Put Saddam back in power?

Kevin Dooley, a student at the University of Massachusetts wrote an amateurish excuse for a column/essay, posted here, in which he advocates the restoration of Saddam Hussein to power, as the only way to restore order and stability to Iraq. In Mr. Dooley's essay, he makes several false assertions, probably due to the fact that he apparently did no research other than to read an article in the New York Times, and the Sunday Times of London, articles which he provides no links to, even though he essay was posted on line.

Mr. Dooley, in the future, please provide links to articles that form the basis of your essays, so that those of us who read your essays may check your sources and make up our minds as to the veracity of your assertions. Not providing links is both rude, and shows a certain amount of laziness on your part, in my opinion. But, I digress, as I believe that I know the reason(s) why Mr. Dooley did not provide any links. Read on.

Put Saddam Hussein back in power
[by] Kevin Dooley
Posted: 5/17/06
In an article in the United Kingdom's Sunday Times, it was reported that Saddam Hussein told one of his defense lawyers that he was ready to die."I am not scared of execution," said the former brutal dictator of Iraq. While Saddam Hussein awaits the almost certain guilty verdict to be handed down in his ongoing trial, which resumed this week, he has taken up writing some of his own poetry. Here's a sample of his work from FoxNews.com:From "Ode to Iraq""My spirit is still standing firm and will not fall,And in my body runs the blood of the great.Oh Iraq you are crowned in the heartAnd on the tongue you are the poem of the poets.Oh Iraq misfortune has shaken your sword, so stand tallAnd gather your strength without bearing a grudge."Even though Saddam may have all the time in the world now to write poetry (at least until he is publicly hanged), Saddam is needed somewhere else. And it's not as a writing instructor in a creative writing class here at the University of Massachusetts. Instead, Saddam Hussein needs to be put back in power as president/dictator of Iraq immediately.

Mr. Dooley starts out ok in his little essay, correctly identifying Saddam as a 'brutal dictator', and stating that Saddam will surely hang at the conclusion of his trial, but then he veers off into fantasy-land by stating that Saddam needs to be re-installed into power, and 'immediately', at that, as if that will end the killing. Nothing could be further from the truth, as evidenced by the current charges against Saddam. Saddam is on trial for ordering the revenge killing of Shiites after the failed assassination attempt. Does Mr. Dooley really think Saddam would suddenly become an 'enlightened leader', if released from his trial and re-installed in power? If so, then Mr. Dooley is woefully naive. But wait, there's more.

Ever since Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in 2003, Iraq has been nothing short of a disaster area.

As 'reported', in a biased and distorted manner, by the MSM. The 'disaster area' as Mr. Dooley calls it, is limited to a very small portion of the country, a fact which is never mentioned by the MSM, due to the fact that most 'reporters' never even venture out of the Green Zone. What also isn't being reported, of course, are the numbers of schools, hospitals, water purification plants, and other infrastructure being built, that had either languished under Saddam's rule (because that would have benefited Shiite area's), or had been damaged or destroyed in the war; the number of children now enrolled in school; the number of new businesses that have sprung up as the Iraqi economy is growing by leaps and bounds. Most of this information could have been found at Arthur Chrenkoff's (now defunct, but still available) blog, among others.

The once secular nation has seen the rise of sectarian violence, mainly involving the Shiite and Sunni Muslims in their ongoing attempt to seize power in the chaotic political landscape. Some have said the way to solve the problem of sectarian violence in Iraq is to just simply split the country into three separate nations. After all, Iraq has only been an independent nation since 1932.

Long before Britain granted the country independence, the region was divided into three separate provinces under the Ottoman Empire. The problem with this plan, as Anthony Cordesman writes in his New York Times article "Three Iraq's would be one big problem," is that Iraq is not divided along a neat set of sectarian lines. As a result, the effort to divide Iraq along sectarian lines would result in massive "relocations." In addition, there would be fights over the control of oil in Iraq. According to Cordesman's article, "90 percent of Iraq's government revenues come from oil exports."

So if dividing the country along sectarian lines is not the solution to creating regional stability, what is? Like I said earlier, all you have to do is tell Saddam Hussein he is back in power. Say what you want about the guy, and yes, I know he is a brutal dictator who is responsible for countless lives being lost, but he was the only one it seems that was able to keep the Shiite and Sunni Muslims from going at each other's throats. When Saddam Hussein was ousted from power, it created a political vacuum which the majority of Iraqis filled by democratically electing a Shiite government. However, this election has only alienated the Sunni Muslims in Iraq, and was one of the factors in the Shiite mosque being blown up a few months ago. The solution to this entire mess is to put Saddam back in power.

Mr. Dooley at least (possibly) did some research, it appears, as he does put forth some factual history about Iraq, but then once again, he veers off into fantasy-land, stating that the 'only way' to restore 'regional stability' is to re-install Saddam to power, because Saddam was the 'only one' that could keep the Shiites and Sunnis from fighting among themselves. That was because Saddam made sure that the Shiites didn't have guns, and that also presupposes that there is no one else in Iraq that is capable of effective leadership. Saying that there is (apparently) no one else in Iraq who is capable of being an effective leader, is akin to the astronomers in the last century stating that there was absolutely no possibility that other planets existed around other stars, which has since been proven to be a false assertion. Mr. Dooley's assertion that Saddam is the 'only one' that can stop the in-fighting between the Shiites and the Sunnis is equally false.

