalition of this kind. With all these limitations, it is lucky that NATO has won that war at all; but I bet we still don’t know the full price of that victory. The secret deals of the Gulf War are still haunting us twenty years later. It is because of these secret deals that Israel is now besieged and the whole region is still overwhelmed by wars and tyrannies. No doubt, there were similar secret deals in every ‘new world order’ war, in every global coalition constructed since then; and those deals will have equally serious consequences.

FP: How does Gorbachev look in these documents?

Stroilov: Whatever may be said about Gorbachev’s other policies, domestic and foreign, he was a typical Soviet leader as far as the Middle East was concerned. He did not change anything. The Soviet support to all sorts of terrorists continued as usual, and it is all well documented. Assad remained Moscow’s main ally in the region, and the transcripts of their meetings also suggest that Gorbachev and Assad-senior were personal friends. Gorbachev even backed the idea of a united socialist Arab superstate under Assad’s leadership. Gorby still saw Israel and the US as the main enemies in the Middle East. Thus, the transcript of Gorbachev’s talks with Arafat in 1988 record them as discussing a detailed plan of the first Intifada, which was certainly orchestrated from Moscow.

Take another example: in the run-up to the military operation against Saddam, two of Gorbachev’s advisors wrote a memo suggesting sharing information about Iraqi’s chemical and bacteriological weapons with the Americans. Gorbachev refused to do that. A month later, Margaret Thatcher raised the subject of Saddam’s WMDs in a conversation with Gorbachev. Not only did he decline to tell her anything, he actually told her a lie: he confirmed Saddam had chemical weapons but said he had no knowledge about the existence of Iraqi bacteriological weapons. At that time, this lie could have very serious consequences. Nobody knew whether Saddam would use his WMDs in the upcoming war. Imagine what would happen if the West believed Gorbachev, assumed he had no bacteriological weapons, and then Saddam had suddenly used them.

FP: Tell us about Ted Kennedy and his role in the Gulf War.

Stroilov: Ted Kennedy supplied Moscow with confidential sensitive information at least since the late 1970s, sometimes through KGB channels. This is all very well documented in my book. In the run-up to the US military operation against Iraq, in November 1990, the Bush Administration was still telling the Soviets they were prepared to resolve the conflict peacefully if Saddam withdraws from Kuwait. In that situation, Kennedy secretly sent his chief of staff, Larry Horowitz, to Moscow, to tell the Soviets this was not true: ‘a final decision to solve the crisis in the Gulf by military means has already been taken in the White House. The deadline is spring.’

There are a number of similar episodes with Kennedy and Larry Horowitz, many of them unrelated to Iraq or Middle East.

FP: With hindsight, what was the main mistake of the West in dealing with the 1990-1991 Gulf crisis?

Stroilov: Playing ‘new world order’ is a serious business, involving not only the world’s oil supplies, but millions of human lives.

FP: What should have we done instead?

Stroilov: They should have done what they successfully did 12 years later, in a much more difficult situation: forget about the UN and ‘world community’, fight that war as a normal war, and win it. Be a global policeman. Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was not a very difficult problem in itself. In military terms it was fairly easy to drive him out. But it was also an opportunity which the West missed. We should have removed Saddam from power in 1991, and unlike 12 years later, the Western troops would then be greeted with flowers as liberators. There was a nationwide uprising again Saddam, provoked by Bush’s own appeal to the Iraqi people; and then the West allowed to drown it in blood. No wonder the West became not very popular with the Iraqis after such a betrayal. This is not to mention the fact that Saddam’s regime was given another 12 years to prepare for a full-scale guerrilla war.

We should have supported the uprising, removed Saddam, and established democracy in Iraq, which would have been much easier at that point. Furthermore, we should have made efforts to help that democratic revolution spread into other countries of the region. Again, it is happening now anyway, but in a much more difficult situation, where there is a very real danger that the revolution would be hijacked by Islamic Socialists or Socialist Islamists of some kind. In 1991, in the atmosphere of the end of the Cold War, the mood of the people would be much more pro-Western and pro-democratic, while the regimes would not have another twenty years to prepare their defences.

Unfortunately, the West not only missed that opportunity, but created all sorts of complications by pursuing its ‘new world order’ chimera. Worse still, we have not learnt anything even now, and repeat all the same mistakes in the present Middle East crisis. The war in Libya is the brightest example of this.

FP: Pavel Stroilov, thanks for joining Frontpage Interview.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_mac

    STROILOV: "Unfortunately, at that time the Red Arabs were allowed to survive. They could be – and should have been – overthrown at least twenty years earlier, and with much better results."

