by Rob Dacosta

Created on: December 29, 2006   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

A question of this magnitude - it is death after all - needs to be considered from an informed point of view and not from the current 'chanting' which seems to be coming from the international cheering club who appear more interested in sharpening axes.

A little history would be helpful .....

In 1979 the world witnessed the return to Iran of the Ayatollah Khomeini from France and the fall of the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi). With the overthrow of the monarchy the 'radicalized' student population sought revenge against the influence and meddling of western governments. The centerpiece of this revolution took the form of a large scale hostage crisis - principally American. (In April 1980 the world watched the disastrous report come back of a failed rescue attempt - Operation Eagle Claw - in the middle of an un-named desert. 53 American hostages would remain captive until early 1981.)

In early 1980 the U.S. decided the best way to deal with the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis was to 'build up' the war capability of a little known Iraqi coup leader (only months into his dictatorship) who could do their bidding. Massive weapons sales followed from all around the world.

Result: An 8 year Iran/Iraq war. Million dead.

No one seemed overly troubled by the death of so many people.

In 1990 when Saddam's army invaded Kuwait and threatened the stability of Saudi Arabian oilfields the world took notice. The result was a massive worldwide military build up in the Persian Gulf which culminated in the 91 Gulf war.

Result: 100 hour war. Estimated 750,000 dead Iraqis.

No one seemed overly troubled by the death of so many people.

After the sitting American president (G. H. W. Bush) and leader of coalition forces decided not to send troops into Baghdad for fear of destabilizing the region (and most importantly the regions oil supplies) the Persian Gulf settled into a calm until this same president arrived in Kuwait City during April of 1993 for an honorarium and a plot to assassinate him was uncovered. After this everything changed as the American media quietly and very methodically went about exposing Saddam Hussein for who and what he was.

The American and British governments spearheaded a (military) no-fly zone north of 36 and south of 33 within Iraq which became the cornerstone of military and eventually economic sanctions and which ultimately became known as the Iraqi-oil-for-food-program.

Result: Unpunished sleaze at the U.N.. Unknown number of Iraqis dead trying to
circumvent the program.

*

It's within this little circle of information/evidence that the issue of Saddam Hussein's execution should be considered. While it's easy to simply agree with the judgment and close one's eyes to the meaning of it it does raise questions which will conveniently die with him.

1) Will anyone outside of Iraq be brought before a court?
2) Will Iraq become more stable as a result of this sentence?
3) What of the growth and spread of terrorism?
4) As in any criminal court, will the record reflect Saddam's other crimes?
5) What of the claim - by some very reputable legal people - that too many mistakes were made in the prosecution of this case?
6) Is this really what Iraqi's would have chosen without 'outside' help?

At the end of all of this is a sad tale of how bureaucracy really works. If you spread something out so far and so thin you can make it appear to be anything and best of all no one in particular has to be accountable for it. Certainly not those 'involved parties' in other countries who create these situations.

Learn more about this author, Rob Dacosta.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.