Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jonathan Chait: Bring back Saddam Hussein
The Los Angeles Times ^ | November 27, 2006 | Jonathan Chait

Posted on 11/27/2006 1:22:07 AM PST by Zakeet

THE DEBATE about Iraq has moved past the question of whether it was a mistake (everybody knows it was) to the more depressing question of whether it is possible to avert total disaster. Every self-respecting foreign policy analyst has his own plan for Iraq. The trouble is that these tracts are inevitably unconvincing, except when they argue why all the other plans would fail. It's all terribly grim.

So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.

Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale.

[Snip]

he disadvantages of reinstalling Hussein are obvious, but consider some of the upside. He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, which is the United States' major regional enemy, a sponsor of terrorism and an instigator of warfare between Lebanon and Israel. Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war, in large part because he apparently believed that he could defeat any U.S. invasion if it came to that. Now he knows he can't. And he'd probably be amenable because his alternative is death by hanging.

I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; leadership; saddam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
OK Freepers, have at it.
1 posted on 11/27/2006 1:22:10 AM PST by Zakeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

The mistake was to create a political vacuum for too many years and allow Iran and Syria to interfere with impunity, without any retaliation.


2 posted on 11/27/2006 1:25:12 AM PST by observer5 (It's not a War on Terror - it's a WAR ON STUPIDITY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Good Grief!


3 posted on 11/27/2006 1:31:13 AM PST by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

we should all write this guy a letter and tell him we agree, under one condition. he has to go live there with sweetie Saddam.


4 posted on 11/27/2006 1:31:54 AM PST by ferri (Be Politically Incorrect: Support the Constitution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
There really ought to be a law against idiots possessing and using word processors.

L

5 posted on 11/27/2006 1:33:24 AM PST by Lurker (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

LOL!


6 posted on 11/27/2006 1:37:19 AM PST by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: observer5

its a great idea...but now hes really our man...armed american guards...he does our bidding or he dies....reform the Iraqi army and invade iran...i like it...i don't care about arabs anymore...they aint got it...i want a real american empire.


7 posted on 11/27/2006 1:49:18 AM PST by wildcatf4f3 (If it weren't for lawyers we wouldn't need 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others.

Why bother, Chait? You have already demonstrated that you don't have a grasp on reality or logic, so "explaining" things to you would be more exertion than it's worth.

So, I'll just make it easier and explain to you that you're an idiot.

8 posted on 11/27/2006 2:50:32 AM PST by Allegra (Declaring Full Jihad on the Cut-and-Run Surrender Monkeys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildcatf4f3
i like it...i don't care about arabs anymore...they aint got it...i want a real american empire.

But you're not calling the shots. You aren't in charge.

Thanks be to the Lord.

9 posted on 11/27/2006 2:53:52 AM PST by Allegra (Declaring Full Jihad on the Cut-and-Run Surrender Monkeys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

It's an idiotic proposal. The Shi'ites and Kurds would declare open war. Besides, this is kinda like proposing we restore Hitler to power because there was some postwar unrest in Germany.


10 posted on 11/27/2006 3:18:33 AM PST by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
The Iraqi populace does not understand freedom.
They're used to harsh, gruesome methods which quite obviously keep them in line.
Democracy, freedom of speech, legal representations etc. are looked at as weaknesses ready to be toppled and exploited by a strong man with verbal, organizational skills.
11 posted on 11/27/2006 3:34:09 AM PST by hermgem (The same)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

The GOP has been wagging the finger at Dems for years saying "If you had it your way, Saddam Hussein would still be in control."

Now the Dems are finally coming clean... That's exactly right.


12 posted on 11/27/2006 4:31:19 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
This may not be a popular view but...

We put him in power there to begin with.

From 1979 until George H. Bush, U.S. policy toward Saddam was "better a strongman dictator in charge then an Islamic Mullah". It seemed to be a tolerable relationship, at least through Reagans two terms in office.

Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the Nasser model. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.

There has never been a denial from Kuwait that they were slant drilling Iraqi oil fields. They only disputed the amount they were stealing from Iraq. Most of the damage in the first Gulf War to Kuwait were done to the oil fields that were doing the slant drilling. I believe Saddam thought he had tact permission from U.S. State Department to take the actions he did.

We apparently sided with the Islamic Republic of Kuwait in the end. The personal and business friendship between some of the Kuwaiti Prince's and the Bush family are documented but that implies little to me.

We helped install Saddam to avoid precisely what is occurring in Iraq today. Many people forget that Saddam was at one time our closest ally in that part of the ME, and that he fought a proxy war(badly)against Iran for us...at least under Reagan we armed and supported him during this time. Reagan distanced himself from him after he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

On March 6, 1991, referring to the first Gulf War, Bush announced: "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea - a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law."

"So much for "diverse nations being drawn together".

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

13 posted on 11/27/2006 4:36:43 AM PST by KDD (Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Maybe a kinder, gentler Saddam clone with remote control. Yea, that's it!
14 posted on 11/27/2006 4:52:47 AM PST by wolfcreek (Suegna como si vivieras para siempre; vive como si fueses a morir hoy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Here is the theory our venture in Iraq is testing: that Islamic extremism thrives in the absence of ideological competition, and that a secular democratic government in Iraq will begin to provide that competition. We don't know if it will work. We have to find out, and it's not going to be easy.

Or we could just do as Chait suggests and turn the calendars back to September 10. Either way.

15 posted on 11/27/2006 4:55:34 AM PST by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redbaiter
Or we could just do as Chait suggests and turn the calendars back to September 10

If 911 provided an excuse to attack Iraq then what excuse is there not to attack Saudi Arabia? After all, that is where the terrorist hijackers came from...supported financially by Saudi Wahabbists. Instead of giving the Saudis their due payback we get this...

16 posted on 11/27/2006 5:09:21 AM PST by KDD (Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Poor babies, you can't tolerate a few suicide bombers and IEDs. Wait until the revolution comes.


17 posted on 11/27/2006 5:32:50 AM PST by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others.

It's worse because the Iraqis all saw him being pulled, whimpering and cowering, from his spider hole. And then there was that little episode of Saddam in his undies. No, the image of the mighty Arab ruler defiantly waving a sword over his head is forever tarnished. That's why it's a worse idea.

18 posted on 11/27/2006 6:11:35 AM PST by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
When Osama bin Laden issued his declaration of war against the United States before the September 11 terrorist attacks, he specifically cited the stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands in Saudi Arabia, as the principal reason for his declaration of war and demanded that all military forces in Saudi Arabia leave.

In August 2003, less then two years after 911, all U.S. military left Saudi Arabia. I would have kept them there if only for no other reason than Osama demanded they leave.

Some "poor babies" are a bit confused about why our Islamic enemies get a free pass. Some deluded fools still actually think Iraq was responsible for 911...But if they can get beyond that illusion then they might wonder why we coddle terrorists financiers and why we must tolerate a few suicide bombers and IEDs to bring what appears to be another Islamic government to power in the only secular run country in the ME.

19 posted on 11/27/2006 6:17:30 AM PST by KDD (Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: layman

You are right of course.

You have a good grasp of the Arab mindset.


20 posted on 11/27/2006 6:27:13 AM PST by KDD (Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson