> One vicious dictator was
> taken out by another repressive force. What does it
> mean when the main actors on the stage are dictators,
> imperialists cum "liberators" and religious fanatics?
> What a set to choose from and indeed we should not
> choose from that set.
> -Thomas
I'm in complete agreement with you, Thomas, and I think I've made many of the above points several times on this list. It's a fixed game: The major imperial power gets to use dictators for geopolitical purposes until said dictator is no longer useful (or goes his own way). Once that happens, the PR machine goes into full effect, highlighting all the gruesome aspects of said dictator's rule, how he is a Menace to Civilization, and so on, points that were never made, indeed were brushed aside, when said dictator was playing along. And the American public, which is largely ignorant of geopolitcal realities, eventually buys into the PR, which is effective not only because it is repeated endlessly in every available outlet, but because there is truth to the PR. Saddam was a dictator and ruled through terror. True. But for the PR to work, and the imperial policy to continue, this truth must be yanked from historical context and made to stand alone. That's why Saddam got the "unique" tag, as if he invented torture and was one of the few people to slaughter innocents. Win/Win for the Home Team.
This past weekend when I picked up my XMas tree with the kids, the farmers from upstate who bring the trees down were abuzz about Saddam's capture. One guy, leaning against a trailer, camo cap tilted back, went on about how we should put Saddam in a cage and poke him with sticks. His buddies guffawed over that one, and I wanted to ask them, but obviously didn't, what stake they had in Saddam's crimes, and how much do they think about the Shias and Kurds, among Saddam's other victims. I'm sure they wouldn't know what the fuck I was talking about, but it was clear that they picked up enough cues to say what Good Americans are supposed to say.
DP