- There is little doubt that Uday and Qusay Hussein, the
two sons of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein killed by US forces in
a house on the outskirts of Mosul July 22, were morally and politically
reprehensible figures. By all accounts, Uday Hussein, the elder, was a
sexual predator and murderer, while Qusay, as chief of Iraq's notorious
security apparatus, had even more blood on his hands. Given the reactionary
nature of the regime, there is no reason to doubt the extent and depth
of their crimes.
-
- Having said that, both the means by which Hussein's sons
were liquidated and the manner in which the killings were greeted by the
American government and media speak volumes about the nature of the US
intervention in Iraq and the character of the American political establishment.
-
- On the plane of morality, there exist no fundamental
differences between the personnel of the Hussein regime and the Bush administration.
The latter operates in every sphere with unashamed lawlessness and violence.
If there is a difference in the degree of brutality against its own citizens,
the "restraint" exercised by the Bush forces is a matter of circumstance
rather than moral superiority over the killers and torturers of the ousted
Iraqi regime.
-
- In the operation against the Hussein brothers the US
military mobilized hundreds of troops and dozens of vehicles and aircraft.
The American forces used automatic weapons, rockets, rocket-propelled grenades
and tow missiles against four individuals armed with AK-47 automatic rifles.
-
- The assault had the character of a gangland slaying,
the vengeful wiping out of the cornered leadership of one gang by a more
powerful and better-armed outfit. An unnamed senior US military official
in Iraq spoke like a Mafia don, telling the UPI: "This is a very beneficial
hit. They cannot feel anything other than doom, since if we can take down
these guys, we can take down anybody."
-
- The exultation of US and British officials and the media
over the killings in Mosul÷which included the death of the 14-year-old
son of Qusay Hussein, Mustapha÷can only arouse revulsion. The pleasure
that these circles take in bloodletting and violence has a pathological
character.
-
- President George W. Bush boasted, "Now more than
ever Iraqis can know the former regime is gone and is not coming back."
Senator Ted Kennedy, the dean of Democratic "liberals," expressed
satisfaction over the killings. "It's progress," he said.
-
- Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair was less restrained,
declaring, "This is a great day for the new Iraq."
-
- The American media was both jubilant and bloodthirsty.
The New York Daily News carried photos of Saddam Hussein and his two sons,
with red crosses placed over Uday and Qusay, and the words, "One to
go." Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, headlined its editorial "E-RAT-ICATED!"
-
- The New York Times also celebrated the "hit"
in Mosul, calling the assassination of the Hussein brothers "the most
encouraging news out of Iraq in weeks." The editors of the Washington
Post called the deaths "very good news indeed" and went on to
claim that the killings "meant a serious blow to the diehard resistance
that has plagued the postwar administration."
-
- The notion that the murders in Mosul will halt Iraqi
resistance to the US colonial occupation of that country is wishful thinking
of the most politically blinkered variety. The American government and
media establishment apparently believes its own propaganda that the only
opposition to the US presence is being offered by "holdouts"
of the old regime, "terrorists" and "criminals."
-
- These people are so blind to social and political reality
and so distant from the Iraqi people that they cannot conceive of popular
resistance that rejects both the Ba'athist regime and foreign imperialist
tyranny. Attacks on US forces continued unabated July 23, as two more American
soldiers died and nine were wounded in attacks.
-
- Why were they not taken alive?
-
- Why was no effort made to capture Uday and Qusay Hussein
alive? When asked about this, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was in charge
of the operation, answered blandly, "Our mission is to find, kill
or capture."
-
- A number of factors come into play. After weeks of US
deaths and sagging troop morale, American officials no doubt concluded
that a murderous assault would boost the spirits of the war constituency
in the US and the psychotic element in the military. In any event, they
share the outlook of this constituency and were in need of a bloodletting
themselves. The pent-up rage and vindictiveness, in the face of growing
Iraqi resistance, expressed itself in the extermination of Hussein's sons.
-
- More fundamentally, the capture of Uday and Qusay Hussein
presented politically troublesome problems. Putting the two former officials
on trial would have inevitably raised the issue of the entirely lawless
character of the war and occupation. The Hussein brothers would not have
found it a great challenge to turn the tables on their prosecutors and
expose the hypocrisy and criminality of the Anglo-American operation in
Iraq.
-
- We have the example of the ongoing Slobodan Milosevic
war crimes trial in The Hague, which has turned into a fiasco for the US
and NATO. The former Yugoslav president has already succeeded÷during
the prosecution phase of the case÷in using the tribunal to expose
the machinations of the great powers. Milosevic is expected to develop
his arguments during the two years he will now have to present his defense.
-
- Beyond the immediate situation in Iraq, there is the
equally vexing question of the long-standing relationship between the US
government, including some of its current leading officials, and the former
Hussein regime.
-
- In February 2003 the National Security Archive released
60 documents detailing the extent of the relations between the Reagan administration
and the Iraqi government during the 1980s. At the time of the Iran-Iraq
war the US, while claiming to be neutral in the conflict, supported Hussein
against the Islamic regime in Teheran. The Archive notes that Washington,
through direct and indirect means, provided financing, weaponry, intelligence
and military support to Baghdad "in accordance with policy directives
from President Ronald Reagan," several years before the US restored
formal relations with Iraq in November 1984.
