WERE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S flawed trial and disgusting death just further examples of incompetence, or were they symptoms of a deeper dilemma? What did the incident tell us about America in Iraq and the problems of trying to impose democracy by force?
One has to wonder how even a star-crossed administration such as George W. Bush's and his Iraqi allies could have turned one of the world's most cruel and despicable dictators into a stoic martyr-hero, facing death calmly in the face of an officially sanctioned lynching by Shi'ite militiamen?
After all, the Americans had had physical custody of Saddam for nearly three years. Was it just another bumble that led them to hand him over so quickly to such an undignified death? As Saudi sociologist Khalid al-Dakhil put it: "It looks like they just wanted to take revenge in a vulgar way; that was their gift to the Shia . . ."
Rather than incompetence, the way Saddam died represents the classic imperial predicament. You can occupy a country, even hold elections. But unless you want to rule by yourself forever, what do you do if the locals you put in power won't take your direction -- won't follow your script? What happens when the puppets want to pull their own strings?
No comments:
Post a Comment