PDA

View Full Version : Jonathan Chait: Bring back Saddam Hussein


Volcana
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:03 AM
Found this on the LA Times website. If you never read Jonathan Swift, you might want to skip this thread.Jonathan Chait: Bring back Saddam Hussein


Restoring the dictator to power may give Iraqis the jolt of authority they need. Have a better solution?
November 26, 2006


THE DEBATE about Iraq has moved past the question of whether it was a mistake (everybody knows it was) to the more depressing question of whether it is possible to avert total disaster. Every self-respecting foreign policy analyst has his own plan for Iraq. The trouble is that these tracts are inevitably unconvincing, except when they argue why all the other plans would fail. It's all terribly grim.

So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.

Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale.

At the outset of the war, I had no high hopes for Iraqi democracy, but I paid no attention to the possibility that the Iraqis would end up with a worse government than the one they had. It turns out, however, that there is something more awful than totalitarianism, and that is endless chaos and civil war.

Nobody seems to foresee the possibility of restoring order to Iraq. Here is the basic dilemma: The government is run by Shiites, and the security agencies have been overrun by militias and death squads. The government is strong enough to terrorize the Sunnis into rebellion but not strong enough to crush this rebellion.

Meanwhile, we have admirably directed our efforts into training a professional and nonsectarian Iraqi police force and encouraging reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. But we haven't succeeded. We may be strong enough to stop large-scale warfare or genocide, but we're not strong enough to stop pervasive chaos.

Hussein, however, has a proven record in that department. It may well be possible to reconstitute the Iraqi army and state bureaucracy we disbanded, and if so, that may be the only force capable of imposing order in Iraq.

Chaos and order each have a powerful self-sustaining logic. When people perceive a lack of order, they act in ways that further the disorder. If a Sunni believes that he is in danger of being killed by Shiites, he will throw his support to Sunni insurgents who he sees as the only force that can protect him. The Sunni insurgents, in turn, will scare Shiites into supporting their own anti-Sunni militias.

And it's not just Iraqis who act this way. You could find a smaller-scale version of this dynamic in an urban riot here in the United States. But when there's an expectation of social order, people will act in a civilized fashion.

Restoring the expectation of order in Iraq will take some kind of large-scale psychological shock. The Iraqi elections were expected to offer that shock, but they didn't. The return of Saddam Hussein a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear would do the trick.

The disadvantages of reinstalling Hussein are obvious, but consider some of the upside. He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, which is the United States' major regional enemy, a sponsor of terrorism and an instigator of warfare between Lebanon and Israel. Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war, in large part because he apparently believed that he could defeat any U.S. invasion if it came to that. Now he knows he can't. And he'd probably be amenable because his alternative is death by hanging.

I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-chait26nov26,0,6657405.column?track=mostviewed-homepage

quasar
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:46 AM
Let's clone Hitler and name him PM of Israel!!!!

Cheers,

Carlos

RVD
Nov 27th, 2006, 04:23 AM
Two words define this idea perfectly...

'Foolish'...&...'Asinine'. :lol:

quasar
Nov 27th, 2006, 04:27 AM
Two words define this idea perfectly...

'Foolish'...&...'Asinine'.

Reminds me of my feelings when Bush was re-elected. :lol:

Cheers,

Carlos

Haute
Nov 27th, 2006, 05:11 AM
We just talked about this in my Mid-East History class; Bush Sr. stopped short of removing Saddam during the first Gulf War because he and his analysts knew that chaos would break out if Saddam were removed. It's not hard to understand, removing Saddam left a huge power vacuum that has everyone and their cat trying to vie for power (okay, not their cat, but that's just an odd phrase I've gotten into the habit of saying :p).

quasar
Nov 27th, 2006, 05:27 AM
everyone and their cat
Everyone and their camel would be more appropriate for the ME. Btw, what you said makes total sense.

Cheers,

Carlos

samsung101
Nov 27th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Yeah, I've read him before.


This guy is serious, and that's the sad part.

Bring back The Taliban too while you're at it buddy.
Why not?


Bring back Milosivich, he ran a tight ship.
Bring back Idi Amin too, he had the trains on time.


It's pathetic writing like this that passes for responsible
journalism and commentary in Los Angeles.



It's just the continuing decline of the LA Times.

A paper that has lost subscriptions in droves in a city
where the spanish language paper is outdoing it now.

A paper that will only go further left if David Geffin buys it,
and pushes his agenda through the paper. More Hollywood
'great reviews' in the LA Times via Geffin, and more Al Gore-ish
politics as well.

