David Cox’s distasteful “tribute” (yes, tribute) to Saddam Hussein is not without a kernel of truth: that life for the average Iraqi is in fact more dangerous today than it was under the dictatorship, and that Bush’s war has created more problems than it has solved (to say nothing of the injustice it has entailed). But Cox’s cavalier account of Ba’athist tyranny should give liberals pause — especially now that liberalism may actually start to matter again. Cox writes:
Within Iraq itself [under Saddam], a secular state offered women opportunities unimaginable in nearby countries, and provided a standard of living far from unreasonable by the standards of the developing world.
Women may not have been subject to the religious restrictions found in nearby countries, but they were subject to the same political straitjacket as everyone else was. As for the standard of living, this is a common apology rolled out on behalf of authoritarian regimes: at least the education and health care are good. Well, the health care wasn’t so good for the Kurds who survived chemical weapons assaults, only to be dragged out of hospitals by Ba’athist goons during mop-up operations. The education was strict and efficient I’m sure, but can any regime that outlaws independent thought and expression and tightly restricts access to information really be considered a champion of public education and an informed citizenry?
Iraq was created by the victors of World War I. Its Shia, Sunni and Kurdish peoples did not choose to be flung together, and their antagonisms made the country a powder-keg. Saddam believed that such a nation could be held together only by brutally effective repression. Current events suggest that he may have had a point.
This ignores the fact that former Ba’athists are guilty of some of the worst violence currently afflicting Iraq. Which makes clear that the Ba’ath was not some neutral arbiter, keeping sects from tearing each other apart. It was itself a bloodthirsty sect, although the one that happened to gain dominance.
Living under tyranny may not be ideal, but it is not impossible. … Today, many former Soviet citizens feel no more free under the yoke of global capitalism than they did before, and some would like to see the return of Stalinism. The people of China seem in no rush to jettison a regime that holds out the prospect of prosperity at the expense only of liberty.
There are all sorts of reactionaries in Russia, of the right and the left, whose views don’t deserve sympathy. There are also Russian democrats who oppose the disgraceful Vladimir Putin as much as they revile Stalinism. As for the Chinese, after Tiananmen Square one can understand why they’re “in no rush” to challenge their rulers. But even this paints a false picture: not only are there dissidents languishing in Chinese jails, but the regime is having a harder and harder time keeping the lid on popular unrest in rural areas. There are plenty of Chinese who don’t hold liberty as cheap as Cox does.
Even in Britain, our supposed attachment to our supposed freedom turns out to be tenuous. We seem content to toss aside ancient liberties in the face of a dubious war on terror, and we live, cheerily enough, under a regime of surveillance that the KGB might have envied.
Didn’t Cox just suggest that tyranny isn’t so bad? In all seriousness, Cox is right to sound the alarm about civil liberties erosions in Britain (and certainly in the U.S.). But if he thinks there’s any comparison whatsoever to the conditions in Saddam’s Iraq, he is dreaming.
Saddam offered his people a harsh deal. Yet, their lives were at risk only if they chose to challenge his authority.
Saddam didn’t “offer” his people anything; he imposed his will, brutally, for decades. And look at how Cox blames the victims. A dictator like Saddam acts against enemies real and perceived, with a good deal of arbitrariness. Have a quick look at photos of the poison gas victims in Halabja — were those women and children “choosing to challenge” Saddam’s authority?
Again, Cox is partly right: Iraqis under Saddam had the option of trying (I repeat, trying) to hide their heads and steer clear of the regime. Now they can be cut down by roving gangs at any time. The cliché about the frying pan and the fire would seem to apply here. But Cox’s apologetics for Saddam, and for dictatorship in general, reveal an appalling lack of regard for democratic values.
With the U.S. congress under Democratic control — I cannot contain my happiness in typing those words — there will be increased debate in the coming weeks and months about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. I see no alternative to this. War proponents like Christopher Hitchens denounce withdrawal as a “desertion” of the Kurds and others to the tender mercies of Islamist fanatics. I take his concern seriously. I also recognize the fear that bin Ladenists will view withdrawal as a sign of American weakness. It’s true; they will. For that we have George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the departed Donald Rumsfeld to thank.
Comments are closed.