There’s not a lot these days (here’s a roundup from Winds of Change), but it’s definitely good news that Saddam Hussein is to stand trial on genocide charges, relating to his campaign against the Kurds in the late 1980s.
The crimes for which Saddam is currently being tried, relating to torture and executions of about 100 people from the village of Dujail following an attempted assassination during the Iran-Iraq war, are terrible, but if the same criteria were applied generally, a large number of world leaders would be in the dock along with Saddam (Fallujah, Grozny, Tienanmen Square and the list goes on).
By contrast, the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds was a genocidal atrocity. If the death penalty is ever justified, it’s justified in this case and whatever the legal technicalities, there’s no doubt of Saddam’s guilt.
There are some problems however. First, it is apparently still possible that Saddam could be executed on the Dujail charges before he even faces trial. This would be a travesty, worse than shooting him immediately after his capture.
Second, there is the question of whether Saddam’s foreign backers will be held to account for their role in facilitating these crimes. Although there is plenty of guilt to go around, with Australian, French, Russian and British interests all implicated, the most notable instances are Donald Rumsfeld and the Bechtel Corporation. They should be made to testify regarding their role in this crime.
Finally, these charges are nearly twenty years old. In view of the many claims made about Saddam’s regime in the leadup to the invasion, it is striking that no charges have even been suggested for any crimes later than the suppression of the Shi’ite revolt in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War. It seems clear that, by the time it was overthrown, Saddam’s regime was not engaged in killing people on a large scale. Claims about recently-filled mass graves have proved to be just as spurious as claims about WMDs.
It’s good that Saddam’s is to pay for his crimes. But it is not worth the loss of 100 000 lives, and more every day.
John Quiggin 
So will the court start with a presumption of innocence or is it just another show trial?
I have no doubt that gas killed lots of Kurds. However from what I have read it was more collateral damange than genocide. In particular the evidence for genocide in Halabaja in 1988 seems weak even though it is obvious that a lot of civilians died.
JQ,
What exactly was the role you feel they should answer for? In other words, why do they merit such highly specific attention? The Wiki site on Bechtel says that they agreed to construct a dual use chem plant after the chemical weapons instances in the early 80s. Unless I missed something else, I don’t see the linkage (being that as reprehensible as the decision may have been, it doesn’t relate to the crime Saddam is being tried for). More troubling, you don’t cite the over 100 German companies most prominent in giving Saddam Hussein’s regime chemical weapons in the first place, but manage to single out an American one. That smacks of unflattering bias. Lastly, I’m no Rumsfeld fan by any stretch, but it is one thing to be among the masses looking the other way and another thing to have “a role” in slaughtering civilians. This is more the case for public figures for whom conflicts between their narrow responsibilities and moral considerations can give rise to ambiguity in choosing the ‘right thing to do’ (even after making the heroic assumption that they possess a moral compass in the first place).
On a totally unrelated note, after a few attempts, I don’t seem to be able to post to the elder current Saddam thread.
Nevermind the second comment. There was some problem with the blockquote formatting that, once removed, aleviated it.
More mass graves found this week:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18713361%255E1702,00.html
Majorajam, I’m sorry I missed out the Germans, but feel free to add them to the list. Obviously the role of Rumsfeld is of more interest than those of other possible accomplices since the US Administration is largely responsible for the prosecution.
For anyone who wants to dig there was a CIA chemical weapons expert of Late Night Live some time ago that was analyst for the region at the time and said that Iraq didn’t have the capacity to gas Halabaja at that time using that particular agent.
Anyone else catch that?
The destruction of the Southern marshes and the murder and displacement of up to 200,000 Marsh Arabs was pretty bad too.
I think it is significant that the leader of the dominant Baath party is standing trial in Iraq, not the Hague, and will be tried by Iraqis.
All this whilst ‘insurgents’ tend to their grisly chores.
The ongoing political impasse cannot be helped by two issues;
that of the history of totalinarism has stunted the growth of the independant political process and,
the US and UK were slow to put pressure on Iraqi leaders to be more proactive in forming a government.
Personal feelings aside, the evidence from Brookings Institute indicates that ‘insurgent’ activity has decreased over the last 6 months;
Numbers
81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25
Number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.
Iraqi military and police
215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)
Car bombs
70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30
Civilians .
