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 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Jan 11, 2007
"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."


As was said, I was referring to the almost constant attacking of the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zone. He was even caught updating his anti-aircraft emplacements in the no-fly zone with the help of fiber optics from China... which came from a deal with the US fostered by Clinton...
on Jan 12, 2007
I cannot understand why this huge fuss about what is essentially a historical fact:USA did maintain the best of relationship with Saddam Hussein. That relationship soured at one point and the Kuwait invasion of August 1990 may well be the reason. Whether we like Saddam Nussein or not we have to assess personalities in an impartial and objective manner. I have no hesitation in stating the Saddam was a tyrant who slwe his countrymen, but he was also an Arab nationalist who laid, yes, many may not like what I have to say, the foundation of a strong, secular and middle income state athat the US invasion now and the sanctions earlier has lasid waste.
on Jan 12, 2007
much to the pleasure of Bahu


Here you are wrong. I do not support a nuclear Iran at all. But the USA instead of dealing with such issues with the velvet glove of diplomacy uses brute force and that complicates the problem.

He was even caught updating his anti-aircraft emplacements in the no-fly zone with the help of fiber optics from China... which came from a deal with the US fostered by Clinton...


The sanctiion regime was a scandal and it did no good whatsoever. Only the prople of Iraq suffered not its leaders.

on Jan 12, 2007

Here you are wrong. I do not support a nuclear Iran at all. But the USA instead of dealing with such issues with the velvet glove of diplomacy uses brute force and that complicates the problem.

You will not have a diplomatic solution with Iran.  They don't want peace, they want to eliminate Israel completely off the map.  We or the Israelis will have to forcely deal with Iran in the near future.

 

on Jan 12, 2007
" I cannot understand why this huge fuss about what is essentially a historical fact:USA did maintain the best of relationship with Saddam Hussein. "


You see though, Bahu, that's what the people you are arguing with can't understand, either, right? After all, you're the one that brought it up, so you must have thought it noteworthy.

Part of the reason people take issue is what I pointed out above. You ask with wonder why we turned out back on Hussein, forgetting about, oh, 10 years of his behavior. Technically, I don't make a fuss about it, like you say it is a fact, but ALL the facts are important.

I take issue with people thinking it is somehow damning of the current effort or Hussein's execution. In reality it just goes to show that Hussein was both evil and a traitor to nations that tried to reach out to him. We made an attempt, and he went in another direction, and had to be put down.

Like you say... what's the fuss?
on Jan 12, 2007
That relationship soured at one point and the Kuwait invasion of August 1990 may well be the reason.


Yeah, that's right; it was all our fault....the fact that he invaded and raped one tiny country and threatened to invade yet another, much more strategically important nation, had nothing at all to do with it. It was all on us.

I cannot understand why this huge fuss about what is essentially a historical fact:USA did maintain the best of relationship with Saddam Hussein.
---Bahu

Post-WW1, Communist Russia secretly sold arms to Germany and secretly allowed the German army to train its officers on their soil; the core of the Wehrmacht's crack officer's class was formed there. Later, Germany signed a non-aggression treaty with the Soviets and split Poland with them. Sounds pretty good. In 1941, Germany invaded Russia and killed millions before they were expelled. Things change.
Germany changed their relationship with Russia; Iraq changed its relationship with us. It happens.

If things were different, if we hadn't taken Saddam out, Bahu, you'd likely be bitching about how we arrogant Americans can just sit by and let a tyrant WE HELPED INTO POWER continue to oppress and kill his people.

You know what the sad part is, Bahu? That you're so blinded by rhetoric that you can't see your own glaringly obvious anti-American bias.

Here's an idea;

Why don't you change?
on Jan 12, 2007
The accusations of wmd's was advanced by "every" single intelligence agency in the world. Please try to get your facts straight


In reality it just goes to show that Hussein was both evil and a traitor to nations that tried to reach out to him. We made an attempt, and he went in another direction, and had to be put down.


The intelligence agencies provided the material to justify the invasion and therefore instead of giving objective assessments they provided fodder to justify a "political" decision.

I do not agree that evil is a category that can be invoked in politics. What you are saying is hat the USA used Hussein when it was in its interest and killed him when he became a hindrance. There is nothing good true and noble about the whole affair. More people are being killed now in Iraq than they were during the days of "evil" Hussein.
on Jan 13, 2007
The intelligence agencies provided the material to justify the invasion and therefore instead of giving objective assessments they provided fodder to justify a "political" decision.


Now your just talking trash. French and Russian intelligence would have "no" reason to supply fodder as you call it. "If" you were talking about "just" US intell I "might" be inclined to believe that statement. But "all" the rest? Pul-eeze
on Jan 13, 2007
More people are being killed now in Iraq than they were during the days of "evil" Hussein.
---Bahu

This may be true. At least it's not completely innocent Iraqis, though. It's Muslim insurgents and terrorists who want a chance to die killing the Americans and Jews they hate beyond reason. Why? So they can get their 72 virgins.
You know; that's another reason to look down on this particular division of Islam. I, as a Christian, try to live a decent, loving and peaceful life that will get me to Heaven so I can live forever with Jesus, the Son of God.
These Muslim want to kill, maim and die so they can go to their heaven and prong chicks (I'd hope) for all eternity. What high goals. Shows you how repressive and controlling their faith is.

Are we sure Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt didn't come up with this stuff?

Here you are wrong. I do not support a nuclear Iran at all. But the USA instead of dealing with such issues with the velvet glove of diplomacy uses brute force and that complicates the problem.
---Bahu

Iran is governed by fanatics who have vowed to see Israel and the US wiped off the globe. The "velvet glove of diplomacy" only works when both sides are willing to come to terms. Fanatics are not willing to do so.

