Iranians’ views of Saddam’s hanging

22 thoughts on “Iranians’ views of Saddam’s hanging”

1. I am not surprised at the less than positive reaction from at least some Iranians.
   The reaction from many Kurds is that they have been cheated. Justice as Saddam did not receive justice in that politically motivated kangaroo court and rushed execution that was, after all, run by the Americans with a thin Iraq facade, so the Kurds have not received the justice they so richly deserve. Nor have the Marsh Arabs, nor have the overwhelming majority of his Shi`a victims. As for his many thousands of Sunni victims – WHAT?!!! You mean he had SUNNI victims?! Come ON, you’re pulling my leg, right?
   There was actually quite a good op-ed piece from a Iraqi Kurdish-American who suffered and lost family members at the hands of Saddam’s regime. Better yet, there is an interview with him here in which he makes points he left out of the op ed. This interview is part of a “round table” discussion that includes someone from HRW, and an international law specialist. I read another article that included remarks from another Iraqi Kurdish-American who expressed the same views.
   I have spoken to some of my Kurdish contacts, and they all pretty much echoed the same sentiments. They were also quite appalled at the manipulation of the dates of `Eid Al Adha by – as far as we can determine so far – the Maliki make-believe government.

2. I am not surprised at the less than positive reaction from at least some Iranians.
   The reaction from many Kurds is that they have been cheated. Justice as Saddam did not receive justice in that politically motivated kangaroo court and rushed execution that was, after all, run by the Americans with a thin Iraq facade, so the Kurds have not received the justice they so richly deserve. Nor have the Marsh Arabs, nor have the overwhelming majority of his Shi`a victims. As for his many thousands of Sunni victims – WHAT?!!! You mean he had SUNNI victims?! Come ON, you’re pulling my leg, right?
   There was actually quite a good op-ed piece from a Iraqi Kurdish-American who suffered and lost family members at the hands of Saddam’s regime. Better yet, there is an interview with him here in which he makes points he left out of the op ed. This interview is part of a “round table” discussion that includes someone from HRW, and an international law specialist. I read another article that included remarks from another Iraqi Kurdish-American who expressed the same views.
   I have spoken to some of my Kurdish contacts, and they all pretty much echoed the same sentiments. They were also quite appalled at the manipulation of the dates of `Eid Al Adha by – as far as we can determine so far – the Maliki make-believe government.

3. Addenda:
   1) Sorry, forgot the closing tag to the last link.
   2) My Kurdish contacts were appalled and outraged not only at the manipulation of the dates for `Eid Al Adha, but even moreso at the fact that the make-believe government held the execution during the `Eid. After all, declaring the start of the `Eid a day later does not really change it, particularly when it is such a blatant ploy.

4. Shirin,
   I agree with you. I was lucky and caught that Amy Goodman interview too. My experience from reading the Kurdish and Iranian papers that represent a non-governmental perspective has been similar to yours. The Kurds were cheated because he was never convicted for Halabcheh, Anfal, or any of the other atrocities committed in the North. The Shia and marsh Arabs you mention. The Iranians feel cheated because the atrocities of the 8-year war were never even discussed. And they are all upset because the history of the not-so-covert US role (along with Egypt, Saudis, the GCC sheikhs, Turkey, Europe that provided his chemical weapons infrastructure, and many more) is being actively and shamelessly swept under the rug. The Sunnis were definitely not spared his and his gang’s wrath. I think the reason that many of the Sunni’s are reluctant to criticize him, or do so half-heartedly, or even tongue-in-cheek is at least three-fold. One is that in mosaic societies, people from one stripe, whether religion or ethnicity or color or … are often reluctant to criticize the crimes of someone from the same stripe, lest this disgrace that stripe, or embolden the other stripe(s) to claim more rights, power, etc. The second is plain allegiance, whether tribal, ethnic, religious, or racial. And the third is that although that stripe may have suffered under those crimes, but often less so than the others. And this is not about Iraqi, Irani, or Turk. Even in silly sports game, most of us are more willing to forgive the fouls of our team, and find excuses to justify them (Mundial 2006, whether people thought it was Zidane’s fault or Materazzi’s had a lot to do with their being French or Italian). It’s human nature I guess!
   An historic example in the same neighborhood: When WWII drew to a close, the Soviets were occupying the Northern parts of Iran and were quite happy to stay (like Eastern Europe). The US/UK could not live with this, as this would bring “the Red Devil” one large step closer to the Persian Gulf and “warm waters”. The Soviets set up a puppet government under a local Azeri politician in Tabriz by the name of Pisheh-Vari, who declared the independence of the North Western provinces as Greater Azerbaijan. A thunderstorm ensued, with the direct involvement of Harry Truman, Churchill, and many others. Long story short, at the end the Pisheh-Vari “government” was toppled, and the Soviets had to retreat (and, the Shah opportunistically claimed victory as a great national hero, but he really didn’t have much to do with the outcome). The relevant point is that the acts of Pisheh-Vari were treacherous and treasonous, yet the bulk of the Azeri masses and even intelligentsia refused to condemn him loud and clear. And this despite the fact that the vast majority of Azeris preferred to be part of Iran, rather than just another destitute S.S.R. But they were afraid that a mass castigation of Pisheh-Vari and his clique would be embolden the Fars majority to use this as an excuse to put down the Azeris and banish them from positions of power for years. I think this is somewhat similar to what we see in Iraq’s Sunnis now: although only few of them actually go far enough to call him a hero or a great leader, but most of their condemnations are less vociferous than one may expect for such a monstrous tyrant.

