Thread: So, Saddam Is Dead . . .

So, Saddam Is Dead . . .
But the way of the world remains Saddam's.

BY MARK BOWDEN
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST


Now that they have hanged Saddam Hussein, perhaps we can begin to appreciate the irony and the lessons of his demise.

Any nation is, at heart, an idea. Once people started organizing themselves in groups larger than their own blood lines, they had to invent reasons for considering themselves part of something bigger--tribes, city states, feudal kingdoms, nations, empires. Language, customs, religion, ideology and geographic proximity have all served. The idea of a state that accepts as equal citizens people from all corners of the globe, a nation founded on abstract principles, is a relative newcomer. We have been trying to get the people inhabiting a large swath of land between and on both sides of the Tigris and Euphrates to embrace the concept. It is an ongoing struggle with less-than-encouraging results.

One of our better allies in promoting this idea was none other than Saddam, who may have died the last true believer in a multiethnic, nonsectarian Iraq. He made his idea of Iraq real by ruthlessly suppressing dissent, particularly with the Shiite majority, by enforcing obedience from Sunnis and the Kurds, and by resisting (or co-opting) the vision of Islamist radicals. American leaders wrestling with Moqtada al-Sadr and his ilk have doubtlessly found themselves admiring the dictator's success, if not his methods.

The old tyrant had long been out of touch with his country, locked behind the high walls of his palaces, protected by body doubles and flattering liars, moving from secret bed to secret bed. The hand-written letter he purportedly released from prison last week, when it became apparent he was to be executed, showed once more how disconnected he was. He addressed the Iraqi people as one, and encouraged them to rise up against the American occupiers. "Do not trust those who speak of Shias and Sunnis," he wrote. Except for the part about attacking Americans, it might have been written by one of the Pentagon's propaganda contractors.




In fact, no one who cares about the idea of Iraq is rooting for the U.S. to depart any time soon. Saddam could be excused, perhaps, because he had lived in a fantasy world for years. Those who advocate it here are transparently heedless of its consequences in Iraq, the operative notion being to avoid shedding more American blood for a cause deemed hopeless or unworthy or both. Unless something dramatic happens soon to alter the sorry trends, it will eventually be the policy of our country.


Saddam had long since ceased to be the beloved figure he believed himself to be. In this stubborn insurgency there has been little evidence of him as a rallying point. His death did not provoke violent recriminations or even much angry rhetoric. Once he was toppled, once deprived of his vicious state apparatus, he ceased to be relevant. Just as the resistance never stopped or even slowed after his capture, the deaths of his sons or the arrests or killings of the other leading Baathist figures on the notorious U.S. military deck of cards, it will not be affected by his death. Saddam was bigger than the bloody divisions that now preoccupy his people. None of the various murderous factions are fighting for his vision of a greater Iraq. The Sunnis are fighting to resist Shiite domination, the Shiites to rid themselves of Sunni oppression, and the Islamists just to frustrate the democratic vision of the U.S.

We Americans consistently underestimate the deep hatreds that divide people. Our political system is designed to wrestle peacefully with the divisions of race, class, ethnicity, religion and competing ideological or geographical interests, and has generally worked as intended--the Civil War being the one glaring exception. Generations have struggled to live up to ideals of tolerance and diversity. When we look out at the world, we tend to see millions longing to get past the blood feuds, to be, in short, more like us. George Bush and the neocon intellectuals who led us into Iraq are just the latest in a long line of evangelical Americanists. No matter how many times history slaps us in the face, the dream persists.

Nine years ago, in the epilogue to "Black Hawk Down," I quoted an unnamed State Department official (he was Michael Sheehan, ambassador for counter-terrorism) as follows: "The idea used to be that terrible countries were terrible because good, decent, innocent people were being oppressed by evil, thuggish leaders. Somalia changed that. Here you have a country where just about everybody is caught up in the fighting. You stop an old lady on the street and ask her if she wants peace, and she will say, 'Yes, of course, I pray for it daily.' All the things you would expect her to say. Then ask her if she would be willing for her clan to share power with another to have that peace, and she'll say, 'With those murderers and thieves? I'd die first.' People in these countries . . . don't want peace. They want victory. They want power. Men, women, old, and young. Somalia was the experience that taught us that people in these places bear much of the responsibility for things being the way they are. The hatred and killing continues because they want it to. Or because they don't want peace enough to stop it."

