Ten Year Commemoration of the Death of Saddam Hussein

I wanted to do this on the 30th of December to commemorate the decade since the murder of Saddam Hussein; better late than never.

Everything went to hell for the Arabs starting with the imperialist invasion of Iraq; with his death begun what will be remembered as a dark age in Arab history. These days it can hardly be argued otherwise.

Thus in memory of the millions of Arab souls taken, destroyed or immiserated since, I would like to recite an Islamic prayer in honour of an Arab idol, hero and martyr:

Saddam Hussein

- Last True President of Iraq
- Secretary of the Iraqi Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party
- Protector of the Ancient Historic City of Babylon
- Secular Defender of Iraqi Minorities
- Martyred Muslim Imam
- Slayer of Islamism



Al-Fatiha - سُّورَةُ الفَاتِحَة

In God do I seek shelter from Satan, the rejected son of perdition.

In the name of God, most Gracious, most Merciful. بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمـَنِ الرَّحِيمِ

Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds - الْحَمْدُ للّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

The most Compassionate, most Benevolent, الرَّحْمـنِ الرَّحِيمِ

Ruler on the Day of Judgement. مَـالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ

Thee alone do we worship and in thee alone do we seek blessings. إِيَّاك نَعْبُدُ وإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ

Guide us along the path of righteousness - اهدِنَــــا الصِّرَاطَ المُستَقِيمَ

The path of those who have received your grace;
not of the wrathful, nor of those who have wandered astray. صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِمْ غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّينَ

Yeah tell that to all the people murdered and tortured under his rule.

He was a brutal dictator and not a revolutionary. Just because what came after him in Iraq was/is awful doesn't make him someone who needs to be glorified.

I'd like to take a kind of middle ground position here. Saddam was no angel, a vicious sob in dealing with dissent (including from communists) and even an aggressor in the case of the wars of the 1980s and early 1990s. But if anything I think that in the last decade and a half his absence has demonstrated just how difficult it is running a country like Iraq. As Yeqon said, literally millions of people have been killed or wounded, their lives immiserated and destroyed since his overthrow, and not just in Iraq, but across the Middle East, and in Europe too (think of the ISIS-inspired terror attacks, for instance, or the migrant crisis tearing many Europeans' lives apart).

I think there is no doubt probably in anyone's mind that the invasion of Iraq was and remains the biggest geopolitical disaster of the 21st century. And the fact that Saddam defended secular values (to the extent possible) and went after Islamist terrorists is a big deal.

All this gets me to thinking about Assad in Syria, and the fact that even over a decade after Saddam's violent overthrow turned Iraq into a war-torn hellhole, there are STILL people who suggest that overthrowing Assad would be a good idea. It's mind-boggling.

Perhaps I was a bit careless in calling him an outright Arab hero. The thing is that I had posted right after having watched yet another one of those YouTube caricatures of Saddam likening him to Hitler whereby they both reside in hell; kinda like those south park episodes. So I guess the post was a bit of a fuск you to all those western boogeyman portrayals of him. Having lived in the Levant during his reign, the ridiculousness of western naïveté when it comes to middle eastern politics becomes all the more glaring. I remember watching an Iraqi talk show in Arabic right after his death whereby a poll was conducted asking if Iraqis condoned his execution. Close to 90% of respondents answered no. These things are never mentioned in western media.

Quote:

I think there is no doubt probably in anyone's mind that the invasion of Iraq was and remains the biggest geopolitical disaster of the 21st century. And the fact that Saddam defended secular values (to the extent possible) and went after Islamist terrorists is a big deal.

And committed all sorts of atrocities against the secular Kurds. I just don't think we can judge him based on what came after him. That's like saying the leaders of Weimar Germany were the greatest leaders ever because of what came immediately after them.

Quote:

All this gets me to thinking about Assad in Syria, and the fact that even over a decade after Saddam's violent overthrow turned Iraq into a war-torn hellhole, there are STILL people who suggest that overthrowing Assad would be a good idea. It's mind-boggling.

But let's not forget that the Syrian civil war began in the Arab Spring with many Syrians rising up to overthrow him themselves. And before people start saying this was an American plot, this was part of the same movement that saw uprisings against US allies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (and I didn't see any leftists complaining when Mubarak was overthrown).

gRed Britain wrote:

And committed all sorts of atrocities against the secular Kurds.

Many a war crime has Saddam committed not only on Kurds but on Iranians as well. However this does not make Kurdish independence, separatist and nationalist movements secular. They are sectarian. Tribalism in Iraq goes back centuries.

