Saddam's death paves the way for U.S. troop escalation and ensures there will be no exposure of U.S. complicity in Saddam's crimes
The death of Saddam Hussein came at the right time for his once long-term ally, the United States. It will lead to an increase in U.S. troops and provides cover for past ties between Saddam and Washington.
Saddam's allies promised retaliation and more violence for the death of Saddam. And, the morning of Saddam's death saw an immediate surge in violence. As the NY Times reports, "Within hours of the execution, at least 75 people were killed in nine bombing attacks of the kind that Sunni insurgents commonly carry out against Shiites. In the mainly Shiite districts of Hurriyah and Sayidah in Baghdad, separate sequences in which car bombs detonated in close succession caused at least 39 deaths. . ." By the end of the day reportedly 110 Iraqis were killed and 167 were wounded. With violence already escalating it will be hard to say whether a spike is Saddam-related, but his death will further strengthen the resolve of Sunni insurgents and make reconciliation more difficult.
Saddam's death is likely to provide President Bush with another argument for sending tens of thousands of more American soldiers in Iraq – 'we need the troops to stem the escalating unrest in Baghdad.' Once again, Bush policies become self-fulfilling as the age-old truth shows its reality – violence begets violence – escalation in the language of surge. There are good arguments that this is one more step on the road to an attack on Iran. See http://democracyrising.us/content/view/694/164/.
But also Saddam's death comes just in time to avoid a trial that could have embarrassed the United States. In April 2006 "the Iraq tribunal . . . announced new criminal charges against Saddam Hussein and six others for alleged genocide and crimes against humanity in the 1980s crackdown against the Kurds, including the gassing of thousands of civilians in the village of Halabja."
But a trial on this crime would not only have focused on Saddam, but potentially on the U.S. role in the crime. The U.S. protected Saddam from the world community after the use of chemical weapons in Halabja. "In America, a resolution urging sanctions against Iraq was tabled by Senator Claiborne D. Pell and passed by both Houses of Congress. It was vetoed by President Bush. The White House even granted Baghdad a further loan of a billion dollars."
This was not the first time the U.S. protected Saddam when he was accused of using chemical weapons. As BBC reported "A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war."
The protection of Saddam after the use of chemical weapons was part of a long-string of the U.S. relationship with Saddam. Juan Cole describes how this relationship evolved from the 1950s, writing:
"The tendency to treat Saddam and Iraq in a historical vacuum, and in isolation from the superpowers, however, has hidden from Americans their own culpability in the horror show that has been Iraq for the past few decades. Initially, the US used the Baath Party as a nationalist foil to the Communists. Then Washington used it against Iran. The welfare of Iraqis themselves appears to have been on no one's mind, either in Washington or in Baghdad."
It is likely that a trial of Saddam Hussein for his use of chemical weapons would have brought out how the U.S. was allied closely with Saddam, armed him with chemical weapons and protected him from international criticism. Indeed, the list of U.S. corporations who aided Saddam is lengthy. See http://democracyrising.us/content/view/30/74/. The article below published in the Los Angeles Times documents further how the U.S. secretly built up the Iraq War machine.
But now that Saddam is gone, the trial will not occur and the complicity of the United States in the crimes of Saddam Hussein will remain out of the public eye.
Los Angeles Times February 23, 1992, Sunday, Home Edition SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Column 5; National Desk
HEADLINE: BUSH SECRET EFFORT HELPED IRAQ BUILD ITS WAR MACHINE; PERSIAN GULF: DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT 9 MONTHS BEFORE HUSSEIN'S INVASION OF KUWAIT THE PRESIDENT APPROVED $1 BILLION IN AID. OBJECTIONS FROM OTHERS WERE SUPPRESSED.
SERIES: BUSH AND AID TO IRAQ: First of three parts. Next: Reagan and Bush administrations pressure the Export-Import Bank.
BYLINE: By DOUGLAS FRANTZ and MURRAY WAAS, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES; Frantz is a Times staff writer and Waas is a special correspondent.
In the fall of 1989, at a time when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only nine months away and Saddam Hussein was desperate for money to buy arms, President Bush signed a top-secret National Security Decision directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for $1 billion in new aid, according to classified documents and interviews.
Kevin Zeese is Executive Director of the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics (www.FreshAirCleanPolitics.net) whose projects include Voters for Peace (www.VotersForPeace.US., Prosperity Agenda (www.ProsperityAgenda.US), True Vote (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
As if this wasn't enough, At the same time we were dealing arms to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.
I always felt that this NAC( FED, Treasury, World bank,etc) mentioned in this story had a huge voice in Governmental Policy. Of course they're only mentioned in their official capicity as warning about credit risks. But 9/11 and after really makes me wonder.
American arms typically are sold to all sides in conflicts. One way or another. Now We're even sending arms to the Fattah in the Palistinian authority. So is Israel. Israel is no small arms exporter either. Google Israel arms exports and see who they sell to. China is big on the list.
American foriegn policy isn't about American values or true allys anymore, if it ever was. It's about opportunity for commercial venures and profit. The politics shaped for the occasion and the maximum profit. Like this surge plan.
Whatever.
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 1, 2007 at 3:41:09 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
