Daniel Davies wrote:
>
>
> One can oppose Saddam, denounce him and hope he soon falls also,
Discussion of Iraq has been carried out, for the most part, on a simplistic level that would never be tolerated by most in any discussion of the United States (or even any discussion of England in 19th century India or of pre-civil war united states).
Let's see if we can complicate it a bit.
1. Saddam is a brutal tyrant. True. Probably he very early in his regime tortured to death most Iraqi who shared or could be accused of sharing anything like my own politics, for example.
1a. There are (say) 50 similar regimes scattered around the world, most of them clsoe friends of the U.S. (or at least tolerated by the U.S.
1b. Saddam's brutal extinction of opposition (real or imagined) in Iraq was for the most part carried out with the aid and encouragement of the United States. So in almost everyone of Saddam's crimes the u.s. government has been an equal co-conspirator at least. It is bad faith to make this accusation against Sadaam without including Carter, Reagan, & Bush in the indictment. (In fact, were there an international court with the necessary power, the prosecuting attorney in these crimes would undoubtedly take Sadaam as a state's witness and grant him immunity as a lesser criminal than his masters in Washington.)
2. Sadaam has carried out an aggressive foreign policy. There are two (or if one includes his repression of the Kurds, three) 'counts' in this indictment: a. Iran and b. Kuwait.
a. Iran. There again Sadaam's bloody war against Iran could never have been carried out without U.S. permission (even encouragement) and assistance (the latter in particular providing him with his chemical weapons). Sadaam is guilty, in the way Eichmann was guilty in the holocaust. The U.S. was guilty in the way that Hitler was guilty in the holocaust.
b. Kuwait. Kuwait was merely an outpost of the west established early in the 20th century for the specific purpose of maintaining hegemony over Iraq. Suppose France, England, & Spain had joined in making the area from New York to Baltimore an independent nation, totally suboridinate to those powers, in 1784. Surely the U.S. would have been justified in reoccupying that territory at the earliest moment in which it was militarily capable of doing so. Iraq was similarly justified in incorporating Kuwait, and the incorporation of Kuwait into Iraq must be a part of any eventual general settlement in the mideast. (And of course, the government of Kuwait is equally brutal to Sadaam's regime, _and_ inferior in its general social and economic policies.)
3. In reference to all other aspects (not covered in 2 & 3), Iraq is certainly, in its treatment of its general population, superior or equal to any nation outside the imperialist core (in such matters as public health, household income, social position of women, etc. etc. etc.) See the letters column in the current issue of _Harpers_.
Carrol