Iran's gallows humor

"In pressing for Saddam’s execution, Iran appears to have reached over America’s head and graphically demonstrated that it is now the preeminent political force inside Iraq." Conflicts Forum

David Seaton's News Links
The grotesque hangings in Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his half brother are diplomatic and even strategic disasters for the United States. They demonstrate that the United States cannot control events to its benefit even where it has had its soldiers on the ground for several years. The bouncing head of Barzan al Tikriti sends a stronger message about American power in the Middle East than the arrival of yet another aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf. With their non-existent historical memory many Americans may not be picking up the message as clearly as the people in the Middle East do. The Iran/Iraq war that lasted from 1980 till 1988 and where a million human beings perished, has probably been forgotten by most Americans except Elliot Abrahms and Oliver North. It certainly hasn't been forgotten by the Iranians. I have just finished reading the chapters on the Iraq/Iran war in Robert Fisk's wonderful "Great War for Civilization, which should be required reading for anyone trying to understand today's headlines. Reading the book, it is obvious that as William Faulkner said, "the past isn't history, it isn't even past". The Iranians call that war, "The Imposed War" and in it they probably suffered more than any country has suffered since Russia in WWII. The United States supplied Saddam Hussein with poison gas and the permission to use it to keep Iran from winning a war they hadn't begun. There is then, quite a bit of poetic justice in Iran's winning this war in Iraq and in doing so humiliating the United States. If you find what I'm saying in any way exaggerated, I invite you to read Fisk's fine book. DS

Iraq: Beyond the Gallows - Conflicts Forum
Abstract: Many observers have assumed that Saddam Hussein’s execution was yet another Iraqi “milestone” timed to serve the needs of a struggling American president. Milestone it was, but indications now suggest that this was, on the contrary, a marker that Washington was desperate to forestall. And for good reason: in pressing for Saddam’s execution, Iran appears to have reached over America’s head and graphically demonstrated that it is now the preeminent political force inside Iraq. The Bush administration’s provocative posture towards Iran in recent days could thus say more about what has already happened than about what is yet to come. From the vantage point of the Oval Office, raising the specter of a military confrontation with Iran may in fact seem preferable to facing the greatest humiliation of all: the acknowledgment of an Iranian victory in Iraq. Yet it now appears that Saddam’s ignominious end was exactly that: victor’s justice — Iranian victor’s justice. It is a message from Iran to Iraq’s Sunnis that it is Iran, and not the U.S, that is now the dominant force in Iraq. Iran may have been diplomatic enough to call Saddam’s execution a “victory for the Iraqi people,” but the blunt message heard across the region is that Iran will not relent in asserting its title as the region’s leading power.(...) Another hint of Iran’s role in the execution comes from a recent BBC report, stating that the execution took place “at an especially constructed gallows at a compound that once served as the military intelligence headquarters of the former regime. This was the building where those accused of aiding Iraq’s former foe, Iran, were brought during the Sunni ascendancy.” The message for the Bush Administration should be clear: shifts in military strategy cannot undo the fact that the political struggle for Iraq has already been lost. READ IT ALL

Saint Saddam?

David Seaton's News Links

There are things that beggar belief. Any apologist of the Iraq war, when driven into a corner by the weight of his opponent's arguments, would finally retreat behind, "well, anyway, the Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein, aren't they?" The image of Saddam as a sanguinary, subhuman beast was central to the entire narrative. By dying in a manner straight out some Arab legend told around a Bedouin campfire, a lion among jackals, defiantly praising the Palestinians, his last words the Shahadah, Saddam was allowed to utterly destroy the American raison de guerre. Total incompetence or a move to deepen the split between Sunnis and Shiites leading up to an attack on Iran? Certainly for the neocons the main objective has always been Shiite Iran. However, it's difficult to see the drama of Saddam's hanging as a Zionist conspiracy; how could they know he would die so bravely? Finally, then, who is the loser in this war? Not Saddam Hussein. If death is defeat we are all losers... everybody has to die sooner or later... to enter into Arab folklore, to be sung and honored for generations, after doing almost everything you have ever wanted to do for most of your long life could certainly be considered victory. DS

