 |
| WHAT?! http://mingaling2012.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/oprah-surprised-face_thumb.jpg |
I know that the idea that Saddam Hussein may not have actually been evil incarnate sounds pretty crazy, but PLEASE read the rest of this post before you post any outraged comments below.
In his article, Walzer describes a couple of characteristics which help us identify a case of dirty hands. For example, in order for a politician to have dirty hands, the immoral action he/she partakes in must be necessary to achieve an end which improves the condition of a majority of people. In addition, the politician must also feel guilty for committing an immoral act. Walzer uses the example of a politician who must go against his moral code and authorize the torture of a man whom he believes knows the location of several explosives in order to save the lives of many innocent people.
So, how does this have anything to do with Saddam Hussein?
 |
| Saddam Hussein http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/H/Saddam-Hussein-9347918-1-402.jpg |
Saddam Hussein served as president of Iraq from 1979 to 2003. In 2003, Hussein was captured by forces from the U.S. and U.K. who invaded Iraq in search of "weapons of mass destruction". After Hussein's fall from power, while the country was occupied by U.S. troops, Iraq entered into a period of violent and deadly civil unrest as its various ethnic and religious groups vied for power of the new government.
 |
| Smoke rises in the distance as Iraq spirals into decay as a result of ethnic and religious conflict during the U.S. occupation. http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/picture_this/public/2011/10/24/178432-an-iraqi-girl-holds-her-sister-as-she-waits-for-her-mother-r-to-bring-.jpg |
Under Hussein, Iraq was significantly more stable than it was after his downfall. Through fear, Hussein was able to assume absolute power and keep the opposing ethnic groups at rest. However, this stability and unity, it seems, came at the cost of hundreds of Iraqi lives. Can his awful actions be justified? Perhaps Saddam read The Prince and decided that being feared was the only way to keep himself from being overthrown and Iraq from falling into disarray. Perhaps Hussein was, in fact, trying to unite Iraq for the good of all of its citizens. If this was true, the public executions and the torturing of prisoners under Hussein's rule may have been the "immoral action" required to unite a region already plagued by violence and unrest. Maybe the killing and oppression were the moral sacrifice Hussein needed to make in order to prevent mass death and unrest for a nation of people he loved dearly.
On the other hand, maybe Saddam Hussein was as evil as we all thought he was. Perhaps his cruel reign was motivated by a selfish need for power and affirmation. Certainly there are other ways of securing peace and unity for a nation besides public executions and genocide. During the Anfal Campaign alone, Hussein's forces killed an estimated 2,000 ethnic Kurds in Iraq. These actions can not be justified as serving a 'greater good'. In addition, I highly doubt that Hussein considered himself guilty or felt any remorse for his actions. From this point of view, the one held by the author and presumably most people today, Hussein was not a case of dirty hands but rather a sadistic tyrant.
Maybe Saddam felt differently, but I guess we'll never know.
Maybe Saddam felt differently, but I guess we'll never know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMack,
ReplyDeleteI give you a lot of credit for tackling such a complex and also extremely controversial viewpoint on Saddam Hussein. Although you bring up an interesting argument, I have to disagree with you and say that Hussein did much more than dirty his hands during his rule over Iraq. He did establish a more sound nation, as according to a PBS News Article, Saddam Hussein’s Rise to Power, that, “hundreds of thousands learned to read”, and created, “One of the best public health systems in the Middle East.” Yet, why did he work so hard to increase Iraq’s power? Hussein, though seeming to be helping the country began to align with the secret police units to find those who opposed the Ba’ath party rule. Everything he did was to maintain and give Iraq more power. This supports his dictatorial regime. Iraq was under a totalitarian government, not a democracy. The Iraqi people had not say, so nothing done was voted on or fully supported by them. Anyone that opposed him was eliminated immediately.
