We Were Better Off With Saddam
The Democrats and the main stream media are too cautious to say it as matter-of-factly as this, but here is the truth: The world was safer with Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. The world was better off. Yes, he killed his own people and he had torture chambers and rape rooms as we've heard about countless times - though nowadays you have to assume that all these charges have been exaggerated like all of our other intelligence and rhetoric about Iraq. But even so, it is still an undeniable fact that Iraq was not a good country to live in for most of its people, and especially not so for anyone who saw the inside of one of these rape rooms or torture chambers. However, with that said, for the rest of the world Iraq was a better place with Saddam Hussein in power.
With Saddam in power there was practically no al Qaeda presence in Iraq. With Saddam in power there was very little chance of a civil war breaking out. With Saddam in power Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies. With Saddam in power Iraqis did not like their leader and therefore were not influenced by his hateful rhetoric towards the United States. Had Saddam stayed in power the world would have never heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. With Saddam in power there would be more than 2,100 American soldiers still alive and another 15,000 wounded soldiers that would be whole again and could help fight in the real war on terror. With Saddam in power the Iraqi oil fields would be protected from sabotage and would be producing at maximum output. With Saddam in power America might have better used our resources and have found Osama Bin Laden by now which would have greatly added to the safety and security of the world.
And finally, with Saddam Hussein in power America and our allies would still have had a chance at a transition from a brutal dictatorship in Iraq to something that loosely resembles a democracy, which is the best thing we could hope for today, but which doesn’t look likely at this point. Saddam was and is an old man. He would have died eventually. Worst case scenario is that we could've contained him for however long he had left, be it 10 or 20 years, and then at the time of his death we would have had our chance to achieve a more democratic Iraq. At the least we would have given ourselves a better chance at this goal than we gave ourselves through a confused and bungled invasion.
Saddam ruled with an iron fist; but he was a strong, smart, and practical brutal dictator. Evil though he may be, to remain in power for almost 25 years you have to have some sanity and intelligence. His sons Uday and Qusay, who we feared would succeed him, were brutal to a point of insanity and that is why there had already been attempts on their lives from within the ranks of the Iraqi government. They did not appear strong and capable of holding onto power for any sustained period of time.
This would've been America's chance to try to accomplish what we wanted to do from the beginning with this invasion - help influence a new Iraqi government that would be more stable and friendlier towards the United States. If it was a loosely held together version of democracy then we would have been thrilled with that. If it was a friendlier dictator than Saddam, then we would accept that the same way we accept the Saudi Royal Family, “President” Musharraf in Pakistan, or “President” Mubarak in Egypt.
That is the world that could’ve been had we not invaded Iraq. That is a better future than we are faced with today. It is an alternate universe where America is not as vehemently hated throughout the Arab world and not mistrusted and looked down upon by the rest of the world. The price to pay for this alternate universe is that there would’ve been many more women in Iraq that were raped by government officials, and there would’ve been more innocent Iraqi citizens killed and tortured including those poor Iraqi Olympic athletes we heard about who did nothing wrong except come home without a medal. But, since when do Americans care about paying a small price in other people’s pain and suffering in order for us to achieve our ends?
In the current universe we inhabit there have been estimates of more than 115,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the war began, and there have been innocent men tortured by Americans, all for the greater good of a stable Iraq. Those who support this war do not lose sleep over these incidents. It’s a necessary price to pay for a better future for all of us they would say. But, this price being paid has not and will not give us a better future. We could’ve had a chance at that better future by not invading Iraq. Some other Iraqis would’ve suffered for this instead, but why not let that have been the price to pay for the greater good of maintaining world stability, which we would have done by letting Saddam remain in power - even until his eventual death if need be; or until we found another way to remove him that didn’t include invasion and occupation.
Recently the debate about the Iraq War has more focused on what our next step should be – what is our exit strategy? The focus on whether or not we were better off with Saddam in power does not answer this question because reinstalling Saddam is not a viable option. However, recognizing our mistakes is important in order to come up with a solution. Many Republicans try to trap and intimidate the Democrats with questions and/or statements about how the world is better off with Saddam behind bars. The Democrats can’t seem to find the proper answer to this tactic because Saddam was such an evil person that nobody wants to defend him or the notion that we were better off with his rape rooms and torture chambers open for business. But, they need to arm themselves with the facts and with the solid logic behind the idea that we were better off with him in power. Say it proudly and say it with conviction and support it with the common sense logic which should make any rationale person realize that of course we were better off with Saddam in power.
The reason it is still important to have this debate is because the Democrats need to get over this hurdle that the Republicans keep trying to block them with. The Democrats need to get beyond this and defeat the Republicans in this debate before they can move forward and come up with some realistic strategies for handling the Iraq debacle. As it stands now we can’t move forward and find a solution until we agree on what the starting point of the conversation should be. And, it starts with people understanding that the war was a mistake, that we were better off with Saddam in power; and that any neo con who states the opposite has revealed poor judgment to be an obvious character trait of theirs. Then everybody else can get on the same page, acknowledge and learn from past mistakes, and work together at coming up with realistic solutions. Until that happens, the quagmire will persist.
