April 2004– “Try Saddam Now!”
That’s what I argued in a column published in mid-April 2004 (link via StrategyPage)
The lede and key grafs:
Poison. That’s the word. “A lot of poison in Iraqi society built up over the years of Saddam’s rule, a poison in the body politic,” Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer said in a recent televised interview. “And we’re going to have to deal with that. … It’s got to come out.”
Bremer’s right. Saddam’s Baath fascist regime not only poisoned Iraqi society, its cruelty embedded, en masse, the human emotional poisons of bitterness, distrust and constant fear.
Other toxins churn and sicken Iraq. Syria and Iran pump death into Iraqi streets, as they arm and finance Baath fascists and extremist militias. Al Qaeda, behind the mask of Ansar al Islam, adds another terrible venom.
The defeat of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi militia crimps Iran’s attempt to ignite a proxy war in Iraq. Democracy — the antidote to Iraq’s, and for that matter, Iran’s systemic illness — frightens Iran’s theocratic dictators. Some day, Iran’s clerical and Syria’s secular tyrants will be held responsible for the destruction they have brought to their own people.
But Iraq must heal first.
In order to heal, Iraq must have courageous Iraqi leadership. It is no surprise that Iraq, at the moment, has no unifying political leader. Saddam used fear to fragment his opposition. The break goes beyond the ethnic and religious cleavages. The Shia, Kurd and Sunni communities are all split internally, for Saddam and his secret police pitted Sunni against Sunni and Kurd against Kurd. Other factions –Turkomen, Arab Christians, Yazidis — further complicate the broken kaleidoscope.
The Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) has undertaken several leadership initiatives, including nurturing bilateral foreign relationships. These are the first steps in developing a foreign policy for “New Iraq.” IGC involvement with the Fallujah ceasefire discussions is another step forward.
Ironically, there is one unifying figure in New Iraq, a man who reminds everyone of tyranny and its consequences: Saddam Hussein.
It’s a bitter paradox. The divided Iraqi people share the common scars of suffering from Saddam’s cruelty, theft and barbarism. Baathist corruption and theft impoverished a country rich in natural resources and human talent. Kurds and Shias got the worst of it, but the Baathists oppressed Sunnis, as well. Moreover, two generations of Sunni intellectuals and technocrats were either jailed or corrupted by the Baath regime. Like East European intellectuals in the Cold War, educated Sunni Arabs entered “internal exile” in order to stay alive. They kept their mouths shut and eyes averted — morally damning compromises, but the life or death choice made by all but an exceptional few trapped in dictatorships.
So perhaps it is time to put Saddam on trial, sooner instead of later.
Saddam in the dock — in an Iraqi court, not an international forum — pinpoints the central source of poison, and begins the process of reconciling cure….
Today Anne Applebaum notices some of the benefits of trying Saddam.
Applebaum’s concluding graf:
But if his Sunni countrymen learn what he did to Shiites and Kurds, if the Shiites and Kurds learn what he did to Sunnis, if Iraqis come to realize that his system of totalitarian terror damaged them all, and if others in the Middle East learn that dictatorships can be overthrown, then the trial will have served its purpose. That, and not an arbitrary standard of international law, is how the success of this unusual tribunal should be measured.
Should the trial have been put off a year and a half? The Allawi government took over from the CPA in late June 2004. Would trying Saddam have at least blunted some of the internationalista support for Saddam’s fascist holdouts?
