Zeyad on the Saddam verdict
posted at 11:37 am on November 6, 2006 by Allahpundit
Required reading as usual, particularly as a counterpoint to Michael Novak’s piece in NRO today heralding the verdict as an indicium of progress:
Bush hailed the conviction of the dictator as a milestone. The question really is: a milestone for whom? “It is a major achievement for Iraq’s young democracy and its constitutional government,” he said. I say it’s sad that a majority of Americans are still unaware that Iraq’s “constitutional government” is a joke, and there is nothing that resembles democracy in Iraq today. Warring factions control different parts of the country while the government is imprisoned in the Green Zone. U.S. and Iraqi forces are confined to their bases. Militias, gangs and death squads prowl at day and night unchallenged, if not abetted by Iraqi security forces. The tortured corpses of dozens of unfortunate Iraqis turn up in mass graves every morning. Services are in shambles. Reconstruction is nonexistent, not even in safe regions of Iraq, even though hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent. Administrative corruption, smuggling, nepotism and cronyism are rampant. Local councils and religious parties have become entrenched in their positions and elections in the governorates have been suspended. The government threatens the press with prosecution if they dare criticise officials. Iraqi professionals and the middle class have almost entirely left the country. 3,000 Iraqis flee to Jordan and Syria every day. 1.6 million Iraqis are refugees in their own country. Health conditions are worse than ever. The educational system has been interrupted by violence and corruption. All the previous “milestones” in Iraq were rushed to suit the purposes of American domestic politics…
I want to ask my American readers: will the death sentence against Saddam influence your voting choice Tuesday?
Take a look at the celebrating Iraqis on the streets: whose posters are they carrying? This is not as much a celebration of the death of Saddam as much as it’s a celebration of the birth of new tyrants and warlords. The tide has turned forever. The new victors in Iraq are the followers of Sadr and Hakim, and as the Ba’athists and Sunni insurgents and jihadists become more localised and irrelevant, the next conflict will be between those two. The way I see it now, the breakup of Iraqi is inevitable. It is already a fact on the ground and there will be nothing but bloodshed in the near future. Is that a milestone for Iraq?
He has photos, too. I’ll be relieved if the GOP holds on to power tomorrow, for reasons this WaPo article makes abundantly clear. But I’d be lying if I said I’ll be happy.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
So it will be another internecine battle among Muslims as was the last one, and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that.
Are the people of Iraq capable of civility? Is a peaceful society even possible with Iraqis?
Bush can’t answer that question, and the Democrats can’t either. Only the Iraqis can answer this, and so far they’re disappointing. We thought you could handle yourselves if given the chance. Were we wrong? Well, not about the Kurds. But the rest?
It might be, unless Iraqis make something else happen.
Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 11:54 AM
The time, executive energy, military power, and money spent holding and developing Iraq would have been better spent holding and developing the Iraqi regions with oil and moving on, one by one, to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. Nor would I have been upset if we had split a few atoms to help events along; if this isn’t the rainy day for which we were saving our uranium, then what?
Kralizec on November 6, 2006 at 11:55 AM
No, but it will cause me to skip to my polling place.
EF on November 6, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Dan Rather, the ass, got on FOX NEWS on Snday morning and said he did not think Saddam “was the least bit insane”, but “quite intelligent”. “a stone cold killer, but not insane.”
Uh, DAN, “stone cold killer” is certainly on the ISANITY CONTINUUM somewhere between Girl Scout and sociopath.
seejanemom on November 6, 2006 at 12:03 PM
You’ve just summed up my feelings about the election perfectly.
Benaiah on November 6, 2006 at 12:05 PM
Unfortunately, I think he (Zayed) has a point about new tyrants replacing old ones with Sadr in the mix. If Bush wants to win this thing, he could start by quickly and ruthlessly exterminating Sadr and his militia.
