This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Look at the past
Published on January 5, 2007 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The excecution of Saddam Hussein aon the day of Id marks an opportune moment to look back on his life, his brand of politics and of course, his relationship with the US which extended over three decades. I must say at the very outset that I deplore all that Saddam Hussein did in his life time, but yet maintain that the killing was not just bad politics but totally unjustified due to the fact that he did not receive a fair trial.

Saddam Hussein was born on 28th April 1937 near Tikri to a shepherd Arab family and was brought up by his stepfather for whom Saddam retained a great deal of real affection. He did not attend school till the age of 12 and learnt to read and write only in his teens. The early political formation of Saddam and men of his generation from less priveleged social backgrounds was in the Arab Socialist Baath Party which was influence deeply by Nasser's ideas of Arab nationalism. In the Arab Baath vision of politics there was no place for sectarian/religious/tribal identities. The US invasion of Iraq and its barbaric assault on the Iraqi polpulation has unravelled the carapace of pan regional Arab identity that was built up over the years, after Suez crisis of 1956.

In Iraq as well as in neighboring Iran, the Communist Parties were quite powerful and recived the full backing og the Soviets. In this deady coktail of cold war politics and Arab nationalism, Saddam Hussein plunged head long. The Iraqi monary established by the British was overthrown by General Karim Kassim, who was supported by the Communists. Though it is not clear from the primary records, there have been persistent echoes across the Arab world of Saddam Hussein being in the pay of the CIA which was trying to subvert the Iraqi government with the silent support of Nasser in Egypt. In 1959 Saddam Hussein participated in an attempted assasination of the Prime Minister of Iraq, Kassim.He escaped with a bullet in his leg and the scars of that injury remained all his life. As can be expected he was sentenced to death in absentia as he had escaped to Egypt. Had this sentence been activated and Saddam executed it would have been more just and honest. In Cairo Hussein trained to be a lawyer.

In 1963 the American backed CIA coup overhrew Qassim and this was just the first of several CIA operations in the Middle East. Saddam was back in Baghdad and the CIA provided him a list of prominent Communists and Saddam proved his mettle by tracking down and having a large number of communists killed. The Baath Party filled the political vacucum created by the eslipse of the Communists. In neighboring Iran too the CIA sponsored a coup in which a Natioanlist government was overhrown and the Shah and his blood thirst crew brought back. In 1963 Saddam Hussein became the Vice Secretary General of the Baath Party and in 1968 played an important role in the Coup that toppled the regime in Baghdad and in this coup too the US hand is suspected.

In the early 1970's Saddam Hussein was secure in his position to ease out Ahmed Bakr, a Tikriti, and became the dominant political personality. At every step he was aided by his deep and abiding links with the CIA. In fact the Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein was reviled all over the Third World as a right wing dictatorship. What was not understood by the American sponsors of Saddam Hussein was that though he was willing to play ball with the Amricans, he was at heart an Arab Nationalist. One of the first acts of Saddam Hussein in power was to nationalise the oil and petroleum wealth of Iraq, a major blow to the US interests. Now we can understand why a President with strong links to the Oil Companies like George Bush II was so eager to launch an all out war against Saddam Hussein and even collaborate in his execution.

In 1972 Saddam Hussein signed a Treaty of Friendship with the then Soviet Union He embarked upon a programme of social and economic development in Iraq which transformed Iraq from a poor backward country into a vibrant economy. Saddam Hussein was responsible for spreading literacy in Iraq and today that country has the highest rate of literacy in the middel east. He launched a programme of Cummpulsory Free Education in Iraq and instituted land reforms that completely changed the face of Iraqi socirty. In fact the UNESCO honored Saddam Hussein with its highest award for the program.

