Posted on 10/20/2003 6:22:43 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
The Economic Elite The third pillar of the regime is the economic elite, often referred to as an economic "mafia". It is a product of the state's control over oil and other resources, which it distributes through a patronage system, controlled by Saddam's family and clan. But the largesse is spread into all communities, tying important Kurdish, shi'ah, and sunni elements to the regime. Most are contractors who owed their wealth to government patronage; a smaller number are industrialists. While this group can provide the support, the contacts and some of the know-how to revive the economy, it cannot be expected to provide alternative political leadership. In fact, it is not a true private sector independent of the state. Indeed, one of the best changes that could be introduced would be to separate this economic class from the state, and to move toward the creation of a true, and more independent, private sector.
That, I am almost certain was anthrax via Iraq. Where was it made? My bets: (1) Iraq (2) Pakistan (3) China (4) Russia. Transfer via Iraq diplo pack to Atta in Europe.
OK, let's see...
In your first post, from May 2000, the article states, "Cooperation with the Iraqi regime earns him perks..."
I'll bet they did.
I understand that life was difficult in sanctions-enforced Iraq, sanctions, it might be added, that were the direct result of Saddam's misbehavior. But that is neither here nor there.
While everyone must have an income to eat, and no one works for free, in the context of our discussion we must ask, what would be the consequences of Al Shammari's non-cooperation?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
The question here is, given that, can this really be called patronage?
This guy has killed for less. I agree, Saddam played the tribes like an orchestra, but the only ones in Iraq under his tender mercies who truly qualified for patronage were family, a few (very few) close friends, and Baathists who proclivities were already well known to the inner circle.
Given that, wouldn't nepotism be closer to the truth?
Websters 7th Collegiate gives us 5 definitions for the word, and for purposes of this discussion only one fits - "the power to make appointments to government jobs on a basis other than merit alone".
The problem with this is, in Saddam's Iraq, most of those who wielded power were advanced on the basis of merit! In a most perverse manner, this state was a meritocracy! They merited power and advancement precisely because they'd shown Saddam what they could do, and were most willing to do.
The other article you post regards Dr Phebe Marr, whom I have great respect for. However, in a recent interview she states that a "large majority" have no stake in Iraq's future. That is a rather stunning, sweeping generalization that seems in direct conflict with the stated goals of the modernization of that country. It is a view I can quite come to accept. Perhps she will proven right, but know this - that "large majority" now has better prospects for itself than any time since 1968.
In the article you cite, she correctly views the "mafia" aspect of the economic realities in the country in that time. But while a "spreading of largesse" undoubtedly occurred, it should be asked, for example, "What happened to the $1.9 billion that was appropriated by the UN for the 'Oil For Food' program?"
It's already been been shown that not too many Iraqis got much, if any, food from this, but that Saddam and his pals took care of themselves first, and then gave the army first dibs on the remainder. First and foremost, he always made sure which way the guns were pointing.
Those were good posts you made, in and of themselves, but they don't quite make your case for you. You are undoubtedly well-versed on this subject, but my initial premise stands - that while corrupt, Saddam's Iraq relied on unrelenting terror to insure his continued survival, and that paying off segments of that society was simply a cost-effective means of insuring compliance. It's easier and faster to pay someone off, for sure, but he was just as willing to slit a throat as he was to make a payment. I can't quite see that as patronage. Sorry.
That's the way I see it.
CA....
Dr. Marr's quote should read a "large percentage".
My bad...
CA....
A dictator as ruthless as Saddam, who already controlled, and exercised that control over, a well-furnished military, has no need whatsoever to implement a "patronage" system.
He did not draw support from the Sunnis in exchange for "jobs" and "favors". He did not have need of, and indeed did not have, a political patronage system.
Patronage was not one of his weapons of choice, as it were.
In your most recent post you professed admiration for Dr. Phebe Marr. Contrary to your argument, Dr. Phebe Marr clearly describes a patronage system as one of the pillars of support for the Hussein regime. Dr. Phebe Marr describes a system of patronage that extends far beyond Saddam's family, a handful of close friends, and Baathists (scratch the nepotism argument).
By the way, I would like to see a single shred of evidence that Saddam awarded jobs based on merit.
Do you still consider my argument "absurd" (Insulting post?) as you stated in one of your first replies to me?
Transcription error, your implied insinuation notwithstanding...
I'll post something more when I have time...
CA....
I did not mean to imply that you were lying. However, you have to admit that there could be a sizeable gap between "large majority" and "large percentage".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.