If Maliki has anything to say about it, then tough luck. Call his bluff, because I don’t think he has the balls to ask us to leave because if he does he’ll be one of the first to get the sword when all hell breaks loose.
thirteen28 on November 6, 2006 at 12:08 PM
I stopped reading Zeyad’s blog a long time ago and now I remember why…
the guy’s a Sunni and probably a Baathist. What do you expect?
He’s not going to be happy with anything that is anti-Saddam or pro-Maliki and pro-Shia.
This “eye witness” account of what life is supposedly like in Baghdad is highly suspect and until I hear the good men at Iraq the Modelsay the same kinds of things, I’m not buying it.
Nor have our soldiers said that things were as bad as this.
Jen the Neocon on November 6, 2006 at 12:10 PM
You’ve got to be kidding. You can’t be that deeply in denial.
Allahpundit on November 6, 2006 at 12:11 PM
A man who allows the daughters to be raped or torn apart by dogs, while forcing the father to watch; is deemed “not insane”? Uh Dan, you can be intelligent and insane. Many sociopaths are intelligent. The Uni-bomber, whomever sent the anthrax letters are a couple of examples. By the way, it is stone cold killer of tens of thousands, and torturer of thousands.
He was thinking about all of the newsrooms he has been in. The intelligent are behind the cameras, the insane are in front.
right2bright on November 6, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Nope, it isn’t.
All of you conservatives who still think we can achieve “victory” in the war on terror, please explain how such a thing would be possible in the post-Geneva framework of humanitarian war?
And once you fail to answer that question, join me in calling for an immediate troop withdrawal.
Really? How do you know the men at Iraq the Model are good? Just because they tell you what you want to hear?
U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan now.
Enrique on November 6, 2006 at 12:15 PM
What would I be in denial about exactly, AP?
Jen the Neocon on November 6, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Allah,
Oh, yes she can. She’s well practiced.
Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Unfortunately, cutting the head off this snake will not kill it. Take out Sadr and there will quickly be someone else taking his place. I fully support the use of military action but we’ve got to be honest about the situation over there. Dropping bombs and taking out The Dictator of the Day are nothing more than temporary destabilizing actions that do nothing but keep the enemy off balance.
jasnell on November 6, 2006 at 12:25 PM
And when that person steps in, we eliminate him too. Do it enough times and pretty soon nobody will want to step up.
Plus, you take out his militia as well. People won’t keep stepping up when they know its a certain death sentence. Martyrdom only works if the martyrs are few enough in number to rally the masses.
thirteen28 on November 6, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Objection: hearsay
AP, Zeyad is not speaking from personal knowledge, he is just watching the same depressing, overwhelmingly negative media reports the rest of us are. So he is not a primary source, he isnt out there seeing the bodies with his own eyes, he is just another person giving his opinion based on what he sees on the news.
So no, Zeyad is no longer required reading. The guy is depressed and afraid because he believes that the shiites are waging genocide on the sunnis. His own emotional response to his perception is even more extreme because he lives in Iraq. Under Saddam, Zeyad didn’t fear for his life because he wasn’t in the groups that were being ruthlessly oppressed.
The fact is, life is better for most people in Iraq, just not Zeyad. So I don’t think he is ‘required reading’ because he is not representative of the Iraqi people.
kaltes on November 6, 2006 at 12:30 PM
thirteen28,
Right. See the history of “Leader of Hamas” for reference. Nothing will screw up your day quite like a face full of Hellfire, and we can bring that kind of heat all day long.
Pablo on November 6, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Bless you, kaltes! :-)
Plus, according to Zeyad’s bio at his blog, he isn’t even in Iraq–he’s studying in New York!
Jen the Neocon on November 6, 2006 at 12:32 PM
This is the same stupid logic that told us that taking out mob bosses would be futile because they would just be replaced. Really? So who is the big mob boss now? There isn’t one? Oh my!
The fact is, if you just take someone like Sadr out as a 1-time thing, then MAYBE he will just be replaced. If you go in and take him out and you utterly crush his resistance, and you don’t stop until people are too afraid to face you down, THEN people crawl into their holes and stop trying.
