Saddam's Willing Executioners

I can't believe they beat another dead horse in order to allude some false sense of security or, in Bush's own words, "a milestone for Iraq" (which it isn't). And from the looks of it, Saddam's execution is more or less a ticking time bomb, which, when triggerred, could spark more conflict and chaos in war-torn Iraq. I have no sympathy for the ex-dictator of Iraq who killed at least a hundred thousand Kurdish innocents and tens of thousands of Sunnites and Shiites... Wait. I shouldn't be distinguishing between the Iraqis that he united under his tyrannical rule, as all were in equal danger of being executed by his death squads.

Then again, I'm not happy or jumpy either. It sickened me to many degrees to see people actually celebrate the death of Saddam Hussein. I mean, I can understand that a now defunct dictator is no longer alive, but to celebrate on the death of someone makes those Iraqis and Americans who celebrated over his stinking rotting corpse as bad as those radical "Izlamizts" who allegedly celebrate over the deaths of innocents and soldiers alike. To me, the act of Saddam's execution was more about revenge than justice, for if it was justice, we wouldn't have sectarian attitudes being thrown about all around, and a sectarian government installed by the Coalition that continues to carve up Iraq into more slices than can ever be cut on a family-sized pizza. The execution was not a productive move, especially since it occurred on the first day of Eid Al Adha before sunrise. Perhaps the Iraqi court didn't want Saddam to have a grab at the sweets and candy that people usually pass out to others during this time of love and forgiveness (Eid, that is). This is a day that Muslims worldwide come together and thank God for all His Bounties that He bestowed upon this Earth. It was supposed to be a beautiful day. And they started it out with the hanging of a ruthless dictator.

The fact that it was carried out on Eid Al Adha of all days will make it appear as an insult to Muslims who oppose the Coalition's neo-colonialist occupation of Iraq, as it is just one of many ploys employed by the Coalition to further stamp on the heritage of Iraq, as I explained in an earlier post. However, Saddam was in Iraqi custody, not American custody, so it was the Iraqi government, not the Coalition, that killed him. But let's remind ourselves who really is governing Iraqi politics for the time being, not that the Coalition really does at the moment, but the fact that this is an occupation makes this argument all the more convincing. The trial itself was a farce that signalled nothing but the continuation of the American occupation in Iraq, and the continuing humiliation of Iraqis nationwide, Sunni and Shiite.

Saddam was discredited as a dictator who was the reason behind the sectarian strife that we see today in Iraq. What we see today is an oversimplification of the issue, as Sunnites and Shiites were actually more united under Saddam: in fear, that is. This civil strife was only recently started by the Coalition in as political and militaristic a way as possible, seeking to divide Iraqis starting with the Charter that was drafted out by that neocon who calls himself a "Muslim", Zalmay Khalilzad. According to the late Issam Nashashibi,

Khalilzad's impeccable credentials make him a natural for membership in the neo-conservatives cabal which is the driving force behind Washington's Iraq policy. "He has a narrow of view of the Middle East and South Asia," his former associate stressed. "[Zalmay thinks of] security to the exclusion of everything else. He tends to look at military solutions as the first, not the last policy option."

Of course, that was just a tip of the iceberg: Zalmay wasn't the only person behind the machinations of the Coalition that divided the Iraqis. The point is that Saddam, while a ruthless dictator, did not incite strife at all, but merely killed those who dissented against him, and this is NOT an attempt to justify the monstrous actions of a man like him.

Even more ironic is that people have forgotten the Coalition's active role in the past to install Saddam in power: after all, Saddam was the CIA's man in Baghdad. According to John Collins,

Conveniently carried out just five minutes past the hour when "Anderson Cooper 360" goes on the air, the execution provided an opportunity for viewers to think about the long story of the Iraqi leader's brutal reign. Yet when it came to informing the audience about one key aspect of that history - the role of the United States in helping to create and maintain the "butcher of Baghdad" - CNN offered only amnesia.