Images of Hanging Make Hussein a Martyr to Many - New York Times

Abstract: In the week since Saddam Hussein was hanged in an execution steeped in sectarian overtones, his public image in the Arab world, formerly that of a convicted dictator, has undergone a resurgence of admiration and awe. On the streets, in newspapers and over the Internet, Mr. Hussein has emerged as a Sunni Arab hero who stood calm and composed as his Shiite executioners tormented and abused him.(...) in Beirut, hundreds of members of the Lebanese Baath Party and Palestinian activists marched Friday in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood behind a symbolic coffin representing that of Mr. Hussein and later offered a funeral prayer. Photographs of Mr. Hussein standing up in court, against a backdrop of the Dome of the Rock shrine in Jerusalem, were pasted on city walls near Palestinian refugee camps, praising “Saddam the martyr.” “God damn America and its spies,” a banner across one major Beirut thoroughfare read. “Our condolences to the nation for the assassination of Saddam, and victory to the Iraqi resistance.” By standing up to the United States and its client government in Baghdad and dying with seeming dignity, Mr. Hussein appears to have been virtually cleansed of his past. “Suddenly we forgot that he was a dictator and that he killed thousands of people,” said Roula Haddad, 33, a Lebanese Christian. “All our hatred for him suddenly turned into sympathy, sympathy with someone who was treated unjustly by an occupation force and its collaborators.”(...) “The Arab world has been devoid of pride for a long time,” said Ahmad Mazin al-Shugairi, who hosts a television show at the Middle East Broadcasting Center that promotes a moderate version of Islam in Saudi Arabia. “The way Saddam acted in court and just before he was executed, with dignity and no fear, struck a chord with Arabs who are desperate for their own leaders to have pride too.” Ayman Safadi, editor in chief of the independent Jordanian daily Al Ghad, said, “The last image for many was of Saddam taken out of a hole. That has all changed now.”(...) “He stood as strong as a mountain while he was being hanged,” said Ahmed el-Ghamrawi, a former Egyptian ambassador to Iraq. “He died a strong president and lived as a strong president. This is the image people are left with.” Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian media critic and director of the online radio station Ammannet.net, said: “If Saddam had media planners, he could not have planned it better than this. Nobody could ever have imagined that Saddam would have gone down with such dignity.” Writers and commentators have stopped short of eulogizing the dictator but have looked right past his bloody history as they compare Iraq’s present circumstances with Iraq under Mr. Hussein.(...) “Was it a coincidence that Israel, Iran and the United States all welcomed Saddam’s execution?” wrote Hamadeh Faraneh, a columnist for the daily Al Rai. “Was it also a coincidence when Saddam said bravely in front of his tormentors, ‘Long live the nation,’ and that Palestine is Arab, then uttered the declaration of faith? His last words expressed his depth and what he died for.”(...) Mr. Safadi, the Jordanian editor, said: “In the public’s perception Saddam was terrible, but those people were worse. That final act has really jeopardized the future of Iraq immensely. And we all know this is a blow to the moderate camp in the Arab world.” READ IT ALL

Bush an Iranian agent? - Slavoj Žižek - New York Times

David Seaton's News Links

One of the positive effects of the failure in Iraq is that many people have begun to ask questions. Once they begin to ask questions, it's hard to know where they'll stop. Probably without the Iraq fiasco, someone as original, fertile and playful as the Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Žižek, wouldn't get space in the New York Times. In these dismal days we must take our pleasures where we can. If you haven't read anything by Žižek before, here is your chance to begin the adventure. DS

