Before the war, I argued that by invading and overthrowing the brutal, ruthless but stable regime of Saddam Hussein we were replacing a “lesser evil” with the dangerous possibility of a greater evil for the West. Despite the near pathetic attempts by supporters of the war, there is no evidence (apart from a few meetings in 1998) of any alliance, tactical or strategic between Islamic fundamentalists and the Ba’athist regime in Baghdad.
This is no surprise for anyone with any knowledge or understanding of the complicated interplay in Middle East, where Saddam Hussein has always been a brutal secular anti-fundamentalist leader opposed to Islamic radicalism. You may remember seeing pictures of Saddam Hussein among the crowds and mobs of Palestinians, and Saddam competed (and this does) with Osama Bin laden for the minds and hearts of the Arab people. Although Saddam has used Islam to buttress his rule (he “turned” to Islam in 1991 to save his regime) in practise Saddam has always been hated by Islamists because he drunks, fornicates and goes against the Koran.
What makes Saddam Hussein unique is that he enjoys many admirers across the Arab world for standing up to the West particularly America and surviving. In other words, Saddam representing the neo-Nasserian secular pan-Arabian anti-Americanism tradition competes for the minds of millions with the rabid, anti-Western, radical fundamentalist Islamic anti-Americanism of Bin Laden. For me Saddam, however caurse, evil and inhumane his regime is, was never the systemic threat as opposed to Bin Laden who inspires young men to fly planes into the World Trade Centre for religion. Saddam for all his faults was a rational man not inspired by rabid hatred – in other words to use Thatchers phrase, “a man we can do business with”.
Sadly however, the majority of people subscribed to the ignorant and simplistic view that “Saddam is a evil dictator” and thus he should be removed. What they never considered was the potential anarchy, chaos and carnage that could occur after the removal of the Ba’athist regime. We are now seeing exactly this, leading Shia religious leaders being murdered and blown up, the UN headquarters in Baghdad blown up (UN workers were safer in Ba’athist Iraq than post-Saddam Iraq), hundreds of innocent girls being kidnapped and raped, small businessmen unable to open their shops because of looters (under Ba’athist Iraq the markets were always open and bustling with trade) and people could enjoy basic services like water, electricity and medicine (despite the US/British imposed economic sanctions).
These aren’t brief blips before stability was restored in Iraq by the “Coalition” and democracy could emerge, things are getting worse not better after six months in Iraq. This is now a sad and nostalgic dream by adolescent neo-conservatives, the reality is emerging Turko-Kurdish battles, a bitter in-fighting among the Shia community, a Sunni population supportive of Saddam loyalists and Sunni Muslin fighters and the influx of foreign terrorists from Saudi Arabia and other places. In case you don’t know your map of the Middle East (if you don’t get a map now and study it), the Shia turbulence could spill over to Shias in Saudi Arabia, greater Iranian involvement, Kurdish conflagration in Iran and Turkey, greater unrest in Saudi Arabia among radicalised Muslims etc. In other words, the civil war which all Arab papers are predicting (
Arabs warn on Civil War in Iraq) would NEVER have happened under Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein was a monster in many ways, his regime was based on terror but it did offer stability, a basic standard of living and kept a firm hand of Islamic fundamentalism (Saddam shot Islamic radicals) which is in the Wests interests. What is NOT in our interests is a chaotic land becoming the magnet for every sort of terrorist bent on anarchy, death and destruction. By irresponsibly overthrown Husseins regime, a Pandoras Box has opened, and the Americans appear incapable of shutting it.
Was invading Iraq the opening of a Pandoras Box of chaos?