perfidy

Buckethead and I have spent time before lamenting the US's policy of getting into bed with dictators during the Cold War. Saddam Hussein was one of those. Aziz Poonawalla has a killer post up to that effect which goes into some detail about the level of support the US lent Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Hint: the words "anthrax" and "Rumsfeld" turn up. Not to get all tinfoil-hatty on the topic, but this has turned into a rather embarrassing, inconvenient, expensive, and generally lamentable situation thirty years down the line.

As one of Aziz' commenters says, "Catching evil dictators is a great thing, but it would be better if we did not have a policy of working with evil dictators when it seems in Washington's best interests." Right on. Although it's one thing to sit here in my swivel chair and condemn Reagan-era foreign policy for cozening up to known monsters and another to have to decide between backing the Shah and backing Hussein, I think the flaws in the US's policy of making allies of convenience are all too clear, and the long-term costs are far too high.

[wik] Please note that Michael Moore is quoted in the AP post linked. Guess what? He's an irritating f*ck, but so is Newt Gingrich and last week he said something totally on the money. So, again, can it with the America-hating stuff.