Throughout the 1970's and 1980's the USA enjoyed the closest of ties with the regime of Saddam Hussein. The Iranian revolution had overthrown the client monarchy in Iran and the USA began to build up Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against what it preceived to be the threat of the Iranian Revolution spreading into the rest of the Arab world. USA in particular stoked Saddam's ambition of becoming the preeminent power in the region. Though Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party were staunch nationalists, the Iranian Government began to fan the fires of Shiaa sectatrian opposition to Saddam Hussein. The fact that Saddam had the complete backing of the USA and other western powers throughout the 8 long years of the Iran-Iraq War which took more that 1.5 million lives.In that war Kuwait with its cash rich oil weatth had promised Iraq a sum of 30 billion US $ as its contribution to the war against Iran. Kuwait never kept the promise and Iraq was drained of its oil wealth during the course of the war. The US gave military aid to the tune of 1.5 billion US dollars to Saddam Hussein dring the Iran Iraq War. This fact is hidden in all the discussions on the US relationship with the deposed dictator. This fact also explains why Saddam was not tried for the more serious charges of war crimes during the Iran Iraq war. Had a trial been held the truth of US complicity would have come out.

The problem with Kuwait was not just the promise of the war charges. During the Iran Iraq war, Kuwait bagan side drilling the oil fields near the border with Iraq and extracted oil worth a few billion. And Kuwait was a provinve of the Ottoman Empire and Iraq has always had claims over Kuwait and trhe only reason the West created Kuwait as an independent emirate was to protect its investment in Kuwait.

It is at this point Saddam made his biggest mistake: he marched into Kuwait in earlyn 1991 thinking that the US will back him as it had done in the past. That was a major miscalculation and the UN imposed sanctions regime led to the death of more than a million Iraqis.

How will the Iraqis remember Saddam Hussein? After the passions exited by the US sponsored Idenntity politics dies down, the Iaqis will remember Saddam Hussein as a martyr killed by the USA when he asserted Arab natioanlist pride.

Comments (Page 2)
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jan 06, 2007
based on his research--none of which has been refuted nor has anyone even attempted to do so on this thread--hussein's iraq was a product of us foreign policy. which is to say, the west (starting with the brits after wwi) is in very large part responsible for iraq becoming a rogue state. should things continue the way they've been going, we will also be responsible for it becoming a failed state.


We have not refuted the allegation that the moon is made of green cheese either. Do we have to for those who chose not to believe? Apparently. He spews a lot of allegations, with no supporting documentation. I guess that is why you like him. The seriousness of the allegation negates the necessity for proof of it?

Same old buzzer.
on Jan 06, 2007
He spews a lot of allegations, with no supporting documentation


you're disputing the chronology of hussein's cv?

what's next...defining what 'is' is?
on Jan 06, 2007
Please provide proof that he didn't receive a fair trial. You are so full of shit that you have ceased to be amusing.
on Jan 06, 2007
you're disputing the chronology of hussein's cv?

what's next...defining what 'is' is?


No, that is your forte'. Please reread my response and then provide proof of his ALLEGATIONS. Did I say chronology? Geez, I guess I cant spell, or you cant read.
on Jan 06, 2007
Please provide proof that he didn't receive a fair trial.


You honestly feel that he did? The judges gave consistent preferential treatment to the prosecution, defence lawyers were assassinated, the defence was barely given an opportunity to argue its case and it was blatantly obvious that no jury in the country would give him a fair trial.

His obvious guilt doesn't excuse the circus that passed for a trial. They may as well have just pronounced judgement on the first day. From the moment he entered the courtroom it was a foregone conclusion.
on Jan 06, 2007
Saddam had more of a fair trial than he ever gave any of his victims.  
on Jan 06, 2007
Did I say chronology? Geez, I guess I cant spell, or you cant read.


or...your comment #16 is so typically vague and ambiguous (to provide you with lots and lots of wiggle room as anyone foolish enough to question your take on anything quickly learns) it's impossible to determine what exactly you're refusing to refute.

shall we start with hussien's date of birth? his father's name?

how about cia involvement in the 1963 coup, one consequence of which was saddam being named vice-secretary general of the victorious baath party (a crucial step in his trek to the top)?

works for me. grab a hunk of green cheese and enjoy the read:

In fact there is a primary source on the U.S. side who is on record as admitting that the CIA knew all about the coup ahead of time and so well in fact that it proves that they had "at least unofficial complicity in the plot."

