"Much Ado about Nothing"
The much reviled bearded scapegoat has been brought back under U.S. control for his final act in this timeless melodrama of the empire versus the barbaric hordes. It really doesn’t matter if it was Saddam Hussein who was captured or one of his many body doubles. Too bad for him that he is running out of usefulness and being held "in a secure undisclosed location" (with Dick Cheney?)
All the excitement over this latest act obscures the fascinating, horrifying tragedy that is the history of the many wars in Iraq. In a certain Shakespearean play, a vicious rumor threatens to derail a wedding and start a feud between families. The fact that the only connection between Iraq and September 11 or Bin Laden is that George W used them in the same sentence dozens of times shows the fraudulent foundation of his "War on Terror." George W often pronounces it "The War on Terra," which reveals his real goals: domination of the World, ripping every bit of wealth from the earth, and removing even the capacity for anyone to effectively challenge his new global empire.
That’s how he can get away with torturing logic in phrases like "A free Iraq will be a defeat for those who believe in violence and murder and mayhem." Apparently, the US is occupying Iraq in defiance of the UN and the will of ordinary Iraqis in order to teach them nonviolence. Apparently, beating protesters (Reuters,
U.S. Troops Disperse Pro-Saddam Protest in Tikrit, Mon Dec 15, 2003) and assassinating suspected guerrilla leaders ("Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq," Julian Borger, The Guardian, 12/9/03) will teach the Iraqis to at least tolerate "the new regime" that the US will impose on them.Ironically enough, even nonviolent demonstrations have been banned in Iraq (Reuters,
Tanks Roll to Warn Tikritis Off Pro-Saddam Rallies, Tue December 16, 2003), just like last month’s nonviolent demonstrations against the FTAA in Miami were ended by force (Miami Herald, Police break up new, small protests, 11-21-03). Both military actions were paid for through the Iraq "reconstruction" bill (salon.com, This is not America, Dec 16, 2003). In Miami or Iraq, "Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon." - U.S.-backed regional governor Hussein al-Jaburi. "They are not allowed to go around kissing pictures of Saddam in this city. It will not happen." - Lieutenant Colonel Steven Russell, US Army (Reuters, Tanks roll…"). What were you saying about "Freedom and Democracy," Mr. Bush?George W Bush’s recent press conference on the capture of Saddam (Dec 15, 2003) emphasized two themes: that September 11, 2001 taught us that we can get away with striking back first wherever the US was hoping to invade anyway, and that "a large coalition of over 60 countries" is helping the US in Iraq. While I’m sure it wasn’t hard to bribe Latvia, El Salvador, and Uzbekistan to support rebuilding and repressing Iraq (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm ), France, Russia, and Canada have joined most of the world in insisting that the UN should take the lead in helping Iraq find its own course. Of course, that was never the real goal. George W’s coalition of the coerced is a mile wide and an inch deep, and stinks of sweet crude. Its closest ally appears to be the US company formerly headed by Dick Cheney: Halliburton, which was recently awarded more non-competitive contracts despite its habit of over-charging for gasoline imported into Iraq (R. Thomson, Evening Standard, Dec 16, 2003).Guess who made the following statements:
"He treated the UN as if they were a debate society, and meant nothing."
"For the sake of having an international body which is effective, the U.N. ... must be resolved to deal with this person, must resolve itself to be something more than a League of Nations, must resolve itself to be more than just a debating society…"
George W made both statements, the first in the recent (Dec 15, 2003) press conference criticizing Saddam, the second criticizing the U.N. for not endorsing his invasion of Iraq (
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/22/iraq.bush/).Even the facts that Saddam’s capture is insignificant, that there is no justifiable reason for the US occupation of Iraq, and that the "War on Terror" is actually making Americans less safe miss the point. George W made the real point on Dec 15 when he said "All the atrocities need to come out, and justice needs to be delivered." If that ever happens, Saddam will be standing trial side-by-side with George W’s father, who, as head of the OSS/CIA helped overthrow the Iraqi government and bring the Baath party to power. He then served in the Reagan administration which sent biological weapons agents to Iraq, continued to arm Iraq before, during and after Saddam’s invasion of Iran, and betrayed the Iraqi Kurds who he urged to "rise up" against Saddam.
But don’t get your hopes up. History is written by the victors and courts serve political ends, so Saddam’s show trial and pre-supposed execution will suffer from forced tunnel-vision. No one wants to know who supplied him with WMD, who encouraged him to attack his neighbors, and whose ambassador suggested to him that we would do nothing when he invaded Kuwait. No one wants to remember that the US had a nasty habit of defending Iraq (before the first Gulf War) and Israel whenever they violated UN resolutions or engaged in mass murder verging on ethnic cleansing.
The time is far overdue for the US to stop meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, stop arming dictators around the world, and mind its own business. And while we’re thinking about violent fundamentalists, corruption and cronyism, careful orchestration of what information is available to the media, and the proliferation of WMD, might I suggest that the worst of these problems fester right here in this country. The British people were right when half of them said that George Bush is the biggest threat to world peace, "the same number that chose Saddam Hussein." (YouGov.com Feb 21-23 poll aired on MS-NBC).
"He's a person who killed A LOT of people, and I have my personal views on how he should be dealt with, but it is up to the Iraqi people to decide what punishment is meted out." - George W Bush, Dec 15.
Do we punish the murderous ruler of a puppet state, or the politicians and spooks who installed, armed, financed, and politically supported him for decades?