527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).
http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=875
Simonjm,
I suppose they gassed themselves, then. The only other real candidate is Iran – who wold have had no motive to do it and who could not have fired the shells from where they came from. Mustard gas, the agent predominately causing the casualties, is easy to synthesize, and there is no doubt they had that.
The Romanian example of dealing with a dicator does seem to have its advantages compared to this long drawn out process that will see Saddam most likely put to death for one of his lesser crimes.
I disagree, this is an excellent demonstration where the rule of law and due process presides over summary justice and will not be corrupted by power and it is happening in the m/e.
Rog, the number of US deaths has declined, but the other numbers haven’t. Other numbers in the Brookings report like the number of insurgent attacks and US troops wounded also have not fallen.
AR I’m just stating what was in the program, I’ve sent an email try to get the details.
Regarding the chemcials a quick google shows it wasn just Mustard gas but a mixture that included nerve agents & I think that is where the claim that Saddam didn’t have that capacity yet.
Secondly have a look where the city is located right on the border where fighting took place between both armies. Quite possible for the Iranians to shell them.
As to motive who could say but in the fog of war where chemicals were used by both sides do you think the Iranians would care about collateral damage.
Again I’m not saying they did just what I heard on LTL, a bit strange to have a ex CIA analyst in Chemical weapons say something like that for the record & for it to be to BS. Or maybe he was just selling a book 😉
Tim, which other numbers havent?
Note that the number of US contractors et al has steadily increased.
Click to access index.pdf
Number US wounded
1,397 in December 2004 (upper bound)
615 May 2005
618 November 2005
428 March 2006
Rog,
I was reading insurgency forums in Decemeber and they were complaining about the decline of US targets.
We all know face-saving excuses when we hear them Rabee… 😉
Slightly edited by JQ
steve at the pub, the Americans now have a ‘small target’ strategy of staying in their bases most of the time except for a few high priority things (eg the airport road in Baghdad) and mass offensives (eg western Anbar) where they can use their airpower. Day-to-day foot patrols have been dropped.
This cuts their casualties and plays to their military strengths (overwhelming firepower) while avoiding their weaknesses (too few people, and those hated by the populace). It also makes sense if their aim is now just to preserve those permanent American bases, counting on no Iraqi government strong enough to demand their closure emerging for a long time. I dunno how much it helps ‘build the new Iraq’ though, and I wonder how long the Shias will be willing to go along with it anyway.
Its why we’re now seeing some noises stage right about “well you know maybe low-level civil war ain’t such a bad thing”.
Simonjm,
He could have been right (I was not there) and he could also have been selling a book. The reason I raised the issue was that a couple of years ago I saw a program on this and the ballistics “expert” on there claimed that the artillery shells had come from known Iraqi positions. The Iraqis also had effective aerial dominance over the battlefield at the time. I cannot find a source for this in a quick google, though.
They may also have been selling a book.
All I can do is suggest the usual reference – wiki. It seems reasonably fair.
The reason the US was blaming Iran at the time should be reasonably obvious – the US may have supplied some of the gas, so the old “Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations” probably came into play.
You may be refering to Stephen C. Pelletiere who wrote the following article on the matter:-
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/103973.php
EXTRACT:-
In terms of Halabja in March 1988 I think that the geocide charge against Saddam is weak. This was a big factor in my opposition to the war. The claim that Saddam had gassed his own people was a key part of the US propoganda used to justify the US invasion of Iraq even though their own intelligence of the time said that the deaths were most likely collateral and most likely caused by Iran.
Nobody denies that there were deaths during the Iran/Iraq war. But that of itself is not sufficient grounds or evidence for genocide. If it was then George Bush could be considered guilty of genocide.
Even if the Kurds in Halabja in March 1988 were the victim of a deliberate gas attach lauched by Saddam it is not genocide. It does not represent a systematic attempt to extinguish an entire group of people. It could be reasonably characterised as an attack on enemy territory (Iran had earlier taken control of the village).
If Saddam was engaged in systematic genocide my view is that he would have had far more success. And if I had believed he was engaged in genocide I would have had little opposition to the US invasion.
If you believe that Saddam was engaged in genocide and you opposed the 2003 US war invasion of Iraq then I would have to say I find such a belief system very strange.
“If you believe that Saddam was engaged in genocide and you opposed the 2003 US war invasion of Iraq then I would have to say I find such a belief system very strange.”
