No one’s presenting Saddam as a ‘good guy’ nor nominating him for a Nobel, but the brutal reality of the situation is that endemic ethnic tensions make the country close to ungovernable (something the American’s are now learning for themselves). As such it inevitably invited an ‘iron fist’ approach and with it, all the associated evil actions. Saddam himself often invoked Stalin as his ideological mentor ahead of any spiritual guide. But it’s not as if he had a monopoly on the concept of brutal dictatorship and human rights abuses. Western governments don’t seem to have been troubled by appeasing similar regimes or turning a blind eye (including Saddam) when it was expedient to do so.
I feel there is little prospect of him facing anything related to Kuwait or the Iran/ Iraq war. That would constitute a war crimes trial and give him the platform of The Hague which as Milosevic proved, is both protracted in process, and a potential own goal if giving the accused sufficient oxygen to grandstand. Such show trials can of course lead to some embarrassing disclosures too. Where did you get these weapons from? Who encouraged you to invade Iran and materially supported you? What exactly did you talk to that nice Mr Rumsfeld about in 1983? Indeed it was on one of the live Presidential debates when a surprisingly well briefed and surgical Ross Perot of all people helped Clinton win the 1992 election when tackling GH Bush on the subject of just how Saddam turned up in Kuwait City. What should have been a strong suit for the President was turned on its head, and he looked positively culpable by the end. It appears that it came down to ambiguous communications losing something in translation, and then being interpreted differently by both sides. This followed an infamous exchange that occurred between Baghdad and US Ambassador April Glaspie. Saddam duly believed he’d been given the tacit green light approval, he did after all have something approaching a legitimate claim to the annexed 19th province of Iraq that is modern day Kuwait. The Americans have never really been convincing on this subject, and much of it has been buried. Glaspie failed to inform Saddam as to what the US position would be, when he communicated his intent, and Saddam duly heard (or in this case didn’t hear) what he wanted to thus, the rest as they say is history.
I’m not sure that the issue about the supply of weapons as fermenting a civil war is really that relevant in context. The country is seemingly awash with them already after all. Weapons themselves don’t kill. They are little more than inanimate pieces of metal. However, there are tens of thousands of Medina Division Republican Guard, as well as other Rep Guard regiments, on top of swathes of former regular army, Secret Policemen, Ba’athist officials, and recent AQ and Islamist recruits who’ve melted into civilian life, presumably walking off the battlefield, and taking their weapons and training with them into the erstwhile camouflage of normal life. Now they might not possess the hi-tech hardware of the allies, but they have demonstrated their capacity through their ability to set up IED’s etc. The AK47 is a particularly robust, reliable and low maintenance weapon (even if it relies on specific ammunition) and is widely available. Tanks and aircraft are of limited comparative effectiveness in urban warfare without resorting to Fullujah style levelling. Even then, urban warfare history has taught us that it’s easier to defend rubble than it is buildings. Any lightly armed, but well trained and motivated resistance will still be capable of presenting a quite formidable opposition. Good enough to beat the fledgling Iraqi government? Quite possibly. In other words the ingredients for Civil War are there already and deeply rooted, I’m not sure that supply of the means of prosecuting one is any longer relevant, as it appears to be a given already.
The decision to hang Saddam, I’d have thought only brings this prospect nearer, which taken to its logical extreme conclusion, begets full scale civil war (if indeed that hasn’t already come to pass in everything but official recognition?). This in turn brings us to the almost inevitable business of partition, and all the associated difficulties and pain that will need to be negotiated along the way. Now it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that a quasi ‘organic partitioning’ might occur anyway, as displaced people start gravitating to ‘their part of the country’. It certainly doesn’t require a giant leap of imagination to foresee a major refugee crisis, which if a weakened Iraqi government can’t resolve, could yet bring Syria and Iran into the fray to support their respective ethnic loyalties and to stem the flow of people over their own borders (provided the exodus is kept within the country and region of course – which it almost certainly won’t be). Given this scenario, it will be even less likely that the western allies will be able to affect a withdrawal, tying up valuable resources in the process, whilst the body bags mount.
The other answer of course as suggested elsewhere on the thread, is to arm and train a preferred side as America did in Bosnia despite an embargo being in place that they conveniently decided to not observe. Ironically in some respects, they chose to arm the Muslims who launched two offensives, the second of which came very close to succeeding. Stirred by this of course and recognising that eventually the opposition would grow stronger and stronger, the Serbs under Mladic indulged in a pre-emptive action (to use a Bushist politically corrective phrase) which ended at Srbrenica and the dear old Dutch carrying the can for failing to police the situation. History has a habit of repeating itself I fear?
