Yes, Saddam WAS a brutal tyrant, But...

Submitted by Justin H. (United States), Jan 20, 2006 at 16:54

I understand and respect your opinion, but on these issues (especially the Iraq war) I have quite a few grievances (and NOT with your response: solely with the issues at hand, although I will NOT discuss Islamic history here, as I will focus SOLELY on Iraq).

The fact is that, as of this writing, some 2,200 US Soldiers, many of whom had joined the armed forces hoping to be able to pay for college and join the American middle class have lost their lives, for what could ultimately turn out to be an Islamic theocracy, which is hostile to the United States (and aligns itself with Iran). Therefore, in my opinion, they died for nothing. I must point out that the possibility of a Moqtada Al-Sadr-led Iraq should be a nightmare not only for U.S. policymakers, but also for some of Iraq's unfortunate neighbors.

Furthermore, the sunni-led insurgency will probably galvanize the Islamists seeking to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashar al-Asad. That, of course, is a nightmare for U.S. interests. On the issue of liberation from tyranny, I use the following example. The Kurds, who are perhaps the only pro-American population in Iraq, had already been liberated from Saddam. They had, of course, been liberated with American, British, and Israeli assistance, after the 1991 Gulf War. The Kurds are grateful to us and did not need to be liberated again.

Furthermore, terrible a tyrant as Saddam Hussein was, he was far from the worst. During his reign, some 240,000 Shiites and Kurds were killed. By contrast, the Sudanese government has, as of this writing, killed nearly 3 million Christians and Animists. Furthermore, in the early to mid-1990s (unlike Saddam), they, in fact, played host to Osama bin Laden.

Yet, neither Clinton nor Bush ever discussed going to war with Sudan...I wonder why (black gold hint, hint). As far as our obligation to protect "the little man" is concerned, the bottom line is that we have become too responsible. If there is one thing we must learn from "Operation Iraqi Freedom", it is this: no matter how hard you try you cannot save the world. Liberating France in 1944 was one thing. Liberating Iraq sixty years later is another. The reality is that bringing democracy and the rule of law to a country such as Iraq is easier said than done, and not because of Islam (look at Turkey, Senegal, and Mali- for instance. They are also predominantly Islamic countries).

The bottom line is that France is a nation. Iraq is not. It is a fractured, tribal society...any PBS documentary should reveal the ethnic and religious fault lines that FOX news fails to show us Americans. Instead, it treats this war as a success. My personal belief is that the lines between Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Kurd, will one day tear the country apart, as happened when the Indian subcontinent split into present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Either that, or the country will likely descend into a long civil war as Lebanon did from 1975 until 1990. Iraq, I believe, was marked for destruction the moment it was created by Britain in 1920. Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in the middle of this mess.

Our soldiers deserve more for their efforts than to be blown to bits by self-proclaimed "martyrs" (it should be noted that about 4 weeks ago, a Salafist insurgent detonated himself at a Shiite FUNERAL, a sure sign of how messed up the situation in Iraq is). Meanwhile, our image abroad only seems to worsen by day, which hinders our ability to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran, which is perhaps the greatest threat to the existence of the State of Israel since its inception in 1948. Furthermore, we Americans deserve better than Bush's Patriot Act or Domestic spying. We deserve our civil liberties, whether we are black, white, muslim, christian, or jewish. Thankfully, we ARE a democracy (let's hope it remains that way forever).

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".