Writing in his memoirs of the 1963 coup, long time OSS and CIA intelligence analyst Harry Rositzke presented it as an example of one on which they had good intelligence in contrast to others that caught the agency by surprise. The Ba’ath overthrow “was forecast in exact detail by CIA agents.”

"Agents in the Ba’th Party headquarters in Baghdad had for years kept Washington au courant on the party’s personnel and organization, its secret communications and sources of funds, and its penetrations of military and civilian hierarchies in several countries…
CIA sources were in a perfect position to follow each step of Ba’th preparations for the Iraqi coup, which focused on making contacts with military and civilian leaders in Baghdad. The CIA’s major source, in an ideal catbird seat, reported the exact time of the coup and provided a list of the new cabinet members.
…To call an upcoming coup requires the CIA to have sources within the group of plotters. Yet, from a diplomatic point of view, having secret contacts with plotters implies at least unofficial complicity in the plot."

Harry Rositzke, The CIA’s Secret Operations: Espionage, Counterespionage, and Covert Action (Boulder, CO: 1977), 109-110.

There is also career Foreign Service Officer James Akins (Second Poliitcal Secretary in the embassy at Baghdad during the 1963 coup) who has confided to a number of scholars "off the record" that the CIA was actively involved.

I know this because I talked to some of the scholars and I have read everything I know of that has been published on the CIA involvement in the coup. I wrote my master's thesis about this entitled, "U.S. COVERT INTERVENTION IN IRAQ 1958-1963:
THE ORIGINS OF U.S. SUPPORTED REGIME CHANGE IN MODERN IRAQ." This is published and available in the library at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona California and I would be glad to make an electronic version available to this blog.

For the paper I conducted an oral history and heard very similar sounding denials from Ed Kane. Ed Kane was the head of the Iraq Desk in Washington for the CIA at the time. In my paper I publish the details of my interview with him and document the fact that he is lying. There is also many other sources with more or less compelling evidence of CIA complicity so much so you just have to read the paper.

Bill Zeman
williamjzeman@yahoo.com
**

**blatantly copied verbatim from juan cole's 'informed consent' forum

informed consent
on Jan 06, 2007
Saddam had more of a fair trial than he ever gave any of his victims.


A fair trial is not merely one that is fairer than an atrocity. It is a trial based on principles of justice and fairness. It is a trial that gives due process. It is a trial where the law is held to be more important than anything else.

If the law is not respected in a trial than we have no right to call it fair or just. The ends do not justify the violent rape of the English language even if you do feel they justify the means.

As a conservative I would have thought you would be against the growing meaninglessness of contemporary English. Isn't culture and language something you're supposed to be in favour of preserving?
on Jan 07, 2007
based on his research--none of which has been refuted nor has anyone even attempted to do so on this thread--hussein's iraq was a product of us foreign policy. which is to say, the west (starting with the brits after wwi) is in very large part responsible for iraq becoming a rogue state. should things continue the way they've been going, we will also be responsible for it becoming a failed state


I agree with you and many seem to forget the fact that Saddam enjoyed a warm relationship with the US thanks fiirst to the ColdWar and subsequently the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Unfortunately the US could not decide whether it should continur to back Saddam after he begabn to re assert his independence or the tranform him into a depot and dethore him during Operation Sesert Storm. Then the WMD came in handy.

Please provide proof that he didn't receive a fair trial. You are so full of shit that you have ceased to be amusing.


The fact thst the crime he was tried for were brought on to the statutes retrospectivel;y, the fact that the Defece was intimidated and procedures were changed to suit the procecution all adds up to an unfair trial Mr Mason. I am sorry that you are not able to see the injustice in the whole affair, though from your other writings on the blog I do get the imptression that you have quite a sense of right and wrong. I can quote the immortal words of Rick in Casabalnca: "You sound like a man despartely trying to convince himself that he is right knowing all the while that yoyu are wrong".

