Tragedy, Farce, and Worse
The last-minute Surprise is a great American political tradition, but the Bush administration should get the award for the most preposterous and strategically wacky.
The death-penalty verdict against Saddam Hussein in Iraq – imposed by a US-controlled court backed by a US-protected government – was timed to give a lift to the Republicans before the elections.
But no one has yet explained why precisely the American people should celebrate what is so obviously a victory of Shiite ultras bent on establishing a fundamentalist regime. Sure, it's fun to dance in the streets, but the Republicans might take a second look at who their partners are. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (15)
Mark Brabson
There seems to be an extremely heavy turnout at the polls going on. My precinct was absolutely slammed. The problem, of course, is which group of people is generating all this extra turnout. If it is Republicans, they will probably stem their losses somewhat. If it is a flood of Democrats, could be a massacre in Congress.
Well, I am stocked up on caffiene and potato chips. Gonna be one long night.
Published: November 7, 2006 10:06 AM
RogerM
It's ironic that Saddam Hussein's conviction comes on the 40th anniversary of another conviction of him by an Iraqi court. 40 years ago Hussein attemped to assassinate the Iraqi king but failed and left the country. An Iraqi court tried him and sentenced him to death in absentia. Later, he returned and overthrew the government that had convicted him.
It's very sad, though, that as brutal and murderous as Hussein was, for some reason he protected the small Christian community in Iraq. Many Iraqi Christians have immigrated since his fall and the rest are trying, because the "liberated" Muslims have been kidnapping, murdering and raping Christians at horrendous rates as well as blowing up their churches.
Published: November 7, 2006 11:14 AM
Reactionary
RogerM,
For those of us who remember geopolitics prior to 9/11/01, it was a well-known fact that Saddam, a secularized Sunni Muslim, was a counterweight to Shia extremism originating from Iran. That's why Donald Rumsfeld met personally with Saddam as an envoy of the Reagan administration in 1983. Now, the Shia with their crazed, messianic vision and close ties to Iran, have been given the run of the place. Please don't tell me you're just now figuring this out.
Published: November 7, 2006 12:27 PM
RogerM
I'm aware of the history between the US and Iraq, however, I don't suscribe to the view that since the US gave a small amount of aid to Hussein or Afghanistan that we are responsible for everything they do forever. We did not make Hussein head of Iraq and we used him against Iran because it served our purposes at the moment.
As for the radical Shia taking over Iraq, it needn't have happened. Most of the Shia aren't radical or pro-Iranian. But the stupidity of Paul Bremer in not stopping Sunni attacks against the Shia allowed the radical Shia to step into the power vacuum in order to protect civilians.
Published: November 7, 2006 12:39 PM
Reactionary
RogerM,
Short of slaughtering the Sunnis--man, woman and child--there was really nothing that the US military could do once they defeated Saddam's army on the field. Soldiers aren't cops after all, and it is elementary that if you put all the Ba'athists out of a job and subject to a long-suppressed Shia desire for revenge, they're going to respond by forming an insurgency.
But this is all central planning and Monday morning quarterbacking. The better course is simply to recognize that our democratic republic has no business trying to be an empire. If Great Britain and France couldn't do it, then why do we think we can? This is what Tony Cordesman, Edward Luttwak, Norman Schwarzkopf and others (no granola-munching hippies they) were saying to everyone who would listen. Please remember this discussion the next time the US government proposes some Wilsonian crusade.
Published: November 7, 2006 1:26 PM
RogerM
One report I saw on the war said that the US military had intended to use the Iraqi military to maintain order, knowing that the US had invaded with too few troops to do peacekeeping. But Bremer, ignoring the military's plans, dismissed the Iraqi military. That left the US military without a plan or the capability to maintain order. That, and Bremer's de-Baathification plan created the insurgency.
But the situation in Iraq brings up a broader issue, related to the other thread about empire. If people don't need government in order to form a decent, law-abiding society, then why did Iraq fall apart after the US invasion? Iraq had no Iraqigovernment for quite a while and the US administration was in chaos and lacked the troops to enforce any decision. Could Hobbes be right, at least about Arabs?
Published: November 7, 2006 1:54 PM
Reactionary
Roger M,
That is the point the article about empire tries strenuously to avoid. While a functional, free society must necessarily include a free market, its sine qua non is people who believe in the rule of law.
In other words, dare I say it, if the government were to disappear overnight in, say, Auburn, Alabama, the situation would bear little resemblance to what would happen were the central government to disappear in Baghdad, Mogadishu or Detroit.
Published: November 7, 2006 2:16 PM
Nick Bradley
A few points:
First, our policy in the 1980s was not explicitly pro-Saddam. Henry Kissinger is said to have stated that our policy goals in the Middle East at the time were aimed to ensure that "both sides lose". Massive, ugly wars destabilize regimes that run them, and it was entirely concievable that the Iran-Iraq war could have ended up with the overthrow of Saddam and the collapse of the Mullahocracy in Iran.
Second, RogerM made a good point in regards to Bremer's decision not to retaliate against Sunnis for the slaughter of Shiites early on, when it was still a full-fledged US occupation. Bremer did not allow the Shias to retaliate against the Sunnis and did not let Coalition Forces retaliate either. It merely caused Shia discontent with Americans AND Sunnis to simmer until exploding.
