December 25, 2002

DESPICABLE DESPOTISM

Few things in this world are more despicable than despotism (the exercise of absolute authority by a ruler or a government; tyranny). The word absolute, as used in the dictionary definition, may overstate the actual case since there has never been, in the absolute sense of the word, an absolute ruler or government.

Still, despotism - in a somewhat more relative sense - provides a starting point for what I want to say: Despotic rulers and governments have been the rule rather than the exception throughout most of recorded history. Ancient Egypt, Babylonia, Ancient Athens and Sparta, Alexander's Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Turk Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, Napoleon's France, the British Empire, the Soviet Empire, Nazi Germany, and various Chinese Dynasties, to name but a few examples.

The modern prototype of the despot is Saddam Hussein. He rules with a ruthless, iron fist. He exploits the people of Iraq. He kills individuals and groups almost indiscriminately. He is a tyrant. Except for some measure of misguided stability, I can think of nothing good to say about his reign. Toward the end of the Gulf War, the United States was faced with a dilemma: Continue the war until Hussein was deposed or killed, or leave him in power. It was a dilemma because almost of the coalition of nations that helped in the war effort wanted the war to end. This was particularly true of the Arab countries that participated in the coalition.

Another factor in the dilemma arose through the prospect of rampant instability throughout Iraq - and possibly the wider Middle Eastern area - if this perfidious ruler was removed. There might have been civil wars. Or, neighboring countries, such as Iran, Syria, and Turkey, might have "annexed" portions of a weakened Iraq, particularly an Iraq torn by internal struggles.

The United States "solved" the dilemma by leaving Hussein in power. The military part of his regime was weakened somewhat - though far less than early estimates indicated - by the war. The civilian aspect was devastated by the destruction of infrastructures such as the bridges, roads, sewer systems, electric generating and transmission facilities and the like. The civilian population continued to be savaged by a senseless blockade of humanitarian aid of all kinds.

The mistaken idea behind the blockade was that it would so weaken Hussein's leadership position that he would be deposed from within. That did not happen. Instead, he used the deprivations caused by the blockade to "harden" the people against the United States, primarily, and to strengthen his position as despot.

One might forgive the United States and its leaders for taking the blockade route except that for forty years the Cuban blockade failed to unseat Castro. That blockade strengthened Castro's hold on Cuba and its people. That failure should have been clear even to US policy makers.

Thus, through the mistaken policy of a blockade, the United States and its Allies actually aided and abetted the very regime they sought to bring down. And, in the process, caused untold death and misery among the people of Iraq. For example, it has been reliably estimated by external sources that 500,000 Iraqi children have died because of the blockade! The death of one child would be too many, since the policy failed in every aspect.

Are U.S. policy makers "blind" to the lessons of history?