Saddam's death
This is Jono talking. I don’t know what the rest of you think about this really, but I’ve been considering Saddam Hussein’s execution, and I can’t settle on an opinion. On the one hand, he was a maniac, right? He killed and tortured G-d knows how many innocent people as an insane dictator who was in possession of WMD’s (at some point, at least). But on the other hand, the humanitarian argument aside, I’m not sure executing him was a good tactical move.
Considering that, when we entered Iraq, the plan was to secure a quick victory—once Saddam was captured, especially, there would be no real resistance to US forces; what little there was would quickly decentralize and collapse. But as we all now know (and as some of us were saying back then), that was about as far from the reality of the situation as the Bush Administration could’ve gotten.
So when I consider Saddam’s execution, I don’t really see it as proving (and certainly not curing) anything. I’ll admit that I’m not an expert on the Middle East, but the way I see it, the best-case scenario here is that nothing changes, because none of the guerrillas combating US troops in Iraq really care about Saddam Hussein’s survival; the worst-case is an immense backlash.
Granted, events could play out completely differently, and I could look back on this post in six months and scoff at my stupidity. But while I admit that’s a possibility, I don’t really believe it. Maybe Saddam truly did deserve to die—I really don’t know and it’s not my place to make those decisions—but I don’t think that it was necessarily a good move.
— Jono
Comments
Hmm, I think it was better than the alternatives. As for the “huge backlash,” I don’t think it will be any different than normal. It’s not as if Baathist insurgents really expected him to go free.
Posted by: Ben Hyman | January 1, 2007 5:39 PM
You avoid the question of whether the death penalty is a “just” punishment. European courts (in fact, the EU) have ruled that it is not. Twelve states in the U.S.A. don’t have a death penalty. This is a real can of worms… in this country, the death penalty is reserved only for murderers and traitors—people who have proven, to a jury of their peers, that they have killed in the past and may kill again. I encourage each of you to think about whether the death penalty is fair… discuss with your parents, come to your own decision. Don’t just blindly go along with the crowd. Me? I’m opposed to the death penalty. But it may be arguably cheaper to execute a convicted murderer than to incarcerate him [a vast majority, but not all, persons on Death Row in the U.S. are men] for life.
Posted by: Mr. Russell | January 2, 2007 7:40 PM
To Ben, I still feel there were better alternatives. If they really did want to kill Saddam, it probably would’ve been a safer action to keep it on the down-low. I think the idea of making an example of Saddam’s death in public is just unstable—sure, people could take the hint and steer clear of America’s power, but it also isn’t far-fetched to speculate that Saddam will be plastered as a martyr.
As for Mr. Russell’s statements about the death penalty, I’m also opposed. As I see it, the US is one of the few nations in the world that still does this. I definitely think this is for a reason; killing someone for killing is ridiculous (an eye for an eye, right?). Just because it’s state-sanctioned doesn’t mean it’s any more morally acceptable. What’s more, in this case with Saddam Hussein, if execution was supposed to be more cruel, wouldn’t a life in prison be more unbearable for a guy who lived in a palace? I don’t know what you think of that, but I’d say that, regardless of the moral aspect, that’s another thing to consider…obviously, morality wasn’t on the chief decision-makers’ minds.
Posted by: Jono | January 3, 2007 11:27 AM