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 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Jan 08, 2007
i was unable to edit my previous post when i attempted to summarize it by saying if someone seems convinced it's possible to escape prison by climbing up a flashlight beam, they've given it a try.
on Jan 08, 2007
you do realize the portion you quoted was a response to an article posted the previous week in which mr cole provided statements directly attributed to real people with real names in which those people revealed what they knew about the us government's role in creating the baathist iraqi state and assisting hussein to take complete control of it?


Maybe I misread it but it sounded like he recanted his article because he now had people who were there saying it did not happen.
on Jan 08, 2007
yall seem to be missing bahu's larger point.

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
---kingbee

This is probably because that fact has been hit on more times than a Clinton intern. And her sister on a visit to the White House. And their mother, too.
It's been mentioned and covered and mentioned and covered so many times on here in the last three years+, no one probably felt the need to reiterate.
Yeah....we put him in; so what? Why is this such a big deal? Such a huge thing to continually point out? Cold War politics made strange bedfellows. Lots of deals with the Devil. Get over it.
If anything, I'd think that fact gives us more of a right to have taken him out, and we did.

exactly.

isn't there some sorta aphormism about secrets dying unrevealed with those who keep them?
---kingbee

Well, he did have ample opportunity to tell any such secrets in the trial, where he spent hours hanranguing and disrespecting the court and the present government. I mean, what were they gonna do if he did tell all? Kill him?

By the way----it's spelled "aphorism", Mr. Spell-Check


a cozy, warm relationship? at best, it was an alliance of necessity that was on the rocks well prior to yalta.
---kingbee

Not really....Roosevelt, Communist dictator-loving Democrat that he was, actually liked and thought a lot of Stalin and, despite Churchill's warnings, trusted him to keep his word to withdraw from Eastern Europe.

Hey---maybe Saddam's not really dead---maybe the CIA faked his hanging and took him to live with JFK, Jim Morrison, Elvis and Tupac. Hmmmmm.....

Just a thought.
on Jan 09, 2007
I think there is need for some sense of history in all this. Most seem to forget that Saddam Hussein was indeed an ally of the USA and for good reason: he had the oil and he took on the Iranians in a savage war that did not serve the interests of his own country.In all this the USA supported him as a bulwark of stability in the region, gave him weapons and military aid to the extent of 1.5 billion US dollars. In fact Donald Rumsfeldt was the envoy who supervised this special relationship between Iraq and the USA. All these are facts of common knowledge. Why did USA turn against him with such brutality that instead of putting the old horse to pasture was willuing to slaughter him. This is because Saddam decided to be independent abnd promote Arab nationalism using the Palestenian Cause. This new strategy of Saddam and his belligerence over the Kuwait question sealed his fate.
on Jan 09, 2007
I think there is need for some sense of history in all this. Most seem to forget that Saddam Hussein was indeed an ally of the USA and for good reason: he had the oil and he took on the Iranians in a savage war that did not serve the interests of his own country.In all this the USA supported him as a bulwark of stability in the region, gave him weapons and military aid to the extent of 1.5 billion US dollars


We've been over this before. But I'll say it again. The USSR was Saddam's BIGGEST suplier of weapons. Start doing some reading, will ya? They aren't shooting at our troops with M-16's are they? NO they"re shooting with AK-47's (which are RUSSIAN made). The planes found buried in the desert outside of Bahgdad...were they F-16's or 18's? NO they were RUSSIAN made MIGS! 68% of their total military came from Russia. 11.8% came from CHINA and a lowly 0.5% came from the US. Now you want to ammend your silly statement?

Link
on Jan 09, 2007
on Jan 09, 2007
"In all this the USA supported him as a bulwark of stability in the region, gave him weapons and military aid to the extent of 1.5 billion US dollars"


That money got used up in only a short part of the Iran/Iraq war. When we fought Hussein the the Gulf War we weren't facing US armament, we were facing French, Russian, Chinese hardware. We supported Hussein in a limited way in our shared interest of quelling Iran, and we didn't support him much at all beyond that.


"Why did USA turn against him with such brutality that instead of putting the old horse to pasture was willuing to slaughter him. "


Uh, WHAT? This man got a pass on the invasion of another nation. He tried to arrange the assassination of a US president. He fired on our planes and murdered tens of thousands of his people AFTER the gulf war...

So, you'll forgive me if I think your characterization is forgetting a tad more history than the people you are accusing of the same. We gave Hussein 11 years to change, and in all that time he did nothing, zero, to prove any intent to do anything other than what he'd been doing. He was smuggling in weapons technology right up until the beginning of the invasion.

He was in that pasture for 11 years. How long do you keep a horse that kills the other horses and tries to bite you when you walk past?
on Jan 09, 2007
Start doing some reading, will ya? They aren't shooting at our troops with M-16's are they? NO they"re shooting with AK-47's (which are RUSSIAN made).