Once again, I cover a point that's been hit on more times than a Clinton intern. Will he listen? Will he acknowledge its factuality? Nah...none of them ever do, which is why we have to keep hitting on it.

Know what else, Bahu? People in Iraq may be dying, but they no longer just die and disappear into an unmarked mass grave.
on Jan 13, 2007
Here you are wrong. I do not support a nuclear Iran at all. But the USA instead of dealing with such issues with the velvet glove of diplomacy uses brute force and that complicates the problem.


USA has done nothing but be diplomatic with Iran While the political opponents scream that we are wasting our time in Iraq and should invade Iran and North Korea the other two nations listed on the Axis of Evil. No matter which country we went to war with would produce the same criticism because as soon as one is beaten down people will say why did you waste time on that one and ignore the others? We are dealing with the most dangerous one at a time. Last year everyone was screaming about North Korea was the one we should have attacked and we should not waste time negotiating with them. We are in talks and negotiations with both nations as we were with Iraq.
on Jan 15, 2007
Iran is governed by fanatics who have vowed to see Israel and the US wiped off the globe. The "velvet glove of diplomacy" only works when both sides are willing to come to terms. Fanatics are not willing to do so


People in Iraq may be dying, but they no longer just die and disappear into an unmarked mass grave.


Now your just talking trash. French and Russian intelligence would have "no" reason to supply fodder as you call it. "If" you were talking about "just" US intell I "might" be inclined to believe that statement


I will start with the last remark. French and Russian Intelligence did not make an uneqvivocal case against Iraq on the WMD issue. In factg as we now know, Saddam had destroyed his WMD by 1994 and if the US and British secret service did not get wind of this, I am afraid that the lapse must be deliberate. In order to create a pretext for invasion. In the rest of the world there was by and large a consensus that Hussein had complied with the UN resolutions.

My point is that violence in Iraq is spreading at an exponential rate and the US as the occupying power must be responsible for the situation.

As far as Iran is concerned, I think you are making the same mistake as the US neocons who see everthing from the lens of religion. While the Iranains may be bigots, they are also nationalists and so the US must recognise this fact and frame policy accordingly.
on Jan 15, 2007
"This may be true. At least it's not completely innocent Iraqis, though. It's Muslim insurgents and terrorists who want a chance to die killing the Americans and Jews they hate beyond reason. Why? So they can get their 72 virgins. "


The average person killed IS a Muslim.

"Are we sure Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt didn't come up with this stuff?


You might want to consult some church history. Christianity has closets full of them who were as debauched as Hugh, and who did their share of murder to boot. Not counting our tradition of molesting little boys...

on Jan 15, 2007
Saddam had destroyed his WMD by 1994 and if the US and British secret service did not get wind of this, I am afraid that the lapse must be deliberate. In order to create a pretext for invasion.


In Saddams surrender document he stated what WMD he had by name and quantity. He also agreed to allow the UN to destroy those stockpiles. We are missing several hundred tons of material. It is still unaccounted for. The people on the projects have not accounted for the material and unless Saddam destroyed it all by himself while no one was watching we will continue to look for where that missing stock is.

I will start with the last remark. French and Russian Intelligence did not make an uneqvivocal case against Iraq on the WMD issue.


Both the French and the Russians admit to selling him prohibited items that have also gone missing. So either both lied to us to get us to attack for no reason or he had them and hid them.

My point is that violence in Iraq is spreading at an exponential rate and the US as the occupying power must be responsible for the situation.


This is not true and more people are dying in auto accidents here in the USA than over there. Only according to the nutjobs are we killing something like 10k a week. in a country of in thnk 11 million at that rate we wiped out 1.5 million people in three years where are all the bodies?

As far as Iran is concerned, I think you are making the same mistake as the US neocons who see everthing from the lens of religion. While the Iranains may be bigots, they are also nationalists and so the US must recognise this fact and frame policy accordingly.


The government does and that is why we have been in negotiations with them for this many years. We know the people don't like their government but can't do anything about it yet. If the people supported the government then we would have to invade.
on Jan 15, 2007
I will start with the last remark. French and Russian Intelligence did not make an unequivocal case against Iraq on the WMD issue. In fact as we now know, Saddam had destroyed his WMD by 1994 and if the US and British secret service did not get wind of this, I am afraid that the lapse must be deliberate. In order to create a pretext for invasion. In the rest of the world there was by and large a consensus that Hussein had complied with the UN resolutions.


Sorry but, "no" we have no proof that he destroyed them all. And No they were "not" in consensus check the link.

Link


As is well known, on the contrary, these are materials that are easy to transport and that are not even excessively cumbersome. That is exactly where the military apparatuses' and intelligence services' trick lies: namely, in making these devices invisible by constantly moving them around on tanker trucks that travel either under escort or being trailed at a distance.[13]

German intelligence reported that WMD laboratories are hidden in trucks that appear completely normal on the outside.[14


Or this"


But this is disingenuous. The intelligence services of everyone else were not proclaiming Iraq to be in possession of WMD. Rather, the intelligence services of France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and Israel were noting that Iraq had failed to properly account for the totality of its past proscribed weapons programs, and in doing so left open the possibility that Iraq might retain an undetermined amount of WMD. There is a huge difference in substance and nuance between such assessments and the hyped-up assertions by the Bush administration concerning active programs dedicated to the reconstitution of WMD, as well as the existence of massive stockpiles of forbidden weaponry


Link
on Jan 16, 2007
The problem with trying to disprove a negative is that it just cannot be done within the structure of the text> One has to go outside of it. This is also the case with thje WND and its destruction. How does anyone disprove a negative proposition and make a positive statement.
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6