Saddam's Abu Grahib

[Wilhuf]

Regretably the mainstream press' fixation on US atrocities at Abu Grahib have overshadowed that prison's tragic history under Saddam Hussein. The American Enterprise Institute in Washington hosted a forum on June 8th on

 

The Torturers of Saddam's Abu Ghraib and Their Place in the New Iraq.

 

Warning. The video hosted at the above website contains graphically violent content.

 

"Much of the recent controversy surrounding Abu Ghraib has made only vague reference to the prison's nightmarish past. Under Saddam Hussein, some thirty thousand people were executed there, and countless more were tortured and mutilated, returning to Iraqi society as visible evidence of the brutality of Baathist rule instead of being lost to the anonymity of mass graves. "

[toms]

what does that have to do with the AEI?

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by toms

what does that have to do with the AEI?

 

.... they host the video?!?!?!??!?!

[ShadowTemplar]

Maybe it's because we expect somewhat higher standards from a democracy than a despotism. [/scathing sarcasm]

 

 

 

 

But perhaps dubya's version of democracy doesn't mandate such confidence?

[toms]

maybe that is why the UN made that unprecedented public demand for their torture taskforce to be allowed to inspect Guantanamo... the fact that the US is a huge influence on the rest of the world, and what the US does others will follow.

 

I still don't see why the AEI is interested in an issue that has nothing to do with their remit... unless they are one of those "think tanks" that is just a thinly veiled propoganda machine for a certain political party.

[SkinWalker]

Wilhuf has a good point that we shouldn't forget those that suffered at the hands of Hussein.

 

However, ShadowT. makes a good point as well. There are indeed higher expectations for democratic societies. The Saddam past can have little bearing on the Bush present and too draw comparissons, even de facto ones such as the American Enterprise Institute's, should be viewed as unfair to both the people who suffered at the hands of Saddam and those that suffered at the hands of Bush (albeit indirect hands).

 

It seems as if AEI is saying, "Saddam's tortures were worse than the Americans', so what's the big deal?"

 

Try asking that question to the Iraqi who held his mouth open while another was forced to masterbate in front of it. Or ask any of the surviving Iraqis in the photos of this link: http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 (Warning: This link contains graphic photographs, some of a sexual nature, however the photographs are blurred at sensitive areas and most were featured on 60 Minutes.).

 

As to AEI's agenda: One of their primary members is Richard Perle, a self-described neo-conservative and one of the authors of the original plan to attack Iraq submitted to the Clinton administration (along with Wolfowitz, et al).

[Wilhuf]

AEI is known about town as a "libertarian" think tank with free-marketeering leanings.

 

AEI's inclusion of the torture video tells us something about neocon thinking. It lends moral character to the motivation for intervention in Iraq.

 

We shouldn't overlook the reality that the US 82nd airborne, IMEF, CJTF7, and other military elements risked their lives to end these types of Baathist atrocities.

 

I disagree with the implicit equation (equivocation?) of Baathist thugs and US MI officers. It is true that US MI officers are trained to, should and usually do follow higher standards of conduct than Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) officers. The videos presented here make that abundantly clear.

 

So, Saddam Hussein plus eleven associated Iraqi officials were informed by an Iraqi court July 1 that they would be investigated for allegedly committing the following:

• The murder of Iraqi religious figures.
  
• The systematic killing of political party officials during a 30-year span.
  
• A campaign of murder against the Kurdish Barzani clan during the early 1980s.
  
• The forced displacement of Kurds in northern Iraq in the late 1980s.
  
• A chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988.
  
• The invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
  
• The violent suppression of Kurds and Shiite Muslims during uprisings in 1991.
  

 

Despite the current hardships in Iraq, Hussein's removal from office will sum to an improvement.

[toms]

Originally posted by Wilhuf

Despite the current hardships in Iraq, Hussein's removal from office will sum to an improvement.

 

very possibly true. here's hoping....

 

No one EVER said saddam was a nice guy. He was a very nasty tin-pot dictator with dillusions of grandeur. I'm completely sure that he did stuff that was nastier than the untrained, uneducated american guards did.

