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....