The statement is too harsh, as Mr. Sheehan himself agrees (he was at that point a veteran of Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia). Any effort to characterize millions with the expression "these people" is unfair and wrong. But there is a principle here struggling to emerge: Before a state can exist where there are deep-rooted, competing interests, there must be some broadly accepted concept of a nation strong enough to at least compete with parochial interests. There must be some generally accepted idea of a nation.




Mr. Sheehan was wrong about one thing. Somalia didn't change anything. Substitute Iraq for Somalia in the quote, and the observation is as accurate today as then. Maybe we need to better appreciate that our nation remains an exception. I believe that in the long run people on this planet will embrace democracy and diversity, but we are not there yet. I still nurse hope that Iraqis will abandon blood feuds for compromise and a democratic future, but it appears to be a longer shot today than three years ago, and it was a bad bet then. Mr. Bush has staked his legacy on it.


So, the tyrant is dead. We may have facilitated his bad end, but, sadly, violence, oppression and fear remain the time-tested ways of forging a nation state out of disparate parts. Until Mr. Sheehan's doctrine is no longer true, the way of the world will remain Saddam's.

Mr. Bowden is the author, inter alia, of "Black Hawk Down" (Atlantic, 1999).

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from
Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

While I agree with the author's premise and conclusions, the bottom line is that we are there. The pertinent point is this quote from the article:

"In fact, no one who cares about the idea of Iraq is rooting for the U.S. to depart any time soon. Saddam could be excused, perhaps, because he had lived in a fantasy world for years. Those who advocate it here are transparently heedless of its consequences in Iraq, the operative notion being to avoid shedding more American blood for a cause deemed hopeless or unworthy or both. Unless something dramatic happens soon to alter the sorry trends, it will eventually be the policy of our country. "

Whether or not you agree with the decision to go into Iraq, it was made. We must come together as a nation and set aside our differences and prepare for the long haul to see this mission through. Only those who are stuck in ignorance can think that running away will be a good thing for US Policy, or the Iraqi people.

amen, nothing left to say

Originally Posted by ssgiceman

amen, nothing left to say

I wish this was true. Yet we are constantly being treated to recriminations about how Saddam's trial was performed and the injustice of the quick execution by the media who also believes that US Policy should always be cut and run when our politicians make the decision to put our military into harms way and people actually start getting killed.

Yet we are constantly being treated to recriminations about how Saddam's trial was performed and the injustice of the quick execution by the media who also believes that US Policy should always be cut and run when our politicians make the decision to put our military into harms way and people actually start getting killed.

Well, considering how they are supposedly trying to create a society based on the rule of law, liberalism, equality, et cetera, I would find it behooving to at least follow those principles. This trial was little more than a repeat of the show trials the conquering allies used against the Nazi officials after WW:2, the infamous "trials" Stalin used to justify his purges against 'traitors' and 'dissidents', and, believe it or not, the very same show trials Saddam used to convict many a man to death.

In the first place, the legality of such a trial is questionable considering the fact that the court itself had no jurisdiction over Saddam when he supposedly committed the crimes because of the fact that they came into existance in 2003. And, without jurisdiction over an individual, courts have no power to charge them with a crime. An appropriate example would be a French court based in France charging President Bush for war crimes he committed outside of France. They have no legal right, and therefore, they cannot press any charges.

Indeed, ask yourself, what would Saddam have done with the former ruling regime had he came to power in 2003? Allow the former regime to continue existing as private citizens, or find some way to get rid of them 'legally'?

Originally Posted by Cannanite

[/font][/b]Well, considering how they are supposedly trying to create a society based on the rule of law, liberalism, equality, et cetera, I would find it behooving to at least follow those principles. This trial was little more than a repeat of the show trials the conquering allies used against the Nazi officials after WW:2, the infamous "trials" Stalin used to justify his purges against 'traitors' and 'dissidents', and, believe it or not, the very same show trials Saddam used to convict many a man to death.

[/COLOR]

A repeat of the show trials the allies used? Once more we have someone of a particular political perspective ignoring the FACTS concerning events.

First off, your weak attempts to compare the Iraqi trial of Saddam with the war trials of the allies and Stalin are factually wrong bordering on absurd.

Saddam had Iraqi lawyers that represented him. We was tried by Iraqi’s in an IRAQI court, not an American or allied one.

The fact that he tried to make a mockery of the event, and obviously fooled someone like you, doesn't make the legality of his trial wrong.

