Send the madman back?!
What if we sent Saddam back? Do you think he could bring order to that madness?
I promise I'll post more on this later--just wanted to jot it down now. I'm not saying I favor this idea--but it might be crazy enough to work. I know robfurrball (a standing ovation to him--he's being deployed to the Middle East soon) will probably kick my @$$ for this idea...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As promised, more on this one. But first, thanks to charles and queueball for posting comments! (queueball's is actually on this post here)
So here's what I think.
- POINT: Saddam Hussein is a despotic, genocidal, paranoid maniac who ruled his people with fear and an iron fist.
- POINT: Iraq is a mess. Militants are everywhere. Many innocent citizens are killed every day. The Iraqi leadership has no real control over Iraqi rebels--and neither does the US Army.
Derivation of these points: Saddam, while genocidal, did have control of his people--at least his army. If you read some historical info about him (like Wikipedia: Saddam Hussein) you'll notice that one of his major accomplishments during his rise to power was uniting (or, quite possibly, forcibly gluing together) the historically conflicting factions in the area. In addition, during Saddam's ruthless reign, Iraq's infrastructure developed at a fairly rapid clip. In short, Saddam Hussein probably understands the intricacies of managing Iraq better than anyone else--certainly better than any American.
So why not do this--why not bring him back as a consultant? Offer him a good deal--life in exile, rather than submitting himself to a trial that has no chance of being fair--in exchange for aiding us and the new Iraqi government. He wouldn't be given any real power--but we could certainly listen to his observations, and follow those we didn't consider to be too Machiavellian. Who knows? The despot who ran Iraq for 40 years could actually help us run it better, now. The knowledge of a former leader, combined with the somewhat benevolent intentions of a democratic invading army (that wants to get the hell out sometime soon) could just make for a better Iraq.
In reply to charles and queueball's comments:
- Yes, Saddam is being held by the Iraqi goverment. But please don't tell me anyone really believes that when the US says "jump," the Iraqis don't head for the nearest trampoline. If we wanted to offer this sort of a deal, we could certainly incentivize the Iraqis and their ruling party to allow us to do so.
- No, I don't think this is a panacea--it will certainly not allow us to get out tomorrow. But it might make our pullout able to happen a little sooner.
Thanks again for your comments--I'm looking forward to seeing what everyone says!
posted by Sameer | 9:30 PM
5 Comments:
Hmm, yeah, you're going to need to bribe everyone who ever read this blog if you run for office. Seriously, what possible positives could this plan have?
1) Saddam's still in Iraq, and being tried by the Iraqi government. Legally, he is not in our custody, and we could not return him.
2) It was his party and army that provided order, and I don't see them voluntarily submitting themselves to a whimsical madman again, even if the rest of the world wanting him back.
Did his law and order come because of a unique perspective on Iraq, or because everybody feared his agents? Also, how many civilians were killed/tortured under him? I know a certain amount of law enforcement is based on a fear of punishment, but I don't think that's the country we want resulting from this.
Uhhh...
Testing. Testing. Is this thing on? I could have sworn you just suggested sending Saddam back as a method of bringing order to that madness otherwise known as "Mess-o-potamia." (Thank you, Jon Stewart.)
Perhaps your Flowbee has been cutting you a little too closely lately, because that idea is about as good as New Coke.
Still, you are not the first person to think of this sort of thing. Tom Friedman (Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times) brought up a similar idea in his November 11, 2004, column "'Groundhog Day' In Iraq." In the column, Mr. Friedman laid out several questions that he feels are imperative in our being able to judge Iraq's progress. One of them was, "Is Iraq the way Iraq is because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or was Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraqis are the way they are - congenitally divided?"
We still do not know the answer to this question nor to many of the others that Mr. Friedman asked. However, there is no doubt that Iraq is still a mess. In my opinion, this is because:
1) We did not have a workable plan for winning the peace. For some odd reason, our administration had not thought that far ahead. When we rolled through to Baghdad and over Saddam's military, there was no post-war plan. It was as if the Underpants Gnomes were running our country: step 1 - steal underpants, step 2 - .?.?.?., step 3 - profit!
2) People are pressuring the administration to bring the US troops home. But, in reality, what we may actually need is more troops there. Over the course of this operation (from a project management standpoint) it has been under-staffed and under-funded. While some might say that it is too late to throw more troops in there, I would disagree. We need more, though not just from the US. Iraqi troops would be a plus, but they are either still in training or are being blown up while still in volunteer lines. UN troops are probably where we need to focus. Unfortunately, the countries who probably could provide the troops are not willing to do so because the US administration completely screwed the diplomatic pre-war negotiations.
You are right, Iraq is a mess. But most of the people in there causing all of the trouble are not even Iraqis. I would suspect that many if not all of them are coming from a very close neighbor who's leaders fear a democratic arab state which would be the catalyst for change in the entire region. For this reason, and many others, we cannot let the insurgents and this type of thinking prevail.
If there is one thing this war is sorely missing, it is intelligence. And I am referring not only to the kind that originates from between the ears of our leaders, but also that which is derived from certain clandestine activities. The fact that we still do not have (from what I can tell) any embassies or field offices in Iraq is a HUGE mistake. Without field operatives working to get information and intelligence on the insurgents, we cannot hope to make any true progress.
At any rate, this post has been too much of a rant. Overall, putting Saddam back in power or using him as a "consultant" is just a silly, silly idea. We need to let the Iraqi government do their job, and we need to provide them with security and the resources to train their own security forces. Going back to what used to "work" is not a feasible idea because it never really "worked" before, which is why our government went there to begin with. I do not believe Iraq was a credible threat to the US before we invaded. However, I do believe that Iraq is now a credible threat to terrorists and the mis-directed ideals that they stand for... which is why they have been doing anything they can to impede progress.
Let us see this process through to the end, but leave Saddam out of it. If anything, we owe that to the Iraqi people.
I admire your willingness to think outside the box and to do so in a open and honest way. I'll try to do the same.
One of your points is that innocent Iraqi civilians are being killed everyday. Keep this in mind.
First, Hundreds of Thousands of innocent civilians were murdered by Saddam, so if your goal is to stop the death of innocents, this isn't a solution. not to mention those who were tortured and/or raped and left alive. I think this is not included enough when the calculus of the war is considered.
Second, the reason they are dying has nothing to do with our presence there. I can say this because civilians are actually being targeted and are not simply collateral damage. The terrorists are driving truck bombs into employment lines not battle lines. They are targeting Iraqi police not MP's. This is a group that wants to see Democracy fail, not to beat America; mainly because they cannot defeat us, but they can ruin our plans and eliminate the prospects of freedom for others.
Innocent people die every day. There are criminals everywhere who take things which do not belong to them, shoot firearms intent on killing. Fundalmentalists are plotting to do damage to civilian in order to cause terror. Bombs have gone off on mass transit. Yes, I'm talking about the U.K.
Of course the best solution to this issue is to place a despotic dictator in charge of the country to bring calm and order.
Post a Comment
<< Home