People are so misinformed when it comes to insurgencies. MANY anti-insurgencies in history have been successful, even ones like Iraq where the occupier couldn’t fight dirty. Look at the British, how they held such a far-flung empire for so long. The fact is, Iraq is not, and never was, hopeless. The weak will of the American people, including more than a few conservatives now, disgusts me. We have a committment to see things through in Iraq, and we need to show resolve and get the job done.
kaltes on November 6, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Several significant low pressure conditions:
1. Sunni/Shiite animosity
2. Radical Muslim Anti-American hatred
3. Socialists (U.N., Democrats, assorted international players) pressuring the U.S. to fight under counterproductive P.C. ROE’s
The perfect storm.
Freelancer on November 6, 2006 at 12:37 PM
As long as we have the willpower to do so, yes.
Another point I meant to make above regarding taking out Sadr is to put Maliki on notice that we will not tolerate anti-American militias running freely about the country. He wants our troops there to prevent even greater bloodshed (including his own ass), and that being the case, he needs to know that he’s not going to be able to play both ends against the middle.
thirteen28 on November 6, 2006 at 12:37 PM
If this is true, it explains a lot. I remember Salam Pax, the 1st big Iraqi blogger. He used to be pretty pro-american or at least neutral early on. He hated saddam and saw regime change as a good thing, but once he became a child of the liberal media, he sold out big time. He turned extremely anti-American and didn’t have any good rationale for it, he was just hanging out in anti-American circles and it obviously rubbed off on him.
When you have a person who wants Americans or westerners to like them, and you put them with a bunch of liberals, they figure out pretty fast that, paradoxically, being anti-American is the surest way to become popular and accepted. Being pro-American, by contrast, will result in arguments and misery. Is it any wonder which side they pick?
kaltes on November 6, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Excellent point – I’m reading a book about that very thing right now and just passed the point of the Commission Trial of the mid-80′s, in which 3 mob bosses were put away for life. Although other mob bosses stepped up, you’d be a fool to think it wasn’t a huge blow to them, and it was a harbinger of things to come as the mob suffered setback after setback in the late 80′s and 90′s.
It’s not a perfect parallel, but it’s a parallel nonetheless.
thirteen28 on November 6, 2006 at 12:42 PM
…*bingo*, give this man a Dan’l Webster and a pull off’n the jug!
Want to handle the problem expeditiously, begin to get nasty. Want to handle it judicially, our hemp industry can wind as much rope as they need.
I remember reading something Kemal Attaturk once said, that there wasn’t “Western civilization” and “Eastern” or “Middle-Eastern civilization”, either with its imperatives and cast-iron rights and wrongs, mutually incompatible. I’m embroidering this, of course, but his point was that there’s only “civilization”, and he said that the Middle East has to get on the stick and be civilized. Good point, that.
For the sake of the region, don’t tolerate the ambitions of the few to rule over the many. Let the many find from amongst themselves someone to rule…and watch them to see that they do it.
Puritan1648 on November 6, 2006 at 12:44 PM
Are the people of Iraq capable of civility? Is a peaceful society even possible with Iraqis?
NO! They are not capable, it seems half the earth has countries full of savages that just enjoy killing..
Though it is totally PC to say that, but it’s true. We should just let them kil each toehr. They hate us either way. But, since there is oil, and since we were attacked, we have to be on the offensive. So, maybe we need to lay waste and quite dicking around.
retired on November 6, 2006 at 12:51 PM
I think you are severely underestimating the power of the Middle Eastern Social Psychosis. The fundamental difference between Mob Bosses in the U.S. and Fascist Future Dictators in the Middle East is that American society is based on fundamental principles that run counter to the philosophy of organized crime; it’s simply unsustainable in a culture that generally abhors violence and crime. In the Middle East, however, you have a culture in which children are raised with the idea that strapping bombs to your chest and blowing yourself up is the ultimate expression of faith.
