Spring Break
Saddam Hussein: The only kind of ruler that could keep Iraq together
Robert Zaller
Issue date: 5/2/08 Section: Ed-Op
Let's get the bad part out of the way first. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant - a man who ruled ruthlessly, crushed opponents without compunction, waged aggressive war, erected palaces and monuments to himself on a scale that would have made Stalin blush, and wrote execrable fiction and verse. Other than that, you can't really say much against the man.
You can also say that he kept together an accidental country that, famously drawn by a British diplomat's stick in the sand after World War I, should probably never have existed and has been governed over the past eight decades by a succession of autocratic regimes, monarchical and military, of exemplary and unremitting brutality. This was not an accident. Iraq was a state set up to fail, or, from the British point of view, to remain an imperial dependency, and repression alone could keep it from flying apart.
The three major ethno-religious demographic groups are Shiite Arabs, who comprise three-fifths of the population; Sunni Arabs, the traditional Ottoman ruling class, who are another fifth; and Kurds, the final fifth, a non-Arabic Sunni population that wants nothing to do with anyone else in the country and nurses a permanent grievance for having been deprived of a state of its own. Given that all of these groups are organized by clans and tribes, you have a perfect recipe for political disaster.
Iraq had only one natural advantage: what may ultimately prove to be the world's largest reserves of oil. But that was an advantage for others to reap (the British had themselves in mind, as Bush and Cheney now have us), unless a vigorous central authority could take hold. Say what you will about Saddam, he fit that definition to a tee.
And Iraq did prosper under him, even with a ruinous eight-year war with Iran, followed by defeat in the Gulf War and the regime of sanctions that followed. Of course, the Arab Sunnis did most of the prospering and all of the governing. However, there was still a sizable middle and professional class by Middle Eastern standards, a sophisticated secular culture, and opportunities for women unmatched anywhere else in the region.
You can also say that he kept together an accidental country that, famously drawn by a British diplomat's stick in the sand after World War I, should probably never have existed and has been governed over the past eight decades by a succession of autocratic regimes, monarchical and military, of exemplary and unremitting brutality. This was not an accident. Iraq was a state set up to fail, or, from the British point of view, to remain an imperial dependency, and repression alone could keep it from flying apart.
The three major ethno-religious demographic groups are Shiite Arabs, who comprise three-fifths of the population; Sunni Arabs, the traditional Ottoman ruling class, who are another fifth; and Kurds, the final fifth, a non-Arabic Sunni population that wants nothing to do with anyone else in the country and nurses a permanent grievance for having been deprived of a state of its own. Given that all of these groups are organized by clans and tribes, you have a perfect recipe for political disaster.
Iraq had only one natural advantage: what may ultimately prove to be the world's largest reserves of oil. But that was an advantage for others to reap (the British had themselves in mind, as Bush and Cheney now have us), unless a vigorous central authority could take hold. Say what you will about Saddam, he fit that definition to a tee.
And Iraq did prosper under him, even with a ruinous eight-year war with Iran, followed by defeat in the Gulf War and the regime of sanctions that followed. Of course, the Arab Sunnis did most of the prospering and all of the governing. However, there was still a sizable middle and professional class by Middle Eastern standards, a sophisticated secular culture, and opportunities for women unmatched anywhere else in the region.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 4
C R Natarajan
posted 5/03/08 @ 2:42 AM EST
Ramakrishna one of the sages of early 20th century in India used to get his lessons across by parables. To bring home the point to his listeners that harshness and love are in the experience. (Continued…)
Penn student
posted 5/07/08 @ 12:25 AM EST
You cite "Bush & Cheney" as if they alone launched this war. Did you not notice the Congressional authorization to use force or the UN Security Council resolution? And you call yourself a professor?
Drexel Student
posted 5/08/08 @ 4:35 PM EST
I think that was an excellent article, well written, never boring, and gave me an entirely new view of the situation and saddam hussein himself.
Post a Comment