Editorial:
In Moot Defense of Saddam
A "fair" trial does not include members of your defense team being shot to death.
A "fair" trial does not include the lead judge being removed for having the audacity to contradict other judges by declaring you "no dictator."
A "fair" trial does not include a panel of judges shaped by the very occupation force that attacked the country on the pretext that you were, in fact, a dictator whose activities were contrary to America's foreign policy objectives.
Saddam Hussein did not get a fair trial because a fair trial cannot exist under the present conditions in Iraq.
I include in this editorial no expected or required disclaimer about Saddam really, after all, being a dictator, a monster, a murderer, or whatever other word might display sufficient disapproval of him; and the reason I use no such word here is that I do not know beyond a reasonable doubt what is and what is not the truth about Saddam, the former Ba'athist regime in Iraq, or even Iraq, itself, either as it stands or as it was. Everything—everything—about Iraq has for years flowed to me and to just about every reader here through the filter of media in the West parroting propaganda pumped out by all manner of disreputable, suspect, and self-serving propagandists: Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and its paymasters in both the CIA and Iran, a cabal of American neo-conservatives drooling over the prospect of a live proving ground for their model of American global domination, the Israeli intelligence community, various Arab interests, and others, each of which had its own vested interest in toppling the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad.
Exactly how does the truth arise from a maze of lies that started with those that put and kept Saddam in power and then turned on him when he flexed the might of his military against Kuwait? How many readers know any of the grievances he had against the far wealthier country to the South? (Hint: try one that involved rich Kuwaitis feeding a thriving human trafficking trade in Iraqi women and girls for everything from housework to prostitution, an industry again alive and well.) How many readers here ever asked how in the Hell it was that the Presidential administration of George H.W. Bush knew for weeks before Saddam's invasion that he was massing troops in the South for what was obviously an impending attack on Kuwait, yet the U.S. was utterly incapable of doing anything at all about it before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had to be rectified by a full-scale interventionary attack by a U.S.-led coalition?
Saddam Hussein's armed forces attacked Kuwait in 1990 because the latter country had such wealth that the Iraqis were willing to invade to take it? That's how the story went, and we swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
We attacked Iraq in 2002 because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Do readers here really think Americans were initially so wildly in favor of the war because of that, or have progressives figured out that the American public was ga-ga about the whole thing because we were by that invasion going to control the fourth largest reserve of crude oil on the planet?
Look at Iraq today. Find a military, geo-political, or even moral standard by which that country is now better than it was before our invasion. And for the bonus round, find a military, geo-political, or even moral standard by which this country is now better than it was before our invasion.
Hang Saddam? Let's watch the Iraqis do it, the same Iraqis who now live in an anarchy that the American media gravely but politely intones is on the verge of some "civil war," as if that over-used term even begins to describe what has already become of what was once a pro-Western power that served as a massive, unbreakable girder holding the Iranians in check to the West while those Persians were being held in check to the East by another of our subsequent basket cases, Afghanistan.
Hang Saddam? Let's watch George W. Bush and his neo-cons make this a crowning achievement in an alternative to Hussein that has cost as many as 650,000 Iraqi lives, nearly 3,000 American lives, and more than 300 billion dollars of American money, most of which we've borrowed from the ever-helpful Communist Chinese, to whom we shall one day not too long from now pay dearly for our self-delusion of being able to make the world just what we want it to be.
But, by God (or Allah, if you will), those Iraqis are going to learn to live in peace without fear of violence once Saddam gets his hands tied behind his back and chokes to death at the end of a noose. That'll teach those restive Iraqis how to resolve conflict without resorting to killing each other.
Yet one more fabulous step into a future degraded immeasurably and probably irreparably by the most incompetent cabal of fools who have ever tried to rule the world.
Even stipulating every nickel and dime of propaganda about Saddam Hussein, he was a mere piker compared to the man we have—by flag-waving support or ineffective opposition—allowed to be our leader these past six years; but George W. Bush will never get dragged kicking and screaming to the gallows. Unlike the Iraqis, we Americans were afforded the luxury of pretending that we chose our despot.
It would be terribly unseemly to then hang him for doing what he was expected to do.