-
- A highlight of the process of normalizing American-Iraqi
relations was the visit by then presidential envoy (and current Secretary
of Defense) Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad in December 1983, where he held
a 90-minute conversation with Saddam Hussein. The US was well aware that
the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish
insurgents. Rumsfeld made no mention of the issue in this discussion. A
secret memo sent to the State Department reported that "Saddam Hussein
showed obvious pleasure with [the] President's letter and Rumsfeld's visit
and in his remarks."
-
- As the New York Times reported in March 2003, the US
and France were the sources of Iraq's biological weapons programs.
-
- Iraqi officials have learned to their cost that whether
a foreign leader is feted by Washington or assassinated depends entirely
on the circumstances.
-
- The assassination of the Hussein brothers has further
undermined the claim that the US went to war to prevent the Iraqi regime
from developing or using weapons of mass destruction (WMD). According to
Judith Miller in the July 23 New York Times, Qusay Hussein "was also
responsible for overseeing Iraq's unconventional weapons. ... Stephen Black,
a former inspector and chemical weapons expert, said that by virtue of
his control of the security services, Qusay would have known, for instance,
Îwhether they had chemical weapons, how many they had, and where
they were deployed.' ... Finally, he said, Qusay would have known not the
exact hiding places but the Îbroad brushes of the concealment policy
and practices÷whether Saddam had destroyed or hidden weapons or
the capability for just-in-time production, and what the goals of this
concealment were.'"
-
- Obviously, by taking the decision to murder Qusay, the
US government and military expressed their total lack of interest in the
existence of WMD and, in effect, acknowledged that such deadly and dangerous
weapons do not exist.
-
- US role at Nuremberg
-
- The bloodlust and lawlessness of the present-day political
establishment is placed in sharp relief by comparing its campaign of political
assassination in Iraq with the attitude of the US to the treatment of fascist
mass murderers captured at the end of World War II.
-
- Less than sixty years ago, Washington opposed the summary
execution of the leaders of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan÷who
had committed crimes on a far more massive scale than any carried out by
the regime of Saddam Hussein÷and insisted they be placed on public
trial and accorded all of the legal privileges of due process. The vast
contrast between then and now underscores the break with any conception
of democratic principles that has occurred within the American ruling elite.
-
- The surviving Nazi leaders were responsible for the deaths,
by genocide and war, of tens of millions, yet American officials were scrupulous
in demanding that they be captured alive and placed on trial, as they eventually
were, at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal in 1945-46. Considerable pains
were taken to ensure that the defendants not take their own lives. The
US was insistent that the defendants be provided with counsel and access
to evidence and that they be accorded the right to cross-examine witnesses.
-
- Dennis Hutchinson of the University of Chicago in a November
18, 2001 Chicago Tribune article cited the comments of Supreme Court Justice
Robert H. Jackson, chosen to represent the US in any post-war proceeding,
explaining the options he presented to President Harry Truman: "We
could execute or otherwise punish them [the Nazi officials] without a hearing.
But undiscriminating executions or punishments without definite findings
of guilt, fairly arrived at, would ... not set easily on the American conscience
or be remembered by our children with pride." Jackson insisted that
the only appropriate ãcourse is to determine the innocence or guilt
of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times and horrors
we deal with will permit, and upon a record that will leave our reasons
and motives clear."
-
- Jackson feared that summary executions would erode the
moral high ground that the victorious powers enjoyed, according to Hutchinson,
and that it was necessary as well to document the precise nature of the
Nazi crimes for posterity. Jackson commented: ãUnless we write the
record of this movement with clarity and precision, we cannot blame the
future if in days of peace it finds incredible accusatory generalities
uttered during the war. We must establish incredible events by credible
evidence."
-
- In a comment directly relevant to the current international
situation, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jackson noted that the Allied
triumph by itself did not provide the victors with the legal sanction to
punish German officials, nor did Allied claims and proclamations. The guilt
of the Nazi leaders had to be proven in a court of law.
-
- Jackson declared, ãThe president of the United
States has no power to convict anyone. He can only accuse. He cannot arrest
in most cases without judicial authority. Therefore, the accusation made
carries no weight in an American trial whatsoever. These declarations are
an accusation and not a conviction. That requires a judicial finding. Now
we could not be parties to setting up a formal judicial body to ratify
a political decision to convict. Then judges will have to inquire into
the evidence and give an independent decision."
-
- In his opening statement to the Nuremberg tribunal, Jackson
said, ãThat four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with
injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive
enemies to the judgment of law is one of the most significant tributes
that power has ever paid to reason."
-
- Jackson's comments and actions were bound up with a certain
fidelity to democratic principles that still held sway within the American
ruling elite. They expressed as well a certain confidence in the prospects
for US capitalism and the post-war world. They came from a position of
relative political and economic strength.
-
- The prevailing atmosphere in present-day Washington,
which venerates repression and murder, represents the collapse of any adherence
to democracy, at home and abroad. The Bush administration, which came to
power through fraud and thuggery, serves the interests of a crisis-ridden
ruling elite that can only hope to exercise power through the unrestrained
use of violence on a global scale.
-
- The campaign of political assassinations in Iraq is a
further demonstration of the criminalization of the American ruling elite.
-
- Copyright 1998-2003
- World Socialist Web Site
- All rights reserved
-
- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/iraq-j24.shtml
|