Third, if Iraq was partitioned off into three states, or elected for decentralization (as is allowed under their Constitution), much of the sectarian violence would cease. Under their Constitution, Iraqi provinces can group up to form super-states while staying within the Iraqi system; Southern Shia Provinces can form a coalition state in the South, The Kurds in the North, and the Sunnis In the West and Central. The only problem is the multicultural nature of Baghdad and Kirkuk; there is a significant number of Shias in Baghdad, and a significant number of Sunni Arabs in Kirkuk (majority Kurd).
US policy is clearly in opposition to anything other than a unitary Iraqi state; a unitary state virtually ENSURES violence and strife in a multicultural state.
Published: November 7, 2006 3:01 PM
Detroiter
Reactionary,
As a resident of Metro Detroit, I have to take issue with your last remark comparing potential lawlessnes in Detroit to Baghdad or Mogadishu.
Yes, the city of Detroit has has its problems with crime and violence. While Detroit was recently reported as one of the top 10 most violent cities in the country, you are not in imminent danger of losing your life on a daily basis living in Detroit. Maybe getting you car stolen, but not getting killed!
Anyway, it would be a blessing if the central government of Detroit (or at least about half of it) were to suddenly disappear, considering its government has been the cause of so much of the city's problems and economic woe.
The only thing in common Detroit has with Bagdad is the large Iraqi population living in Detroit and its surrounding neighborhoods.
Yes, its funny you should mention Detroit, because Metro Detroit has one of the largest Arabic-speaking populations outside of the Middle East.
Metro Detroit is home to Arabs and Arab Americans of Lebanese, Iraqi, Palestinian and other national origin. They share Shiite Muslim, Sunni Muslim, and Christian backgrounds. Of course, they peacefully coexist with each other and the surrounding non-Arab population (including a significant number of Jewish Americans I might add). The community is doing very well and is responsible for some much needed economic development in Detroit's older neighborhoods.
I've always marvelled at Metro Detroit as the city to which the troubled Middle East can aspire. This diverse population with so many ethnic, national, and religous differences is doing so well here.
Published: November 7, 2006 3:47 PM
Mark Brabson
The Democrats just went over the top for control of the U.S. House. Nancy Pelosi will be the new Speaker and John Conyers will be the new Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Alcee Hastings, who was impeached from the Federal Judiciary, will be the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Ike Skelton will be Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Bennie Thompson will be Chairman of Homeland Security.
Bottom line is that liberals will be in firm control of the leadership and committee structure.
They have won, now I want to see some action out of them. Specifically, not one more penny appropriated to Iraq or any other neo-conservative or zionist war. Under the rules of the House, they can stop any appropriation bill from ever even seeing the light of day. I don't even want to see another war appropriation get so much as a subcommittee hearing.
They have the opportunity to starve the U.S. Military of money and FORCE President Bush to end this war now. They better damn well use it.
Published: November 7, 2006 10:33 PM
Uri DeYoung
Hello! Bemoaning the impending execution of Saddam Hussein?
Have we forgotten that we are supposed to be anarchists committed to justice?
This is yet another example of anarcho-capitalists getting themselves all confused with international politics.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal mass-murderer. He deserves to be hanged. Whether the US government or a private court does it is of secondary importance.
If his execution causes the Shi'ites and Sunnis to go nuts, that's a different matter. Justice dictates that the man calling himself the "president" of "Iraq" deserves to be put to death -- as do most politicians. Why is Llewellyn Rockwell kvetching about this?
Published: November 7, 2006 11:09 PM
Mark Brabson
The United States should never have been there in the first place. It should not be there now. The internal affairs of Iraq are not the business of the United States in any way. Whether Saddam Hussein is hanged, impaled, run feet first through a plastic shredder, shot or beheaded is absolutely of no concern to the United States.
There is only ONE acceptable course. The absolute, unconditional and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else in the world were they are currently stationed. I will not support any Libertarian candidate for President in 2008 who will not promise to evacuate all U.S. forces from Iraq immediately upon taking the oath of office. I have had it with neo-conservatives and for that matter neo-libertarians. I would like to think that this crushing defeat that the Republicans received tonight would result in the end of Iraq operations, but sadly, I strongly suspect the Democrats don't have the spine to go toe to toe with the President and cut funding.
Published: November 7, 2006 11:40 PM
Artisan
I would not give a damn if Saddam Hussein was to hang as a criminal... But I'm not sure that's my claim to hang him though, as I never even suffered from his crimes in the first place ... and even so..., can I gain destroy his life as a way to repair the damages he caused... ? Yes he has to pay, but to be honest, would you consider this payment in liters of his blood (even HP ink is more expensive...)? No, freedom is the greatest good for a libertarian. I think he should be kept prisoner for life.
Published: November 8, 2006 11:51 AM
Uri DeYoung
To Mark Brabson:
Why must the "internal affairs" of a so-called "nation" be considered beyond the reach of any do-gooder who wants to set things aright?
Granted, American politicians sent an enslaved (indentured?) army, financed with stolen money, to topple Saddam. This is bad. It would have been better if a group of free mercenaries had gone over to kill him. But, now that the G.I.'s are over there and they've gotten their hands on the murderer, why shouldn't they execute justice before taking their leave?
Yes, free the G.I.'immediately! Yes, bring the boys home today! But, on your way out, string up Saddam. There should be no lack of volunteers.
Published: November 12, 2006 7:33 AM
Saturdaynightspecial
Lew this was a good one.
Published: November 13, 2006 5:45 PM