Denying the Facts, Finding the Truth - New York Times Abstract: One of the pop heroes of the Iraq war was undoubtedly Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, the unfortunate Iraqi information minister who, in his daily press conferences during the invasion, heroically denied even the most evident facts and stuck to the Iraqi line.(...) Furthermore, sometimes, he even struck a strange truth — when confronted with claims that Americans were in control of parts of Baghdad, he snapped back: “They are not in control of anything — they don’t even control themselves!” What, exactly, do they not control? Back in 1979, in her essay “Dictatorship and Double Standards,” published in Commentary, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick elaborated the distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes. This concept served as the justification of the American policy of collaborating with right-wing dictators while treating Communist regimes much more harshly(...) Her point was that, while one can deal with authoritarian rulers who react rationally and predictably to material and military threats, totalitarian leaders are much more dangerous and have to be directly confronted. The irony is that this distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with the United States occupation of Iraq: Saddam Hussein was a corrupt authoritarian dictator striving to keep his hold on power and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations (which led him to collaborate with the United States in the 1980s).(...) One outcome of the American invasion is that it has generated a much more uncompromising “fundamentalist” politico-ideological constellation in Iraq. This has led to a predominance of the pro-Iranian political forces there — the intervention basically delivered Iraq to Iranian influence. One can imagine how, if President Bush were to be court-martialed by a Stalinist judge, he would be instantly condemned as an “Iranian agent.” The violent outbursts of the recent Bush politics are thus not exercises in power, but rather exercises in panic.(...) The problem with today’s America is not that it is a new global empire, but that it is not one. That is, while pretending to be an empire, it continues to act like a nation-state, ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as if the guiding vision of recent American politics is a weird reversal of the well-known motto of the ecologists — act globally, think locally.(...) And now the United States is continuing, through other means, this greatest crime of Saddam Hussein: his never-ending attempt to topple the Iranian government. This is the price you have to pay when the struggle against the enemies is the struggle against the evil ghosts in your own closet: you don’t even control yourself. READ IT ALL

The Neocons can't please anybody it seems

David Seaton's News Links
In Spain there is a description of ultra-Catholics as "mas papista que el Papa", "more papist than the Pope". You could say that America's right wing Jews are "more Zionist than the Israelis". Israel has to be experienced to be understood: you'll never find so many nuances in such a small space, anywhere. Certainly nothing there, where the blood is daily on the floor, is as simple as it might appear to the Perles, Foxmans, Krauthammers and Krystols, busy working out their damp fantasies of violence in the banal suburbs of the USA. DS
Israeli Experts Say Middle East Was Safer With Saddam in Iraq - The Forward
Abstract: Although few tears were shed in Israel over Saddam Hussein’s death last week, a small but growing chorus — including government officials, academics and Iraqi émigrés — is warning that Israel could find itself in more danger with him gone, and that it might even regret having welcomed his toppling. “If I knew then what I know today, I would not have recommended going to war, because Saddam was far less dangerous than I thought,” said Haifa University political scientist Amatzia Baram, one of Israel’s leading Iraq experts.(...) “Retrospectively, justice has been done,” Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh told Israel Radio this week. Still, he cautioned, Israel must now be concerned “about what is liable to happen in the future.” Saddam’s death, Sneh warned, could lead to “a reinforcement of Iranian influence in Iraq.” He said that Iraq had turned into a “volcano of terror” following the war, with “destructive energies” that could spill over into Jordan and Israel. Such misgivings, though rarely aired publicly for fear of offending Washington, reach high into Israel’s security establishment. Yuval Diskin, director of the Shin Bet security service, told a group of students in a military preparatory program last May that Israel might come to regret its support for the American-led invasion in March 2003. “When you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos,” Diskin said, unaware that the meeting was secretly recorded. “I’m not sure we won’t miss Saddam.” The tape was later broadcast on Israeli television.(...) “Saddam’s regime was preferable — not only for us but for all the states in the region, except for maybe the Iranians,” Barak said. “Saddam held together a divided, tribal, hostile state of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds. He was a single man who made all decisions, and he was a rational leader. The moment he was gone, everything fell apart.” READ IT ALL