Furthermore, the Kurds are very much a divided people. There were Kurds under Saddam who were in fact quite content with being Iraqis.

The Weimar comparison is inappropriate, I think, since that government wasn't blatantly overthrown by outside powers.

Also, those few secular Syrians who may have risen up with legitimate concerns almost immediately gave way to Islamist groups. There's a journalist out there called Ben Swann who does a segment called Reality Check: Here, in five minutes, he explains, using nothing but mainstream media sources, just how quickly the jihadists took over the fighting in Syria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfq66kgWusc

Finally, the Arab Spring was and remains a US, Saudi and Qatari plot. Have you forgotten about Clinton and Abedin's support for the Muslim Brotherhood which kicked out Mubarak? The problematic state of the current US-Egyptian relationship makes sense; Sisi and the army aren't just going to forget the Obama administration's betrayal. Whether Washington did what they did because they wanted to go with the flow and to remain allies with whoever came out on top, or whether Gulf State money and influence had pushed Clinton to help dismantle the remaining secular governments in the region on purpose, it's pretty ballsy to deny the US and Europe's very active involvement in almost all these crises beginning in 2011.

Quote:

Also, those few secular Syrians who may have risen up with legitimate concerns almost immediately gave way to Islamist groups. There's a journalist out there called Ben Swann who does a segment called Reality Check: Here, in five minutes, he explains, using nothing but mainstream media sources, just how quickly the jihadists took over the fighting in Syria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfq66kgWusc

Possibly. I don't know. Trouble is, everyone has their own facts online these days. Even the most absurd views (not saying yours is) cite "sources". There were definitely Islamists fighting in Syria and there were definitely secular moderates.

Quote:

Finally, the Arab Spring was and remains a US, Saudi and Qatari plot.

The Saudis colluded with the US to organise an uprising against their own regime? What an odd thing to do. Or maybe, just maybe, if we steer clear of conspiracy theory territory, a mass uprising involving millions of people across several countries was prompted by material conditions within those societies. You talk as if the US and Saudi Arabia can just start revolutions anywhere in the world just by pressing a button.

Quote:

Have you forgotten about Clinton and Abedin's support for the Muslim Brotherhood which kicked out Mubarak? The problematic state of the current US-Egyptian relationship makes sense; Sisi and the army aren't just going to forget the Obama administration's betrayal. Whether Washington did what they did because they wanted to go with the flow and to remain allies with whoever came out on top, or whether Gulf State money and influence had pushed Clinton to help dismantle the remaining secular governments in the region on purpose, it's pretty ballsy to deny the US and Europe's very active involvement in almost all these crises beginning in 2011.

So Clinton managed to orchestrate it all even though she was only Secretary of State, not President? And I never denied US and European involvement (just as we can't deny Russian involvement). I remember leftists cheering on the Arab Spring as it swept through the US allies in the region. Then it hit Syria and Libya and suddenly they changed their tune. Simultaneously we saw the US try and call for calm and compromise until it hit Syria and suddenly they demanded Assad step down while they bombed Libya into anarchy.

This is what annoys me about so much of the left today. Their slogan might as well be: "Who do we support? Whoever America hates!"

This is why Arabs will never make anything of themselves, if even their self-proclaimed leftists think like this which i'm afraid a lot of them do.

gRed wrote:

Possibly. I don't know. Trouble is, everyone has their own facts online these days. Even the most absurd views (not saying yours is) cite "sources". There were definitely Islamists fighting in Syria and there were definitely secular moderates.

Yes, and they were basically wiped out a year later. And all the country's secular and leftist forces joined the government, including two communist parties. Also, these aren't just random facts online; they're based on declassified or leaked US government documents.

gRed wrote:

The Saudis colluded with the US to organise an uprising against their own regime? What an odd thing to do. Or maybe, just maybe, if we steer clear of conspiracy theory territory, a mass uprising involving millions of people across several countries was prompted by material conditions within those societies. You talk as if the US and Saudi Arabia can just start revolutions anywhere in the world just by pressing a button.

And yet everywhere where it mattered, including Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, these uprisings were quickly put down. Material conditions are necessary of course, but these uprisings are never just free-flowing, random events. Do you honestly think the US and its allies just sat back and let the unrest unfold? They used social media platforms to help manipulate them; they spent billions upon billions on NGOs, civil society initiatives, nurturing would-be leaders and groups. The US can't just start a revolution anywhere by pushing a button, no, but they can and do nudge uprisings along and try to sculpt them according to their own designs, absolutely.

gRed wrote:

So Clinton managed to orchestrate it all even though she was only Secretary of State, not President? And I never denied US and European involvement (just as we can't deny Russian involvement). I remember leftists cheering on the Arab Spring as it swept through the US allies in the region. Then it hit Syria and Libya and suddenly they changed their tune. Simultaneously we saw the US try and call for calm and compromise until it hit Syria and suddenly they demanded Assad step down while they bombed Libya into anarchy.

