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.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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

There are polls about me? ...first time I've ever heard of them thats for sure.

And if you can prove to me, Rex, that a polls says ANYTHING at all that is somehow representative of the country's majority view, I'll give you a cookie. The fact is that my parents, taxpaying and voters that they are, have never been polled, except at the ballot box. The people who are polled are almost ALL old people.

[Nurvingiel]

I've never been polled either Hector, does that mean the views of university students in their 20s are never represented in polls? Of course not.

Participants for a good poll are selected randomly. The probability of your parents being selected out of 300 M Americans is pretty small.


I agree that propogandising Saddam's death was a failed attempt to boost Republican support. Interesting that Republicans can't even create propoganda properly, a la:

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.

Oops.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I've never been polled either Hector, does that mean the views of university students in their 20s are never represented in polls? Of course not.

Participants for a good poll are selected randomly. The probability of your parents being selected out of 300 M Americans is pretty small.

Actually, it does. They usually call up/ send things to....people who vote regularly.

"Random" selection doesn't represent the country.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And if you can prove to me, Rex, that a polls says ANYTHING at all that is somehow representative of the country's majority view, I'll give you a cookie. The fact is that my parents, taxpaying and voters that they are, have never been polled, except at the ballot box. The people who are polled are almost ALL old people.

Your parents live in Iraq? They have done a number of surveys of Iraqi "common" people and have found huge numbers FOR the occupying forces getting out. My point was that the people who hate us more (the Sunni supporters of Sadam) DONT want us to leave because they know theyll become fully unprotected targets of the Shiite death squads then. The Shiites dont necessarily hate us. They just want us to leave. The people dont necessarily hate us. THEY just want us to leave because we dont seem to be doing any good and things seem to be getting worse and worse. Whats scary is that the polls dont really go into the worst areas like Fallujah or Sadr City because they are simply too dangerous for westerners to poll there. So just imagine what the percentages would be like if they DID take these hot beds of hatred into account.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Your parents live in Iraq? They have done a number of surveys of Iraqi "common" people and have found huge numbers FOR the occupying forces getting out. My point was that the people who hate us more (the Sunni supporters of Sadam) DONT want us to leave because they know theyll become fully unprotected targets of the Shiite death squads then. The Shiites dont necessarily hate us. They just want us to leave. The people dont necessarily hate us. THEY just want us to leave because we dont seem to be doing any good and things seem to be getting worse and worse. Whats scary is that the polls dont really go into the worst areas like Fallujah or Sadr City because they are simply too dangerous for westerners to poll there. So just imagine what the percentages would be like if they DID take these hot beds of hatred into account.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

Alright then.

But I'll bet you my best dollar that once we DO leave, that place is going to fall like a tower of crackers.

And of course, once we pull out, don't be surprised if we try to "make up" with people like al-Sod-head. "Oh! Me SO dissapointed with Amerika, but me nice, me want to maek it up with you, despite your mistakes."...and then it'll be back to square one.

[The last sane person]

It sorta kinda is a tower of crackers and its tumbling down on the US as they are still in it... And I dunno, I dont like it. I've had to personally burry so many on account of the chemical and other weapons given to that madman to fight my country with. I still have to see little kids step on left over landmines. For that, Saddam and US are on the same list, I wont forgive them for it.

Funny how it was only that one little issue of 148 people. That's like spit in the sea compared to his other exploits. I too wish he could die many more times, and kill him with the same gas he dropped on Kurdish, Iranian and Iraqi villages. Anyone know why that was the only charge he got nailed with? He has so many more, so very many more. And for the same token, the blood is also on the hands that supported him. Say what you want, but for people over here, my people and other people in the region, that's how we look at it.

The popular feeling, American sponosored polls aside, is that this is just another show of the master beating the attack dog for it killing on his behest.

Trust me, it's a mess.

[Lief Erikson]

Saddam attacked Iran because he wanted Khuzestan's oil fields. What evidence do you have that we pushed him to do it at all?

But after the war was going, if we had allowed Iran to defeat Iraq and overthrow Saddam, then you'd have had Iran dominating Iraq's Shi'ites and oil fields. They were Islamic extremists already and had kidnapped people from our embassy- you know they were celebrating the anniversary of the hostage incident a week or two ago.

These people were our enemies. Saddam was very bad too, but at least he wasn't interested in attacking our people like Iran was.

Though I grant you, this doesn't justify giving Saddam chemical weapons.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I might point out that some reporters have now interviewed several Iraqis who are freaking out that we're going to leave.

I just cringe to think about what will happen in Iraq if we pull out. The US populace and these idiotic Sunni insurgents would then bear the guilt of having allowed hundreds of thousands to millions of people to die when it was our responsibility to defend them. I fear that by 2008, the US will be so fed up with the war that they'll put an anti-war president in power and we'll pull out. Then there will be a horrific catastrophe in the Muslim world as Sunnis die in their hundreds of thousands or millions in Iraq, and Iran gains power over Iraq.


Wouldn't it be ironic if Iran ended up dealing Al'Qaeda the knock out blow? I'm beginning to think that that might happen, because Al'Qaeda is investing so much in this war. Not that they could certainly destroy Al'Qaeda's international network in the short term, but they might do that in the long term.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I fear that by 2008, the US will be so fed up with the war that they'll put an anti-war president in power and we'll pull out. Then there will be a horrific catastrophe in the Muslim world as Sunnis die in their hundreds of thousands or millions in Iraq, and Iran gains power over Iraq.