Walzer justifies dirtying hands if the outcome supports the greater good of the people, but Hussein’s goal was not to benefit the people, it was to become all-powerful and seek redemption for his impoverished childhood. He carried out mass executions of people opposed to him, so you are right people lived in fear of him. It is not out of respect, but the hope that they would not be brutally murdered. Walzer writes that the politician, “takes chances for our greater good that put us, or some of us, in danger,” so we are, “ a little frightened of the man who seeks ordinarily and every day, the power to do so.” This cannot be stretched to include Hussein’s decisions to brutally murder many and put others in prison. Do not forget the Gulf war. Hussein ordered Iraqi troops to invade due to the refusal of Kuwait to pay the 10 billion dollars Iraq demanded in exchange for the Rumaila oil field. The outcome: 650,000 deaths. In an NY Times news article, Saddam Hussein, Defiant Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence and Fear, Dies, former Iraq foreign prime minister, Adnan Pachachi, stated that Hussein said that Kuwait was rightfully part of Iraq and the mass graves were filled with thieves who fled the battlefields. Can this man who justifies invading a country to gain economic power through its rich oil markets and carrying out genocide of Kurds really be justified as helping the greater good? These acts are not necessary.
It is true that Walzer writes that, “Politicians are a good deal worse, morally worse, than the rest of us.” Yet, there is a large difference between a politician who, “taxes us, licenses us, forbids and permits us, directs us to this or that distant goal-all for our greater good,” and a politician who mass murders thousands of innocent people to attain the personal goal to rule a powerful country. When we really look at Hussein’s regime, we see a sick and evil man who destroyed a nation’s people to achieve the status and power he craved since he was young.
Mack,
ReplyDeleteThough you provide evidence pointing to Saddam Hussein possessing “dirty hands”, I definitely would disagree with that notion. I believe that, as you pointed out later in your post, Hussein was a “sadistic tyrant...motivated by a selfish need for power and affirmation”, not the greater good. Honestly, I don’t think Hussein cared at ALL about the good of the Iraqi people; he was just a horrible dictator who thrived on violence and control. The ‘stability’ you refer to in Iraq under Hussein’s reign is a fallacy - oppression might be a better representation of how he ruled.
A leader who possesses “dirty hands”, in my opinion, must have good intentions. Take the archetypical example of President Truman and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - true, President Truman killed and injured thousands upon thousands of Japanese civilians. However, he didn’t do it simply for the thrill; President Truman believed that the bombings provided the best method of winning World War II and safeguarding American lives. In other words, it was for the greater good of the United States of America.
Saddam Hussein’s actions, on the other hand, were not motivated by achieving a greater good. All he cared about was gaining more power and control. Furthermore, it doesn’t appear to me that Hussein felt any guilt over his actions while in power, even over horrific deeds like the Anfal Campaign. Guilt, of course, is a central aspect of dirty hands - and Hussein obviously didn’t possess any.
Thus, I would conclude that Saddam Hussein was simply evil and power-hungry, both qualities of which would never define a leader with “dirty hands”.
Mack,
ReplyDeleteI would for sure disagree with you that Saddam Hussein had "dirty hands". I fully understand that Iraq was in complete disarray after his removal from power, but that doesn't mean he was right in what he did. If he really was shielding his country from these bad extremist groups, that’s fine. However, he did horrible things in the process, like execute people in public. Not to mention mass genocide.It's clear that he was a power hungry individual who relished in people's pain. If the United States really thought that Saddam was doing any good, they wouldn't have invaded Iraq and captured him. They also wouldn't of just killed Hussein without putting him up to trial. He was a wanted many internationally because of the horrible things he did when he was ruler.
Iraq was more stable? It was “stable” in that it was the status quo of tyranny and genocide. He didn’t care about making Iraq “stable” or cared about any of its citizens. It was all about keeping power and taking advantage of the citizens of Iraq. In all due respect, there is no articulate way you could argue that Saddam Hussein had “dirty hands.” He was just as horrific as Fidel Castro, and put his country back centuries under his leadership. Like all revolutions, lives had to be shed, but in the end we gave Iraq the greatest gift a country could give, and that gift was Democracy. Before enemies under Saddam, now allies under the new democratic government.
But in conclusion, Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and he deserved all of the punishment he received. The example of “dirty hands” doesn’t apply here.
-Matt McCool
Point of clarification:
DeleteI do, in fact, argue in closing that Hussein's case was not one of dirty hands.
Additionally, Hussein was put on trial and was not simply "killed".