Bush, the anti-Midas

David Seaton's News Links

Midas, mythical king of Phrygia was known for turning everything he touched into gold. George W. Bush seems to have the opposite faculty of turning everything he touches into "excrément" (that's French for shit). Bush and his Straussian friends, with their curious celebration of "manliness" have taken America's image of its own masculinity (think: Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart) and trashed it beyond recognition. For his latest trick Bush has managed to convert a genocidal dictator, Saddam Hussein, into the hero of a Hemingway short story; a lion surrounded by jackals. "Grace under pressure" was the Hemingway obsession. In the presence of death, pretense evaporates and what remains is truth. The truth is that Saddam died very well. Bush, poor fool, gave him that opportunity and Saddam had the chops to make the most of it. Are we permitted to doubt that Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney... and yes, even the boy emperor himself, would ever go to the gallows with such stoic dignity, would ever die so bravely and so well as Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti? DS
Hijacking Eid and Hanging Saddam - IraqSlogger
Abstract: Saddam's hanging at the hands of chubby Iraqi men wearing ski masks is likely to be perceived by many as an American execution and as part of a trend of American missteps contributing to sectarian tensions in Iraq and the region. The trial of Saddam was viewed by detractors as an event stage-managed by the Americans. According to Human Rights Watch, the Iraqi judges and lawyers involved in prosecuting Saddam were ill prepared and relied on their American advisers. American minders shut off the microphones and ordered the translators to halt whenever they disapproved of what was being said by the defendants. The important Muslim holiday of Eid al Adha was due to begin over the weekend. For Sunnis it began on Saturday the 30th of December. For Shias it begins on Sunday the 31st. According to tradition in Mecca, battles are suspended during the Hajj period so that pilgrims can safely march to Mecca. This practice even predated Islam and Muslims preserved this tradition, calling this period 'Al Ashur al Hurm,' or the months of truce. By hanging Saddam on the Sunni Eid the Americans and the Iraqi government were in effect saying that only the Shia Eid had legitimacy. Sunnis were irate that Shia traditions were given primacy (as they are more and more in Iraq these days) and that Shias disrespected the tradition and killed Saddam on this day. Because the Iraqi constitution itself prohibits executions from being carried out on Eid, the Iraqi government had to officially declare that Eid did not begin until Sunday the 31st. It was a striking decision, virtually declaring that Iraq is now a Shia state. Eid al Adha is the festival of the sacrifice of the sheep. Some may perceive it as the day Saddam was sacrificed.(...) One thing that is clear, is that the death of Saddam did not bring closure or peace to Iraq. Sunnis are now gathering at Saddam's grave, demonstrators are now showing his iconic image and revenge has been threatened. President George Bush declared his nemesis' death "a milestone" and it may just be the clearest message that is there will be no mercy for Sunnis in a Shia and Kurdish dominated Iraq. READ IT ALL (hat to Juan Cole)

Saddam Hussein: hanged - II

David Seaton's News Links
Here to end the year are some pungent comments from Niall Ferguson on the late Mr. Hussein and some of his former friends. DS