A lot of people had those fears when we pulled out of Vietnam and it didn't really pan out. There was, and still is, violence there, but letting them decide their own destiny is the only road to a solution that they will be able to accept. You can't force change, you have to let people do it for themselves, no matter how many generations, and deaths, it may take.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

A lot of people had those fears when we pulled out of Vietnam and it didn't really pan out. There was, and still is, violence there, but letting them decide their own destiny is the only road to a solution that they will be able to accept. You can't force change, you have to let people do it for themselves, no matter how many generations, and deaths, it may take.

Letting them choose their own future is what we're doing. They have a freely elected government in power now. If we pull out of Iraq, it will be keeping them from choosing their own future. Then other major players can choose it for them. The Sunni insurgency is not representative of the will of the people in Iraq, as the massive election turn-outs has proven.

[Aquilonis]

Fear does much to sway minds. Kill 200 people at a voting booth in one city on one day, and you can keep 200,000 from voting all over the country if it was the right booth on the right day.

This is going to sound counter-intuitive and against some things I actually think, but once you get past the devil's advocate part it makes sense.

I give you the example of the Roman Empire's Republican period defense, as proposed by Edward Luttwak. The inner core of the Empire is defended by the Legions, which are not stationed on the active frontier, rather on the borders of the Empire proper. Outside that are several loyal client kingdoms ringing the border. All of them are comparatively weak vis a vis Rome, so they weren't worried about attacks, just buffers. Barbarian tribes would hit the client states, who would then defend themselves with local forces. Only if the incursion was way too strong, or the client kingdom rebelled against Rome, would we see the Legion on the frontier.

According to the same book, Luttwak postulates that the Legion became overextended when it annexed the client kingdoms, forcing it to cover its entire long frontier with its own troops. Instead of performing a police/backup role, said troops actually had to spread out and cover the whole thing, which thinned it and made it much more of a drain on resources and manpower.

I move this into the present day. America obviously wants to get the best hegemonic type empire it can create. The army cannot project/occupy everywhere, but we'd prefer everyone listened to us and used their own forces to engage the enemy so that we didn't have to. Thus, I'm sure we'd prefer that the Al Qaeda in Iraq guys were taken down by Iraqi troops so that our guys can celebrate Christmas. The ideal way to do this is to go in, set up a government (preferably as loyal as possible) and leave.

Saddam is a guy the Romans would have paraded down the street in a military parade, but he lost about all significance once Baghdad fell. We can execute him, we can imprison him, we can make him dance in a dog and pony show, but I don't think that it will really matter with regard to stability in Iraq. Personally, I think the country should be partitioned, for their sake and ours.

This message is written in a geopolitical sense, and it's not all my personal belief. If I didn't say "I think" then you may want to ask if I was just writing it to make a point, or if I really believed the entire sentence.

[The Gaffer]

That's an interesting perspective, but it falls down on a couple of points:

1) Firstly, there is no Al Quaeda "frontier", because they are a terrorist organisation
2) Secondly, Iraq only became a hotbed of terrorism because we invaded it;
3) That might have been part of the plan: create a conventional conflict to give the terrorists something else to do other than bomb aeroplanes; that's probably the only way in which this war can be considered a success, but even then, it's highly debatable as it's certainly increased the number of nutters out there prepared to carry out suicide attacks.
4) This was, in fact, what Saddam was doing as Our Man in Baghdad in the 80s: holding back Iran. Now we've knackered him, Iran stands ready to benefit most from our dunderheadedness.

All of which makes you wonder just how utterly clueless the people who decided to invade are.

[Aquilonis]

1. I fully agree with you. I guess the best we can hope for is give them serious problems with creating a base, which can only be done by creating stable, democratic societies. Iraq won't be that way for a while.

2. Probably, though those fighters would have gone somewhere to fight us at some point, I think.

3. That's definitely not a success at all, as killing our troops is becoming almost as efficient as killing civilians apparently.

4. You're probably right on that count, too. I'm not entirely against all war, but if you look at the geopolitical situation right now, there are a couple countries we could have really invaded and done something good in. Initially, this invasion turned out well, but it soured very quickly due to the idiocy of everyone involved. If you want to get WMD, there's a crazy Asian country that's been at it for 50 years (NK) that's just asking for it. If they HAD to go after someone....why Iraq?

[The Gaffer]

1) Yes, though progress in this area has been somewhat in the wrong direction.

2) Not all of 'em. In fact, probably only a fraction, though that's speculation.

3) The civilian death rate in Iraq far outstrips the death rate amongst troops. Mind you, there is a blurred line between insurgent activity (e.g. that bomb last week that blew away dozens of people queuing at an Iraqi police recruiting office), sectarian violence and general criminality which has been unleashed since Saddam was toppled.

If you take the much-maligned Lancet study as a benchmark, over 100 civilians have died for every US soldier who has died.

(On reflection, you might have been referring to American civilians, in which case that's true, sadly.)

4) Yeah, agreed there. It wasn't about WMDs, it wasn't about terrorism, it wasn't about some messianic mission to deliver democracy. The only possible conclusion from perusal of the evidence is, to my mind, securing oil supplies and finding some use for all that military hardware and taxpayers' dollars that swill about the defence department not yielding much of a return for Papa Bush and his cronies.

Just about everyone warned them it would turn out badly, even their own top brass, but they just sacked or ignored anyone who told them a message they didn't want to hear. At last, it seems, they are being held accountable by the electorate, though it is a shame that Bush and Cheney won't be personally brought to book.

I'm not against all war either. I am against totally idiotic wars fought for illegitimate purposes, though.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

2) Secondly, Iraq only became a hotbed of terrorism because we invaded it;

Here is a quotation from the White House, citing all the terrorist groups Saddam was involved with before our invasion:

Quote:

Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions.

In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...ade/sect5.html