Thank you Kingbee for the excellent response.
on Jan 07, 2007
You honestly feel that he did? The judges gave consistent preferential treatment to the prosecution, defence lawyers were assassinated, the defence was barely given an opportunity to argue its case and it was blatantly obvious that no jury in the country would give him a fair trial.


Before I can even hope to agree with this statement I first want to know the extent of your knowledge of Iraqi law. It may not seem fair in your part of the world but your laws are different that thiers. When Saddam ran the country a fair trial would be given but the outcome would have been determined before the trial started. At least for those lucly enough to have a trial.

how about cia involvement in the 1963 coup, one consequence of which was saddam being named vice-secretary general of the victorious baath party (a crucial step in his trek to the top)?


How about Saddam's choice to take over the government by breaking the law. This got him a death sentence causing him to flee the country. Was the CIA at fault there as well?

I agree with you and many seem to forget the fact that Saddam enjoyed a warm relationship with the US thanks fiirst to the ColdWar and subsequently the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Unfortunately the US could not decide whether it should continur to back Saddam after he begabn to re assert his independence or the tranform him into a depot and dethore him during Operation Sesert Storm. Then the WMD came in handy.


Are you sure you understand how diplomacy works? You seem divoid of this knowledge. Diplomacy is the advancing of national goals internationally. Doing what is in the best interest of a nation. It served a nations interest to have madmen on a leash at one time. Goals change and those madmen are either killed or cut loose. Every nations does this, the more powerful the nation the more powerful the madmen on the leash. When those madmen bite thier owner or are no longer of value to a nation they are destroyed. This has been the case for over 100 years. What I don't understand is why you think this is either shocking or unique to America? America had a cozy and warm relationship with they USSR because it was in our interest to do so. When Europe feard the USSR it was in thier best interest to beg America to join NATO which made our friend the USSR an enemy that we had to destroy. The USSR started training and funding terrorist around the world in order to combat NATO without getting its hands dirty. Some of those terrorist trained their people and now we have AQ. Hammas was started by people that were trained by people trained by the USSR. Yet In your mind America is the only evil in the world. I believe this comes from a serious lack of understanding and context of the history you blindly quote.

on Jan 07, 2007
Diplomacy is the advancing of national goals internationally. Doing what is in the best interest of a nation. It served a nations interest to have madmen on a leash at one time. Goals change and those madmen are either killed or cut loose.


Now we are talkiong sense. I too do not believe in the tall talk of "peace" "democracy" "freedom" and "liberty" with which US cloaks its diplomatic rhetoric. I too believe that nationas puesue their self interests and I have no quibble with you over that. My only problem is that USA seems to have forgotten that a Saddam Hussein was a far better bet for stability in the middle east than the mess it has fgotten into. And aslo remember that USA got sidetracjked from the larger war on Terror. US interests were not susserved by its invasion of Iraq and that is the poiunt. I too know every well that nations are not moral actors and do not believe that statecrsft has a moral purpose.
on Jan 07, 2007
The USSR started training and funding terrorist around the world in order to combat NATO without getting its hands dirty.


You talk of self interest and history. I will give you yet another example of how silly and shortsighted US foreign policy can be. In order to make a vietnam for the Soviets in Afghanistan, the USA trained and armed the mujahudeen who were hailed as great freedom fighters. Now the USA has to wage another war in the name of war against terrorisnm against the very men it armed and trained. So if USA pursues it rational goals there is no problem but the USA changes enemies into friends and friends into enemies very rapidly. And so also with Saddam Hussein.
on Jan 07, 2007
Before I can even hope to agree with this statement I first want to know the extent of your knowledge of Iraqi law. It may not seem fair in your part of the world but your laws are different that thiers. When Saddam ran the country a fair trial would be given but the outcome would have been determined before the trial started. At least for those lucly enough to have a trial.


You might think Iraqis prefer to be summarily punished without having their version of events heard, but I haven't heard that point of view garner much respect from any of the Iraqi specialists I've spoken to or read. For some strange reason they haven't made much note of such a surprisingly passive, masochistic perspective. One wonders how the resistance can even function at all when the citizenry, as you describe it, seems to enjoys being degraded.
on Jan 07, 2007
My only problem is that USA seems to have forgotten that a Saddam Hussein was a far better bet for stability in the middle east than the mess it has fgotten into.