5. David, I would add to your analysis above the question of whther the members of the “stripe” in question currently feel relatively secur as a community. Hard to quntify this, i know. But it’s evident from my research that, for example, the vast majority of Germans were not prepared to engage in any accurate accounting of the crimes of the Nazi era in 1945, when their society was crushed and burdened by defeat… It wasn’t till about 1960 or so, once the “German economic miracle” had really swung nto action, that they were ready to do that.
   Similarly with Serbs, or Hutus (or Tutsis) in Rwanda… And similarly, too, I think, for the vast majority of Sunnis in Iraq… Maybe also many Sunni Arabs beyond Iraq, too, since they currently feel so much under threat from “the Persians” (see also my “battle of the narratives” post from yesterday.)

6. Helena,
   Very true. There is an expression that goes something like this: ‘You have to bring the drowning man out of the water before you teach him how to swim’.
   In this piece by the Iranian ex-Vice President, he clearly states that “Saddams atrocities were evenly distributed among Sunni, Shia, Kurd, the Gulf nations and all of the Middle East.” Then he interestingly notes that “many of the governments who are now stoking the Shia-Sunni fire are prior victims of Saddam, yet they act as they do since they are afraid of a similar outcome”.
   http://www.webneveshteha.com/weblog/?id=2146308444

7. I agree with the broad observation that muslims in particular do not criticize muslims of the same stripe, or any stripe when the friction is with non muslims. Today one of the mofos instigating death in the Danish cartoon fiasco was convicted in London, and a crowd of same striped mofo was demonstrating outside.
   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6235279.stm
   Last Updated: Friday, 5 January 2007, 19:53 GMT
   E-mail this to a friend Printable version
   Cartoons protester found guilty
   Umran Javed
   Umran Javed claimed the chants were “just slogans”
   A British Muslim has been found guilty of soliciting murder during a London rally against cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
   Umran Javed 27, of Birmingham, was also convicted of stirring up racial hatred by a jury at the Old Bailey.
   Javed told a crowd of hundreds at the February 2006 protest: “Bomb, bomb Denmark, bomb, bomb USA.”
   There were disturbances in the public gallery when the verdict was read out, and one man was removed by security staff.

8. Davis,
   “I agree with the broad observation that muslims in particular do not criticize muslims of the same stripe, or any stripe when the friction is with non muslims.”
   I am not sure who you are agreeing with. No one has made the “broad observation” that you claim (regarding Muslims, or people of any other faith). The discussion above, with Helena and Shirin, was about the reasons why people (read again please: people) are reluctant to criticize others with whom they have a similarity of race, religion, etc. The examples clearly were not all Muslim at all (Italians, French, Rwandans, Germans, Serbs, …). And I wondered out loud “It’s human nature I guess!”.
   The “broad observation” you are attributing to Muslims is a behavior seen in humans and many higher vertebrates. In social psychology it is referred to as “siege mentality”. You can see it in a packs of animals that hunker down when they are attacked, and you can see it in human groups and societies too. It may be one of the reasons why it usually works when dictators use the state of war to quiet social discontent.

9. He takes his secrets to the grave. Our complicity dies with him. How the West armed Saddam, fed him intelligence on his ‘enemies’, equipped him for atrocities – and then made sure he wouldn’t squeal
   http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2114403.ece

10. What secrets? If Bobbie Fisk has uncovered and can recount them, then why do we need Saddam? And who believes that the psychopath wouldn’t have used any real evidence that he might have had to save his own hide?