It’s only a strange view if you believe that Australia has a moral obligation to steal money from our productive citizens, and risk the lives of our soldiers, to stop foreigners killing each other rather than to defend our territory.
Steve,
I should clarify my statement so it reads as follows:-
If you just think that the US was a bit mad to waste its taxpayers dollars then fair enough.
I don’t generally see Australians getting upset with the US government wasting money on things like NASA and defending Israel so getting upset when it wages a war to stop genocide in a far off country would seem odd.
Regards,
Terje.
“We all know face-saving excuses when we hear them Rabee… ”
Steve, I very much hope that you are right.
But unfortunately, my feeling is that the insurgency is becoming more organized and much more sophisticated. Here are a few alarming indicators:
a) Full-length propaganda videos within days of a major operation. Importantly, disparate groups no longer issue this propaganda. Propaganda seems to be more centralized.
b) There has also been a remarkable shift in this propaganda toward a slightly more nationalist unifying message. In fact, the latest propaganda video had nationalist music in the background, something that is very new. In the past, the message was exclusively religious (and fanatical).
c) The debate in forums has also shifted toward ensuring that the US has no “honourable exist� (I’m using a term articulated by Juan Cole). That is, the strategy seems to now emphasise the importance of a dishonourable exit, which happens to be in line with what I suspect is the strategy of Syria and Iran, the latter being the main winner of this war.
Of course, my information is third hand and is based on what I read in the mainstream Middle Eastern press and the forums usually associated with their Internet pages.
One of the main problems that I see in the way we (the west) conducted this war is the degree to which we underestimated the strategic competence of Iran and Syria. Their strategy was obvious from the start: create such chaos that Iraq becomes ungovernable. These two countries are famously known for their expertise and ruthlessness in this area. After all, they perfected this expertise during the Lebanese civil war and there are many similarities between the apparent chaos in Lebanon during the civil war and the apparent chaos in Iraq.
Rabee, you make an excellent case for upping the scale of our military operations there.
If we knocked the stuffing out of Iraq once & for all, THEN it may be possible to peacefully rebuild it.
Steve,
What do you “mean by knocked the stuffing out of Iraq once & for all”?
I got quite well into the Stephen Pelletiere case a couple of years ago (if you dig around you can probably find some quite embarrassing things written by me shortly after I’d read it). What ended up convincing me that he was wrong is that a) literally nobody else who knows anything about the subject agrees with him, b) his case seems to be very dependent on cyanide not being something that the Iraqi army ever used, which nobody agrees with and c) his descriptions of the symptoms of nerve gas poisoning don’t tally well with other references I could dig up.
Since nobody denies that Saddam was using chemical weapons at the time, and nobody denies that he was massacring the Kurds at the time, I don’t think it’s worth having much of a debate over whether he was massacring Kurds with chemical weapons.
“f you believe that Saddam was engaged in genocide and you opposed the 2003 US war invasion of Iraq then I would have to say I find such a belief system very strange.’
An invasion in 1988 to stop the genocide would have made sense, but at the time the US was helping Saddam, not hindering him. Killing 100 000 innocent people to punish a 15-year old crime that was condoned at the time does not fit into my belief system.
Actually if you were the prosecuter in a court of law and that was your best argument I would fully expect an aquittal. You know, presumption of innocence and all that stuff.
The fact that George Bush has been killing Iraqis does not amount to genocide. Neither does Saddam killing Kurds during the Iran/Iraq war. Genocide does not merely mean that some of the innocent people killed in a war are of a specific ethnic group.
I supported the war in the mistaken belief that ~ 10,000 people would become casualties. This was based on extrapolating estimates from the casualties sustained in the previous Gulf War. This seemed an acceptable price to pay to re-construct Iraq along civilian lines.
I assumed that the Suunis would by and large accept a Shiite dominated Iraqi state. Big mistake: As Mill pointed out more than a century ago, democratic multiculturalism does not work, especially when propagated by militaristic means.
Saddam Hussein was a bad fellow but I doubt whether he is the worst of a bad bunch. Instead of deposing him we should have concentrated on making him nicer, so long as he played nice.
The fact is that the modern Middle East only breeds awful political movements, perhaps because of deep seated cultural flaws. Much of the ME population are inbred extended families. Inbreeding entrenches tribalism and tribalism prevents the evolution of nationalism and civil law.
