Reply #334: Happy birthday to this thread, part 2

[Jack Rabbit]

Since the subject of this thread is the left being wrong about the capture of Saddam, let's see what this lefty had to say about that one year ago.

From Democratic Underground
Dated Wednesday December 17, 2003

The Downfall of Tyrants
By Jack Rabbit

Saddam Hussein was one of the major criminals of his time. He can be charged with waging one war of aggression against Iran and another against Kuwait and genocide against the Kurds of his own country. He was guilty of mass murder, religious persecution and of organizing and operating a brutal police state. He personally profited from the diversion of oil revenues that were supposed to be used to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people following the 1991 war and the imposition of sanctions.

Should he ever face justice, either in an Iraqi court or a duly constituted international tribunal, the trial could conceivably take years. The evidence that could be presented against him is voluminous. Plato defined a tyrant as one who is ruled by his passions rather than reason and will break every sacred bound in order to satisfy his appetites. That is a good description of Saddam.

Saddam has fallen. However, as a result the world is not a safer, better place, as one should expect. It is a more dangerous one. Indeed, even American citizens are less safe now than before as a result of the action of their own government. How could this have come about?

The truth is that the monster Saddam was not vanquished by a hero, but simply devoured by a more powerful monster. There is a right and wrong way to go about any task, including the ousting of a brutal dictator, and the overthrow of Saddam was brought about in the worst way possible. The operation was motivated by no real desire for justice, but by greed and a lust for power.

The ouster of Saddam should have been a clear call for universal rejoicing; instead, the cheers must be tempered. The Iraqi people are not free. They have had the yoke of one tyrant lifted from their shoulders, only to be replaced with the yoke of another. If the new rulers of Iraq are morally superior to the old ones, it is only because must of us hold theft to be less of a crime than murder. Nevertheless, both murderers and thieves should be locked up somewhere remote, where they can do honest men and women no harm . . . .

The Bushies should spare us the talk of invading Iraq to make the lives of Iraqis better. It was fought to line the pockets of Mr. Bush's cronies. If Iraqi lives got better as a result, so much the better; but if not - well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Iraqi lives will not get better until this set of priorities change. As of now, we have only succeeded in replacing a gang of murderers with a gang of thieves. That's only a marginal improvement.

Consequently, the Iraqis are resisting the occupation. Those who believe Saddam's capture will alleviate Iraqi resistance will be disappointed. The Iraqi people want none of the past that was Saddam, but neither do they want the future which Bush would impose on them. They can run their country in their own interests better than Bush and his friends can and they know it. If Saddam's overthrow is to have any positive meaning, then we need to get out of the way and let them run it. Freedom and self-determination is their natural right. A new, international team is needed to transition Iraq to self-rule.

Read more.

Since this was written, events in Abu Ghraib and Falluja have served to show that this gang of thieves is also willing to murder. There is precious little difference between dropping poison gas on a dissident population and dropping fire bombs on a dissident population. Bush and his aides deserve to be brought to justice every bit as much as Saddam and his.

Prior to the war, the left predicted that the resisistance to the occupation would be widespread and fierce and that the means to put it down would be brutal. This was an accurate prediction. In this article, this lefty dismissed any idea that the capture of Saddam would put any dent in Iraqi resistance to occupation, since most of the resistance is aimed at removing Iraq's present colonial regime, not in restoring a past tyrant. This, too, turned out to be accurate.

The left was right.