The Dark Wraith has said his peace on this matter.
Published 11/06/2006 01:56:00 AM
<< 13 Comments Total
Good morning, Wraith. Another excellent commentary.
One thought on Gulf 91. My memory of the events is a little hazy, although I've re-read Scwartzkopf's autobio recently for comparison with accounts in Woodward's books. While the commission forces to what would become Desert Shield/Storm was partially in response to the invasion of Kuwait, was not the defense of Saudi Arabia and its much larger reserves as large a factor, if not larger, in the decision? IIRC, Scwartzkopf himself noted that, before the UN resolution on Iraq's occupation of Kuwait came down, the attitude at the time was that the US would go to war over Saudi Arabia, but not Kuwait.
Just a thought. Back to the shadows.
Only the Cheney/Bush group of fools could elicit a defense of Saddam from me. This "trial" makes a mockery of our vaunted western justice system for all the world to see.
I guess the Romans figured this out long ago. Throwing your enemy to the lions and letting the masses view the carnage will keep them from noticing you are losing the empire.
Good morning, peon.
Excellent analogy: Saddam appears to the neo-cons the perfectly irredeemable beast to throw to the lions for everyone to enjoy, although I'm wondering just how many fans are in the Colosseum these days. Although a CNN.com poll yesterday indicated that 69% of respondents affirmed that Saddam got a "fair" trial (cripe), today's poll so far indicates that about 94% of respondents claim the outcome of the trial will not influence their voting decisions tomorrow.
It seems that carnage just isn't enjoying the respect it once did.
The Dark Wraith does not, however, see any reason for taking a brighter view of the American electorate just yet.
Good morning, Don. Thank you for stopping by and commenting.
There is no question that the defense of Saudi Arabia was, indeed, one of the stated reasons for pushing the Iraqi army back out of Kuwait. I remember that quite vividly, in fact; but even at the time, I had two questions.
First, given that the Saudis were (and remain) huge purchasers of highly sophisticated U.S. weaponry, why would they need a "coalition" of Western nations to defend them against a clearly inferior army, one that remained in a state of some tatters from its war with Iran?
Second, why in Heaven's name wait until Saddam had invaded Kuwait, when it would have been far less bloody and costly to form a military blockade cordoning Iraq off from Kuwait? The Iraq/Kuwait border is not all that long: it's almost as good as you could get (if covering a border is ever all that good) as far as trying to use a border as a containment line.
Those kinds of questions lead me to strongly suspect that there was a lot more to Gulf War I than we ever heard. But then again, you probably know I'm a terribly suspicious person by my nature when it comes to politicians' motives.
The Dark Wraith should probably find some hobby for his declining years other than conspiracy theories.
Good Morning Dark Wraith:
Excellent commentary, calling the bloody mess that Saddam was forced to endure a trial is as big a farce and sham as calling the current regime, meeting under the cover of our guns in the green zone a government. Even inside the green zone fortress they have trouble managing to seat a quorum. The idea that a group with such a feeble grip on power, with such a profound lack of respect outside the American fortress would be able to produce a verdict and sentence giving even lip service to the rule of law and justice is insane. The way I understood the whole Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait relationship was that the British, as they were leaving, created the current borders leaving the big 3 with roughly equal oil reserves. Kuwait being carved (mostly from Iraq) to prevent any one of the three others from having a dominating market share. One thing that seemed to be lost in the fog of war in the early 90's was that Iraq had a case before the World Court trying to assert its historical claims over Kuwait as a province of Iraq. The big fact that glares at me in this current debacle is that two months prior to the invasion Saddam sent an offer of abdication and exile for himself, his family and his closest advisors. Bush rejected that offer. At the current bill of blood and treasure there are close to 30,000 Americans who are dead or severely injured who would have been healthy and available for guard duty outside the gates of any exile location at a much cheaper price than the current 2bill per week. Although it is hard to really get all worked up about one more death (and in this case a well deserved death), one more atrocity (one ranger with a pistol at capture would have saved the lives of a few lawyers though) one more anything in this sea of chaos, violence, cruelty and despair. Anyone who expected any other verdict or sentence does not understand fascist theatre disciplines.
