Saddam Hussain: From Monster To Martyr
By Patrick Cockburn 

05 January, 2007 
The Independent

It takes real genius to create a martyr out of Saddam Hussain. Here is a man 
dyed deep with the blood of his own people who refused to fight for him during 
the United States-led invasion three-and-a-half years ago. His tomb in his home 
village of Awja is already becoming a place of pilgrimage for the five million 

Sunni Arabs of Iraq who are at the core of the uprising. 
During his trial, Saddam himself was clearly trying to position himself to be a 
martyr in the cause of Iraqi independence and unity and Arab nationalism. His 
manifest failure to do anything effective for these causes during the quarter 
of a century he misruled Iraq should have made his task difficult. But an 
execution which vied in barbarity with a sectarian lynching in the backstreets 
of Belfast 30 years ago is elevating him to heroic status in the eyes of the 
Sunni - the community to which most Arabs belong - across the Middle East.

The old nostrum of Winston Churchill that "grass may grow on the battlefield 
but never under the gallows" is likely to prove as true in Iraq as it has done 
so frequently in the rest of the world. Nor is the US likely to be successful 
in claiming that the execution was purely an Iraqi affair.

Many Iraqis recall that the announcement of the verdict on Saddam sentencing 
him to death was conveniently switched last year to 5 November, the last daily 
news cycle before the US mid-term elections. The US largely orchestrated the 
trial from behind the scenes. Yesterday the Iraqi government arrested an 
official who supervised the execution for making the mobile-phone video that 
has stirred so much controversy.

The Iraqi Shia and Kurds are overwhelmingly delighted that Saddam is in his 
grave. But the timing of his death at the start of the Eid al-Adha feast makes 
his killing appear like a deliberate affront to the Sunni community. The 
execution of his half-brother Barzan in the next few days will confirm it in 
its sense that it is the target of an assault by the majority Shia.

Why was the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki so keen to kill Saddam Hussein? 
First, there is the entirely understandable desire for revenge. Members of the 
old opposition to Saddam Hussein are often blamed for their past 
ineffectiveness but most lost family members to his torture chambers and 
execution squads. Every family in Iraq lost a member to his disastrous wars or 
his savage repressions.

There is also a fear among Shia leaders that the US might suddenly change 
sides. This is not as outlandish as it might at first appear. The US has been 
cultivating the Sunni in Iraq for the past 18 months. It has sought talks with 
the insurgents. It has tried to reverse the de-Baathification campaign. US 
commentators and politicians blithely talk about eliminating the anti-American 
Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and fighting his militia, the Mehdi Army. No wonder 
Shias feel that it is better to get Saddam under the ground just as quickly as 
possible. Americans may have forgotten that they were once allied to him but 
Iraqis have not.

When Saddam fell Iraqis expected life to get better. They hoped to live like 
Saudis and Kuwaitis. They knew he had ruined his country by hot and cold wars. 
When he came to power as president in 1979, Iraq had large oil revenues, vast 
oil reserves, a well-educated people and a competent administration. By 
invading Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990, he reduced his nation to poverty. 
This was made worse by the economic siege imposed by 13 years of UN sanctions.

But life did not get better after 2003. Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 
Iraqi adults by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies in November 
revealed that 90 per cent of them said the situation in their country had been 
better before the US-led invasion. Only 5 per cent of people said it was better 
today. The survey was carried out in Baghdad, in the wholly Sunni Anbar 
province and the entirely Shia Najaf province. It does not include the Kurds, 
who remain favourable to the occupation.

This does not mean that Iraqis want Saddam back. But it is clearly true that 
the chances of dying violently in Iraq are far greater today everywhere in the 
country outside the three Kurdish provinces than they were in 2002. The myth 
put about by Republican neoconservatives that large parts of Iraq enjoyed 
pastoral calm post-war but were ignored by the liberal media was always a 
fiction. None of the neocons who claim that the good news from Iraq was being 
suppressed ever made any effort to visit those Iraqi provinces which they 
claimed were at peace.

Saddam should not have been a hard act to follow. It was not inevitable that 
the country should revert to Hobbesian anarchy. At first the US and Britain did 
not care what Iraqis thought. Their victory over the Iraqi army - and earlier 
over the Taliban in Afghanistan - had been too easy. They installed a 
semi-colonial regime. By the time they realised that the guerrilla war was 
serious it was too late.

It could get worse yet. The so-called "surge" in US troop levels by 20,000 to 
30,000 men on top of the 145,000 soldiers already in the country is unlikely to 
produce many dividends. It seems primarily designed so that President George 
Bush does not have to admit defeat or take hard choices about talking to Iran 
and Syria. But these reinforcements might tempt the US to assault the Mehdi 
Army.

Somehow many senior US officials have convinced themselves that it is Mr Sadr, 
revered by millions of Shia, who is the obstacle to a moderate Iraqi 
government. In fact his legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Shia Iraqis, the 
great majority of the population, is far greater than the "moderate" 
politicians whom the US has in its pocket and who seldom venture out of the 
Green Zone. Mr Sadr is a supporter of Mr Maliki, whose relations with 
Washington are ambivalent.

An attack on the Shia militia men of the Mehdi Army could finally lead to the 
collapse of Iraq into total anarchy. Saddam must already be laughing in his 
grave.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq, 
which is published by Verso

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Kirim email ke