Yes, but not being honest about the problems that do exist and the reasons for those problems gets us nowhere.
jasnell on November 6, 2006 at 12:54 PM
You failed to answer any of my questions on the other thread – so I won’t even get into this with you.
One thing that needs to be pointed out to our liberal friends and the MSM (usually are one and the same) is that the world is able to see what is going on in Iraq today (as opposed to when Saddam was in office. Before he was removed from power, the world had no idea as to what was going on there (and if they did, they kept their mouths shut – just ask CNN). All the left wants to do is point out how bad things are today, while failing to acknowledge how things were before (mass murder, chemical weapons, rapes, torture, etc.). Out of sight, out of mind – that’s the way it works for the left. I love talking to liberals about Saddam, because they all admit that he was a bad guy, but then follow it up with “yeah, but” – as in, he kept order in Iraq and stability in the region (in other words, out of sight/out of mind – what went on in Iraq, stayed in Iraq).
Rick on November 6, 2006 at 12:56 PM
The issue is the left here and around the world would scream bloody murder (as they have) and Bush has is unwilling to stand up to it. He chose to expend his “political capital” earned in 2204 on Social Security rather than on Iraq and WoT in general. It may be a mistake of historic proportions, only time will tell. Be he screwed up BIG TIME.
In all sincerity, if the Dems had any credibility, any plan to fight and win I’d back them 100%. The reality is, they are defeatists in complete denial about the magnitude and scope of the danger we face.
TheBigOldDog on November 6, 2006 at 1:01 PM
You can’t be serious with that statement … can you?
It sustained itself quite nicely for a good seven decades before Rudy finally figured out how to use the RICO statute to take these guys down. You should go look up some figures about how much money these guys were pulling down – you would be shocked at the staggeringly huge fortunes many mobsters made for themselves, as well as the enormous costs they placed on society in making those fortunes.
Again, martyrdom only works when there are a few martyrs to rally the masses. If they were all willing to martyr themselves, then what are they waiting for? If half the population in Iraq was willing to martyr themselves with a suicide belt tomorrow, they could drive us out, could they not? So why aren’t they doing it?
thirteen28 on November 6, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Yes, I am. It’s not about the amount of money the crime families pull down or their relative success over a period of time. It’s about long term sustainability and the ability to operate with impunity. The middle eastern social structure, culture and religious history provide both to thugs like Sadr.
jasnell on November 6, 2006 at 1:41 PM
I like where you are going with the whole mob boss/militia leader analogy but I don’t know how well it works in the Iraqi enviroment. Mob bosses terrified U.S. cities and intimidated citizens into doing what they wanted; citizens didn’t turn the mob in because they were scared, but they wanted to mob brought down.
Militia leaders use the same fear and intimdation on Iraqi citizens but there are many other factors at work. The sectarian violence means citizens actually depend on the militias for protection and don’t necessarily want them disbanded. Also, mob bosses were fairly hard to replace whereas militia members and leaders are pretty much everywhere. With 60%+ of Iraqis thinking it’s okay to kill U.S. soldiers now, if we started slaughtering the milita’s that number would keep increasing and the militias would keep replenishing.
JaHerer22 on November 6, 2006 at 1:46 PM
In countries where we have no presence certainly. In Iraq, only if we let them.
If we ever decide to no longer let them operate with impunity and have the willpower to do what’s necessary, it will stop.
It was the same way with the mob. For decades and decades our society tolerated them because we decided there was nothing we could do. And even after the RICO statute was passed in 1970, it was well over a decade before anyone put it to use. But once they did, once the willpower was finally exerted, the culture that previously allowed the mafia to operate with impunity suddenly made serious progress against them.
thirteen28 on November 6, 2006 at 2:00 PM
It’s not our decision to make, precisely for the reasons JaHerer22 mentioned. Ultimately, it’s the Iraqi’s that need to step in and make the decision. The best we can do is work to keep the thugs off balance.
jasnell on November 6, 2006 at 2:05 PM
Actually, it is our decision to make, and precisely for the reasons JaHerer22 mentioned. If over 60%+ of Iraqis think its perfectly ok to kill U.S. soldiers, then we have an awful lot of targets.