Clinton seems to have been the one wearing the pants on Middle East policy, yes. As for Russian involvement, what has that got to do with anything? A couple leftover national priorities from Soviet days and some resources controlled by oligarchs is jack squat compared to the resources fielded by the Western powers, particularly in the heady days of 2011-2012.

For the record, I don't recall cheering the Arab Spring, and got the sense quite early on that Egypt in particular was a case of the US 'molting the dead skin' of the old regime while currying favor with the new one. Maybe I even wrote about it here; I don't remember.

I have never supported the 'support who America hates position', but for some reason when it comes to the Middle East, going back to at least the Nasser period Washington has always ended up on the side of the most regressive, sectarian, barbaric regimes on the face of the planet (i.e. the shiekdoms of the Gulf).

Also, found this on Russian social media the other day; thought I might share it here:



Key Distinction:

Coup d'etat: Palace of Oligarch A -> Palace of Oligarch B
Revolution: Palace of Oligarch A -> Palace of Culture
Counterrevolution: Palace of Culture -> Palace of Oligarch A

Any Saddam discussion quickly turns into general ME discussion which in turn swiftly moves into the subject of Syria. No different here. For this reason I will add my two bits as well when it comes to Syria. Namely IMHO the crowds initially protesting in places such as Lataki – yes the ‘Assad stronghold’ saw plenty of protest – were more or less calling for Syria to be transformed into a mirror image of the West, but not the real West, instead a glamourized and idealized image of ‘The West’ many Syrians, particularly young urbanites had from You Tube and sat TV. These people have as little in common with the jihadi head choppers, hell canon bombardiers and other scum which now is supposed to pass of as ‘Syrian revolutionaries’ as water has with fire.

And should by some misfortune Assad (who is not ‘mister nice guy’ mind you) fall we all know what will likely happen: we will have a vicious civil war (the current one will look like a squabble between children in comparison) with Afghanistan and Libya giving a preview of what is likely to become of Syria and that for years to come.

Quote:

And yet everywhere where it mattered, including Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, these uprisings were quickly put down.

Yep, it's called an unsuccessful revolution. But it succeeded in Tunisia and, in part, Egypt. The Saudis also issued a load of reforms to try and bribe their people into staying passive.

Quote:

Material conditions are necessary of course, but these uprisings are never just free-flowing, random events. Do you honestly think the US and its allies just sat back and let the unrest unfold?

Well if the unrest was leading in a direction that they supported (i.e. bourgeois democracy), it would make sense for them to sit back.

Quote:

The US can't just start a revolution anywhere by pushing a button, no, but they can and do nudge uprisings along and try to sculpt them according to their own designs, absolutely.

Yes and their designs are for bourgeois democracy. And bourgeois democracy is more progressive than bourgeois dictatorship (which is what most of the Arab countries are ruled under).

Quote:

For the record, I don't recall cheering the Arab Spring, and got the sense quite early on that Egypt in particular was a case of the US 'molting the dead skin' of the old regime while currying favor with the new one.

But if there was a revolution in Egypt to begin with (a US ally), this implies the US doesn't have extensive influence over the region - certainly not enough to orchestrate or prevent an uprising. If it did, there wouldn't have been an Egyptian revolution in the first place (nor a Saudi or Qatari one).

Quote:

I have never supported the 'support who America hates position', but for some reason when it comes to the Middle East, going back to at least the Nasser period Washington has always ended up on the side of the most regressive, sectarian, barbaric regimes on the face of the planet (i.e. the shiekdoms of the Gulf).

From what I've observed the US supports bourgeois democracy and tries to promote that around the world. But in cases where this cannot take hold (for whatever reason), the US will nonetheless side with the reactionary dictatorships (e.g. the Gulf States) because it still serves their interests. This is why the US also supports Israel (the most democratic nation in the Middle East) and tried to set up bourgeois democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. In an ideal world I believe the US would like all countries in the world to be bourgeois democracies. You don't really see the US crush bourgeois democratic uprisings.

We must not forget that Saddam Hussein surpassed Iraqi Communist Party one of most influential in arab world. I have no respect for that man