 

You could argue that it is unfair that the US is expected to uphold better standards than saddam... but i'd be worried if that wasn't the case. The US is supposed to be a figurehead for democracy and freedom... and when such a figurehead starts taking liberties and shortcuts then others begin to copy.

 

You could say (and they often do in films and the media) that it is unfair that the police are held to stricter standards than the criminals... but if the police all started running around like loose cannon action heros then the example that that would set to the rest of society would pretty soon lead to anarchy.

 

Unfortunately the US has recently set examples of illegal wars, detention without trial, detention without access to lawyers, torture, abuse and so on. SO the next time they try and lecture another tin-pot dictator (or someone like china) about their human rights record that person is quite likely to come back with "but you do it, so why shouldn't i?".

Thats the difficult thing about being a role model....

[Kurgan]

An excellent point. In the world stage of negotiation, we lose our moral high-ground by our hypocritical actions.

 

One article I read said something to the effect of "this is nothing new, look at US jails."

 

It's true, our jails are horrible, prisoners are routinely raped or otherwise physically abused by other prisoners, and the guards don't give a damn. That and so much of our prison population is non-white.

 

Saddam killed a lot of Iraqi civilians. But now we've killed a lot of Iraqi civilians too, and (as we've seen) not all were accidents.

 

We say we're better, but how much better are we really?

[Mort-Hog]

Saying "Saddam Hussein was a bad guy so we have to get rid of him" is niave and unrealistic. You have to look at alternatives.

 

Iraq is not Britain, Iraq is not America, Iraq will never be either and nor would Iraqis want that.

 

Iraq is not an easy country to run.

 

Before the invasion, the average Joe Iraqi could walk down the street, go to work, go to the market, buy himself some food, come home, have a bath, and watch TV with his family.

 

Yes, he couldn't go out and demonstrate against the government. Yes, the newspapers he bought would all be government-funded. Yes, the TV stations he would watch would all be censored.

But he could live a perfectly happy life, and for the average Joe Iraqi the above wouldn't bother him much at all.

 

After the collapse of the Ba'ath party, there is anarchy. Iraqis are dying every day. There are soldiers on the streets. There isn't electricity or water, that was all deliberately bombed.

 

The average Joe Iraqi now lives in fear from looters and criminals everywhere, and lives in fear from the coalition soldiers that may barge in and arrest him at random.

He can buy one of twelve different newspapers, he can buy a brand new satellite dish.

What do you think Joe Iraqi is going to think about this?

 

 

The real question is whether Iraqis actually opposed the Ba'ath party.

 

Upon the invasion, the Americans expected that many of the Iraqi soldiers would revolt and fight with them to overthrow the Ba'ath party.

The soldiers didn't battle fiercely against the Americans, but nor did they join them against the Ba'ath party.

No, they all just went home. They just got in their cars and drove home.

They didn't love the Ba'ath party enough to die for it, but they didn't hate the Ba'ath party enough to die against it either.

No, most Iraqis simply didn't care.

 

The Ba'ath party were not just randomly persecuting everyone. They were persecuting a small minority. Yes, as has been seen, they did so very violently, but a minority nonetheless. They were oppressing who the Americans would label as 'terrorists'.

 

Iraq has always been torn by fundementalists, and the Ba'ath party oppressed the radical extremeist groups. The Ba'ath party acted as a floodgate, sealing in the potential violence and disorder.

Now, without the Ba'ath party, that floodgate is wide open.

 

Those that actively hated Saddam Hussein were in the minority.

Those that actively supported Saddam Hussein were in a similar minority.

The vast majority simply didn't care.

 

The Ba'ath party did have a very good welfare system, a fantastic national health care system, a great education system, much improved women's rights, and managed all of this despite terrible and ridiculous sanctions imposed. The secular socialist state looked after its citizens, and this in turn made Saddam Hussein very unpopular with the likes of Al Queda.

 

But you don't have to speculate over what Joe Iraqi thinks.

There have been two separate opinion polls recently and they have found many things:

 

- Iraqis are more concerned about security than anything else.

