by Walter Onubogu

Created on: September 29, 2009

Saddam Hussein, no doubt was a sadistic tyrannt, but he never harboured any love or affection for Osama Bin Laden's Al Quaida network. Regardless of how brutal he personally was and how resentful he grew against the UK and US for ejecting him (his armed and invading forces) from Kuwait in 1990 and the ensuing imposed sanctions regime against Iraq, he always was dismissive of Muslim extremists and thought of them as a "big menace" that needs to be extinguished or contained.

While in power, in Iraq he violently repressed Sunni or Shia extremists and tolerated not the slightest sign of dissent against his regime. So Al Quaida had a very hard time infiltrating Iraq while he pulled the strings in Iraq. All this changed with Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003. But even then he rejected the idea of an alliance with them.

Instead, although on the run thereafter he tried to re-position himself as the leader of the Sunni opposition of the invasion, trying thus to rally former disgruntled Baathists elements ( his Baath party pervaded every aspect of public and political life in Iraq) Sunni tribesmen and their followers behind the banner of resistance against agression. Even then he was reluctant not be directly associated with "external" extremist elements, such as Al Quaida. He knew to well that Iraqis in spite of their grievances against the Americans and the British, preferred a home grown "trusted" resistance movement rather than a bunch of foreigners who had no allegiances to Iraq (theirs was only to create and wreak as much havoc against the US and UK occupation).

Aside from that Saddam, had a strong dislike for religious extremism, and was weary about the power of political Islam and helping it fester. Knowing what happened to Iran in 1979 (and how that country's modernisation and secularisation under the Shah of Iran came to a sudden halt), he actually remained staunchly secular and in defiance to restless domestic conservative Muslim traditionalists and Muslim extremists alike, he promoted and defended Iraq's secularization, education was secular at all tiers, women were promoted into professional spheres, alcohol was legally available, dancing and partying were all allowed, and ethnic minorities like Orthodox Assyrians and Chaldean Christians were protected in a pre-dominantly sunni Muslim country from Muslim extremists. The country's legal system was based on nationalist secular codes and trying to promote Sharia was illegal and punishable with death. In this respect he was progressive, however his rule was dictatorial and tyrannical and depended on the execution of force against Iraqis.

Al Quaida has grown frustrated by the fact that Iraqis in spite of their grievances against US and UK have grown weary about foreign elements exploiting their plight to their own and not Iraq's benefit. Instead Sunni tribesmen have decided to accept Iraq's new order and abandon any potential (temporary) alliance they may have initially sought with with Al Quaida to fight the Americans and British. Of course along with that the very fact that many have been brought on to the US army's payroll, I think helps quite allot to influence people's minds.

Iraqis are fed up with terrorism and and tired of mayhem and destruction. Saddam's gone, but they always harboured his sentiments about the futility of co-operating with Al-Quaida. If anything they preferred to be the ones fighting against injustice and occupation.

Learn more about this author, Walter Onubogu.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.