We start by taking out Sadr and his militia, signifying that it’s actually not ok to kill U.S. soldiers, and that those who do will find no refuge with the Iraqi government (read: Maliki) anymore. For those that get the message, they live. Those that don’t, don’t live.
thirteen28 on November 6, 2006 at 2:13 PM
Holy crap what a bunch of pessimists! I thought HOTAIR was a conservative or at least reasonable blog, what with Michelle Malkin and all.
I was trying to convince myself that Allahpundit was a conservative with sarcasm, but if that was true someone should have sent him the memo – sarcasm doesn’t translate well in text form. Please inform me just how conservative Allahpundit is.
Of all you pessimists, how many of you have been to Iraq or even Afghanistan? Of that many, how many have been outside of Baghdad? That’s like judging the USA on Washington DC alone. DC has one of the highest crime rates in the country and has more federal officers per square foot than (most?) any other city.
You think this is tough going as far as war? Since you obviously forgot Saving Private Ryan, go watch Flags of Our Fathers. THAT was a tough enemy. This is a police action by comparison. I know, I was there in the “Sunni Triangle” driving back and forth between Haditha and Hit. Almost got blown up twice. Lost four Marines in my Company out of 150+. Listening to armchair quarterbacks back here is pathetic. Probably the same bunch that is afraid to invade Iran or N Korea because we are “spread thin”. My whole point about the military: There has never been a more capable or successful military than our current one, so stop saying that this is un-winnable, impossible, too hard on our troops, or any other uninformed analysis. And for gosh sakes, quit trying to fix what isn’t broken with dumb comments like “Rumsfeld should resign”.
I don’t care what you think might be bad in Iraq, you have two reasons you morally must vote republican this election
1) Democrats want out of Iraq and that would betray those who risked their lives to cooperate with us. People I personally met.
2) Abortion is on the ballot. We need more literalist judges on the Supreme Court and abortion legislation passed.
You disagree with me? Then you are not a conservative. Just because you have conservative economic leanings doesn’t make you a conservative. A conservative has principles that are rooted in Life, then Liberty and then finally the Pursuit of Happiness in that order. Go ahead, don’t vote Republican or don’t vote at all this election, because your misgivings about a border, spending, or uncomfortable wars obviously trump the sanctity of life and the trust given us by a people in dire need.
tadams1138 on November 6, 2006 at 3:43 PM
Saying that the Arabs are part of degenerate culture is bigoted. Islam is the degenerate, not the cultures of the Arab states. The cultures of the arab states overall are dicey, and you can see in places where secularists have strength that there is a drive for a different way of living. Anyone who thinks long enough realises that a violent, criminal society is unsustainable and crappy.
You might assert that their numbers are too FEW, which is not unrealistic in many places, but much of this supposed ‘violence’ and ‘degeneracy’ is driven by the threat of these Islamic gangs. The real failure here is being too weak to crush these criminals, thugs and terrorists when we have the chance to.
Like thirteen said, we should make it clear that it is not okay to kill Americans. If it takes shooting all the gangs or hanging them each, one by one, publicly, then it is fine. They want to do mass murder and blame us for it happening.
Well, eff ‘em. nuffin’ wrong with Sadr that a missle, shotgun blast, or bullet couldn’t cure. And guess what– its perfectly legal.
RiverCocytus on November 6, 2006 at 3:47 PM
You can no more separate Islam from Arabic culture than you can separate Christianity from American culture. Islam plays a fundamental role in Arabic social structure.
It’s amazing that anyone can, on one hand, advocate killing large groups of individuals while, on the other hand, rail against those who are bent on mass murder. I’m all for taking out terrorists before they get a chance to do the same to us, but let’s not fool ourselves, the killing we do on our behalf may be less evil than the killing they do but it is, nevertheless, still evil.
jasnell on November 6, 2006 at 4:11 PM
Well, who can argue against such faultless logic?