It amazes me that Palestinians and other Iraqis and Arabs are actually mourning the death of Saddam Hussein. And then there's Libya's president, Muammar Ghaddhafi (who can't be helped by a mental hospital), offerred several days of mourning for the dictator. That comes months after he said that Britian and America must try Saddam. I can understand why many Palestinians love Saddam, mainly because he was the most vocal Arab leader to talk about unifying the Arabs against Israel and spoke of "freeing Palestine"; any rational person would know that this is nothing but empty rhetoric. Anyways, John Collins further notes that

In the rush to celebrate the death of the "butcher of Baghdad," we are up to our necks in all three types of denial. The failure to provide a full account of this horrifying chapter of Iraqi and American history is, to be sure, an act of literal denial. If two leaders shake hands, but the photo is not shown on CNN, did they really shake hands? One is reminded of the oft-quoted statement by an anonymous New York Times staff member: "If the Times wasn't there, it didn't happen."

Of course, the facts about the U.S. role in Saddam's brutality are not always literally denied, and this is where the second and third types of denial come into play. No doubt in the coming days we will hear numerous commentators attempt to "spin" the facts, as has often happened in discussions of U.S. ambassador April Glaspie's famous "green light" to Saddam just before Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It wasn't really a green light, we'll be told. Yes, it was a handshake, but that doesn't mean it was an endorsement of Saddam's policies.

The boldest (and, one must add, the most honest) defenders of U.S. policy will employ the language of implicatory denial, insisting, when pressed, that U.S. support for Saddam was justified under the circumstances. We'll be told that the realities of the Cold War, or the struggle against the threat posted by the Iranian revolution, or the need for maintaining U.S. access to cheap fossil fuels, created a context in which the U.S. had no choice but to get its hands dirty.

In this light, it seems that the initial coverage of Saddam's execution has served as a collective ritual hand-washing designed to reassure Americans that they really are the blameless leaders of a cosmic struggle against "evil." And so the answer to the existential question comes into view. Today's mainstream journalism, even "live" TV, is a far cry from the first draft of history. Instead, it functions largely as a transmission of selective history that has been drafted--and airbrushed, and sanitized, and rearranged, and distorted--long before it ever reaches our eyes and ears.

The hypocrisy already stinks like rotten fish.

Another thing: why was Saddam only tried for the Dujail killings? Why didn't they try him for the gassing of the Kurds and the killing of many Sunnite dissidents and clerics who opposed him? Why did they try him only for the killing of Shiites, not that their lives are unimportant?

But let's be honest: Saddam's execution will not heal the already unstable condition that Iraq is in at the moment, and that's not the only thing that grinds my gears. It's just an example of justice gone awry. I'm reminded of the brand of justice that Thrasymachus, a Greek notable, who argued that

Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger

In this case, the "stronger" is the Coalition that is occupying Iraq. I could think of many figures who should've joined Saddam in the gallows, most notably Bush, Blair and Sharon (along with many Coalition and Israeli military officials who have blood on their hands). I am especially angered at the Coalition's deception of the international public and how they entered Iraq under false pretenses.

Bottom line: Saddam's life is not worth the lives of innocents who might die as a result of sectarian strife that might ensue as a result of this execution. The death of another dictator who was installed by the American government, and who speaks empty promises of restoring pan-Arab nationalism (of which I am an ardent critic of), amounts to the beating of a dead horse. It will most likely add more salt to the wound of Iraq, which will need more than just a united Iraqi effort to restore the nation. I'd like to say that I have hope for this country, but it saddens me to say that I've lost most of that hope when I see the Iraqi public opinion divided over many matters, of which Saddam was an unexpected determinant of shaping this public opinion. I think, however, that if Iraqis wake up and realize that they're being disunited in a mess, thanks in part to the sectarian government and the Coalition, they would rise up and deport the Coalition, and overthrow the government in order to establish a government for a united Iraq. Saddam's execution was just an assertation of the fact that the Iraqis will suffer from imperialist occupation and neocon chickenhawk stupidity for who knows how long.

This is hard coming from someone who has lost almost all hope for this Cradle of Civilization, but I'd like to take a moment of silence... not for the petty dictator called Saddam, but for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who sufferred as a result of this farcical war, and I pray, with you, in these sacred days of Eid Al Adha, a time of forgiveness, love and compassion, for the safety of the people of Iraq, the hopefully eventual unification of the people of Iraq, and justice for the people of Iraq... especially against those who seek to sow discord and increase bloodshed amongst Iraqis and humanity in general.

Salaam, from Saracen

UPDATE: And if you thought that it wasn't about revenge or dividing the Iraqi people, just read this and then bang your head against a wall. Ok, I was kidding about the "banging your head" part, but the extent of the divisions between the Iraqi people is simply unbelievable.