US now looks for another Saddam Hussein

Everything went wrong in Iraq after the US-led forces invaded Iraq, except the elimination of Saddam Hussein, who was finally hanged in the green zone in the centre of Baghdad, heavily guarded by US forces in the closing hours of 2006.

The man who committed his first murder when he was only 14-years-old had always been backed by the US during his tyrant rule up until his attack on Kuwait.

Captured by US forces in December 2003, Saddam Hussein was kept alive with the vow to bring him to justice through a special Iraqi tribunal court which many believed was “flawed and unsound”. Nevertheless, Saddam’s fate was already decided by US President George Bush, who said during his interview to ABC News network’s journalist Diane Sawyer in December 2003, “Saddam Hussein deserved the ‘ultimate penalty’ when he stands trial in Iraq”.

In a television interview with John Simpson of the BBC in November 2006, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal Al-Maliki also unabashedly avowed that Hussein was to be executed before the end of 2006. In November (2006) referring to Maliki’s remarks , the New York Times wrote, “According to Iraqi court officials, nothing in Iraqi law would prevent Mr Hussein being executed before the Anfal trial ends”.

During the countdown of Saddam’s remaining days behind the bars, the situation in Iraq grew increasingly unstable.

Now many analysts are predicting that the ongoing bloody sectarian clashes between Sunni and Shia are leading to a breakup of Iraq. But would the break-up of Iraq into three or four smaller states be in the US interest? I would suggest not.

The US will not accept another independent Shia state, on the border with Iran and Syria. Nor would the US like to see any religious government take control of Iraq.

The only option for the US to protect its interests in Iraq permanently is through an Iraqi government with a pro-western single-party headed by another dictator, like Saddam. This would protect the US vested interests in Iraq and provide the US with enough relief to withdraw its more than 150,000 military personnel.

One should not forget that prior to the Gulf crisis in 1991, Saddam Hussein had been a close friend of US and his dictatorship rule was fully blessed by it.

In a statement after Saddam’s death, George Bush said the death of Saddam would not stop the sectarian violence in Iraq. It is commonsense to conclude that ongoing chaos in Iraq will provide a good excuse for the US administration to impose another tyrant leader on the people of Iraq.

The US might have wanted to keep Saddam alive until the current situation got worse when the people of Iraq would eventually have been looking for anyone who could provide them with peace. And that would have been a right time for the US to proceed for negotiation and conciliation with any other hardliner or escaped leaders of Baath Party.

On the other hand, the US administration might not bear another blow to President Bush’s decreasing public support over Iraq’s occupation: especially if Saddam Hussein had opened his mouth during his Anfal trial (a trial in which Saddam Hussein and his companions were to be accused of genocide and mass murders of at least 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds) and exposed US support for his regime in both the war against Iran and the operation against Kurds where he used chemical weapons.

Therefore, it is quite understandable why Saddam was hanged before he was brought before the Anfal trial.

The responses to Saddam's death ranged across the Middle East: his enemies rejoicing and triumphing on his demise, while his defenders challenging for revenge and calling Saddam a martyr.

While Iranians and Kuwaitis welcomed the death of Saddam who led wars against each of their countries, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the execution prevented exposure of the secrets and crimes the former dictator committed during his brutal rule. His day of execution was chosen on the day of the Feast of the Sacrifice in Islamic calendar (Eid Al Adha).

Why this day was chosen will probably be detailed by historians when documenting the story.

It is quiet clear that during the reconstruction of Iraqi civilian and military facilities, private and government agencies of the US have received billions of dollars in contracts. At present, there are more that 150,000 US army, navy and air force personnel in Iraq while the US is loading millions of dollars of Iraqi oil each day on to US ships. Therefore, maintaining control of Iraq is beneficial to the United States.

While advocating democracy around the world, totalitarianism suits the US more in most of the Muslim states, especially in the Middle East region (barring Israel). The fact of the matter is the United States needs autocratic friends rather than democratic leaders in the Arab World. The majority of people in the Muslim World hate the US. So, obviously if there is a true democracy in any Muslim state the US will lose its control in that state at the government level.

The best example is the parliamentary election in January 2006 in Palestine when the US administration refused to accept the democratically elected Hamas. To forcibly throw out the Hamas government, United States asked its allies, close friends and the European Union to stop giving aid to Palestine.

One must remember that Iraq has always been controlled by Britain and then the US. Iraq remained a British colony until the revolution in 1958. The Iraqi monarchy was a British creation. The Iraqi army was founded with British help in 1931. Iraq's borders were drawn by Britain. Iraq’s natural outlet to the sea, Kuwait, was made an independent country and a British protectorate. The Bush family oil company did a lot of work for and has close ties with Kuwait.

The historians of the West and East may describe Saddam as the Beast of Baghdad who committed obscene atrocities during his 24-year rule. During his rule he attacked Iran and engaged Iraq into eight years of bloody war where, according to reports, more than a million people died. Again, Saddam was fully assisted by the US with military arsenal and economic benefits.

According to a National Security Council staff member, Howard Teicher, during the Iraq-Iran war, Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the US to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war.

The Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts at that time to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the US provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.

The United States provided Iraq with satellite intelligence photos and financing for the (Iran-Iraq) war through government guaranteed agricultural credits for food imports through the Atlanta branch of the Bank Nationale di Livorno, which were ultimately diverted to arms acquisition.

Nonetheless, when Saddam Hussein turned his back on the US he was no more use to them and it was necessary for the US to finish him. This was the actual agenda of US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair when invading Iraq - “just to get rid of Saddam Hussein”.

So, the mission is accomplished. As for democracy in Iraq, the people of Iraq may not see it for another 50 years but may be they will see another Saddam Hussein in the coming decades.