11. Jes,
    Over the past 3 years, Saddam was busy making himself the great Arab hero and the eternal martyred Salah-Addin. It would be somewhat detrimental to this contrived image if he were to admit that he has been a CIA puppet and “the evil West”‘s direct agent for most of his horrid years. This does not mean however that if he were kept alive, at a later date and under different conditions, the fat lady would not sing.
    You have said before and I can imagine why you don’t have a lot of respect for Fisk. But this piece is a good summary, and I don’t know which part(s) of it you disagree with. Quite a bit of what he is saying, I can testify to from first hand (or first eye, rather) experience. And I wonder if you are implying that Saddam actually revealed all his secret dealings before his demise.

12. David,
    Extremely nice spin! If I believed the conspiracy theories of Helena and some of the folks here, I’d recommend you for a “hasbara” post.
    At any rate, I think that you should take a more careful look at what I, and others, have written and then ask some serious questions.
    Just to make matters clear, I don’t think that Bobbie Fisk’s summary is bad. Further, I am certainly not implying that Saddam gave up any secrets before his demise, because I don’t think that there were any great secrets to give up! That’s why the argument that begins with “We’ve shut him up” seems kind of meaningless to me.
    Everything in that Fisk piece has been repeated ad nauseum by many at least since 2003. There’s nothing new there, and I don’t think that Saddam had much of anything to add. (Of course if, as you say, you are an eyewitness to some dealing between Saddam and the US, then please feel free to embelish – although I don’t think that that is exactly what you meant.)
    What I do find interesting is that the implied message is that the United States somehow fostered a miscarriage of justice in Baghdad during the trial and execution. No mention here, however, of the Soviet Union, France, Germany, China, all of whom were equally complicit in supporting Saddam and the Ba’ath.
    By the way, Saddam Hussein was busy for several decades – not three years – trying to make himself a modern day Salah ad-Din. I think that, for a psychopath like Saddam, being alive was much more important than being a martyr. I think that if he had had some information that could have been used to blackmail his way out of the gallows and into some cushy exile, he would have gone for it with both hands.

13. Hey David, you can find a thousand explanations for why the reluctance to criticize other muslims exists, but it is not universal. Other groups and people can be quite the opopsite (Italians come to mind).
    I can get you started with:
    – no democratic or freedom of speech tradition
    – religious indoctrination
    – fatwas
    – madrassas
    – tribal/clan organization
    – autocratic regimes
    – siege mentality is there in the form of jihad
    – centuries of being on the geopolitical losing side
    You can explain away to your heart content, but it is a fact, and it annoyed the hell out many statesmen in the west that these mofos wouldn’t even criticize Al Qaeda after 9/11. They always have some slippery moral relativistic excuse.
    Are you willing to criticize the British cartoon mofo, or you also suffer from the above?

14. You can explain away to your heart content, but it is a fact, and it annoyed the hell out many statesmen in the west that these mofos wouldn’t even criticize Al Qaeda after 9/11. They always have some slippery moral relativistic excuse.
    http://tinyurl.com/al76w

15. I have to agree with JES on this one. For one thing, any information Saddam might have had just isn’t worth as much in the real world as in spy novels. Propaganda is much more powerful than information.
    This puts me in mind of a great article that was published by Nicolas Buchele back in March 2003 called “Neo-Totalitarianism.” I don’t have a current link to it, but here is an excerpt:
    “The reason for all this is that the new totalitarianism has learned a second lesson from its heavy-handed predecessors. If artists and intellectuals were able to do precisely nothing about Hitler or Stalin or any of the legion of tin-pot dictators around the world, it follows that you might as well have freedom of expression.
    In the new totalitarian system, people can say whatever they like, and it makes absolutely no difference.
    The impending war on Iraq is only one example among many of a supposedly sovereign public completely powerless in the face of a government bent on a course of action. ”
    If you can find the article, the whole thing is worth reading.