Even if most of the ME populus is alright there is still a large fraction of those lands who are mad, bad or sad by virtue of their breeding. These rotten apples are willing to go all the way to do their thing.
In short, in the ME the tall-poppy leaders are bad because they stand on some rather unpleasant grass-roots followers.
In any case, most of SH’s worst crimes came at the behest, encouragement or misguidance of the US government during the time he acted as a curb on Shiite Islamic militancy. His attack on Iran was supported by Carter, his suppression of the Kurds appears to have been tolerated by Reagan, his invasion of Kuwait was initially given the Green light by Bush I. The Shiite/Kurd uprising in 1991 was also given the Green light by Bush I, who then backed off.
The take-home lesson from all this is that we should not be too keen to stick our noses into other peoples business unless an act of genocide or some such thing is actively in progress. Forceful mucking about with foreign cultures generally does more harm than good.
Likewise we should not encourage or allow people from foreign cultures to come to our lands unless they are properly selected and settled according to an ethical construction of our national interest.
Thanks for that Terje, certainly if the trial is more than just a show trial I hope this is brought up.
dsquared I don’t think you can use whether information or points are cited or raised often as a test of the veracity of the the claims.
Cases in point how often do you hear from the apologists for the US about the overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Chile, or the World Court linking the US with terrorism with South American right wing death squads? The evidence for these are pretty well beyond doubt.
I’m sure we could dig up plenty of evidence of US playing dirty or the UK for that matter but in current debates about ‘terrorism’ we get a self-righteous sanitised version to rally the constituents.
Propaganda wars aren’t balanced and don’t take prisoners. Don’t expect anything in the ME to improve until that changes.
If you believe that Halabja in 1988 was genocide but you believe that Saddam was not involved in genocide in 2003 then perhaps I can accept your logic. However I still think any presumption that Halabja in 1988 was genocide, rather than collateral damage, is rather bold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
It’s not logical to say that the US (or anyone else for that matter)was “condoning” Saddam’s killing spree in 1988 unless we also say that those against taking him out in 2003 were condoning his continued killing in 2003. Plenty of people wil make the claim that the US was pro-Saddam in 1988, yet suggest that those against his removal in 2003 were pro-Saddam and you are met with righteous indignation.
The fact is, Saddam and Saddam alone, was responsible for his actions in 1988 AND 2003. Not doing what we should have done in 1988 is not an argument against doing what we still should have done, and did do, in 2003.
“Plenty of people wil make the claim that the US was pro-Saddam in 1988, yet suggest that those against his removal in 2003 were pro-Saddam and you are met with righteous indignation.”
I don’t think many opponents of the 2003 invasion were actually supplying the Hussein regime with arms. It’s a bit of a stretch to conflate actual physical support for the Hussein war machine with democratic opposition to what we lefties correctly identified as a disastrous war policy in 2003. You could however legitimately point out the glaring similarity in the US posture in both cases – pro-war, anti-life.
“I don’t think many opponents of the 2003 invasion were actually supplying the Hussein regime with arms.”
Really? This says you are incorrect.
http://web.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html
“It’s a bit of a stretch to conflate actual physical support for the Hussein war machine with democratic opposition to what we lefties correctly identified as a disastrous war policy in 2003.”
No more so that conflating actual physical support for the Hussein war machine by the US in 1988. My point is if you’re going to make the case that the US (or anyone) condoned what Saddam was doing in 1988 because it (or anyone else) didn’t stop him, then you have to make the same case for what he was doing in 2003, that it was condoned by those who didn’t want to stop him then.
The actual case, IMO, is that no one WANTS to go to war to stop someone like Saddam, not if they don’t have to. There comes a point though, when you do have to. We can see cases of this throughout history. If they can, most people will avoid a fight. Sometimes you can’t.
This is getting somewhat repetitive, but my argument concerned the democratic opposition to the war in Australia and elsewhere, not the nations supplying armaments. At any event, the Stockholm data you refer to does indeed show supplies of sophisticated US arms – helicopters and the like – to Iraq in the mid-1980s which was indeed my point.
Like most war proponents, you personalise the issue. We have to go to war to ‘stop someone like Saddam’. Stop what? Stop his government terrorising the Iraqi people, presumably, since he has long ago ceased being a threat to anyone else. So we invade a country, assert a doctrine of preventive war, slaughter tens of thousands – and what are we left with but an even more terrorised Iraqi people? And one by the look of it about to enter the very dark night indeed of a civil war.