The weapons, the personnel, and fault lines exist therefore to feed a full scale civil war, I fail to see why we would want to risk providing the catalyst for sparking it, when there seems no tactical, or economic incentive to do so, other than satisfying some concept of blood lust and revenge.
In a strange way I can see parallels again with the ANC and ZANU PF. One side went down the reconciliation route when they might very well have been tempted and even justified in seeking out revenge, the other didn’t. Today one country is going forward albeit with growing pains, the other is going backwards, quickly, and must be grateful that it doesn’t have oil reserves, otherwise I’m sure Abrams tanks would be rolling down Harare High Street.
Any discussion on this subject will always bring us around to the notion of Saddam as a martyr, hence my asking whether he’s more dangerous dead than alive?. He’s undoubtedly revered within a constituency of Iraq, but his appeal outside of this group is less obvious I’d have thought, although this sense of reverence might be enough on its own?.
As Kriz has mentioned his apparent born again conversion to Islam was little more than a cynical ploy to whip up Arab nationalism and reinvent himself as a latter day Nassar. It’s no coincidence that verses from the Koran appeared on the national flag shortly before the first Gulf war, and he suddenly became very happy to have himself filmed at prayer. I suspect that most Moslems can recognise this, and as such wrapping himself in religious martyrdom sits uncomfortably with his track record. He was lets not forget deeply troubled by the rise of radical Islam as he rightly saw it a threat to this own hegemony and duly stamped on radical preachers such as Sadr (alright he killed them) and similarly squashed any groups threatening to mobilise around radical religion. The United States was of course a principal cheerleader in these actions, as they had their eyes on Iran and thus welcomed his decision to go to war, with the view to trying to depose the regime Tehran. On the face of it, he was one of the few natural allies in the region the West had, however unpalatable his regime was, which makes the decision to single him out in the name of a war on terror all the more perplexing.
A secular state, no WMD, and no foundation or history in radical Islam? He’s a threat, depose him.
This brings me to the notion of the threat he poses now. I’d broadly call him an omni present spectre that is essentially reduced to the level of a gelded spectator. I feel it’s going to be difficult for him to assume the mantle of a ‘generic’ religious martyr on the scale they do in Palestine, where faces of suicide bombers are plastered on walls all over places like Gaza City, and the route appears to be a short cut to instant celebrity. Indeed residents can recite their names and stories like a western child can footballers, it’s really strange to the uninitiated. Saddam is after all too closely associated with the Sunni cause, and too readily identified with them to have broader appeal I suspect on this scale. I can however see him morphing into a nationalist martyr, and lets not forget that whilst we focus on religion, the concept of patriotic nationalist sacrifice is also a very powerful and emotive subject, capable of mobilising opinion and stirring people to action.
In conclusion I’m tempted to say that alive, he’s no threat today, especially if imprisoned and isolated. (Guantanomo surrounded by radical Islamists? He’d love it). Dead however? We just don’t know.
It doesn’t require a significant leap in imagination to foresee a popular myth enveloping him that serves as a rallying focus for a minority grouping, but none the less a significant minority. People’s memories play tricks on them over time, and if full blown Civil War is indeed the consequence of Saddam’s execution then it can only be viewed as having been unnecessary and as having come at too high a cost. It would make the already tenuous operation of withdrawal even more perilous, and threaten to bog us down in Iraq indefinitely, with no obvious exit strategy.
My own view would be that plugging into Saddam’s latent influence would offer us the smart option. I really can’t see what tangible benefit there is to be gained from prosecuting the process through to the final solution, and the risks in doing so, imho appears to outweigh the perceived reward. For a country well soaked in the concept of plea bargaining, I’d have thought the Americans must be able to appreciate that Saddam is something of a hostage to his fate now. I’d have thought it at least worth exploring the avenues offered through sparring him from the noose, in return for his co-operation in backing off some of his followers? And in one of those perverse ironies, it’s not beyond the realms of the bizarre, that he might even emerge as a quasi peace broker of sorts. I’m guessing a bit here, but most bullies don’t look quite so hard and intimidating when cornered. Saddam, might prove no different, when faced with the prospect of his own death? He is after all not necessarily ‘a believer’ and hence the idea that he’s going to a glorious future if hanged, he probably doesn’t find terribly convincing. Remember he swore never to be taken alive, yet when he was captured, self-preservation and his instinct for survival seemed to miraculously kick in. I wouldn’t have thought it beyond the realms of possibility that he’ll compromise any position and alleged principal in order to stay alive? And in doing so he might even have a contribution to make? Although it sounds like stating the obvious, (indeed it is) but you can only kill someone once!!! The option would always remain with a suspended sentence hanging over him, it would seem prudent therefore to explore the options open to you in keeping him alive and imprisoned, as well as conducting a serious risk analysis before deciding to satisfy a lust for revenge I’d suggest?
