The shallow minded will celebrate the execution of Saddam as a victory and perhaps as a watershed moment. It ain’t either–i.e. victory or watershed. If this is a pivotal moment it is simply turning a corner and driving into a deadend alley.
Remember the happy talk and predictions surrounding the death of Saddam’s sons way back in July 2003? The Times of London, in describing the demise of Uday and Qusay, reported that:
They were the targets of
the first US airstrike, and repeatedly attacked during the campaign.
Their escape from Baghdad was a source not just of frustration to the
invasion forces, but also of gnawing anxiety to Iraq’s people.
With the mangled bodies retrieved by the 101st Airborne from the
columned villa in the northern city of Mosul confirmed as those of Uday and Qusay, therefore, the United States has turned a corner in Iraq whose psychological importance is hard to exaggerate. Even if Saddam himself is still alive, his dynasty will be dead.
Turning that corner turned out swell, didn’t it? How about Professor Fouad Ajami’s nifty prophecy about the benefits we would reap from Saddam’s capture?
In a 60 Minutes interview on December 14, 2003, Dan Rather asked Ajami about Saddam’s capture:
Prof. AJAMI: Well, I think
I believe that the way we captured Saddam Hussein, and the fact that he
gave up without–without a fight will take the oxygen out of a certain
kind of resistance to the American presence. When the man himself in
this hole in the ground give himself up without a fight, it’s very
difficult for these jihadists–kids from Saudi Arabia and Syria and
etc. who will come to Iraq ready to fight and die for the cause.
Now
there are what our military in the love of acronyms call the FRLs, the
former regime loyalists. They, too, I think will be deeply discouraged
and deeply dispirited by the way he gave up. Will it be–will it be
fully a panacea there? Will everything come to an end? Will all the
resistance come to an end? Not–not quite. But I think it’s a great day
for us, and we have turned a corner in this battle for a decent and–and stable Iraq.
Fouad, nice try but big miss. Today we mourn the largest monthly loss of U.S. soldiers since January 2005. Iraq is neither decent nor stable. It is a bloody disaster. And the execution of Saddam adds to the bloodlust that drenches Iraq and spews the venom poisoning the prospects for a stable, non-sectarian Iraq. But, look on the bright side. It is a slow news day and the B-teamers manning the 24 hour news channels will have something to bloviate about as they celebrate the new corner we are turning. Happy New Year.
let’s not kid ouselves. this was never about “justice” or “turning corners” or any other practical goal. it was a lynching. just as lynching didn’t end rape, hanging saddam won’t end the violence in iraq or bring the war to a close.
saddam’s death and the images of it will entertain those who get off on pictures of dead people, people for whom this war has always been little more than a video game. chickenhawks, racists, the insecure and ignorant. that’s who this “event” was for.
Reactionary sophomoric blood-lusting machismo. Its the American way.
Getting Saddam into the noose has additional costs above and beyond the American troops killed and the dollar costs. Costs that have not been tabulated or even associated with Iraq when tallying these direct costs of the Iraq invasion.
Saddam’s hanging aiding terrorism vat leftIndependent blog
How many more prisons will we have to build now here in America because George W. Bush had a hard-on for seeing Saddam swing from a rope?
Somewhat peripheral to the thrust of this post by Larry Johnson, it’s interesting that the major US media is having a wall to wall “Trifecta of Death” bonanza this weekend, (James Brown, Gerald Ford, and now Saddam).
While many of us here may regard this virtual orgiastic celebration of tragedy by the media as a sad commentary on our times, (and on the state of the unoion in general), I think this death-oriented enthusiasm gives us a clue to future media behavior.
To me, it seems abundantly clear that, for the major media in the US, death is perhaps the easiest and most profitable of all their news reporting subjects. With this in mind, I’m prepared to reaffirm something I’ve long held to be true, that being that our major media will continue to advocate just enough support for the war and for the fools who encourage that war to assure that the war will not end. For them it’s a “Let’s not kill the goose that lays the golden egg” thing. They’ll never allow themselves to point out that craven nuts like Adjami and Kristol and Cohen (Eliot) and Krauthammer, etc. were conspicuously, absurdly, categorically wrong on everything. They must keep the “It’s not the ideology, it’s the implementation that screwed it up” fallacy alive, failing to do so will kill the goose for them, and that’s one “death” they don’t want to celebrate.
I don’t think the media in this country has ever been more inimical to the best interests of the country than they are today, and I suspect in the coming year theuy will do even more damage with their selfish, (if sometimes indirect), support for the insanity of the Bush regime.
That would be selective deaths wouldn’t it..the media certainly won’t show the carnage of the dead and twisted and blown up bodies and their bits and pieces-that’s just a bit too real for them to report. Of course that might make people too upset and demand troops be brought home and then there goes all the networks war coverage revenue.
You’re certainly right that the media won’t be showing the acxtual dead bodies much, and they will even downplay the significance of deaths in order to not run afoul of Bush regime directives.
But, even so, war is about death and lies, and this is the medias’ bread and butter storyline.
Is the 51st state in America.