But of course tyranny isn’t in fact the issue, because the US could bring down a dozen tyrannies tomorrow without spending a cent – merely by withdrawing its generous support for said tyrannies.
And democracy isn’t the issue, because as we have just witnessed in Iraq and in Palestine, democracy is only palatable to Washington where it produces the results Washington wants.
In summary: 1. Saddam threatened no one other than his (many) internal opponents in 2003. 2. The war has had the quite predictable result of making things worse in most ways for Iraqis and of course killed and maimed far more of them than would have been killed or maimed by Hussein – a major achievement in itself. 3. The ‘stop Saddam’ excuse only holds good if you go along with the line that it is better that hundreds of innocents should die than that one guilty mongrel goes free. 4. Every official excuse for the war to date has been a laughable fiction.
Last, it used to be the Leninists and Maoists who ran the ‘ends justify the means’ line. It used to be one of the main points hammered by Western propaganda in the Cold War. Amazing to see it so enthusiastically adopted in Washington and by US apologists.
“Really? This says you are incorrect.
http://web.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html”
Maybe I’m looking at the wrong document. I can’t find entries for transfers in 2002/2003
avaroo,
There is an interesting void in the data between 1990 and 2003 – somehow I doubt that Saddam did not find any weapons suppliers during this period, particularly given the funds available under oil for food. Is it this period you were talking about Hal9000?
Or maybe he did just use the money to build palaces and pay off cronies.
Sorry, wrong link.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/22/154815.shtml
I guess it’s POSSIBLE that France post-dated the bombs it sent to Iraq but is it likely?
“Is it this period you were talking about Hal9000?”
It seems silly to go back over the argument, but the point I was trying to make was that the US was supplying Iraq with arms back in the 1980s when it was a genuine threat to its neighbours and committing genocidal acts against minorities within the country. avaroo was attempting to equate what s/he sees as the effective ‘support for Saddam’ given by the anti-war movement in 2002-03 with the 1980s actual ‘support for Saddam’ given by the US. avaroo correctly demonstrates that some of the leading nations opposed to UNSC endorsement of war in 2002-03 were also major suppliers of arms to Iraq in the 1980s – notably France, Germany and the then Soviet Union.
As you correctly note, AR, no-one was supplying arms in any quantity to Iraq between 1990 and 2003. Iraq in 2003 was, as was well known to western intelligence through their constant over-flights and covert bombing operations, a military basket case and a threat to no-one – least of all the US. Indeed, I’d argue that there would have been no invasion had Iraq been likely to offer any serious resistance. Which is why there will be no invasion of Iran. Or, even if they didn’t have nukes, North Korea.
“As you correctly note, AR, no-one was supplying arms in any quantity to Iraq between 1990 and 2003. ”
The French made bombs dated 2001, were what, figments of the imagination?
“Which is why there will be no invasion of Iran. Or, even if they didn’t have nukes, North Korea. ”
I agree. I anything, we’lltake out their facilities by air.
I’ll also point out, that even in the 1980’s the US was never the supplier of arms to Iraq that, you guessed it, France, Russia and China were.
Avaroo: More mass graves found this week
So are these Sddam-era mass graves or the mass graves the current “democratic” regime is filling with the bodies of its enemies?
“An invasion in 1988 to stop the genocide would have made sense, but at the time the US was helping Saddam, not hindering him. ”
I was generally supportive of Us policy during the Gulf War and its aftermath.
I have wondered though what might have happened if the US had established an autonomous statelet in the southern no-fly zone similar to the Kurdish one.
At a minimum it seems clear such a step might have saved tens of thousands of lives.
“I guess it’s POSSIBLE that France post-dated the bombs it sent to Iraq but is it likely?”
It’s also possible that the weapons were on-sold illegally to Iraq by a third party without French knowledge or approval but that would imply that is possible to disagree with you without being a subhuman monster so it’s obviously absurd.
“So are these Sddam-era mass graves”
apparently.
“It’s also possible that the weapons were on-sold illegally to Iraq ”
by whom? Russia?
How about by any of the dozens of countries and international arms traders that buy French weapons?
You mean the ones who refused to enforce UNSC 1441?