first reaction to the capture of Saddam Hussein was both anger
and disgust. Anger with the old dictator who could not even die
honourably. He preferred to be captured by his old friends than
to go down fighting, the one decent thing he could have done for
felt no pity for Saddam. He had killed some dear comrades of mine
and imprisoned too many others, but the US had no right to do
this. It was the responsibility of the Iraqi people.
also felt disgust with the way in which the TV networks were covering
this event. CNN and BBC World had become total propaganda networks,
to such an extent that it must have made Berlusconi smile. Parading
a captured prisoner in this fashion is the new model of imperialism.
The latter-day equivalent of how barbarian chieftains were paraded
in ancient Rome, prior to their execution.
years the US had built up Saddam as the big bogeyman in the Middle-East.
Now that he has gone what possible excuse is there for the Western
soldiers to remain in Iraq? Why not an immediate general election
to elect a Constituent Assembly?
Is it because an elected Assembly would demand an immediate end
to the Occupation, Iraqi control of Iraqi oil and Iraqi firms
to reconstruct their country? These demands will unite the bulk
of Iraqis regardless of their religious or ethnic origin.
effect will Saddam's arrest have on the resistance? Several weeks
ago I wrote that even if Saddam was captured and killed, the resistance
would continue. There is no reason to change that view. In fact
those who were, till now, reluctant to back the resistance will
now come out openly against the Occupation. Those in the US and
elsewhere who argued that the resistance was led by Saddam and
the remnants of the old regime, will now get a big shock. This
week a peaceful mass uprising in Hilla removed a US-appointed
Governor. The slogan chanted by the people was: "Free elections
now!' Actions of this type are bound to increase.
if old rogue decides to tell the whole story of his collaboration
with the US throughout the Eighties of the last century?
What if he reveals his conversations with Donald Rumsfeld
during the Iran-Iraq war? It's a problem for them.
it is true, as the warmongers argued once they couldn't find any
'weapons of mass destruction', that they were ridding Iraq of
a tyrant, the logic should now be an immediate end to the Occupation.
I don't think this will happen. That is why a political resistance
could spread throughout the country. Banning trades-unions as
the Occupation has done won't make too much difference. The Iraqi
underground is vibrant and hopeful.
what will they do with Saddam? The Occupation of Iraq is illegal
and so the US will not tempt international law by trying him in
the Hague. There is a further problem. In order to help Kissinger
and other US war criminals it was agreed that leaders cannot be
charged retrospectively. If there is a tribunal in Iraq, it will,
like every other institution today, be US-dominated. Will it be
public? And what if old rogue decides to tell the whole story
of his collaboration with the US throughout the Eighties of the
last century? What if he reveals his conversations with Donald
Rumsfeld during the Iran-Iraq war? It's a problem for them. So
they will do what suits their interests.
all, the Emperor Hirohito in Japan sanctioned and supported a
war that led to the deaths of tens of millions during the Second
World war. He was needed against Communism and so they transformed
him into a friendly marine biologist.
don't think they need Saddam any more, so he can't be transformed
into a friendly neighbourhood archaelogist, but they will try
and get what they want out of him, though even a broken and defeated
Saddam is unlikely to help them find the weapons that never existed.
Note: The above article is also available at