Slublog on November 6, 2006 at 4:22 PM
That was sarcasm, by the way.
I am sick to death of conservative infighting over who is a ‘true conservative’ and who isn’t. It’s unnecessary and unhelpful.
Slublog on November 6, 2006 at 4:26 PM
I agree that it is silly to argue who is and isn’t on petty issues, but I was led to believe that this was a conservative blog, and 90% of the tripe posted above I can find on liberal blogs. So my “you aren’t conservative” is not an attempt by me to say I am the “true conservative”, its me demanding a little truth in advertising. Disagree with me all you want on flat tax vs sales tax vs graduated tax, is govt too big, should we deploy to countries not in our national interest, flag burning etc. But life and national security are not optional by definition. You can try to “big tent” the conservative movement all you want, but when the core convictions are gone, you cease to be conservative.
tadams1138 on November 6, 2006 at 4:38 PM
I rechecked my logic there, and if you don’t hold life of the unborn and the war on terror as the highest priorities, what do you as a conservative define as the highest priorities? Maybe I’m something else then.
tadams1138 on November 6, 2006 at 4:55 PM
I haven’t read “Rumsfeld should resign” here. WoT may be a high priority, but that doesn’t imply eternal optimism. I can’t argue the minimum requirements to be a conservative, but sometimes I do get depressed by the events and ubiquitous reporting, like Allahpundit.
I appreciate the honest and intelligent discussion in these threads, since optimism can be difficult to hold on to. When it is well argued and supported with facts, the rebellion in these comments to AP’s pessimism is actually heartening. I learn more that way.
I imagine the “Baathist” moniker was overboard, but I wonder if kaltes and Jen have influenced AP’s opinion on Zeyad? (I do not know enough to have an opinion).
Kevin on November 6, 2006 at 7:15 PM
Please jasnell, there is a world of difference between Islam and the Arabic culture and Christianity and the American culture.
First and foremost, we have a secular government, and legal system. I assure you that NAMBLA, gay right activists, ACLU, etc. could not exist in an Arab country or a totally Christian country, the fact is we have adopted more than the fundamental religious teachings to build our country. The process has begun to seperate Christianity and America. Now the Judeo-Christian base is a little more difficult to dissect, but that is under attack as well.
The Arab states allow atrocities to be committed, with little more than lip service. Sin of omission, sin of commission. Turning your back on terrorists, and allowing them to use your state as a launch pad is evil.
right2bright on November 6, 2006 at 7:18 PM
right2bright: You completely missed what I said.
I said was that you cannot separate Islam and Arab culture in the same way that you cannot separate Christianity and American culture. I did not say that the cultures or resulting political systems were similar.
jasnell on November 6, 2006 at 7:35 PM
Yes, those are conservative values, but to define all of conservatism by your individual priorities is sort of an Andrew Sullivan-like thing to do. I don’t see conservatism as a checklist – it’s a contiuum.
Slublog on November 6, 2006 at 7:52 PM
With all due respect to tadams, there are a lot of issues on which I am conservative but I have my own personal priorities, also. Abortion is wrong but I would vote for Rudy or Arnold if they promised to appoint strict constructionists.
We all want to win in Iraq but we rightfully fear a quagmire caused by weak willed politicians.
My biggest pet peeve is conservatives who complained about spending in the first few years of the Bush administration. That spending kept us out of a severe recession/depression. Unfortunately, we got the housing bubble but that is the Feds fault and off topic.
No one on this site is very happy with the Republicans for various reasons. Don’t get me started on IMBRA. So this is a chance to vent our anger. Tomorrow most of us will head to the polls and vote Republican. Take heart knowing that the Dems who get elected to the House tomorrow will pull the party to the right. That has to be worth something.
Bill C on November 7, 2006 at 1:34 AM