For much of
the time that I wrote my biography of Saddam Hussein between 2003-2005,
its ending remained unclear. Throughout the process of researching
and writing the book, Saddam's government was overthrown, and he
went into hiding. In December 2003, US soldiers participating in
Operation Red Dawn found him hovering in a spider hole near his
hometown of Tikrit. As he was captured, Saddam said, “I am Saddam
Hussein. I'm the President of Iraq, and I want to negotiate.” As
it turns out, his American captors chose not to take him up on his
offer. In the months ahead, Saddam was held in solitary confinement
at Camp Cropper, a US military complex near Baghdad, where he wrote
poetry, gardened, and developed a taste for American junk food.
Many days, I've
woken up before dawn to watch CNN's coverage of Saddam's trial.
He usually appeared in a dark suit and white shirt, indignant about
the proceedings, defiantly pointing his finger in the air as he
derided the judges, and often holding a copy of the Quran. Saddam
was tried by an Iraqi court rather than an international tribunal.
Several people associated with the trial were assassinated. The
decision was taken that Saddam would be tried for each of his crimes
separately, and his first trial was for the killing of some villagers
in Dujail who had conspired to assassinate Saddam. In the reservoir
of Saddam's crimes—which have left in their wake mass graves, destroyed
marshlands, ruined villages, and neighboring countries still recovering
from the wars he inflicted on them—Dujail hardly stands out. Saddam
was in the midst of being tried for Anfal, the mass killing of Kurds
some with chemical weapons, that resulted in 100,000 dead and many
more refugees. Journalists covering that trial say that the process
was revealing new information about Saddam's complicity and the
involvement of foreign governments. The Anfal trial was interrupted
by Saddam's sentencing on his convictions for the Dujail killings,
for which he received the death sentence. The appeals process upheld
his sentence of death by hanging which will be carried out sometime
in the next few days.
Saddam's trial
was supposed to set a standard for law and order in the new Iraq
which was to be the linchpin for the New Middle East that the Bush
Administration and his neocon advisors envisioned. As it stands
now, the trial produced few historical insights into Saddam's ruinous
reign over Iraq, no admirable models for justice, no mechanisms
for peace and reconciliation for a shattered Iraq.
Indeed, as I
await news that Saddam Hussein has been hanged, I think back to
those black and white photographs of 14 men who were hung from scaffolds
in Baghdad's Tahrir [Liberation] Square on January 27, 1969. The
men were charged with treason. Nine of the men were Jewish; pinned
to each body was a sheet of paper with their name, age, religion,
and verdict. Hundreds of thousands of Baghdadis filled Tahrir Square
to watch the macabre justice doled out by President al-Bakr. Saddam,
then an underling of Bakr's, had a front row seat to the spectacle
and learned lessons about the politics of fear.
Unlike some
human rights activists, I am unmoved by allegations that the trial
of Saddam Hussein has been unfair. Saddam did not deserve better
justice, but the Iraqi people did. What bothers me most are the
erasure of history, the incomplete reckoning of Saddam's crimes
against humanity, and a lack of exposure of those individuals, corporations,
and foreign governments that aided and abetted his crimes. I am
troubled that his hanging resembles less the Nuremberg Trials or
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa—and more
the macabre public spectacle of fear that he helped oversee in 1969
in Tahrir Square.
---
Shiva Balaghi is Associate Director of the Kevorkian Center at New
York University and the author of Saddam Hussein: A Biography published
by Greenwood Press in 2006.
Militant
Islam is under global scrutiny for clues to conditions that foster
its rise, and to strategies for reversing that growth. But the key
is not in Islamic doctrine, US foreign policy or formal ties to various
nations, as many analysts have asserted. It lies at the community
level, with clan and local leaders. Full
Story>>
Kurdish
parties have become kingmakers in Baghdad , and they know it. As
no federal government can work without them, they are pulling every
available political lever to expand the territory and resources they
control, trying to build the foundation of an independent Kurdish state.
But even more than territory, they need security. If everyone acts
quickly and wisely, that understanding could help resolve one of the
Iraq war’s thorniest issues. Full
Story>>
The
debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: The minute
someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters
cry “Havoc!”
True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain
summoned the specter of dire consequences. “I’ve always
said we’ll come home with honor and with victory and not through
a set timetable,” McCain said. In his major foreign policy speech
on July 15, Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable,
adding that the US must “get out as carefully as we were careless
getting in.” Obama’s position is the correct one, but he,
like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain
that withdrawal is simply
“cutting and running,” a recipe for disaster. Full
Story>>
At
the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) earlier this month, presidential candidates
John McCain and Barack Obama competed over who would become the “candidate
for Israel.” The match came to a draw when both candidates
pledged undying and unconditional support for Israel. While their
support for “Israel right or wrong” was unquestionable,
at the end of all the commotion, the most pertinent question for
Americans and the world remained unasked and unanswered: Who is
the candidate for peace? Full
Story>>
Quick: Who is the strategic victor, to date, of the war in Iraq?
Nearly everyone outside the Bush administration (and perhaps some
within it) would answer: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The
catastrophe of the U.S. occupation of Iraq has bolstered the
clerical regime in Tehran, while souring ordinary Iranians on
the prospect of U.S.-delivered “democracy.” The occupation
has done so by emplacing Iranian-backed Shiite Islamists in power
in Baghdad and cooling the jets of those in Washington hoping to “shock
and awe” Iran's mullahs. Full
Story>>
Libya's Fat Cat The Topeka Capital-Journal January 11, 2008
Chris Toensing
Few
dictators in the world are sitting prettier in 2008 than Col.
Muammar Qaddafi of Libya. In a region full of potentates and presidents-for-life,
his reign is supreme. Having seized power in a 1969 coup, he has
ruled his country for longer than any other Arab head of state.
And now, as wintry January begins, the colonel has quietly completed
his journey back in from the cold. Full
Story>>