I'm on a short break from manning the phone all day today. Each call I make brings a little more hope back out into the light. But tomorrow's a long way away. We shall see. It's also bread baking day Caraway Rye, Crusty French and Lemon Poppyseed are on the agenda.
p.s. I have an old Royal Navy recipe for Hardtack Biscuit somewhere, just in case.
Good morning, Minstrel Boy. I am grateful to you for adding that background information. Also, you are most decidedly right that keeping Saddam under guard in exile, an option we had right on the table before this debacle of a war, would have been a whole lot cheaper than what we're paying now.
And on the baking front, have you ever made salt rising bread? I'm going to do that some time this week... provided I'm still among the living after tomorrow.
The Dark Wraith really and truly doesn't look for trouble; it just seems to find him at inconvenient times.
Good Morning Dark Wraith:
I do a mean salt-rising bread, Irish Soda Bread, many variations on Corn Bread (including the divine Apache piki bread when I get care packages of the special meal from the rez) and I have a seven year old jar of sourdough starter on the counter.
I takes me Bakin' serious.
An excellent post, DW. I note only that you refrained from stating that Hussein was prevented from detailing the extent to which the US supported and supplied him for decades as part of his defense. Of course, when the verdict is determined prior to the trial a la the Soviet show trials, a proper defense is a moot point.
This post does remind me of a running argument I've had with conservatives the last few years. Every time they justify Iraq by how bad Hussein was, I drop a few names on them: Syngman Rhee; a series of Vietnamese generals; Gen. Pinochet; Manuel Noriega; Ferdinand Marcos; the Shah of Iran; and of course, Saddam himself. Each and every one of which were enthusiastically supported (and often installed) by the American right wing. If they're still around after that, I mention that the right is highly selective of what interventions to support in other countries. Lebanon, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq I and II were good, being conducted by men named Bush and/or Reagan. The Balkans and Haiti in the 90s... those were not favored by the right. Go figure.
Good afternoon, Dark Wraith. I would love to add that usa foriegn policy has been pretty much a diaster for longer than my lifetime, but for now I just can't rise to the occasion.
I can only hope that tomorrow brings somewhat better news, that maybe we will have turned a corner and sought a new direction. Until then my greatest concern is what's for dinner, the talk about breads got me wondering.
Catfish? Pizza? Beans, ham and cornbread? I'm getting hungry. Maybe a stupid republican will show up and I can eat it. For nutrition, not sex. I wouldn't have sex with a republican for any reason. Their fleas have severely ill effects.
May whatever spirit that may exist give us an advantage tomorrow. If it gets stolen again, well... I'll worry about that Friday.
Every country this nation has messed with ended up hating us, for good reason. We have been remarkably consistant.
DW,
A bit off topic but in the unlikely(?) event that god steps in tomorrow and helps the Republicans win most seats in an awe-inspiring display of non-partisanship, what happens to those Republicans who denounced Caesar before the election?
May we see yet another night of the long knives; this time to purge those infidels of the right?
I know this "leader" has a long memory and while I couldn't care less for the elimination of those on the right who chose to rail against W, I worry about the way they may be replaced, especially with Bush's re-interpretation of the constitution.
It would seem that if the election is a fixed, foregone conclusion, possibly Rove just wanted to see who was loyal to the Fuhrer.
Good afternoon, Father Tyme.
Win or lose, I strongly suspect the Republican Party will indulge itself in a night of long knives. My assessment, believe it or not, is that a losing Republican Party will at least initially move to the Right, slitting the throats of the traitorous moderates in their ranks. A winning Republican Party would still slit throats, but not with such zeal.
Once a modicum of thought clarity passes over the Party, some degree of moderation in stances will begin to shine through; but having already quieted the center-right of the Party, the pickings will be slim for any standard-bearers other than the rather more hateful and uncompromisingly "principled" Right-wingers.
That's the assessment of the Dark Wraith, anyway.
DW,
Interesting thought. That could sway a number of moderate Republicans to move farther left fo center and possibly become Lindsay Democrats. Whether they'll be sincere or hypocrites , as I expect Lieberman to become, will remain to be seen.