Saddam Hussein’s execution on Dec. 30 doubtlessly pleased
many in Iraq and the United States, and as a decision of
Iraq’s government supported by the majority of its citizens,
it had a justified legal basis.
However, the fact looms irreconcilable that Hussein’s
death will far from solve the bloodbath in Iraq and the creation
and maintenance of dictators; it will simply add another corpse to
the pile that Operation Iraqi Freedom has become.
While it is true that Hussein was a ruthless dictator who
oppressed his own people and murdered his foes by the masses, these
legacies will far from die along with him until the processes that
create them are acknowledged and addressed.
The complexity of the religious and cultural conflicts that were
already bubbling beneath the surface of a stabilized Iraq under
Hussein’s rule cannot be addressed with brute force and a
government imposed by a nation resented by the majority of
Iraq’s citizens.
The CIA backed Hussein’s Baath Party’s rise to power
when it overthrew the regime of Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963.
This coup was similar to the one in Iran known as Operation Ajax
in 1953, in which Iran’s first democratically elected leader
was overthrown because he opposed Western interests, nationalized
the oil industry and reinstalled the autocratic Shah into
power.
The U.S. also supported Iraq in its war against Iran from 1980
to 1988. American companies were among those involved in helping
Iraq develop chemical weapons used in the large-scale massacres of
Iranians and Kurdish villagers, and there was no international
response at the time.
The United States’ heavy involvement in Desert Storm and
the imposition of sanctions thereafter devastated Iraq and
increased its resentment of the U.S. more than any other event up
until its invasion.
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has also contributed to a poor
perception of the U.S. in the Muslim world as a whole. These are
just a few examples of how American foreign policy has negatively
affected the people and governments of the Middle East for the
benefit of economic and political exploitation, fostering
long-standing anger that grows when met with more violence.
Why the U.S. is in Iraq is still up for debate. With as many
different reasons as this presidential administration has given,
it’s difficult to know for sure. One can argue that the
destruction of Iraq’s government and the deaths of so many of
its people makes economic sense and will ensure our national
security.
Others argue that we are there for humanitarian reasons, but
then why has the U.S. not intervened in nations such as Burma, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan or Uganda, whose populations
are suffering under extremely repressive dictatorships and would be
far more receptive toward U.S.-assisted governmental reform and
democratization?
It comes down to one question: To what extent is foreign policy
that benefits the U.S. at the expense of other nations
justified?
Iraq was invaded without the foresight to handle the ensuing
crisis, and we must find another solution other than sheer military
action.
Killing Hussein, al-Zarqawi or any number of the United
State’s enemies will never solve the problem of violent
fundamentalist opposition to the U.S. unless real changes are
made.
Killing our enemies, however high-ranking, will never help us
win the war on terror.
Taking into account certain lessons that have been ignored for
decades ““ not to invade sovereign nations and impose
unpopular governments upon unwilling population; not to support
unpopular governments with weapons and the need to settle problems
through genuine aid toward self-democratization ““ will be the
only way to create change.
Jones is a fourth-year history student and a member of the
Social Justice Alliance.