    And how, pre tell, would the re-assertion of the Islamic identity of the Arab world twenty years ago have created "much better results."

    This is a 'grain of salt' moment.

  • StephenD

    Not very uplifting this report. I doubt that any change in approach will be forthcoming from neither the current administration nor its successor. Frankly, fearing that it is "too little, too late" I would opt for a resolution to tell the world in no uncertain terms that America's policy in the Mid-East is thus:
    We will support any democratic society that shares our values of personal liberty and responsibility. I would add the caveat that Israel is our proven friend in the region and any aggression against her is against us and will result in swift and decisive reaction. With such a revised policy in hand, these "faltering" countries would either come aboard or declare themselves as an enemy. Either way, we would stop the foolishness of the P.C. crowd (the UN) and have conserved our resources for those that are our true friends.

  • John

    How can we trust facts from someone who can't get two letters straight, – RE: W.H. vs H.W.?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Thus, they would bring some ‘moderate’ Palestinians to a negotiating table, but promised to Gorbachev that the PLO would be allowed to ‘command its people behind the stages’ from Tunisia.

    Moderate Palestinians? Yeah right! Obviously the blind leading the blind.

    They openly promised to Israel that the status of East Jerusalem would not be negotiated, and secretly promised to Gorbachev and to the Palestinians that the issue would be eventually smuggled into the talks.

    Given the players involved, GHWB, Baker, and Scowcroft were vehemently anti-Israel and some of the biggest Islamopanderers and useful idiots in history, it all sounds very plausible to me so for.

    We should have supported the uprising, removed Saddam, and established democracy in Iraq, which would have been much easier at that point.

    If GHWB had decided to oust Saddam from Kuwait, then he should have ensured that Saddam had been killed. But establishing democracy in an Islamic country has always been impossible and will always be possible. People that suggest establishing democracy in an Islamic country don't have a clue what Islam is.

    Nevertheless, there was also a very different alternative that this article doesn't discuss, but that other alternative would never have been considered considering how much GHWB, Baker, and Scowcroft were all enormous Islamopanderers. Indeed, that other alternative would have involved siding with Saddam by encouraging Saddam to also invade Saudi Arabia, since the Saudis were and still are are the lynchpin of the global jihad. Of course, if GWB is oblivious to the global jihad even today, then GHWB had to be oblivious to the global jihad back then too. Indeed, they were all too busy being its useful idiots.

    Indeed, GHWB and GWB may have been Republican administrations, but they were clearly Republican In Name Only (RINO) administrations, because in reality they were both leftwing administrations. In essence, since the Reagan administration all subsequent presidential administrations have have been leftwing, which more than explains the steep decline America is currently experiencing today after Reagan had halted the previous decline.

    Furthermore, we should have made efforts to help that democratic revolution spread into other countries of the region.

    Yeah right! Go buy a clue. If you haven't figured out that democracy and Islam don't mix by now, then you are hopeless!

    Unfortunately, the West not only missed that opportunity, but created all sorts of complications by pursuing its ‘new world order’ chimera.

    The missed opportunity is a pipe dream, however, I agree that the ‘new world order’ nonsense is a chimera, just like all international conventions that try to legislate war on an international basis, including the Geneva Conventions that have resulted in far more unnecessary wars and suffering than otherwise.

  • Fred Dawes

    deals on top of deals and we see the Globalist making deals and we get raped.

  • Susan

    "which more than explains the steep decline America is currently experiencing today after Reagan had halted the previous decline. "

    Unfortunately Reagan (Mr Nofault divorce) did *not* halt the leftward tilt of the country – he talked a good game, but allowed the Department of Education to continue its snowballing control of leftist indoctrination, which gave time to prepare the brainwashed populace to elect the subsequent usherers in of the NWO, including our present king of entitlements, B. Obama.

  • Sound&Fury

    No wonder we're the laughing stock of the world. We'd sell our soul, & our friends, for a mess of pottage. God, this is sickening.

  • James

    I agree with a comment made previously. Who in their right mind would respect reported intelligence by someone who doesn't know George "W. H. Bush" from the real George Herbert Walker Bush. This sounds like more "Bush Bashing". Front Page and Jamie Glazov just lost my respect. I have an intelligence background and Stroilov sounds like a con-man selling a book. I am surprised and very disappointed in Front Page. Stroilov may well be a "puppet". I won't waste the money on Stroilov's trash. David Horowitz, I have read nearly all your works and have long been a "fan". Now I tell you, it is time you get your "House" in order.

  • guest

    Shouldn't this guy be sharing a jail cell with Bradley Manning? I thought us patriots were against leaking classified information!