Why the world would be better off if Saddam were still in power (huh?)

The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 06/14/03 | Matthew Parris

[Pokey78]

What would you have done? Would you have left Saddam Hussein in power? The inquiry, familiar to all of us who opposed the war, is put in a finger-stabbing sort of way — as though that clinched it; as though the answer is so obvious that the peaceniks can only stammer. Just ask them what they would have done and watch them squirm!

Elsewhere, the tactic is more typical of left-wing polemicists than of the Right. ‘How could you stand by and see...?’ is a favourite way of arguing for state intervention (and taxpayers’ money) for any amount of expensive interference with nature. Any Tory with guts learns to summon them when reminded of dying patients, hungry jobseekers, sinking industries, failing railways or freezing pensioners, and asked, ‘What would you do?’ We answer ‘nothing’ and duck the flying eggs. But when it comes to what should be done about Saddam, we who answer ‘nothing’ face the missiles from the Right, newly converted to the Something Ought To Be Done brigade. On Iraq, neoconservatives deploy the gambit much as a warrior confronts a pacifist by demanding to know what he would do if somebody tried to rape his sister.

I cannot answer the rape question for pacifists, not being one. But as someone certain that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder, perhaps I should say what I would I have done.

Now let me oblige my interrogators by squirming. I should count it a mark of humanity to squirm. In some disputes I do not find the answers easy or (a different thing) easy to proclaim. If I were not troubled by the existence in the world of tyrants, troubled to know how far it is our duty to remove such men, and embarrassed to put into words the conclusion that it may not always be my duty, I would not be human.

Yet the bare question — What would I have done? — presents no difficulty at all. The ‘I’ in question being M. Parris, Times columnist and Another Voice in The Spectator, what I would have done is to write articles inveighing against the invasion of Iraq. I did. Question answered. ‘What would you have done?’ is an inchoate inquiry unless the ‘you’ is tied down. What I would have done if I were me is what I did do. What I would have done if I were Tony Blair is what Tony Blair did do. What my interrogator is probably after, however, is an answer to a question like, ‘If the decision were up to you, what would you have done?’

But still that is not enough. Which decision? Iain Duncan Smith’s? Jack Straw’s? Tony Blair’s? The United States’ President’s? Mark Steyn’s? God’s? Taking those cases one by one, let me tell you what I would have done if I had been able to dictate the decision each took. It would be different in each case. A tug may pull hard to starboard in order fractionally to moderate a liner’s course.

I am not sure that the leader of the Conservative party — any leader of the Conservative party — should get himself into the position of pitting the Opposition against a war which his country is plainly set to fight. Had I been Iain Duncan Smith, but inhabited by the conviction which inhabits Matthew Parris — that war was the wrong policy for Britain — I should have fired at the government a stream of questions about the reasons and the evidence for their decision. My aim would have been to leave the country with the impression that HM Opposition was deeply sceptical: unconvinced rather than actively opposed. Every Tory statement would have ended with a question-mark, and when asked whether my party in government would have joined the war, my reply would have been that it was impossible to say without knowing what the PM claimed to know.

Had I been the Foreign Secretary — but inhabited, etc. — I would probably have resigned when Robin Cook did. This might have toppled the Prime Minister, but the threat beforehand might, equally, have headed him off.

Had I been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom — but inhabited, etc. — I should nevertheless not have gone so far as to side with France and Germany, even though I privately agreed with them. I would have positioned Britain delicately but firmly on the fence, agreed to honour existing understandings about the US use of British facilities, ‘understood’ the American position, ‘understood’ the French position, undertaken to keep open lines of communication with friends on all sides, and found that present demands on British armed forces made it impossible that we should send troops ourselves. This would have been an awkward and unsatisfactory business, was probably the Foreign Office’s preferred policy, and would best have served British interests.

Had I been President of the United States I would not have invaded. This means Saddam Hussein would still be in power, but given what we now know about the state of his armed forces, his grip might not have held for much longer. Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been sent back; and months, perhaps years, of blowing hot and cold on both sides would have resumed.

