A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 6

One of the primary missions of our current soiree in Iraq was the capture of Saddam Hussein, a man that, though loved by many Iraqis (explanation…anyone?), was widely regarded in the international community as tyrannical, brutal, and unstable. Here’s my issue: aside from further debilitating the economy of his country (which is not an international offense), he was relatively inactive in the years between the gulf war and our current “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” We have accused him of possessing weapons of mass destruction (I wish the government would come clean and admit that we knew he had WMDs because we sold them to him), but no one can explain where these stockpiles of weapons went (good job U.S. intelligence). A one-ton bomb is not like a house key, it can’t be hidden under the doormat. Maybe they joined Iraq’s Air Force in Iran.

WMDs aside, the worst of Saddam’s atrocities came before the Gulf War, during the Iran- Iraq War, the Anfal campaign, and the invasion of Kuwait. So why was he not captured and tried for war crimes after Iraq was defeated in the Gulf War? Why did Bush Sr. leave Saddam to rule Iraq so that his bumbling son could fumble the job 10 years later? These are questions that have haunted political and military strategists for years, and questions that I now intend to tackle.

Leaving So Soon?

Militarily speaking, any rational thinker would assume that the logical conclusion of the Gulf War would be to disable the dangerous Iraqi Army and remove the despotic Saddam Hussein from power. Unfortunately there were more than military matters to consider.

Many members of the coalition questioned whether the total defeat of Iraq was the smart play. Iraq’s military might was, after all, the only thing that kept Iran from taking complete control of the region and installing potentially radical Islamic Republics during the ‘80s. They thought maybe it would be a good idea to leave Iraq intact, with at least the illusion of strength. Saddam Hussein was still seen as a hero by many Middle Eastern countries (such as Palestine, Jordan) for holding off Iran. It was feared that capturing Saddam would antagonize otherwise pro-western Islamic countries. Finally, for religious reasons Arabs feel a certain level of camaraderie with one another, even when fighting each other on the battle field. It was acknowledged that for this reason Iraq would be extraordinarily difficult to morally crush (a piece of pertinent information that flew way over Bush Jr.’s head).

So let’s make a political assessment. From a political standpoint it’s difficult to point the finger at George Bush and question his decision to leave Saddam in power. There were several valid arguments that such a conclusion would in fact be better for the region. As I’ve stated, Saddam was relatively tame in the years following the Gulf War (and I say relative when I compare it to his behavior before the war) and the only thing he can conclusively be accused of in these years is oppressing his people and destroying the economy. Certainly deplorable, but not punishable by an international tribunal (if these offenses were considered crimes, there’d be many more international trials. Think most of Africa, North Korea, to some extent China, a good part of Latin and South America).

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, it’s that there’s a major gap between political thinking and logical thinking. The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein was guilty of war crimes; the international community knew this and should have been held responsible to serve the interests of justice and punish him accordingly. But they failed because of diplomatic intrigue. This is the worst kind of politics.


We’re drawing ever closer to the conclusion of our (Very) Brief History of the Middle East. Are you feeling more informed about the world around us? I hope so. I’ll be back tomorrow.

Thanks for reading.