Like many people have said before, Saddam Hussein was absolutely no threat to the United States. The Bush administration blatantly lied to us when they said Saddam Hussein had ties to the terrorist organization Al-Qaida.

Mr. Dooley again presents a false assertion here, saying that Saddam was 'no threat' to the US, and that the Bush administration 'blatantly lied' to us about Saddam' ties to Al-Qaida. As more and more of the millions of captured Iraqi documents are being translated, we are seeing that, yes indeed, Saddam's regime did in fact have ties to OBL and Al-Qaida, the fact of which has apparently totally escaped Mr. Dooley's attention. Mr. Dooley would have known that his assertion was false had he done just a little research into this by going to this web site. The fact is that, Saddam was a direct threat to not only the US, but to the region and the rest of the world, through his direct links to OBL and Al-Qaida.

As a result of the U.S. invasion, however, Iraq has become a recruiting dream for Al-Qaida. Sadly, Iraqis didn't dance and throw roses at our troops when they arrived on the scene. Instead, Iraqis grew bitter and desperate as they saw their country stampeded by American troops under the orders of President Bush. The desperation has led many Iraqis to turn towards Islamic Fundamentalism as a way to fight back against the imperialistic United States. Without any doubt, Iran will soon be looking to extend their extreme Islamic teachings to desperate Iraqis who are looking for anything to cling onto as they watch their country be torn apart.

So, Mr. Dooley, would you prefer we fight Al-Qaida on the streets of, say Cambridge, or Boston perhaps, rather than the streets of Ramadi or Baghdad? Where would you like us to fight Al-Qaida, for Al-Qaida recruits radical Muslims from all over the world, not just in Iraq?

As for people being resentful of, and becoming desperate because of the so-called 'imperialistic Americans stampeding' through their country, most Iraqi's actually did rejoice at the toppling of Saddam's regime. You must not have been watching CNN at that time. Those Iraqi's who you say have turned to Islamic fundamentalism were already there in the first place, or if not, were leaning towards that way of thinking anyway. And let us not forget that the vast majority of those who are engaged in fighting against the Coalition and Iraqi forces are primarily made up of Sunni Muslims, and Islamo-fascist terrorists from other countries.

And let us not forget the claim by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Now, you would think that our government would be able to easily tell our troops where to find these weapons, since it was the United States who sold Saddam Hussein these lethal weapons when Iraq was at war with Iran. Back in the 1980s, Saddam was in fact a friend of the United States when they were at war with the "dangerous" Iranian nation, which was then under an extreme Islamic fundamentalist leadership (and still is) that had grown hostile towards the United States.

The Bush administration was not the only government that stated that Saddam had an arsenal of WMD's. The Europeans also made that claim, as well as the Clinton administration, and both of the Senators from Massachusetts, but those facts are inconvenient to your essay, which is obviously why you decided to omit them. As for the lack of discovered stockpiles of WMD's? According to the Israeli Mossad and other intelligence services, they were transported to both Syria and Iran just prior to the invasion.

Mr. Dooley, why did you enclose the word 'dangerous' in quote marks when you referred to Iran, implying that Iran was not dangerous? After the fall of the Shah, when the extremists came to power in Iran, one of their first priorities was to establish terrorist groups, or ties to existing terrorist groups, in Lebanon and the so-called 'occupied territories'. You don't consider that dangerous? Oh, and let's not forget that the Iranians stormed the US Embassy in Teheran - which is a blatant act of war - and held Americans hostage for 444 days, ok?

And calling Saddam a 'friend' is only true in the sense of "any enemy of my enemies is my friend". Saddam needed money and weapons to pursue his act of aggression against the Iranians, an act which I'll grant we did encourage, for the reasons stated above.

So, in my opinion, the only way that we can bring home our troops immediately and at the same time bring back some regional stability to Iraq before we invaded is to have Saddam Hussein regain power. Despite the fact that this is the same man who during the Gulf War I thought was going to steal all my presents under the Christmas tree. It's sobering to know that the only person who can bring back order to a chaotic nation is one of the most brutal dictators in history, but it is necessary in order to bring home our troops and to make sure Al-Qaida and Iran do not gain more influence in Iraq than they already have as a result of the invasion.

Mr. Dooley's opinion is that the only way to 'bring our troops home immediately' is to restore one of the most brutal dictators in history to power, which would bring 'stability back to the region', and to ensure that Al-Qaida and Iran do not gain more influence in Iraq. Again, Mr. Dooley makes the false assertion that Saddam is the 'only one' who can 'restore order' in Iraq. Mr. Dooley does not know, or least makes no statements regarding, any of the other people in Iraq that are involved, or may become involved, in the political process in Iraq, so in stating that Saddam is the 'only one' that is capable shows a glaring ignorance on the part of Mr. Dooley. Considering that Mr. Dooley is a student at an institution of higher learning, his obvious ignorance, and his total disregard of honest research, is breathtakingly astonishing. Mr. Dooley is, however, entitled to his opinion, but as the saying goes, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.".

Restoring Saddam to power would be a disaster of untold magnitude, which even the Arab neighbors of Iraq know. Withdrawing our troops immediately would also be a disaster, which again, even the Arab neighbors of Iraq know, but apparently those two facts escape Mr. Dooley.
Restore Saddam to power? An absolutely ludicrous concept.

Kevin Dooley is a Collegian columnist.

Note to The Collegian – do you allow all of your columnists to do such sloppy work, or just Mr. Dooley?

Hat tip: Reality Hammer