Wigglytuff
Nov 27th, 2006, 05:48 PM
ok Jon Swift was FUNNY. this guy does not amuse. i say just read swift and skip this guy completely. out of five stars this guy gets a minus 10.

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 27th, 2006, 06:00 PM
It's pathetic writing like this that passes for responsible
journalism and commentary in Los Angeles.



It's just the continuing decline of the LA Times.



hypocrite :rolls:

you were jumping when the LA times said lets bomb Iran :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Lord Nelson
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:52 PM
hypocrite :rolls:

you were jumping when the LA times said lets bomb Iran :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

why is he a hypocrite? He wants Islamofascists to be driven out of power. These include the Iranians thugs who are in power and obviously Mr. Hussein who is now in custody. There is nothing hypocritcal in this. He is true to his word.

Haute
Nov 27th, 2006, 08:24 PM
This guy is serious, and that's the sad part.


It's not sad, it's true. The Bush administration acted too quickly in removing Saddam from power, and now they're left to deal with the consequences. There was no strong authority figure in exile waiting to come back and lead Iraq as had happened with Afghanistan after the Taliban were removed, which is why Afghanistan isn't on the brink of civil war as Iraq is.

It's kind of the same situation with Somalia; it wasn't in great shape while under the rule of warlord Aidid, but after his death Somalia has completely collapsed. Unfortunately, dictators provide stability. I can only imagine what will happen with Cuba once Fidel is no longer alive.

Volcana
Nov 29th, 2006, 08:35 PM
It's not sad, it's true. The Bush administration acted too quickly in removing Saddam from powerDisagree. The mistake was in not being prepared to fill the power vacuum with 400,000 or 500,000 troops. Removing a brutal dictaor is never a bad idea, IF you're sure the situation isn't going to be even worse afterward. Right now, the average Iraqi was better off if we'd left Hussein in power. Ten years from now, the situation may be better, or worse.

samsung101
Nov 29th, 2006, 10:25 PM
Sorry, old Saddam is going to meet his maker or God or Allah
or Satan some time soon via a noose.



The Kurds will not miss him.

The families of those he murdered, buried alive,
shot, raped, etc., and the ones his sons helped
along to an early death, will not miss him.

Let's bring back Idi Amin.

Why not Jim Jones too?
He kept those folks in line when he was alive, er',
guess that's too late.



Bring Saddam back....while we're at it, let's bring
Hitler back. He kept the trains running on time, and
made great Mercedes Benz cars too! Marge Schott
was all for it.

Qrystyna
Nov 29th, 2006, 10:28 PM
why is he a hypocrite? He wants Islamofascists to be driven out of power. These include the Iranians thugs who are in power and obviously Mr. Hussein who is now in custody. There is nothing hypocritcal in this. He is true to his word.

"He"?! Lord Nelson, if you haven't figured it out by now, samsung101 is either a sock puppet account or a robot, he's not a real person either way :lol:

Volcana
Nov 29th, 2006, 10:58 PM
Sorry, old Saddam is going to meet his maker or God or Allah or Satan some time soon via a noose.

The Kurds will not miss him.

The families of those he murdered, buried alive,
shot, raped, etc., and the ones his sons helped
along to an early death, will not miss him.

Let's bring back Idi Amin.

Why not Jim Jones too?
Uganda was better off without Idi Amin. Fewer dead people. More stability, less violence. Same deal with Miloslevic. Removing him improved the situation. Removing Saddam Hussein, by virtually any measure, has made life worse for the average Iraqi.

Clean water, electrical power, school attendance are all below pre-war levels. Many more people are dying, ethnic cleansing is rampant in the north, and we're training fighters for the Shi'ite and Sunni militias.

Even FauxNews doesn't pretend things are better than they were under Saddam Hussein right now. There just aren't any facts to back up such an assertion.

The reason you don't bring back Hussein is that the apparatus he used to oppress his countrymen is broken. If we restored him to power and then withdrew our troops he'd be dead in a week.

Lord Nelson
Nov 29th, 2006, 11:34 PM
Uganda was better off without Idi Amin. Fewer dead people. More stability, less violence. Same deal with Miloslevic. Removing him improved the situation. Removing Saddam Hussein, by virtually any measure, has made life worse for the average Iraqi.

Clean water, electrical power, school attendance are all below pre-war levels. Many more people are dying, ethnic cleansing is rampant in the north, and we're training fighters for the Shi'ite and Sunni militias.

Even FauxNews doesn't pretend things are better than they were under Saddam Hussein right now. There just aren't any facts to back up such an assertion.