Comparing this to Stalin’s courts is just plain absurd and evidence of your desperate desire to make the case that Saddam was a "legitimate" leader and should have not have been tried at all.

Here's a clue, he was sentenced to death for crimes against his own people. I know you would like to defend the actions of such a despot. The majority of Iraqi people would beg to disagree.

Originally Posted by Cannanite

[/font][/b]In the first place, the legality of such a trial is questionable considering the fact that the court itself had no jurisdiction over Saddam when he supposedly committed the crimes because of the fact that they came into existance in 2003. And, without jurisdiction over an individual, courts have no power to charge them with a crime. An appropriate example would be a French court based in France charging President Bush for war crimes he committed outside of France. They have no legal right, and therefore, they cannot press any charges.

[/COLOR]

An Iraqi court has no jurisdiction over Saddam? How is that possible that an Iraqi court operating in a Democracy based on free elections is not the proper jurisdiction?

You make an absolutely absurd claim that this trial could be compared to a foreign court finding Bush guilty.

It's an Iraq court, in an Iraqi Government with Iraqi judges, with Iraqi lawyers to represent him as an Iraqi for crimes committed against Iraqi's. What part of IRAQ do you not comprehend?

You're absurd notions about representative are duly noted.

So tell me, who had the authority to try Saddam for the crimes against his own people? This should be interesting to say the least.

Originally Posted by Cannanite

[/font][/b]Indeed, ask yourself, what would Saddam have done with the former ruling regime had he came to power in 2003? Allow the former regime to continue existing as private citizens, or find some way to get rid of them 'legally'?

[/COLOR]

Well I am not surprised you have chosen to ignore what he would have done. History shows us that he would have murdered his opposition to ensure he had no political opponents.

Now you can explain how this is the same as a trial with legal representation that took months of evidence to prosecute. I await your lucid response to illustrate how the two are the same.

All of the writers logic follows from A to Z. SO that A leads to B, B to C, C to D.etc. The problam is that A is glaringly misguided.

We have been trying to get the people inhabiting a large swath of land between and on both sides of the Tigris and Euphrates to embrace the concept.

This is the divide. If you carry this preconception with you then you must be completely bewildered at the situation. This simply is not true. You must know that the US installed Saddam. You must. I am guessing it just doesn't seem important but every single Iraqi knows it. Every torture, every death, every abuse is a direct result of the US arming, training, funding and supporting him. You cannot remove this from the equation. It is the single most important flaw in this kind of reasoning. It is bigger than any other aspect of the arguemnt.

I'm not saying "admit your country is terrible". Of course I like America. But you can't get anywhere without acknowledging this fact. The people in the middle East know where their governments come from. And it's not from them.
And then to say

We Americans consistently underestimate the deep hatreds that divide people

When we look out at the world, we tend to see millions longing to get past the blood feuds, to be, in short, more like us.

The hatred and killing continues because they want it to. Or because they don't want peace enough to stop it."

I can't even explain to you how insulting and wrong headed this is. The hatred and killing continue becuse we have been funding, arming, training and rewarding the worst psychopaths we could find. You can't violently install a puppet government in someone's country, GIVE him weapons to use on his own people, and then tsk tsk at them for not having your high standard of political savy.

Well I guess you can. But the people who's countries you fuck with have very long memories. They don't say "yeah Saddam killed my dad, my mom, my uncle, and my kid with money and weapons you gave him - but after a few decades you devastated the country with sanctions against the guy you put here and helped kill any opposition... sanctions death toll in the MILLIONS... BUT you've come to take him out now that he's a threat to YOU. Yeah.. we'll call that fair."

I'm not asking Americans to hate their country, take blame for the middle East, but this

Maybe we need to better appreciate that our nation remains an exception.

is POISON. It is childish propaganda. Brainless refusal to look at the reality of the world and the consequnes of murdering people all over the globe, maintaining military bases abroad and a century of removing elected governments and replacing them with butchers.

This idea, that "we're just that much more better, more peaceful, more understanding of freedom" while denying feedom and peace to half the globe just makes me want to vomit. You must have read some history book. You must be able to seperate the actual history of the planet from the bile they must be teaching you in school.

And the whole article relies on this argument. That the US is somehow not involved in the violence and ignorence that the rest of the world just seems to enjoy. If you believe that, you're a lost cause and you are deliberatly ignoring the world around you to fit an ideological fantasy. And you may be right that we pick on America for doing what every country does. That's because we expect better from it.

