Random Thoughts

Good Riddance, Saddam

Whether you‘re for the war in Iraq or not, anyone would agree that it‘s good riddance to a dismal pile of rubbish with the toasting of the “Butcher of Baghdad.“
We can‘t put a face on all of the people Saddam Hussein has murdered and tortured through his 20 years in power because there are simply too many of them: In 1987 alone, between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds were gassed to death by Saddam‘s troops. No one seems to have a handle on how many people died in the Iran-Iraq war of the ‘80s, but we do know that it was in the millions.
How do you put a face on that? How many people disappeared into Saddam‘s torture chambers and dungeons through the years? What were they like? What were their hopes and dreams; who were their families and children? They‘re as lost to us as the cremated souls of the Holocaust.
Good riddance, Saddam Hussein.
If you want to lose your lunch, check out Amnesty International‘s report on the “Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners“ in Iraq at http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf. Or read Edward W. Lempinen‘s March 19 article, “See No Evil -- Why Won‘t the Left Fight This Man?“ on Salon.com which includes this passage from Amnesty‘s report:

“Torture victims in Iraq have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists for long hours. Electric shocks have been used on various parts of their bodies, including the genitals, ears, the tongue and fingers. Victims have described to Amnesty International how they have been beaten with canes, whips, hosepipe or metal rods and how they have been suspended for hours from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole often in contorted positions as electric shocks were applied repeatedly on their bodies. Some victims had been forced to watch others, including their own relatives or family members, being tortured in front of them.“

That‘s the milder stuff in Amnesty‘s report. The rest is just as bad, like the beheading of dozens of women on bogus prostitution charges last October, or institutionalized rape by prison goons as a punishment.
Good riddance, Saddam Hussein.

Can you be both for and against a war? Yes you can, and such is the case with many Americans, who sincerely want to see freedom for the people of Iraq, but don‘t want anyone to get hurt in the process.
The controversy leading up to the war has brought out the worst in both the right and the left in our country.
In his Salon.com article, for instance, Lempinen makes the point that the left has “lost its moral compass“ by not leading the charge to free the people of Iraq. Why? Because virtually the entire reason for the existence of the left in politics is to come to the aid of oppressed people. Union struggles, civil rights... He notes that the left “was once prepared to fight, die -- and kill -- for other peoples‘ freedom“ in causes such as the Spanish Civil War and in World War II where leftists from America and Europe fought Nazis and facists. Ironically, it was liberal Franklin D. Roosevelt who dragged isolationist conservatives kicking and screaming to the aid of the suffering people of Europe and Asia in WWII. Left-wing artists such as Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell and Picasso captured the need to oppose facism and tyranny in some of the greatest works of the 20th century.
Vietnam destroyed the left‘s ability to swing a sword on behalf of oppressed people. The philosophy of pacifism -- a utopian dream -- has kept the left from stepping up to the plate against Saddam. “What are we doing to make sure that not another woman is raped or beheaded as a form of political terror?” Lempinen asks his fellow liberals. Indeed.
Ironically, George Bush took on a fight that could just as easily have been the cause of a liberal president. No doubt, if Al Gore was president, the shoe would be on the other foot, with the present anti-war activists supporting a Kosovo-style war of liberation and the talk radio jockeys demanding his impeachment.
It‘s too bad that George Bush couldn‘t have started with a different script nine months ago. He should have told us that this war was all about freeing the suffering people of Iraq from the get-go, instead of a load of malarky about weapons of mass destruction that few believed. Maybe there wouldn‘t have been such world-wide outrage and the overwhelming sense that this is just a grab for Iraq‘s oil.
With that said, it’s worth pointing out that dissent and protest have actually been very helpful in the build-up to the war. Protests keep governments on their toes. They remind military planners to take care that few civilians die, and soldiers too. In his book, “Citizen Soldier,” the late historian Ambrose Bierce noted that in World War II, there were no protests to speak of, so generals on both sides gave little thought to tossing tens of thousands of their own men to their deaths each day. How many American veterans of Vietnam owe their lives today to the protests of the ‘60s which brought them home?
Some pro-war supporters have noted in a tone of wishful thinking that in Iraq, protesters have their tongues cut out for bravely speaking out. That’s precisely why that sort of thing doesn’t happen in a free society where people have the courage to state controversial views. When you silence protest, it gives government free reign to go down Saddam’s path.
So, let’s celebrate our common ground and the victory over Saddam. Lets support our brave troops -- their faces look so young and innocent on TV. Lets hope the bad guys get their due and the good, innocent people of Iraq are free to determine a happier place in the world. All that’s lacking is a Mussolini-style lynching of Saddam by his own people to put other dictators on notice. View On Our Website