in what way? how was Saddam not "home grown"? other than Husseins power being maintained by support of the U.S. after he came to power. is that what you are talking about? Hussiens rise to power within Iraq is from what i've read similar to Stalin's, in fact in an interview with Said K. Aburish (sp?) he gives a fairly detailed account and states that Hussein in fact did idolize Stalin as a hero, he even had pictures of Stalin in his office when he working in the regime that preceded his.
would Hussein have been able to hold power in Iraq without u.s support? ...from what i've read Hussein was able to fully industrialize Iraq by playing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R against each other both bidding and shipping arms to iraq competing for a client state etc. ....anyway that's SKAs account and he worked closely with Hussein even before his rise to power......BUT..who knows, his statements about hussein to the media could have been some part of an asylum deal with the feds, CIA etc. where he get's a nice paycheck and no trouble if he doesn't bring up certain details about the U.S. relationship with Hussein prior to his takeover. on the other hand SKA pretty much blames the U.S. for starting/provoking the gulf war by getting Kuwait to flood the oil market to lower oil prices costing Iraq billions since they had nationalized the oil industry.....i trust his account mostly
as far as fascism, Hussein is about as fascist as Stalin was. Hussien wasn't backed by Iraqi finance capital because there wasn't much capital to finance anything. that was the agenda of the regime Hussein was part of before he came to power was to industrialize Iraq. He did that mostly by nationalizing a majority of Iraqi industry, mostly oil...which a dead on fascist would balk at.... the fascist way of financing industry is the current american way infact that was the main reason anti-semitism was so successful in nazi germany because it provided slave labor to private owned industry. private capital generally doesn't finance lunatics if it doesn't profit from it (obviously) just like private capital withdrew support for JFK when he wanted to escalate the vietnam war that was becoming too costly to private industry (trouble at home etc.)
What do we learn about fascism or quasi-fascism from this? that it's going to take the form dictated by the structure and factors of that society in which it is operating. so the question really isn't how a state or society fits into a the criteria of fascism but more the other way around. It's also not a matter of a 'new fascism", "neo nazism" it's a matter of the motives behind it are always there it's just a matter of what they can get away with and be successful, trial and error, an ongoing social experiment on society by wealth and power.
~M.E.