Abstract: In George W Bush he faced an antagonist very different in temper from the elder President Bush; a leader persuaded by his advisers that Saddam's overthrow was desirable in three ways: as retaliation for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (though Iraqi complicity was conspicuous by its absence); as pre-emption before Saddam acquired weapons of mass destruction (though the evidence for their existence was woefully thin); and as proof of the superiority of democracy over dictatorship (though history offered no evidence that democracy could be imposed at gunpoint in the Middle East). Saddam had been Bush-whacked once; to suffer the same fate twice was worse than carelessness. Rather than confess that his WMD programmes had been abandoned in the 1990s, he continued to bluff, apparently ruling out the possibility that Bush Jnr was hell-bent on invading Iraq, with or without UN backing.(...) Today, of course, we can look back and understand Saddam's miscalculation better. In Saddam's eyes, as in the eyes of Bush Snr, the lesson of history was that the alternative to Saddam was civil war, not democracy. The US had stopped short of regime change in 1991 and had cynically left the Shias and Kurds to face Saddam's wrath, having initially urged them to rise up in revolt. All that has happened since 2003 has vindicated those who argued that, without Saddam's iron fist, Iraq would disintegrate, not democratise. The dictator's nemesis proved to be a president so naive that he did not even know the difference between Sunni and Shia. In the same spirit, we may ask ourselves this New Year's Eve: who is the bigger criminal: he who tyrannises a people, or he who first bankrolls the tyrant — and then replaces his tyranny with anarchy. For Saddam's career would have taken a very different course had he not, at vital times, received support as well as opposition from the United States. He was given training by the CIA in Egypt following the abortive coup of 1959. Though Iraq appeared to be drifting into the Soviet orbit in the early 1970s, Saddam won favour in Washington for purging the Iraqi Communists. After 1979, he received copious quantities of arms and aid to prosecute his war of aggression against Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran. READ IT ALL

Saddam Hussein: hanged by the neck until dead

David Seaton's News Links

Juan Cole has a masterful piece about the hanging of Saddam Hussein in today's Salon, which contextualizes the execution from a very detailed and coherent Iraqi perspective. What is the American context? It seems to me, that as Juan points out, everything about the way Saddam was tried and executed is counterproductive to bringing peace and stability to Iraq. Therefore the rush to hang him appears to have had more to do with silencing Saddam than bringing him to "justice". Saddam and the USA go a long way back and during the Reagan administration, the relationship became especially intense. Certainly it is about time to examine the United State's policies in the Middle East ... (a fat understatement!) and a lengthy, detailed, "Milosevic in the Hague", type trial of Saddam Hussein, could have really peeled back the carpet under which many a creepy, crawly has been hiding all these years. So although he was hanged, in truth Saddam was metaphorically "gunned down from a moving car". A key witness has been silenced. DS

Jonah Goldberg wants a Pinochet for Iraq. Yecch.

David Seaton's News Links

Jonah Goldberg, syndicated neocon pundit, today recommends Augusto Pinochet for dictator of Iraq. Pinochet has only one outstanding qualification for the job: he is dead. Since the neocons, a vindictive, vengeful lot, were not received by the Iraqi people with "rice and sweets" as they expected, it has come to this. Pure hate. During Pinochet's reign of terror, many Chilean refugees came to Spain, I knew some and heard their stories. I find Goldberg's article too nauseating to quote, but I'll give you the (yechh) link. DS

A Modest Proposal: Bring Back Saddam - LAT

David Seaton's News Links

This article from the Los Angeles Times is a bit like Swift's "A Modest Proposal". Briefly, The author of "Gulliver's Travels" proposed that, since the Irish had so many children and so little to eat they should eat their children or sell them to be eaten. The question in Iraq always was, "did Iraq create Saddam or did Saddam create Iraq?". The answer now is obvious. DS

Abstract: The debate about Iraq has moved past the question of whether it was a mistake (everybody knows it was) to the more depressing question of whether it is possible to avert total disaster. Every self-respecting foreign policy analyst has his own plan for Iraq. The trouble is that these tracts are inevitably unconvincing, except when they argue why all the other plans would fail. It's all terribly grim. So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power. Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale.(...) Restoring the expectation of order in Iraq will take some kind of large-scale psychological shock. The Iraqi elections were expected to offer that shock, but they didn't. The return of Saddam Hussein — a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear — would do the trick. The disadvantages of reinstalling Hussein are obvious, but consider some of the upside. He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, which is the United States' major regional enemy, a sponsor of terrorism and an instigator of warfare between Lebanon and Israel. Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war, in large part because he apparently believed that he could defeat any U.S. invasion if it came to that. Now he knows he can't. And he'd probably be amenable because his alternative is death by hanging. I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others. READ IT ALL