The reason you don't bring back Hussein is that the apparatus he used to oppress his countrymen is broken. If we restored him to power and then withdrew our troops he'd be dead in a week.
things under Saddam were horrible:
Killing of 100'000 Kurds and 100'000 Shiites after Gulf war. Destruction of marsh fields. Invasion of Kuwait and iran. Setting off oil fields on fire. Firing of scud missliles to Israel. Active support of Hamas. So things were not milk and honey under Saddam.

*JR*
Nov 30th, 2006, 12:19 AM
things under Saddam were horrible:
Killing of 100'000 Kurds and 100'000 Shiites after Gulf war. Destruction of marsh fields. Invasion of Kuwait and iran. Setting off oil fields on fire. Firing of scud missliles to Israel. Active support of Hamas. So things were not milk and honey under Saddam.
Except that we gave him a "wink and a nod" to invade Kuwait. (Which was stealing Iraqi oil with diagonal drilling anyhow). And re. his killing Shi'ites after the war, they rose up in response to a public call that Bush 41 was really addressing to the Iraqi military and Baathists. The oil well fires were a result of the Gulf War. Saddam was an SOB, but one we happily used anyhow (to weaken the Ayatollah's Iran) for 8 years in the 80's.

Lord Nelson
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:17 AM
Except that we gave him a "wink and a nod" to invade Kuwait. (Which was stealing Iraqi oil with diagonal drilling anyhow). And re. his killing Shi'ites after the war, they rose up in response to a public call that Bush 41 was really addressing to the Iraqi military and Baathists. The oil well fires were a result of the Gulf War. Saddam was an SOB, but one we happily used anyhow (to weaken the Ayatollah's Iran) for 8 years in the 80's.
I don't know why everyone is afraid of shiites in Iraq. The people who are causing the most trouble are the Sunni Arabs and by far. That is because virtually all of the sunni arab regimes give them aid to fight shiites and americans. Iraq will then not become a shiite fundementalist state. The sunnis will never allow it. So we don't need Saddam as our sob. He can be sent to hell. :fiery: :devil:

Steffica Greles
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:24 AM
I think the idea is absurd.

Volcana
Nov 30th, 2006, 03:30 AM
things under Saddam were horrible:
Killing of 100'000 Kurds and 100'000 Shiites after Gulf war. Destruction of marsh fields. Invasion of Kuwait and iran. Setting off oil fields on fire. Firing of scud missliles to Israel. Active support of Hamas. So things were not milk and honey under Saddam.Of course not. That's not even under debate. The first question is, were things better in 2002, before the USA invaded, or right now?

The second question is, are thing likely to get better?

Estimates of Iraqis killed post 2003 range from 100,000 to 500,000. That's compares quite horribly to Hussein's death toll after the first Oil War.

The question is, is half a dozen little psychopaths better than one big psychopath. Is the current ethnic lceansing in northern Iraq better than Hussein's ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq. Are the current rapes and murders really better? Or just more-of-same?

If you're the average Iraqi Mom trying to make it to the supermarket and back, is psychopathic murderous chaos REALLY better than psychopathic murderous order?

Sam L
Nov 30th, 2006, 02:17 PM
Of course not. That's not even under debate. The first question is, were things better in 2002, before the USA invaded, or right now?

The second question is, are thing likely to get better?

Estimates of Iraqis killed post 2003 range from 100,000 to 500,000. That's compares quite horribly to Hussein's death toll after the first Oil War.

The question is, is half a dozen little psychopaths better than one big psychopath. Is the current ethnic lceansing in northern Iraq better than Hussein's ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq. Are the current rapes and murders really better? Or just more-of-same?

If you're the average Iraqi Mom trying to make it to the supermarket and back, is psychopathic murderous chaos REALLY better than psychopathic murderous order?

Sacrifices need to be made if you want a better future. Using your line of arguments, one could've easily argued against Abraham Lincoln going to war against the CSA. That would've saved SO MANY American lives. :sad:

So as usual Volcana, you've shown yourself to be a bleeding heart idiot who's lost all sense of reality.

Lord Nelson
Nov 30th, 2006, 02:58 PM
Estimates of Iraqis killed post 2003 range from 100,000 to 500,000. That's compares quite horribly to Hussein's death toll after
The current census is that Iraqi death toll is between 50'000 to 100'000 dead as a result of the Iraqi war since it started. I could be a little more though. But I doubt it is anywhere near 500'000. The Lancet even gave a laughable figure. they said 600'000 Iraqis were killed. I bet you that just before the next U.S. elections they will give out their newest figures and say that over a million people died. I am willing to be my right hand on the time and scale of the attrocities that this source will give out.