International law would not have been violated, swollen-headed neocons would not have gained sway, the yee-hah tendency in US foreign policy would have been restrained, precedents for future unilateral regime-changes would not have been set, Nato would be intact, the UN Security Council would not have been damaged, America’s relationship with Europe would have remained good, and Britain would still be on speaking terms with our EU partners. The multitudes killed by Saddam would still be dead, but this war has not resurrected them. If he had resumed his massacres, the world could have debated the wisdom of threatening force on honest humanitarian grounds rather than trumped-up charges about WMDs.

If I had been Mark Steyn — but inhabited, etc. — I would have reflected that rude neoconservatism was what I did and I had better carry on doing it. But it would have struck me that, being Britain’s window into that uncouth world, the occasional wink as I explained it to them would not go amiss with readers who would like me all the more for being a witty guide with an eye and ear not only for the vanities of my opponents, but for folly on my own side too.

And if I had been God, I would not have created Saddam.

Matthew Parris is a political columnist of the Times.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Ignoreing what you "would have done" for a moment, Matthew, allow me to suggest what you can do...

[skeeter]

Another supercilious left wing british journalist. Not exactly a scarce commodity.

[HassanBenSobar]

This guy needs to be introduced to some newly-liberated Iraqis and asked to explain again why it would be so good to have Saddam back in power.

[Ruth A.]

Could not read the enitre article. Anyone dancing that much, I have learned, does not have anything substansive to say.

[Billthedrill]

This means Saddam Hussein would still be in power, but given what we now know about the state of his armed forces, his grip might not have held for much longer.

And pigs might have taken wing at sunrise. His armed forces weren't keeping him in power, his armed thugs, secret police, and irregulars were. There is no reason whatever to assume that the situation would not simply have continued pretty much indefinitely, given that they had succeeded in doing so for 12 years after those armed forces were defeated. This has been the situation in North Korea for half a century, after all.

No, the fact of the matter is that the decision was a tough but simple one: did the deciders judge that the advantages of armed intervention to their countries outweigh the disadvantages? The advantages are legion, but some among many were the downfall of a proven invader of his neighbors, the cessation of known programs of weapons development, and the removal of a major state prop for terrorism targeted at the deciders' countries. The disadvantages were pointed out by many authors, and included the danger of promoting preventative warfare as a policy tool, the certainty of collateral damage in terms of lives and economies, and the expense and difficulty of a stabilizing occupation.

In my personal opinion the judgment was a sound one and the activities appropriate. There was at no point the possibility of unalloyed success, and it is disingenuous in the extreme for the left to make unalloyed success their benchmark for any intervention at all, as this author and others are doing today.

[alnick]

This means Saddam Hussein would still be in power, but given what we now know about the state of his armed forces, his grip might not have held for much longer.

Unbelievable.

[secretagent]

If he had resumed his massacres, the world could have debated the wisdom of threatening force on honest humanitarian grounds rather than trumped-up charges about WMD.

I'd have just emphasized that Saddam would resume his WMD programs, with or without sanctions, even if he didn't have WMD currently.

I would also emphasize that the sanctions abetted Saddam in a "slow massacre" of Iraqis, because of the PR value of blaming them on the US.

Lift the sanctions, and Saddam gets the WMD even if he doesn't have them now.

Don't lift the sanctions, and the oppression of Iraqis continues. Plus Saddam might get WMD anyway.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" and months, perhaps years, of blowing hot and cold on both sides would have resumed."

How the Democrats and the left can continue to ignore the mass graves of children(still holding their dolls )and prisons full of children as young as 8, is absolutely beyond comprehension.And then to actually long for the monster responsible to be reinstated,should frighten everyone.

[secretagent]

The author has already given his answer:

...The multitudes killed by Saddam would still be dead, but this war has not resurrected them. If he had resumed his massacres, the world could have debated the wisdom of threatening force on honest humanitarian grounds rather than trumped-up charges about WMDs.

He has a valid point. Bush did not allege a current massacre in Iraq as a reason for invasion. With that criterion, Bush would have picked the Congo first.

