After Hussein's gone, then what?
So it looks like Saddam Hussein is going to hang, mostly because he misjudged how the US would react to his taking Kuwait. Yes, yes, technically, he's being put to death for dousing the Kurds with poison gas, but that's not really why.
The crimes Hussein was convicted of in that show trial in Iraq were committed back in 1982. Coincidentally, Hussein was also fighting Iran, and anybody fighting Iran back in those days was our kind of guy. He may have been a monster, but he was fighting Iran, the country that held Americans hostage! They were really bad guys!
We were perfectly happy to meet and cooperate with Saddam Hussein even after he gassed the Kurds, as long as he was fighting Iran. It was only when Hussein thought we'd ignore him while he took over Kuwait that he became a problem for us. He wasn't enough of our monster for us to be comfortable with his having more oil fields. That's when he became a really bad guy.
How any of this has any connection to 9/11 or terrorism in general is, of course, a mystery. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden weren't working together, and didn't share the same goals. Hanging a deposed head of state isn't getting rid of a terrorist; heads of state are interested in remaining heads of state, and while they may do all sorts of vile and despicable things to stay that way, terrorism isn't usually their method of choice.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a vile and evil man. But why did we pick him to focus our energies on? He's hardly the first vile and evil dictator, and he won't be the last. What exactly are we accomplishing by hanging him?
Of course, that question can be asked more generally: what exactly are we trying to accomplish in Iraq? Does anyone in the administration even know?
The crimes Hussein was convicted of in that show trial in Iraq were committed back in 1982. Coincidentally, Hussein was also fighting Iran, and anybody fighting Iran back in those days was our kind of guy. He may have been a monster, but he was fighting Iran, the country that held Americans hostage! They were really bad guys!
We were perfectly happy to meet and cooperate with Saddam Hussein even after he gassed the Kurds, as long as he was fighting Iran. It was only when Hussein thought we'd ignore him while he took over Kuwait that he became a problem for us. He wasn't enough of our monster for us to be comfortable with his having more oil fields. That's when he became a really bad guy.
How any of this has any connection to 9/11 or terrorism in general is, of course, a mystery. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden weren't working together, and didn't share the same goals. Hanging a deposed head of state isn't getting rid of a terrorist; heads of state are interested in remaining heads of state, and while they may do all sorts of vile and despicable things to stay that way, terrorism isn't usually their method of choice.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a vile and evil man. But why did we pick him to focus our energies on? He's hardly the first vile and evil dictator, and he won't be the last. What exactly are we accomplishing by hanging him?
Of course, that question can be asked more generally: what exactly are we trying to accomplish in Iraq? Does anyone in the administration even know?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home