A reader pointed me to this column about a book of Saddam’s atrocities that turned the author, who was against the war, into a reluctant supporter. I disagree with the author’s over-the-top, typical far left characterization of how the war has gone, but am intrigued by the thought process that led someone with such a negative opinion of the war to come to the conclusion that it was necessary.
Before it began, the war in Iraq seemed to me a thoroughly bad business, and subsequent events have confirmed me in that opinion: the dodgy dossier, the persecution of Dr Kelly, the public lies, the botched reconstruction, the torture at Abu Ghraib, the massacres, the proliferation of terror, the descent into civil war – an unmitigated disaster. And like many opponents of the war, I have taken a grim satisfaction as increasing numbers of its erstwhile supporters have come round to my view.
War is a contradictory business, though, and my gloomy complacency is severely dented by a French book entitled Le Livre Noir de Saddam Hussein (The Black Book of Saddam Hussein). Edited by Chris Kutschera, and published by Oh! Editions, it is a collection of writings by historians, journalists and jurists offering an exhaustive account of the dictator’s crimes against humanity.
At his trial in Baghdad, Saddam stands accused of 148 killings, but the Black Book puts the number closer to two million…
…The Black Book’s preface is by Bernard Kouchner, a co-founder of Medecins Sans Frontieres and former cabinet minister, who writes that “Saddam was one of history’s worst tyrants and it was necessary and urgent to remove him.” The war may not have been the ideal way to do so, but there was no other.
What I found amazing is that someone with such an intensely negative view of the war effort, could read of Saddam’s atrocities and decide that even what he found to be an extremely ugly war was preferable to what existed under Saddam. It made me wonder how many of those who have a less extreme negative opinion of the war might look at the success of the effort differently if reminded (in detail) of the extreme viciousness and vast reach of Saddam’s brutality.
For those who say pointing to Saddam’s atrocities as a reason for the invasion of Iraq is an attempt to change the rationale for the war after the fact, I must conclude that they are either dishonest or did not read a newspaper or watch any television in the year leading up to the invasion. I vividly recall the references to “rape rooms” and other forms of torture included in both the President’s speech to the UN and in the State of the Union. I also recall the revelation from CNN’s Eason Jordan, after the invasion, that he was aware of atrocities taking place in Saddam’s Iraq, but did not report them for fear, at least partly, of losing their Baghdad bureau. Of course, for those who choose to believe the rosy picture of kite-flying children in Michael Moore’s vision of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, there is not much room for reality and everyone in Iraq was happier with Saddam in power.
Hello Bemused …
I like you. You are a great deal more intelligent than the other Lefties here. You say nothing falsifiable, are very subtle at employing variable standards of proof, lie by omission, and are really quite skillful at using hindsight to judge actions that were taken prior to the information provided by hindsight became available.
For example, you cite Bush’s saying that a mobile weapons lab has been found on May 31, 2003 as evidence of BushLying™ but you, of course, neglect to mention that on May 28, 2003 (just three days earlier) that the CIA and DIA publicly filed a report addressing this issue titled Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants in which they concluded;
[W]e nevertheless are confident that this trailer is a mobile BW production plant because of the source’s description, equipment, and design.
In other words, Bush was saying exactly what the nation’s two premier Intelligence agencies believed to be true at the time. The proof is right there on the CIA’s website.
I must say, Bemused, I’m very impressed. You’re very good at what you do. You must be a reporter. Because I believe that it must take a great deal of training, discipline and intelligence to do what you’ve done throughout this website.
Well done. It’s obvious mak44 and Lee are only small fry (they just amuse me mostly) – you’re somewhat bigger fish. I’ll be paying extra attention to your posts from now on.
The problem with comparing Iraq to the Kosovo campaign is that Kosovo was much easier since it did not involve the invasion and occupation of a country with the requirement of keeping it in one piece.
Kosovo is the equivalent of us invading Kurdistan alone and then pounding Iraq to allow to stay there…oh we did that already in 1991.
Now, if Clinton had invaded all of Yugoslavia and managed to create a democractic government consisting of Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks, then it would be the same…and the Serbs would be letting off IEDs right now.
Another question for people appalled by the civil war in Iraq – do you think if Saddam had died of natural causes in 2003 that there would not have been a very nasty civil war anyways? Or Uday and Qsay could have become leaders of Iraq? Why not?
Marty–
You sound like a weirdo. I’m a “consultant” (cough pretty well unemployed cough) who smokes pot, reads stuff and has opinions. Anderson Cooper is mak44.
To a better 21st century!