Putting Saddam's conviction into perspective

[MrBishop]

No end to mess created in Iraq

By SCOTT TAYLOR On Target

THE ANNOUNCEMENT of Saddam Hussein’s guilty verdict on the eve of the U.S. congressional elections generated some of the most desperate propaganda since Bush first invaded Iraq back in 2003.

The U.S. State Department immediately applauded the verdict and declared that Saddam’s trial proves that an independent judiciary has been successfully established in Baghdad.

On top of that, President George W. Bush proclaimed that Saddam’s conviction served to justify the U.S.-led intervention.

To quickly recap, Saddam was found guilty for his involvement in a 1982 incident in which his troops executed 148 Shiite rebels in the village of Dujail. The slaying of the Shiites was in retaliation for an attempted assassination the previous day, when rebel gunmen had fired a deadly fusillade into Saddam’s official convoy.

At the time, Iraq was fully engaged in a decade-long war of attrition with Iran and Tehran clerics used their influence to inspire a Shiite uprising against Saddam’s Sunni regime.

Although the U.S. never really loved Saddam, while his military was being bled white fighting the Iranians, his secular dictatorship was considered to be the lesser of the two regional evils.

As such, the Reagan administration did not raise the issue of the Dujail massacre at the time it occurred. In fact, in 1984, Reagan dispatched his special envoy — none other than Donald Rumsfeld — to Baghdad to offer Saddam the military means necessary to continue the struggle against Iran.

Right up until the ceasefire was signed in 1988, the U.S. supported Saddam with arms shipments, including the chemical weapons he employed against both Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels.

Put in that perspective, Bush’s conclusion that Saddam’s guilt in the 1982 Dujail incident justified the 2003 invasion seems absolutely ludicrous.

To suggest that the civil court that convicted the former Iraqi president is independent is equally laughable.

Throughout the course of the show trial, U.S.-appointed judges and prosecutors were replaced, resigned or removed and several of the defence lawyers appointed to defend Saddam were brutally murdered.

As the proceedings wound their way to the preordained verdict, Saddam and his co-defendants staged hunger strikes, were denied access to their counsel and appeared in court in their underwear.

Only Hollywood’s celebrity murder trials could be considered more farcical.

In a tremendous effort to paint Saddam’s death penalty as a step forward for war-ravaged Iraq, American media outlets broadcasted scenes of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the verdict. Chanting, dancing and waving placards, the Shiite residents of the Baghdad suburb of Sadr City rejoiced on cue.

In broken English, a number of residents in this impoverished district told reporters that death is too good for Saddam and they regret that the former president will only hang once for his crimes.

While Americans were preparing to head out to their polls the following day, I’m sure at least a few of them were reassured to see so many smiling Iraqi faces. Between Bush justifying the invasion and Iraqis denouncing Saddam, it probably seems as though a successful conclusion to the Iraq nightmare could be just around the corner.

However, a closer examination of the placards waved in Sadr City that day might have snuffed out that flicker of hope. Those dancing Shiites were holding pictures of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Sponsored by Tehran, al-Sadr is a fundamentalist and an extremist. His fanatical Badr brigade militia clashed briefly with U.S. forces when they tried to arrest their leader in April 2004.

Since those failed battles, in which the U.S. 2nd Armoured Cavalry mowed them down in the hundreds, al-Sadr has primarily employed his Shiite military force to battle Sunni rivals.

So while the chanting mob may be elated at the elimination of their former nemesis, a secular Sunni dictator, it is their intention to replace Saddam’s regime with an even more repressive fundamentalist Islamic state.

In a sense, the crowd was cheering the removal of the frying pan so they could move directly into the fire.

Following the November 7 vote, the Democrats gained control of the entire U.S. Congress and Donald Rumsfeld resigned as defence secretary. As a result, many Americans believe that a withdrawal of their troops from Iraq is imminent.

However, for those closely watching the transforming violence in Iraq, it is obvious that any such premature American pullout would only result in an all-out civil war, a huge increase in bloodshed and set in motion a further destabilization of the entire Middle East.

The lame-duck Bush administration had better hope Saddam drags out his execution through a lengthy appeal process.

Otherwise, with Rumsfeld already departed, there will be no one left to pin this whole mess on but George W. Bush himself.

www.espritdecorps.ca

[Insidious Rex]

It is a pretty desperate and despicable attempt to effect the election but I dont really think it did. Because most Americans assumed he was going to get convicted anyway. I mean who thinks hes actually innocent? So for the Bush administration to crow about this as some great accomplishment seems silly and makes them look out of touch and ridiculous. So I never really saw this as a big deal in regards to the election. In fact Id hazard a guess it actualy hurt the republicans more then it helped them.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It is a pretty desperate and despicable attempt to effect the election but I dont really think it did. Because most Americans assumed he was going to get convicted anyway. I mean who thinks hes actually innocent? So for the Bush administration to crow about this as some great accomplishment seems silly and makes them look out of touch and ridiculous. So I never really saw this as a big deal in regards to the election. In fact Id hazard a guess it actualy hurt the republicans more then it helped them.

Well I agree that it didn't help the election...on the other hand, Bush's "crowing" was not missplaced perhaps. It's a big deal to sentence the man who had everyone under his thumb at one time. And I don't care how "balancing" he might have been, the world is right to want to be rid of him.

I might point out that some reporters have now interviewed several Iraqis who are freaking out that we're going to leave. Gee guys, it sure woulda been nice to know that BEFORE the election

[Insidious Rex]

Just the Sunnis. But that doesnt mean they dont still hate us more then the Shiites its just they know we will protect them anyway. So Im not sure it will help Bush to have people who hate us asking us not to leave.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Just the Sunnis. But that doesnt mean they dont still hate us more then the Shiites its just they know we will protect them anyway. So Im not sure it will help Bush to have people who hate us asking us not to leave.

And I'm not so sure our presence is as generally hated as is said. Surely, as you would be quick to say, not all the Iraqis are suicide bombers. But bombs make a big splash.

[Insidious Rex]

Well Id bring up recent poll numbers but I know how that gets you worked up into a knot and all.