> Brian Siano wrote:
>
>> Let's look at this carefully. Mr. Ali begins by saying that he's
>> disgusted that Saddam couldn't "die honorably," and that this would
>> have been "the one decent thing he could have done for his country."
>> Come on. I'm _glad_ he didn't take that opportunity. It is far
>> _better_ that he be brought to trial, that he stand and be held
>> accountable for his crimes (and maybe implicate those who helped
>> him), and that he _not_ have the chance to make one final escape.
>
> And what kind of trial is he likely to get from the gang who have him
> in custody? Will there be testimony on his 30-yr relationship with the
> U.S. - the lists of communists to be killed, supplied by the CIA, or
> the years of support during the barbaric Iran-Iraq war?
Well, we won't know that until it happens. Obviously, we _hope_ that the whole sordid story of Saddam Hussein gets retold at the trial. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam decided to testify to as much complicity with the U.S. as he could possibly remember, or even imagine: it's certainly possible that he might even _make stuff up_ for the sake of one last volley at the Bushes. (That's when one looks to corroborating evidence in a trial.)
As I've said, letting the U.S. try him would be the least desirable situation: I'd much prefer an international court, if possible, or a trial under the new Iraqi government. But one could also argue that neither of _those_ would amount to a fair trial, either. An Iraqi trial, one might argue, would be motivated by desires for revenge and spectacle (and the Iraqis would have far more reason to do this than the U.S.). I don't think that's likely-- but the claim that Saddam wouldn't get a fair trial would have greater justification if applied to the Iraqis.
> As for "the responsibility of the Iraqi people," we could be really
> uncharitable to Tariq Ali-- and read this as a _condemnation_ of the
> Iraqi People. After all, they failed to live up to this
> "responsibility" for thirty-five years. Mr. Ali seems to forget that a
> dictatorship _deprives_ its subjects of political responsibilities. In
> fact, dictators tend to _murder_ those who even _try_ to shoulder it.
>
> People can never throw off dictators on their own? They need the
> intervention of foreign superpowers, esp foreign superpowers that long
> supported those dictators who also lust for your resources?
Not as a general pri ciple, no. Other countries, for other reasons, found other methods: Chile took about twenty years to diminish Pinochet's power without military intervention. The Khmer Rouge was deposed from power by an invasion from Vietnam. The Somozas were removed through a guerrilla war. And for obvious reasons, the latter was accomplished not only without the help of the U.S., but actually _against_ the U.S.'s efforts.
But in the case of Iraq, look at the facts. Saddam was in power for more than thirty years. Even when his regime was crumbling, when it was at war with Iran, when it was under retreat during the Gulf War, the Iraqi people couldn't overthrow him. The Kurds had the horrific misfortune to follow the U.S.'s urging to rebel against his rule... but without serious U.S. support, they failed. The U.S. invades Iraq... and within a month, the Baathist regime is in tatters, and Saddam's vanished.
This doesn't mean that some _other_ method wouldn't have worked. Perhaps a truly internationalist intervention could have succeeded. Perhaps a concentrated and sustained support of an anti-Saddam resistance would have worked. Perhaps there's something we haven't thought of.
But to state that the Iraqis had the responsibility of getting rid of Saddam strikes me as a rhetorical flourish, believable only if one shuts down one's sympathy with Iraq. Maybe they _couldn't_ get rid of him. Maybe the Saddam regime _was_ horrific enough to demoralize most of the opposition. Maybe his regime of terror _was_ extensive enough to keep any resistance movement small, marginal, terrorized, and generally ineffective. And the U.S. is certainly complicit in creating this monster-- so one could argue that the U.S. has the responsibility of removing him from power.
I know Tariq Ali has a long record of support for the Iraqi resistance, and he does _not_ hold the Iraqis at fault for the horrors of the Saddam regime... but here, he let his dislike of the invasion guide him into an astoundingly stupid comment.
> And once again, we get the hysterical fretting about the footage of
> Saddam's capture. Parading a captured prisoner (well, showing tapes of
> him having his beard combed for lice) is both the "new model of
> imperialism" as well as the pomp and circumstance of ancient Rome. So,
> Mr. Ali, how is this then a "new" model of imperialism? Sounds to me
> as though it's the same story as always-- with the adjustment that
> Saddam will actually have a _trial_. (It's also important to note that
> showing Saddam off makes a degree of sense-- to show Iraqis that the
> man is no longer the arbiter of their fates, the terror of their
> lives, or the murderer of their families.)
>
> Doesn't it violate the Geneva convention to show POWs in humiliating
> poses? You share the Bush admin's idea that international law is only
> for pussies?
You're only asking, right?
No. I don't share that idea at all. I'm pointing out that Ali is being silly when he tries to call this a "new" model, when the actions taken are pretty much the same old methods.
And I think there is a difference between showing POWs in humiliating situations, and displaying the capture of the head of state in a war. Showing POWs is done for lots of repulsive reasons. There's the lynching spectacle that Wojtek's been discussing. There's the propaganda of terror, i.e., showing people horrible fates that await them, and what badasses the other side's men are.
But this is very different. For one thing, it's necessary to show Saddam's capture, if only to help convince Iraqis that he has, in fact, been captured. This is a man who'd terrorized their lives for three decades, after all, and since one of the goals of the invasion was to place him under custody, it was important to demonstrate that this had been finally accomplished. Also, given that occasional tapes and videos of Saddam had been released after the invasion, with variable provenance, it makes even more sense to show Saddam in custody. What's the alternative? Merely report that he'd been captured, without video proof?
And given that, it's not easy to _avoid_ some degree of humiliation in this situation. Imagine that they'd dressed Saddam up in a suit and tie, or showed him sitting in a comfortable chair happily chatting with his interrogators. People would _still_ complain about it-- they's say it was staged, that it showed how Bush was gonna go easy on him, that it was faked, or whatever.
As far as "humiliating" Saddam goes, his treatment's been extremely mild. As far as any of us can tell, he hasn't been worked over by thugs, he hasn't been beaten with lead pipes, he hasn't had his head shaved or been forced to wear women's clothing. (His actual appearance was, as far as we know, his responsibility.) Frankly, being photographed getting a checkup just isn't in the same ballpark as, say, displaying a starved POW and forcing him to denounce his country's atrocities, or holding a razor to a journalist's neck and forcing him to "admit" he's Jewish before beheading him. I'm not saying that these are things that should be done to Saddam-- as we all know, I want him put on trial-- but I'm amazed that people are getting so worked up over his post-capture treatment.