AK-47 got its world wide popularity because it is easy to use, easy to fire and above all easy to manufacture. I have already pointed out that 1.5 billion US $ were given by the US. It is not a case of Saddam vs Soviets or Saddam vs the USA. I have just pointed out that he enjoyed a good relationship with the USA and thats that.
on Jan 10, 2007
He tried to arrange the assassination of a US president. He fired on our planes and murdered tens of thousands of his people AFTER the gulf war...


Wrong ex President. The shooting down of the US plane was an accident the sort of shooting down that USS Vincess did of an Iranian air liner.
on Jan 10, 2007
The shooting down of the US plane was an accident the sort of shooting down that USS Vincess did of an Iranian air liner.


LOL.  Iraq was firing on our planes for years and years in clear violation of the cease-fire agreement.


I have just pointed out that he enjoyed a good relationship with the USA and thats that.


And Saddam had a very good relationship with the U.N, with France, and with any other country who were sympathetic for a brutal dictator. 


on Jan 10, 2007
AK-47 got its world wide popularity because it is easy to use, easy to fire and above all easy to manufacture. I have already pointed out that 1.5 billion US $ were given by the US. It is not a case of Saddam vs Soviets or Saddam vs the USA. I have just pointed out that he enjoyed a good relationship with the USA and thats that.


And I pointed out with the percentages that he enjoyed a "better" relationship with the USSR. Given the facts and figures I don't see how you can ignore them. As far as the AK goes it's ease of use is immaterial. What "is" germaine is the "fact" that they are manufactured in "Soviet bloc" countries. IE: USSR, China, Hungary, etc. They sure as spit aren't made here. And the US would not give them funds to buy weapons from other countries.

68% of their total military came from Russia. 11.8% came from CHINA and a lowly 0.5% came from the US. Now do you wish to amend your silly statement?


And your figures are incorrect! We gave them about 150 MILLION (not billion). And if you had taken the time to read my linked article, ( please read the "entire" linked article shown in reply #50) you would have seen that the USSR gave them about 30,300 MILLION. Now you can argue the facts if you wish. But they are documented "facts", and all your arguing will not change them.
One last time....do you wish to change your silly (incorrect) statements? Given the figures, your statement "alleging" that the US gave Saddam the bulk of his military might is incorrect, it came from Russia.
on Jan 10, 2007
I think there is need for some sense of history in all this. Most seem to forget that Saddam Hussein was indeed an ally of the USA and for good reason: he had the oil and he took on the Iranians in a savage war that did not serve the interests of his own country.In all this the USA supported him as a bulwark of stability in the region, gave him weapons and military aid to the extent of 1.5 billion US dollars.


The majority of oil imported to the USA comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venesuala, USA imports roughly 20% of its imported oil from the Middle East. So oil had nothing to do with anything.

Iraq was our way of punishing Iran without getting our hands dirty.

The Soviet Union is the nation that armed Iraq. Iraq does not get US made weapons so we did not arm him.
on Jan 11, 2007
I am somewhat surprised at the statistics put out on the weapons acqusition by Saddam Hussein. Staistics are deliciously ambiguaous and can give support to any interpretation. For instance ISland Dog has given the stats from SIPRI. We need to know how the weapons were divided. For instance a typical military acqusition in US Dollar terms may not reveal the entire picture. MIG-s cost more than guns and artllery and so a higher figure does not imply a closer relationship with that country.[

quote]Iraq was our way of punishing Iran without getting our hands dirty.

That is exactly my point. Now Iran has become the majoer regional power much to the chagrin of the USA.

Iraq does not get US made weapons so we did not arm him


1.5 billion US dollars of arms sent to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. And also remember the USA is not beyond third country sales so that it can maintain deniability. No one has forgotten the Contra Arms deal during the Reagan years.

on Jan 11, 2007
We need to know how the weapons were divided.
---Bahu

I know this may fry your brain, but they were divided among Iraqi soldiers.

Bah-DUM-BUM!--Chssshh.....

That is exactly my point. Now Iran has become the majoer regional power much to the chagrin of the USA.
---Bahu

And, I'm sure, much to the pleasure of Bahu.

I saw this one coming.......

I am somewhat surprised at the statistics put out on the weapons acqusition by Saddam Hussein. Staistics are deliciously ambiguaous and can give support to any interpretation.
---Bahu

 Except the statistics that support your own arguments, right? They're always dead on.



on Jan 11, 2007
1.5 billion US dollars of arms sent to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. And also remember the USA is not beyond third country sales so that it can maintain deniability. No one has forgotten the Contra Arms deal during the Reagan years.


If you're going to quote figures at least quote the CORRECT ones! We gave them 150MILLION not 1.5BILLION! That's a less than a QUARTER of a billion.
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6