 

- The leaders that the Americans are putting in place have virtually no support at all.

 

- Saddam Hussein is still one of the top six most popular politicians.

 

- 46% say the US has "done more harm than good" in the past year

 

- 81% (not including Kurds) view the US as an "occupying force".

 

- 60% want the US to leave immediately, despite the repercussions

 

- US forces are seen as "uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions."

 

- 66% of Iraqis say that soldiers "make no attempt to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire"

 

- Most Iraqis now recieve CNN and BBC, and only a third recieve Arab news stations, most viewers trust Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya to be the most objective.

 

- 49% say that the US should have stayed out of Iraq.

 

- There is a growing support for attacks on coalition forces.

 

 

 

The development of pretty much every country in history has been through a series of revolutions. Once a government starts to move away from the interests of the people, the people unite and through a violent revolution or coup the government is overthrown and a new government instated.

Iraq was not at the point of revolution. Iraqis were not willing to give up everything to overthrow the Ba'ath party. Iraqis are, on the other hand, giving their lives in blowing up American soldiers..

Yes, in the future, Iraqi's might have become more angry at Saddam Hussein and they would have overthrown him. It would have been a lot more violent and would have taken a lot longer than the American invasion, but it would have been an Iraqi revolution, led by Iraqis and leaving Iraq run by Iraqis.

 

Americans interfearing, trying to tell Iraqis what they want and telling them when they want it, that is not good for Iraqis. It is up to Iraqis to develop Iraq, and Americans trying to accelerate that process simply will not work.

 

 

No, America did not invade Iraq in the interests of Iraqis.

 

 

And anyway, if you're going to play the "Saddam did bad stuff!" card you mustn't forget that he was put in power by the CIA...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Mort-Hog

There have been two separate opinion polls recently and they have found many things:

 

Would you happen to have citations or links for those opinion polls?

[Mort-Hog]

I can't find the raw data, but I have various different interpretations of it. There's quite a lot of repetition.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm

 

The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases. But attacks against Iraqi police officers, who are U.S.-trained, are strongly condemned by the Iraqi people

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-baghdad.htm

 

Also

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/middle_east_iraqi_opinion_poll/img/4.jpg

 

is interesting.

 

 

Yes, before you point it out, I do realise that the surveys do find several optimistic findings, but I think the growing impatience of Iraqis is significant.

[toms]

nicely explained post mort.

[SkinWalker]

And as if things weren't bad enough at Abu Ghraib: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/34356

 

I certainly hope it's untrue, but the opening paragraph at this site has a link to a .rm file (which I'll watch later when the kid isn't around) and text that reads: "Iraqi women beg to be killed as American soldiers sodomize their children."

[doughnutslayer]

Like Mort-Hog said before, everything was in a sort of 'state of natural balance' and then Bush sent the army in believing it was the right thing a f*cked everything up. He could have just left them as they were thus, in time, causing them to fix themselves-since there's no doubt they could have looking at their hospitality now towards the American soldiers, compared to the way they treated them when they first entered Iraq: giving them flowers and so forth; and now they only appear to want to give them a bomb and a message saying 'get out of here.'

 

In short, leave the people of Iraq alone since they can and will look after themselves.

[Mort-Hog]

I think it's a bit late for "leave the Iraqi people alone".

 

I do think the soldiers need to come out as quickly as possible, but Iraq does still need help. Abandoning Iraq will lead the country to unite in hatred and anger and form a revolutionary government to violently oppose Britain and America. Yes, this'll be fantastic for the Iraqis, but it's not what the West want.

 

No, helping them and coercing them subtly is what is needed, a far more covert approach. Iraq doesn't need financial aid, it is one of the richest countries in the Middle-East, mind you.

[C'jais]

Keep in mind that what has surfaced about the Abu Grahib scandal is only the, well, surface.

 

For every 10 "humiliated by dogs", there's a "sodomized with objects" story we haven't heard about. I read about some of the contractors being paid with "visits to the female section" of the prison.

 

This is just the beginning.