With Saddam in power there was practically no al Qaeda presence in Iraq. With Saddam in power there was very little chance of a civil war breaking out. With Saddam in power Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies. With Saddam in power Iraqis did not like their leader and therefore were not influenced by his hateful rhetoric towards the United States. Had Saddam stayed in power the world would have never heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. With Saddam in power there would be more than 2,100 American soldiers still alive and another 15,000 wounded soldiers that would be whole again and could help fight in the real war on terror. With Saddam in power the Iraqi oil fields would be protected from sabotage and would be producing at maximum output. With Saddam in power America might have better used our resources and have found Osama Bin Laden by now which would have greatly added to the safety and security of the world.
And finally, with Saddam Hussein in power America and our allies would still have had a chance at a transition from a brutal dictatorship in Iraq to something that loosely resembles a democracy, which is the best thing we could hope for today, but which doesn’t look likely at this point. Saddam was and is an old man. He would have died eventually. Worst case scenario is that we could've contained him for however long he had left, be it 10 or 20 years, and then at the time of his death we would have had our chance to achieve a more democratic Iraq. At the least we would have given ourselves a better chance at this goal than we gave ourselves through a confused and bungled invasion.
Saddam ruled with an iron fist; but he was a strong, smart, and practical brutal dictator. Evil though he may be, to remain in power for almost 25 years you have to have some sanity and intelligence. His sons Uday and Qusay, who we feared would succeed him, were brutal to a point of insanity and that is why there had already been attempts on their lives from within the ranks of the Iraqi government. They did not appear strong and capable of holding onto power for any sustained period of time.
This would've been America's chance to try to accomplish what we wanted to do from the beginning with this invasion - help influence a new Iraqi government that would be more stable and friendlier towards the United States. If it was a loosely held together version of democracy then we would have been thrilled with that. If it was a friendlier dictator than Saddam, then we would accept that the same way we accept the Saudi Royal Family, “President” Musharraf in Pakistan, or “President” Mubarak in Egypt.
That is the world that could’ve been had we not invaded Iraq. That is a better future than we are faced with today. It is an alternate universe where America is not as vehemently hated throughout the Arab world and not mistrusted and looked down upon by the rest of the world. The price to pay for this alternate universe is that there would’ve been many more women in Iraq that were raped by government officials, and there would’ve been more innocent Iraqi citizens killed and tortured including those poor Iraqi Olympic athletes we heard about who did nothing wrong except come home without a medal. But, since when do Americans care about paying a small price in other people’s pain and suffering in order for us to achieve our ends?
In the current universe we inhabit there have been estimates of more than 115,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the war began, and there have been innocent men tortured by Americans, all for the greater good of a stable Iraq. Those who support this war do not lose sleep over these incidents. It’s a necessary price to pay for a better future for all of us they would say. But, this price being paid has not and will not give us a better future. We could’ve had a chance at that better future by not invading Iraq. Some other Iraqis would’ve suffered for this instead, but why not let that have been the price to pay for the greater good of maintaining world stability, which we would have done by letting Saddam remain in power - even until his eventual death if need be; or until we found another way to remove him that didn’t include invasion and occupation.
Recently the debate about the Iraq War has more focused on what our next step should be – what is our exit strategy? The focus on whether or not we were better off with Saddam in power does not answer this question because reinstalling Saddam is not a viable option. However, recognizing our mistakes is important in order to come up with a solution. Many Republicans try to trap and intimidate the Democrats with questions and/or statements about how the world is better off with Saddam behind bars. The Democrats can’t seem to find the proper answer to this tactic because Saddam was such an evil person that nobody wants to defend him or the notion that we were better off with his rape rooms and torture chambers open for business. But, they need to arm themselves with the facts and with the solid logic behind the idea that we were better off with him in power. Say it proudly and say it with conviction and support it with the common sense logic which should make any rationale person realize that of course we were better off with Saddam in power.
The reason it is still important to have this debate is because the Democrats need to get over this hurdle that the Republicans keep trying to block them with. The Democrats need to get beyond this and defeat the Republicans in this debate before they can move forward and come up with some realistic strategies for handling the Iraq debacle. As it stands now we can’t move forward and find a solution until we agree on what the starting point of the conversation should be. And, it starts with people understanding that the war was a mistake, that we were better off with Saddam in power; and that any neo con who states the opposite has revealed poor judgment to be an obvious character trait of theirs. Then everybody else can get on the same page, acknowledge and learn from past mistakes, and work together at coming up with realistic solutions. Until that happens, the quagmire will persist.
posted by The Animal | 5:22 PM
2 Comments:
we pull out of iraq..., to the sidelines and let them have their civil war. let them settle it their own way..., we just make sure the fight is fair and keep other countries out. hell, we had a civil war and killed each other, let all the groups in iraq fight it out, and to the victor goes the spoils. and give em all dodge freestars.
Good article, but we could put Saddam back in power. Why not? He was the only one who could control that hell hole. Dean is right, we are not going to win this thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home