2 of 4

Yes

Write now Article Tools

There is no doubt that Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he also provided stability to Iraqis. He certainly maintained an extensive apparatus of coercion and oppression against his opponents, particularly the Kurds and Shiites, however he did not allow insurgencies or rampant criminal violence and he maintained predictable government services. Although Saddam's government labored under the burden of an economic boycott sanctioned by the UN, there is no doubt that they kept tight control over what happened on the ground, with the exception of the Kurdish area which had autonomy due to the "no-fly zone" enforced by American.

Under Saddam, there were not millions of Iraqi refugees who felt compelled to leave the country and millions of other Iraqis were not displaced within Iraq. Under Saddam, random acts of terrorism or ethnic cleansing carried out by non-governmental groups were virtually unheard of, so Iraqis just had to figure out how to stay on the right side of Saddam's regime. Under the 5-year old American occupation, Iraqis must figure out how to avoid problems with numerous partisan militias, common criminals, the official Iraqi government and the American military. There are fewer hours of electrical service than under Saddam, more unemployment, less oil production, etc.

The main economic hardship under Saddam were the politically motivated trade sanctions imposed by the US with the support of the UN. A case could be made for those restrictions to be representing illegal collective punishment of the Iraqi people for the decisions of their violent dictator. It is ironic that before March, 2003, it was the US military that imposed the economic hardship that is said to have resulted in the deaths of an estimated half million Iraqi children of malnutrition, while after March, 2003, it was the US military that created the conditions that allowed chaos and anarchy in much of Iraq. In each case, America justified its actions as being for the benefit of Iraqis, however the true motivations were uniquely American. Individual Iraqis were helpless to directly impact either the boycott before 2003 or the occupation after then, other than to cooperate with insurgents.

In any case, except for the Kurds, who benefit from the protective no fly zone before 2003 and autonomy afterwards, Iraqis have been subjected to great deprivations by America both before and after 3/2003. The tremendous cost in severe illnesses and lives lost cannot be justified. Attempts to starve

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Would life in Iraq be better if Saddam Hussein were still there??
We want to hear your view. Write now!