Saddam On Trial Opening arguments for the criminal case against Saddam Hussein, 68, and seven former members of his regime took place in Baghdad today in the Green Zone. A continuance was granted the defense, making the trial start officially November 28, 2005. Ch…
Trackback by California Conservative — 10/19/2005 @ 3:40 pm
Better late than never…
Comment by California Conservative — 10/19/2005 @ 3:41 pm
Of course you ignore the fascistic near dictatorship of Bushco and USA, Inc. Saddam is a just another victims of the neocons. Stop Bush now! Withdraw all troops from Iraq and Afganistan! Free Mumia and Saddam. http://www.dailykos.com
Comment by REAL PROGRESSIVE — 10/19/2005 @ 3:47 pm
JUSTICE In all honesty, given what’s happened with the insurgency, I’d have preferred a Ceausescu-style end to Saddam’s reign. Anne Applebaum explains, though, why a full trial makes sense:The fact that the court is starting with a smaller incident, the 1982
Trackback by Clive Davis — 10/19/2005 @ 5:52 pm
Well, not that it takes a well-thought-out argument to rubbish what “REAL PROGRESSIVE” said, but here goes: Dictator, n.: 1. An absolute ruler. 2. A tyrant; a despot. Tyrant, n.: 1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions. 2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. 3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person. Despot, n.: 1. A ruler with absolute power. Note that the word “absolute” comes up a lot. Those definitiosn are a bit awkward so let me re-arrange and combine them. * A ruler with absolute power, who governs without restrictions. * A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. * An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person. Now, does Bush adhere to this definition? Absolute power; no. He has control over the US military and I believe he also has veto power. The US courts, congress, senate and other bodies still wield power of their own. Therefore his power is nowhere near absolute. Governs without restriction; no - he has to leave at the end of his term, he can be impeached, many of his decisions must be backed by congress and/or the courts, etc. There certainly are restrictions on his governance. Exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner; his and the United States’ policy requires compassion, decency and fairness. Those accused of crimes must face a fair and speed trial. There is no torture or cruel/unusual punishment allowed, neither for US citizens nor those detained by the military. The military does their utmost to limit deaths and injuries amongst the innocent. None of this seems harsh or cruel to me. Oppressive, harsh; we’ve already pointed out that he is not unjust. Some may find his policies difficult to bear, but few can justify this. I can find examples of a great deal more oppressive rulers; it seems this point is personal and up for interpretation. Arbitrary; on the contrary, Bush must justify his decisions and choices or face the loss of public support, which he requires to hold on to power. So, now that we’ve disproved all but one of these definitions of “dictator” and cast doubt on the remaining one (which is, itself, quite arbitrary), can we stop referring to Bush as a dictator, which he clearly is not? If you want to see a dictator, look at Saddam Hussein, Ayotollah Khamenei, Bashar al-Assad, Fidel Castro, Hu Jintao or one of the many others, some of whom fit this definition to a “T”.
Comment by Nicholas — 10/19/2005 @ 6:06 pm
And I’m sorry, but anyone who calls for a genocidal maniacal tyrant like Saddam deserves everyones’ complete and utter contempt. How can you support the world’s greatest living killer?
Comment by Nicholas — 10/19/2005 @ 6:08 pm
There’s nothing I’ve ever seen to indicate that anything would have changed the internationalista support for those “insurgents,” because, IMHO, that support isn’t based on reason, it’s based on hatred of Bush and America and a sort of radical chic worship of thuggery. Plus, even when Saddam was in power, a great deal of the international community was doing some very lucrative business with him. Perhaps I’ve gotten way too jaded, but I believe many abroad would have no regrets if he’d stayed in power. I think it’s also of great interest that the media is spinning the recent referendum and Saddam’s trial as a case of Sunni vs. Shite/Kurd. It’s certainly true that there’s a rough breakdown of Sunni=proSaddam-antiConstitution and Shite/Kurd=antiSaddam-proConstitution. But that’s just a rough breakdown. Many forget–and I’m glad you’ve reminded them–that there are plenty of Sunnis with reason to hate Saddam, too (I’m sure there are not plenty of Shites and Kurds with reason to love him, however). Iraq the Model had a wonderful post today on the power of the trial to show how justice is done, rather than simple revenge. Would that our MSM could see things that way, also.
Comment by neo-neocon — 10/19/2005 @ 8:10 pm
Would trying Saddam have at least blunted some of the internationalista support for Saddam’s fascist holdouts? Looking at some of the reaction to the trial - in particular, looking at the key terms in news stories that, my paranoid self whispers, promise much worse to come - I don’t think so, because Saddam’s trial provides an occasion for sympathy to Saddam. We are now hearing from news organizations abou the “defiant” [bravely defying the US!] “ex-president of Iraq” (that was what the BBC radio news called him earlier today), facing a trial that “human-rights organizations say is unfair and biased”. This kind of thing is not going to get better. It’s only going to get worse as the trial progresses. And, of course, lionization of Saddam Hussein - a flawed figure to be sure, but noble in his unbowed defiance, representative of an independent Iraq before it was cowed by American military force, etc. - plays right into similar lionization of the Saddam Fedayeen. I don’t think an earlier trial would have helped here.
Comment by jaed — 10/19/2005 @ 9:44 pm
Saddam’s Trial: Justice versus Jurisprudence? I understand that Europeans demonstrate an unassailable mastery of judicial procedure and administration, but do they know anything about justice?
Trackback by Vagabondia — 10/20/2005 @ 1:57 am
I thought then, in 2004, that trying him sooner was better. Now that Iraq has successfully voted on a constitution, I’m not so sure; there’s something more powerful about elected officials of a newly democratic country trying their prior dictator — less of “victor’s justice”, that the Euros who support Saddam condemn. And those who support Saddam should be called on it. “You are supporting Saddam, and supporting his crimes.” The suggestion of using the UN should be met with: look at Darfur, look at Milosovec’s trial — the UN is a joke. The UN does NOT give justice. I want to see the videos that Saddam’s torturers made be published, and used by the anti-Saddam folk against those “against the war (=FOR Saddam).”
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 10/21/2005 @ 5:47 am