I disagree with you here. Saddam became a serious threat to the world so he had to go. That was in the worlds best interest. As soon as he started supporting terrorist and talking of giving his WMD to the terrorist he signed his death warrent.

aslo remember that USA got sidetracjked from the larger war on Terror. US interests were not susserved by its invasion of Iraq and that is the poiunt


It was not sidetracked at all. In fact as long as we had support at home and did not seem fragmented with our international friends even Iran was screming to help us. As soon as we started to look weak they jumped into the war with both feet so they could become the leader of the Arab world. My point is that going into Afghanistan scared the pants off our enemies. Going into Iraq re-enforced this fear. Then we started arguing with each other and that killed the win.

Now the USA has to wage another war in the name of war against terrorisnm against the very men it armed and trained.



Wait a minute. First of all not all the people we trained are fighting against us. of the 100k only 10k worked for Al Qaeda. They are spread around the world training others. Just remember that the first thing AQ did before the the attacks of 9/11 was to kill off the Afghan leader who controlled the 90k bin Laden was fighting. It seems that only a small amount of people wanted to use that training against us unlike the 100% of the people trained by the USSR. Every military has people that misuse their training.

You might think Iraqis prefer to be summarily punished without having their version of events heard, but I haven't heard that point of view garner much respect from any of the Iraqi specialists I've spoken to or read.


But that has nothing to do with my statement. The laws of the country were being upheld. The Americans had nothing to do with the exicution of the man. All America did what provide security until the trial was over. Saddam was found guilty and according to thier law he was treated as they wished to treat him. Do I agree with what they did? Yes! Do I think it was handled badly? Yes! Like when the first woman was sent to the electric chair. Someone snuck in a camera and took pictures. Was it approved? NO!

on Jan 07, 2007
how about cia involvement in the 1963 coup, one consequence of which was saddam being named vice-secretary general of the victorious baath party (a crucial step in his trek to the top


According to the link you posted, this never happened.


Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Conflicting accounts of CIA and Saddam, 1959-1963

My posting last Saturday, For Whom the Bell Tolls: Top Ten Ways the US Enabled Saddam Hussein has elicited a very interesting account by a US government insider contesting the allegations about CIA-Saddam connections early in his life, specifically 1959-1963, and which denies CIA complicity in the first Baath coup of 1963 or the use of the Baath to destroy the Iraqi Communist Party.

The former official reports that Agency case officers in Cairo in 1960-1962 maintain that they never had heard of Saddam Hussein and that it was impossible that meetings should have been held with him without their knowledge. He says that he had looked into these allegations and had also contacted a number of Foreign Service Officers who were in the Cairo embassy at that time, and they also had no recollection of any contact with Saddam. (Another retired USG official who was in Cairo in this period also denied any such contacts, so I have it from two insider eyewitnesses.)

This source maintains that a national security official in Washington, DC, with Iraq oversight duties reports that he was called back to the office the evening of February 8, 1963, to find that the CIA chief of station in Baghdad was reporting that the Ba'this had overthrown and killed `Abd al-Karim Qasim and that "to convince the public of the demise of Qasim Iraqi TV showed a film of a Ba'thi officer holding up for view Qasim's severed head." This US government old-timer writes, "I assure you that the Ba'thi coup came as a TOTAL surprise to the US intelligence and diplomatic community . . . No one in the Washington community had ANY prior knowledge that this coup would take place, let alone having been involved in fomenting it . . ."

This source quotes an Agency case officer in Baghdad 1963 as saying that there was no connection whatsoever between the CIA Station and the Baath Party of Iraq "or with any element of the Iraqi government." There were penetrations of the Party, "but no liaison with it. It did not happen. Nor was there any significant contact between the Ba'thi government and the Political Section of the Embassy or with the Ambassador."
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last