Cross Saddam, and you were screwed. Otherwise, it wasn't so bad for a third-world Arab country, at least for most people.
I live in a relativist world, it's true. But I can hardly imagine that most Iraqis prefer the unholy carnage, social disintegration, environmental devastation and infrastructural paralysis that is today's grand orgy of violence in their country to the relative peace and tranquility of the Hussein Administration.
The Lancet estimated earlier this year that as many as six hundred and fifty thousand "surplus deaths" were caused by the effects of the war since the US invasion. This causal relationship is reinforced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of these surplus deaths were caused by gunshot wounds or other effects of combat or munitions. Even if the report is hugely overblown by a factor of five hundred percent, that still means that US actions in Iraq have directly caused the deaths of a hundred and thirty THOUSAND people, minimum.
People who didn't have to die so soon. People who wanted to live in their homes, raise their children, and pursue their dreams, no matter how hard that must have been in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
They didn't pick him. It was the CIA that picked Saddam to run Iraq for them. They're the ones who gave him the extra help he needed to hold that famous convocation of the Baath Party where he read off a list of names and those who were named were lead outside to holding cells. The party members who remained were told that the ones who had been escorted out were traitors, and the people remaining were the ones he knew were loyal to him. Then he said that those who were certified for the Saddam inner circle would get a chance to show their loyalty the next morning when they made up the firing squad for the guys now waiting outside the hall in cells.
Trust me, the CIA loved this guy. The more ruthless and brutal, the better. Especially in a country where the ground below contained the sweetest and easiest-to-get-at black gold on the planet.
So they waited, and helped, and worked with him, and made sure he had plenty of weapons, especially when he'd swap them for some Soviet models he'd managed to buy from the Russians. Saddam was their boy, and he served many useful functions for American empire, not all of them witting.
But sometimes you just outlive your usefulness. Saddam's role as cooperative thug morphed beautifully into his slayer-of-the-peace-dividend costume and then ultimately into schemer-to-nuke-us-all (or at least Israel). This ultimately was held up as the raison-de-etre for the current disaster we're quick-sanding down to the absolute nub.
Now what do we do?
Saddam Hussein is dead, along with another sixty six other Iraqis, six American GIs, and a Brit from the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. And that's just today.
Perhaps Hussein just knew too much to be left alive. When I heard the news this morning I was reminded of that photo of Sadaam and Rumsfeld shaking hands, taken back in the eighties when Iraq was being supplied all those chemical weapons by an eager and friendly USA.
He was likely not even the most bloodthirsty of our "allies", as we support, even install, a litany of military dictatorships around the world who routinely jail, torture and murder their citizenry. Hussein did have one important characteristic as a leader of Iraq, he was the implacable foe of AlQaeda and Islamic fundamentalism.
But, in the end, when all is said and done, he committed crimes and was executed. Perhaps his death was not precisely ordered for those crimes but for other, more political necesities, perhaps he just had to be silenced, we may never know. Anyone heard from Manuel Noriega lately?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 9:31:27 AM
As this article (and its links) highlights, we Americans are woefully ignorant of our own history; including myself. But I can't help but think as I'm reading this (and other) article(s), just what am I supposed to believe? How do I obtain some reasonable assurance/conclusion that what is said here is accurate?
The older I get, the more I realize that 'truth' is malleable in the hands of those who are the most published and read (ie school text books); that truth may not depict the facts as they were. How do we really know? Especially with the advent of the internet, in which we subsequently have information overload; what information is the most accurate?
by
Lisa W. (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 60 comments)
on Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 7:41:42 PM
You are very inciteful to point out that, in our current political climate, the truth appears to take many forms and to be most malleable. Each side in a given argument presents what they purport to be the truth yet it is impossible for each to be right.
This is a fundamental basis for a democracy to survive:
every citizen has, as her sworn duty, to remain involved, to constantly think, research and decide for herself what is true, what sounds valid, which way she desires this nation to go. Noone should either accept any "truth" without questioning, nor should anyone throw up her hands and say,"it is too hard, I give up."
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 5:36:32 AM
Thank you for the response, Ardee. As much as I've tried to bring myself up to date on national/international affairs (ie politics!) with the dawning understanding that it is my responsibility (not only as a US citizen but as a responsible adult/parent) to become involved, I'm finding the path to be very confusing and disheartening at times.
As with any truth, there is one additional requirement we need: that we are willing to incorporate new (and hopefully more reliable) information to enhance/change our truth. Similar to scientific inquiry. To become beholden to an outdated truth becomes dogma; something we must be diligent not to develop over time. However, this tends to muddy the very waters one is trying to clear. Just what are we to believe? Just who do we trust? How do we determine for ourselves the validity of the various statements made? How do others trust mine?
The disturbing thing to me about this article (I read many of the links), was really how invasive, secretive, and destructive the CIA is. I didn't sleep well last night with this on my mind. Considering the CIA's conduct, why do we need this agency? If we do need it, why isn't there more restrictions placed upon them? They are using our tax dollars to fund these practices; practices that I, jo taxpayer, do not agree with or want to support.
The bowling ball that has become the pit of my stomach whispers, "we are our own worst enemy".
by
Lisa W. (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 60 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 10:14:06 AM
are you perhaps new to politics? The way to learn is to want to learn. For me the desire for my nation to be the best it can be, to do the right thing after so very many years of doing so many things wrong drove me to learn and to become politically active.
From my first demonstration in Washington, far, far too many years ago, I met folks, began to work with them, and began to learn more and more about how much of our history is simply a lie. I cannot tell you how to recognise truth from lie, but I believe you to be rather able to do so on your own. All you need is the desire to make difference and you will.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 5:49:37 PM
You have a right to be skeptical about things you read. I am the same way. The author of this very article, for instance, doesn't have the charge against Saddam right. He was convicted of killing 148 men whom he said tried to assassinate him. The gassing of the Kurds was to be the basis for the next trial. If he can't get that right........
by
larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 279 comments)
on Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 9:30:08 PM
I conflated the two charges. It was late, I will correct.
Thanks for pointing it out. Any other specific items are based on my preexisting knowledge of them along with additional research to confirm while writing on deadline. I busted it out between midnight and six this morning, with no assistant available to augment my fact-checking.
I included extensive cross-reference links throughout the article in an attempt to give the reader a good idea of what I'm basing MY information on. This is an OPINION piece, not a news piece, so I'm not trying to do an investigative report, more a polemic designed to spur the immediate beginning of US Troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Whatever I may have gotten wrong in my list of arguments, I didn't get that we need to get the hell out of there as quickly as possible wrong.
The rest was illustrative content based on my (somewhat extensive) knowledge of the surrounding events and ongoing study of this matter for twenty years.
Sometimes things I remember clearly from an NPR broadcast twenty years ago seem to have fallen into the memory hole because there was no www back then and vast quantities of history have yet to be made easily available online.
I'm willing to entertain suggestions for corrections from anyone aware enough to notice I need them. I proofread stuff professionally, so I know what's required. This is just a volunteer gig, so I do my best with the time and resources available.
Thanks for the heads-up though, you are quite correct about the specifics of the trial. A larger point would be that it didn't even really matter WHAT he was convicted of, they were going to hang him anyway for the reasons I elaborated on in the article.
Come to think of it, they probably made sure he was executed BEFORE he could go to trial for Gassing the Kurds, because then questions could be asked like, "Hey Saddam, where'd you get the gas?"
We wouldn't want that now would we...
Thanks again for both the sharp eye and the effort to mention it.
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