Should the US stay in Iraq? How the fuck should I know? Should there have been some white faces in the nooses last week? Oh hell yes! That would have been some justice the Iraqi's could have gotten behind.

First off, your weak attempts to compare the Iraqi trial of Saddam with the war trials of the allies and Stalin are factually wrong bordering on absurd.

Are they?

The Nazis had a "fair trial" by your definition because they had defence lawyers, long, extended hearings, and, supposedly, the authenticity of being tried in Germany by Germans.

The Stalin trials had all the same makings of the Nuremburg trials with no real difference.

And of course, Saddam had his lawyers, his hearing, and his timely execution. Not to mention the fact that all three courts were started with the notion that they were guilty before the signing in had even begun.

So tell me, who had the authority to try Saddam for the crimes against his own people? This should be interesting to say the least.

Well, according to this document, only a specially approved court by Saddam Hussein himself under his former regime would have the legitimacy to try in him a court of law. Why? Because they are the ones, NOT THIS NEW REGIME'S COURTS, which presided during Saddam's reign.

Unless, of course, you are willing to say that Saddam's regime in Iraq is still in place, this court has no real legal jursidiction over him.

In terms of regimes, the Iraq before 2003 was a totally different entity than the Iraq post-2003, and because of that, I used the analogy of the French trying George 'Dubya' for crimes he committed in other parts of the world just incased that went over your head.

Well I am not surprised you have chosen to ignore what he would have done. History shows us that he would have murdered his opposition to ensure he had no political opponents.

Don't you get it? I was trying to point out that this new Iraqi regime did the exact same thing (I.E. Killing the former regime's top heads of state, like Saddam) which Saddam would have done during his reign.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

You must know that the US installed Saddam. You must. I am guessing it just doesn't seem important but every single Iraqi knows it. Every torture, every death, every abuse is a direct result of the US arming, training, funding and supporting him. You cannot remove this from the equation. It is the single most important flaw in this kind of reasoning. It is bigger than any other aspect of the arguemnt.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

I'm not saying "admit your country is terrible". Of course I like America. But you can't get anywhere without acknowledging this fact. The people in the middle East know where their governments come from. And it's not from them. And then to say......

This is an outright lie. In no way was the US responsible for the installation of Saddam.

I can understand how you can take the political positions you take believing this. But there is no credible evidence to support such a notion. To suggest this is false and uninformed.

I am happy to debate this issue further if you so choose.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

Well I guess you can. But the people who's countries you fuck with have very long memories. They don't say "yeah Saddam killed my dad, my mom, my uncle, and my kid with money and weapons you gave him - but after a few decades you devastated the country with sanctions against the guy you put here and helped kill any opposition... sanctions death toll in the MILLIONS... BUT you've come to take him out now that he's a threat to YOU. Yeah.. we'll call that fair."

Notwithstanding the above false premise you began with, this is not how these people view us.

The Majority of the Iraqi people are happy to be rid of Saddam. If not for a tiny insurgency promoted and kept alive by terrorists, murdering and killing not only our soldiers, but even more of their own people, Arabs who are attempting to create a REPRESENTATIVE government, we would already be out of there.

They have no history other than the false history fed to them by the Imams and despots like Saddam. Do you honestly think that in a dictatorship the citizens are informed?

I know this is an inconveninet truth and reality for those who prefer to hate Bush than to see the truth, but there it is.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

This idea, that "we're just that much more better, more peaceful, more understanding of freedom" while denying feedom and peace to half the globe just makes me want to vomit. You must have read some history book. You must be able to seperate the actual history of the planet from the bile they must be teaching you in school.

Based on your comments above, I would say that you are in need of a good history book.

Yes, America has supported some regimes that are less than Democratic. However, you must attempt to put this support in historic perspective. Something you appear unwilling to do.

Much of what you espouse has to do with South America and the Middle East where we were in an ideological war with the former Soviet Union and Communism. I know it is an inconvenient truth to contend with. But when the Soviet Union was propping up the Egyptians, the Syrians and yes, even the Iraqi's, we countered with support for Israel, the Shah of Iran and others in an effort to prevent more "domino's" from falling.

Even as recent as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, yes we supported their adversaries to prevent the Soviets from establishing a puppet Government.

So is one is to be intellectually honest about America's support of regimes, then one must put the geopolitical picture into perspective.