16. A link to the article John C mentioned.

17. Thanks Eric.

18. Jes,
    Thank you for your usual paternalistic tone. It suits you and your positions very well (taste your medicine!).
    I disagree that there were no secrets, and find that simplistic and naïve. When I said I have seen the evidence, I was not referring to my personal video-conferences with Tariq Aziz. I have had no special privileges and have seen things that you can see too: captured containers of nitro-mustard and Cyanosion precursors from Germany and the US, with the addresses of the producers on the canisters, pages and pages of AWACS printouts with US Navy seal and all, showing Iranian troop formations and maps of Iranian Kurdish villages that were subsequently gassed by US ally Saddam Hussein, …. I happened to be there when professor Oben Hendrix, head of the military toxicology laboratory of the hospital of Gan University, Belgium, was announcing his findings about Saddam’s chemical attacks on the Kurds and Iranians, and the sources of the chemicals. I am sure you can find transcripts if you were interested, though I highly doubt that. And no, they have not been exposed ad nauseum; if they were, at least one out of ten Americans would know that their country was directly complicit in the slaughter of tens of thousands of human beings with weapons of mass destruction (not that a great fraction of them really feel that much remorse about Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
    “the United States somehow fostered a miscarriage of justice in Baghdad” is a typical Jes understatement. America was judge, jury and executioner. If they wanted it done the right way, they could have easily sent him to the ICC or the CIJ. Unless you like to tell me that the poor pawns that were given custody in the last 35 minutes and actually pulled the lever were the ones running the show all along. The reason all the other countries that were complicit in Saddam’s prior atrocities were not mentioned is because they happen not to be Iraq’s present occupying power that is running the affairs, including the execution. This fact does not buy them penance for their prior sins though.
    And no Saddam was in no position to blackmail anyone. How can you blackmail when you are in a solitary cell and might “commit suicide” or “have a heart attack” any night. And when in “court” [what a farce!] you microphone is cut off most of the time you talk. But if he had remained alive, who knows what he may have said later. It’s all speculation now, but if you truly believe that his prior dealings are all public knowledge and no secrets remain, you must really like fairy tales.
    Davis,
    Thank you for your thoughtful posts, but I would rather not talk with people who refer to others as “mofos”. I wish you luck reading Bernard Lewis, Horowitz, Ajami, Pipes, …
    John C.,
    I read that article, thanks! I don’t know Mr. Buchele. His piece has some valid points, but the gestalt and conclusions tend to be simplistic and neoliberal sounding:
    “America has never been a moral guardian to the rest of the world”: Obvious observation, unless you work for Fox News.
    “these blunders have long been rectified.”: Really?!
    “the US has avoided the limitless aggression that proved the downfall of old-style regimes.” Again, really?
    “to the slum-dwellers it doesn’t matter either way.” Try convincing the slum-dwellers around Caracas whose standard of living has increased 300-500% over the past few years, as testified by UNDP.
    “simply that people sufficiently supplied with bread and games will put up with anything.” Obvious. See the classic Harper’s essay, “The numbing of the American mind” by Thomas de Zengotita.
    “But by improving on its predecessor, the US has not abandoned the essential ingredients of the totalitarian state.” Obvious.
    “The question remains whether overall there is anything wrong with an endlessly adaptable, stable system of world government that keeps the majority of its subjects happy or at least comfortable.” Really? Try convincing the 50-60% of the world who live with less than $2 a day, without clean drinking water.
    “And once technology has solved the problem of cheap labor, there will probably be nothing wrong with it.” Channeling Tommy Friedman.
    Although comparing Stalin to Bush is quite sill and not exactly what we are trying to do, but since he essentially goes there, I will paraphrase Sartre. There are two distinct forms of dictatorship in regards to blocking ideas and speech. The Stalin/Hitler type: if you say something I dislike, I will gas you and your family, or send you all off to the Gulag. The U.S. type: if you say something troublesome or subversive, I will make sure you are not heard. When in a country of 300 million souls, less than 50,000 read something like Harper’s or the NLR or … (i.e. less than 0.2%), they can print whatever the hell they want. What fraction of Americans can you convince to read this blog for one week? It has been called by some “the dictatorship of numbers”. I think you see my point. Again, the essay by de Zengotita is a good summary discussion.
    I agree with you in this: the fact that propaganda is more powerful than facts in such an environment is indisputable. After all, the facts already out there are quite compelling. Yet embarrassments such as direct complicity in mass murder, even if short-lived, are best avoided.

19. John C.,
    I apologize. That was supposed to be 0.02%.

20. David, I appreciate your comments (here and elsewhere). No argument from me on the Buchele article. I just thought it was interesting, and was reminded of it in this context. I’m sure Saddam had some secrets, and could have said some things that would have been embarrassing to the US establishment if given the opportunity. You are also right that he was not in a position to blackmail anyone after being captured. Before that, however, could he not have negotiated safe passage for himself to some ex-dictator island paradise, if the information he held was truly that damaging to US interests? I halfway expected this to happen at the time of the 2003 invasion, but it didn’t, did it? I think the rushed execution had more to do with current conditions in Iraq than with any desire to silence Saddam. Our government has other, more sophisticated and more effective ways of keeping undesirable narratives from reaching the masses.

21. “Our government has other, more sophisticated and more effective ways of keeping undesirable narratives from reaching the masses.”
    JohnC.,
    I second that, forcefully and unequivocally. I strongly recommend de Zengotita’s short essay if you haven’t seen it yet.

22. Paul Woodward is eloquent:
    http://warincontext.org/2007_01_07_archive.html#116846752299872485

Comments are closed.