A New Dictator in Iraq
People really don’t like it when I say this: Saddam Hussein was probably the best thing that could have happened to Iraq.
Under Saddam Hussein, crime rates were relatively low (enforcement of the laws was pretty rough, from what I hear), public utilities functioned, people had jobs, schools were open, and terrorism was basically non-existent. The people of Iraq lived generally peaceful lives and really the only thing they gave up was a democratic form of government.
People have said that Saddam was such a terrible guy, but I’m not sure that I really buy that he was the worst guy around. “Evil” dictators lead mass genocides on their people just for fun and initiate rampaging wars for no reason. Saddam put down rebellions and groups that threatened the stability of his government, but doesn’t every government do that? Every dictator does that, anyway. Saddam wasn’t a good guy, either. Human Rights groups estimate that he was responsible for 300,000 deaths during his 24-year reign in Iraq.
However, the relevant comparison would be: what other options are there? In the 4-year reign of the coalition government, the interim government and this new “democracy” in Iraq, over 650,000 people have been killed by the violence that has erupted all over the country, according to what is probably the most reliable source of this kind of data. Now, instead of isolated instances of a regime putting down rebellions, Iraqis suffer through car bombs and suicide explosions every day. Most schools in the country have been shut down. Most still lack access to basic utilities they enjoyed before 2003. The country is in absolutely terrible shape.
Iraq is so diverse ethnically and religiously that it really needs a strong (dictatorship?) government to hold its disparate groups together. Democracy as we know it will not function in Iraq for the foreseeable future, no matter what we try to do. So I have to wonder: maybe it would be the best thing for Iraqis at this point if we helped to support a much stronger leader who could unite Iraq and stop the violence. Another Saddam, perhaps. Too bad we executed that first one. Too bad we have wasted so many resources in this region in our failed experiment with transforming the Middle East by spreading democracy. Too bad that things are probably going to go back to the way they were before the invasion even if we don’t help Iraq transition back to a strongman dictator.
I agree that a dictator is the only hope for Iraq as it is presently conceptualized, but I think a democracy could work if the state were Balkanized. Three parts, oil revenue sharing for the sake of the Sunnis, and Baghdad an international city under UN administration. This is a workable solution that no one is willing to try because the borders drawn in 1920 are somehow sacrosanct.
I would like to think that partition is a viable plan, too. However the more I think about it the more it looks just like a pipe dream. I mean really, how long do you think that these three groups of people will hold hands and be friends in a federal system? Especially when one of the states in the federation will have virtually all of the oil and a much larger population…
The Kurds have almost as much oil as the Shiites, it will be the Sunnis who get the shaft if things fall apart. And Bosnia Herzegovina have held together despite huge atrocities that were committed there in the early 90′s. The ethnic federal system they have is still in place.
The ethnic federal system that Bosnia Herzegovina has is still in place because of the help that the UN gave by going into a “civil war” and helping to quell it (sort of sounds familiar).
However, after many talks with a great deal of my friends about this issue over the past 4 years, I do believe that Iraq was better off with a dictator. How else do you prevent a civil war like what might happen in Iraq than to have a powerful leader create the fear in the people to rebel. As a defender of human rights and of the ability for all people to be able to live a life that they choose, it is hard for me to say this. However, I do feel that it is impossible to allow a society that is like the one in Iraq to peacfully exist without a feared dictator at its helm (a true Machiavellian principle).
Also, I do not know how one might jusitfy Baghdad being an international city under the UN administration, when you argue that it is wrong for us to meddle in the affairs of other nations. Isn’t that what the UN would be doing in that case (since Baghdad is a major economic center for Iraq). I think that your idea has good thought, and that you would like to see this work. Don’t get me wrong, so would I. I guess that I am just a little pessimistic now about this idea because of the way things have turned out so far (granted the reconstruction has been poorly managed). I feel that, practically speaking, there is no other way at this time and place.
Really? More people aren’t going to react against me advocating another DICTATOR in Iraq!? Shoot…
Sorry, it is ironically a logical choice at this point. Wish it weren’t, but it is.