I believe that it is far better to promote Western Democracy than look the other way and allow Communism to overcome these regimes: Even if it means holding your nose and supporting those who don't meet all your ideals.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

And the whole article relies on this argument. That the US is somehow not involved in the violence and ignorence that the rest of the world just seems to enjoy. If you believe that, you're a lost cause and you are deliberatly ignoring the world around you to fit an ideological fantasy. And you may be right that we pick on America for doing what every country does. That's because we expect better from it.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

Should the US stay in Iraq? How the fuck should I know? Should there have been some white faces in the nooses last week? Oh hell yes! That would have been some justice the Iraqi's could have gotten behind.

Read the comments I made above, and then get some historic fact. With that, perhaps you can frame the debate a tad better than claiming that America is violent and evil and Bush and his leadership should be hanged.

I am not surprised that in your ending, you go back to the circle of ignorance and stupidity. I am also not surprised that you hold the views you do being so uninformed and historically ignorant.

I look forward to a future debate with the FACTS, not ignorant assertions with no historical basis or fact.

Quote:
First off, your weak attempts to compare the Iraqi trial of Saddam with the war trials of the allies and Stalin are factually wrong bordering on absurd.

Originally Posted by Cannanite

Are they?

Originally Posted by Cannanite

The Nazis had a "fair trial" by your definition because they had defence lawyers, long, extended hearings, and, supposedly, the authenticity of being tried in Germany by Germans.

The Stalin trials had all the same makings of the Nuremburg trials with no real difference.

And of course, Saddam had his lawyers, his hearing, and his timely execution. Not to mention the fact that all three courts were started with the notion that they were guilty before the signing in had even begun.

So what you are asserting is that you cannot distinguish between a
and a court with legal representation. Either that, or your desperate attempts to show this new Iraqi regime as illegitimate, which is absurd in context to Saddam's regime, in an effort to further Impugn Bush's determination to go into Iraq.

I assure you that there is a HUGE difference between a Stalinist era puppet court and the Nuremburg and Iraq Trials. I find it illustrative that you cannot distinguish it or choose not to.

The Nuremburg trials were very different from the Iraq trials in that it was not conducted by a German Government in a German court. It was indeed a war crimes trial conducted by the VICTORS. It is fascinating that you cannot distinguish this difference as well, or perhaps choose not to.


Quote:
So tell me, who had the authority to try Saddam for the crimes against his own people? This should be interesting to say the least.

Originally Posted by Cannanite

Well, according to this document, only a specially approved court by Saddam Hussein himself under his former regime would have the legitimacy to try in him a court of law. Why? Because they are the ones, NOT THIS NEW REGIME'S COURTS, which presided during Saddam's reign.

Unless, of course, you are willing to say that Saddam's regime in Iraq is still in place, this court has no real legal jursidiction over him.

In terms of regimes, the Iraq before 2003 was a totally different entity than the Iraq post-2003, and because of that, I used the analogy of the French trying George 'Dubya' for crimes he committed in other parts of the world just incased that went over your head.

This commentary defies logic. What your premise states is that no regime has the authority to determine the legal fate of the previous regime and its leaders and that previous regimes can only be tried for crimes against humanity by that regimes courts of law.

Trust me when I tell you this, you make absolutely no logical sense, nor does reality and historic fact support such nonsensical conclusions about the rule of law.

"the French trying George 'Dubya' for crimes he committed in other parts of the world just incased that went over your head."

The French are known for doing really stupid things. This was an excersice of extreme nonsense. But of course in your illogical world, this held some form of legitimacy because it supported your pre-conceived hate of Bush. Once more, there is nothing remotely logical in your arguments, or what the French may have done.

To conclude, there is a HUGE difference between a French court making claims on an American in America, and what has occurred in Iraq. But based on the above ramblings, I am not surprised that you cannot distinguish the differences.


Quote:
So tell me, who had the authority to try Saddam for the crimes against his own people? This should be interesting to say the least.

Originally Posted by Cannanite

Don't you get it? I was trying to point out that this new Iraqi regime did the exact same thing (I.E. Killing the former regime's top heads of state, like Saddam) which Saddam would have done during his reign.

Originally Posted by Cannanite

NO this new regime did not do the exact same thing. Saddam's regime did not have trials based on legal precedent with legal representation. They were puppet courts that carried out his will. In many cases, Saddam didn't need legal intent, he just sent in thugs to murder his opposition.

It's amazing that you cannot see the difference between the two. However, it does explain your misguided hate of this administration and George Bush. One has to be ignorant and uninformed to take such positions.

Always remember that denial leads to ignorance. Don't do ignorance.