you can go on all you like about the alleged crimes committed by Saddam; and I do not suppose all of them are made up ether.
But I’ll retort back the 650,000 Iraqis (and counting) who have lost their lives due to the violence our invasion-occupation has “liberated”.
See; I too can name despicable crimes like (rape, death by dismemberment, mutilation ect) and unlike the pro-war lobby I’ve never ever needed to
make up any of it
. In fact there is a daily supply of new such crimes coming out of Iraq everyday (never mind the ones which have already been
committed in between now and 2003).
Crimes like these have been committed not just under an occupation; but also under a democratically elected Iraq government.
So I think you
need some serious help
about is your apparent belief that Iraq is not “one of those places in the world” where
democracy can never work; and should never have been attempted (especially given the colonial experience of the past empires).
Furthermore people like me (who I might guess know a hell of lot more than you about Iraq) accurately predicted that all this would happen way in
advance of a democratic government even been formed. The lessons of the British rule of the 1920’s are just as relevant as they are today; because
let’s face it Iraqi culture has hardly changed in the last 400 years (let alone the last 80).
1. Iraq is a place that needs a dictatorship for a number of reasons. By far the most important is the number of religious fundamentalists within its
own population. Course chiefly they are Shiite, but they are also Sunni. The problem is that (by virtue of being fundamentalists) they believe it is
literally their God given duty to impose-force their beliefs on others.
And whenever ethnic-religious groups have attempted this in Iraq, there has always been a backlash against those responsible. This backlash takes the
form of terrorism, just as efforts to force others to comply with their religious beliefs also
take the form of terrorism (for example the
kidnap and mutilation of Iraqi women who refuse to where the veil).
2. The next step is that out of fear (often confirmed by real necessity) is that people form their own local-area security-protection groups.
3. Almost from the day these groups are formed, the security groups become quickly politicized. From their they have just succeeded in becoming a
militia, and because they are often linked to other (like minded militia) then through the emergence of these extensive they have in fact become
It’s because the sorts of people who join these militia are often prepared to die for their communities that the political orientation of these
protection, militia or terrorists groups (is almost inevitably) highly radicalised.
4. All these group tend to fund themselves through activities like extortion and kidnap of their rivals; and furthermore they tend to keep a keen eye
open for anyone opposed to their own views.
Hence (for Iraqis), democracy is on a very local and personalised level effectively thwarted. And unless they happen to back the radicalised views of
their local army, they may feel wise to stay away-boycott the poles. Therefore when the votes are counted the radicalised are massively over
represented; and everyone else is massively under represented.
5. This is what Iraq will have to deal with come the next elections; because the violence is so much worse than almost every last time (in any point
in past times).
What Saddam Did That No One Has…
One thing Saddam did that no Iraqi democracy can do and no fundamentalists dictatorship would attempt to do; is fill the ranks of
Iraqi government with secular, plus pro western aspiring individuals (Ba’thists).
Some where only secular because it was their job, and they were career employees, others where secular because they were real believers in basic
things like “it serves no economic-practical purpose to impose religious beliefs on others, unless you are oppressing those who wish to impose their
beliefs on you-others.”
Ether way the government of Iraq was subsequently dominated (and so also commanded) by secular individuals.
only the vast majority of Iraqis in government
subscribed to these views today; then there would be nothing wrong in expecting them
to successfully crack down on the violence, on indeed eventually form the conditions for a functional Iraqi democracy (in the long term of course
because this will take decades to do).
Pre-1991 was about the closest time Iraq ever came to being right for a democracy, and immediately
after the 2003 invasion was the closest time
Iraqi society has ever been under the occupation
However even pre-1991 there were still plenty of fundamentalists willing to impose their beliefs on others; if only someone would stop oppressing
When we disbanded the Iraqi secret police, then
took a year to hold elections; it was already too late because the violence was already out of
control (even though it was much less than it is today).
The current “Iraqi democracy” does stupid things like give newly issued police uniforms to militia so that they can visit places like
universities, round up students, release the ones of a particular sect; then torture the rest of the poor students to death.
This demonstrates perfectly why a secular dictatorship is needed to fill the ranks of Iraqi government with secular people.
If that could be
done then police uniforms, weapons, American training; and other such things would be NOT
be being issued to some of the most extreme
terrorists, so that they can fight in the name of some of most simplistic causes (i.e. religious warfare).
Saddam’s government did that; and that is the first reason why I have great admiration for the vast majority
of those individuals who were
selected to take senior posts within it.
I recognise that although its rate of death was less than the rate of death caused by “the violence of liberation”; it was still responsible for
many deaths. However many of those people were in fact guilty of religious extremism, or efforts to politically establish religious extremism, or
engage in foreign (namely Iranian funded) treason.
BUT: Even so; having taken these people into account, there were still deaths of many innocent people. But although the Ba’th party did commit
actions which would entail their deaths, unlike the terrorists it did not go out of its way to weaken (ether itself or Iraq) by targeting completely
innocent people (in fact terrorists seem to think this strengthens themselves).
In other words when you look at the numbers of people dying today at the hands of terrorists, militia or kidnappers the deaths of these innocent
people is a massively small price to pay (in comparison of course). It’s known as “the lesser of two evils” and both prosperity and life itself
have always paid great attention to choosing “the lesser of two evils”. E.g. every decision from choosing a half rotten, or clean apple from a
tree is about, to using your feet or car to make a short journey, involves these.
It’s about time we got our act together and choose the lesser of two evils for Iraq; rather than watch it side with our enemy Iran
may some day
wish to bomb).
Therefore (even if it was necessary to kill Saddam as a figure head) the killing of his brothers; AND especially other less connected senior
Ba’thists is entirely wrong; (not least because the next proper and functional government of Iraq will surely need someone like them?).