[secretagent]

The disadvantages were pointed out by many authors, and included the danger of promoting preventative warfare as a policy tool, the certainty of collateral damage in terms of lives and economies, and the expense and difficulty of a stabilizing occupation.

In my personal opinion the judgment was a sound one and the activities appropriate. There was at no point the possibility of unalloyed success, and it is disingenuous in the extreme for the left to make unalloyed success their benchmark for any intervention at all, as this author and others are doing today.

Good points.

[nothingnew]

If I had been Mark Steyn — but inhabited, etc. — I would have reflected that rude neoconservatism was what I did and I had better carry on doing it.

Oh man, I hope Mark writes a response article on this. I can't wait.

Parris writes like a junior in the high school newspaper...as if he really knows something. What a maroon.

FMCDH

[ClearCase_guy]

This means Saddam Hussein would still be in power, but given what we now know about the state of his armed forces, his grip might not have held for much longer.

Idiots like Parris probably said things like this about Fidel Castro ... in 1963.

[agrace]

And if I had been God, I would not have created Saddam.

Saddam made his own choices, he didn't have to be a cold-blooded murdering scum.

[JoeSchem]

Yet the bare question — What would I have done? — presents no difficulty at all. The ‘I’ in question being M. Parris, Times columnist and Another Voice in The Spectator, what I would have done is to write articles inveighing against the invasion of Iraq. I did. Question answered. ‘What would you have done?’ is an inchoate inquiry unless the ‘you’ is tied down. What I would have done if I were me is what I did do. What I would have done if I were Tony Blair is what Tony Blair did do. What my interrogator is probably after, however, is an answer to a question like, ‘If the decision were up to you, what would you have done?’

Dr. Irwin Corey replies:

"But, sir, you have totally forgotten that the aforesaid mention of the afterpart, when faced with the dichotomy of the opposite expository, generates an interrogatory whose answer must reside in the realm of that very inchoate state of which you speak.

"I rest my case."

[right wing]

This is one stupid article.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Bush did not allege a current massacre in Iraq as a reason for invasion."

From his State of The Union, Jan 28,2003:

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Sounds like mass murder to me.And it continued until just before the war began. From Sunspot.org, June 9,2003

" SALMAN PAK, Iraq - As survivors desperate for news of missing relatives looked on, a big yellow backhoe methodically cut a trench in the sandy dirt, bringing up two more bodies yesterday.

It was a small recovery for a hot morning's work, but it did not deter Sheik Khadim Fartousi, leader of an Islamic charity, who told reporters that they were standing on a mass grave - the site where some of the last executions of political prisoners of Saddam Hussein's regime took place.

Fartousi said four busloads of political prisoners were brought to this area near the infamous Salman Pak training camp and chemical weapons facility and executed in April, only five days before U.S. forces took nearby Baghdad. Information about the executions came from witnesses and former employees of the Iraqi intelligence service, he said."

[section9]

...The multitudes killed by Saddam would still be dead, but this war has not resurrected them. If he had resumed his massacres, the world could have debated the wisdom of threatening force on honest humanitarian grounds rather than trumped-up charges about WMDs.

He has a valid point. Bush did not allege a current massacre in Iraq as a reason for invasion. With that criterion, Bush would have picked the Congo first.

No, he has no point at all. Here's why. People in the world, and people on the left in particular, don't give a rat's flying ass how many innocent Iraqis were butchered by Saddam. They didn't care in the past, and they don't really care now. They wouldn't care in the future.

No one cares about the Congo. No one cared about Cambodia. No one cared about the Great Terror in Russia. What makes this writer think that people would care about Saddam enough to threaten force?

They wouldn't have. This writer knows that, but he is not intellectually honest enough to admit it. George Bush was, however. Saddam's contempt for the rights of his people was one of the stated reasons for going to war. Nobody was listening that part of the speech, I guess.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[DannyTN]

"And if I had been God, I would not have created Saddam. "

If he had been God, he wouldn't have created anybody with the potential for evil. He would remain alone in the universe, God only to himself.

[Dog]

More nuttiness from the left...