Because You Never Asked

THE SADDAM MYTHS    

     In the hypothetical situation portrayed in the essay "George W. Gives a Press Conference", the President, when asked if the escape of Saddam Hussein was important, replied, "No, not really. It would be nice to catch him and parade him around like some kind of trophy fish from my dad's next marlin tournament, but other than that . no big deal." 

     I begin writing this essay just 2 days after the capture of Saddam Hussein, who has now become a media composite creation of Darth Vader, Dr. Evil, Mike Tyson, Snidely Whiplash, Hitler, Stalin, the Menendez boys, O.J., Fidel and Al Capone . only worse! Back when I wrote the essay quoted above, Saddam's capture was just an afterthought. A lovely following breeze was blowing, the seas were calm and the sun was shining, but way off on the horizon some storm clouds innocently hovered. Before long, the Yankee war machine sailed right into it; insurgents, loyalists, suicide bombers, a deteriorating security situation growing worse. The news "de jour" spoke of American casualties, sabotaged pipelines, and a constant symphony of explosions riding on the Baghdad nights. Was there a way out of this quagmire? 

     And then, just when he needed it the most, the President came up with his trophy fish. It really doesn't resolve much, or relieve the tense situation the Americans find themselves in, but it buys political time. It has tremendous propaganda value. The "trial" will be a wonderful opportunity to put their blue ribbon bull on display. What fun it will be! 

     In contrast to the situation as it existed 5 or 6 months before, the evil dictator's capture is now a big deal, but more as a public relations stunt than a practical matter. Even if the operation in Iraq remains problematical --- and I suggest it will, be it from a military, fiscal, or political point of view --- Mini Me's trophy fish can go a long way in getting him returned to the Oval Office. Perhaps when Saddam is executed, the President can take his head to the taxidermist and have it mounted over the fireplace down on the ranch. Wouldn't it look good there? 

     The myths created around Saddam Hussein are a classic study in propaganda. I wonder if there are any Universities offering courses in the creation of socio-political propaganda? By such, I don't just mean the usual fodder embodied in the information put forth by the so called "totalitarian" states (whose denigration is just another form of our own propaganda), but the emotional garbage polluting minds in the world's so called "democracies". With the growing omnipotence of our monopolistic Big Media-Big Business information sources, such University study would be greatly behooved. 

     In the absence of such higher educational attention, I will try to fill this void by explaining the "Saddam Myths". 

     The first myth regarding Saddam Hussein is constructed around his "wickedness". Ironically, such wickedness is not the lie. Saddam is anything but a positive figure in history, though it is safe to say he is being made to look worse than he is . or, put another way, his negative deeds are being emphasized by those using him for their own purposes. The true myth that has been sold to the American people is that we waged this war because of his wickedness. 

      The United States of America has, under this Administration, evolved into no more than a powerful nation out to impose its hegemony on the world. No imperial power has ever gone to war with anyone because someone was a wicked or corrupt ruler. Never. We went to war with Saddam because he was not cooperating, because he was seen as someone standing in the way of our self-interest. It could even be said that the form of imperialism represented by the United States is more hypocritical than anything seen before. In the past, the imperial power never had to justify itself. It came; it conquered; it exploited, and the losers were no more than that: "losers" deserving their fate. But America's domestic propaganda is so swamped in hyper-romantic notions of freedom, liberty, democracy and such; so weighed down with its own rhetoric proclaiming itself a beacon of hope and opportunity for the world, that such unencumbered, selfish conquest becomes difficult to justify. This is where the phony rationalizations come in: We didn't conquer Iraq, we "liberated" it. We did it because Saddam was bad. We bring liberty, democracy, freedom. We didn't come for the oil (oh my, that "o" word); we came to help, to make a better world. 

     In order to disprove such rubbish, I will now give the reader 2 hypothetical circumstances whereby Saddam could still be ruling Iraq, notwithstanding the wickedness rightly attributed to him. 

     1) From an American point of view, Saddam has been a naughty boy, but not because he is a wicked, undemocratic dictator. If he had minded his own business and played the neo-liberal-global-economy game as a good 3^rd world tyrant is supposed to, he could still be living in his palaces, skimming off a handsome living from Iraq's oil revenues while being nasty to whoever challenged his authority. If he had led his country as a respectable member of OPEC, providing the developed world with the food necessary to keep its binge eating economies fed at an affordable price (e.g.- The Saudis, the Gulf States, Kuwait, etc.), he'd be seen as a "stabilizing" force in the region rather than the fire breathing dragon with disgusting halitosis he's been portrayed as. If some bleeding heart human rights organization started complaining about his sadistic ferocity, the imperial powers (which pretty much means the U.S. these days) would see it as an "internal affair" beyond the scope of its intervention. 

     And this is where the comedian Steve Martin comes in: "But noooo .!" He had to get too big for his green beret. He had to see himself as some Pan-Arab hero, the next great Saladin ridding his people from western domination. "Kuwait is ours!", etc., etc. (I know you don't want to hear this, but he does have some historical basis to back this up.) 

     "Well excuuuse me!" This was not acceptable for the Nike-Hummer-DVD salesmen of the world. A united coalition of the globe's big boys, led by Uncle Sam, cleaned up the Kuwaiti mess, de-clawed Saddam, and put him back in his palace. They left him with a few insignificant toys to play with, kept an eye on him so he wouldn't misbehave again, and got on with it. 

     This eventually proved insufficient for the imperial ambitions of the Bush & Co. secret masonry of skull and bones rich kids out to claim their birthright. 

     2) The second circumstance whereby Saddam could be the reincarnation of Beelzebub on Earth and still be ruling Iraq is far more mundane. If his country was of no strategic importance to us; if it had nothing we coveted, he could continue to rumble with the Kurds, contain the Shiites, and dine, copulate and sleep in the palace of his choice . 'til death do us part. The 3^rd world is riddled with such carnivorous dictator swine. Saddam is more typical than unique. 

     The other myth revolving around Saddam is manifested in the kind of almost personal relationship the American people perceive to exist between them and him. 

     The day the news of his capture broke, the reaction in the United States proved to be an interesting case study. Although there were few outbursts of public enthusiasm, there was an exhilaration in the air that was somewhat akin to how one feels when "your" team wins the World Series or Super Bowl. I began to realize that both situations --- the sports one and this particular political situation --- elicited the feelings they did because certain myths had been created. 

     The emotional connection the sports fan constructs with "his" team can seem rather silly when one stops to think that probably none of the players, nor the owner, are local products. It gets even sillier when one realizes that these players, and probably the owner as well, are all ready to head for greener pastures with the jack rabbit speed of a kick-returner heading for the goal line, regardless of your love and devotion to them. Unlike the myth created around Saddam Hussein, this is a harmless form of self-delusion meant to add a little fun to your life. (The only sports fan that is not deluding himself is the one who has bet on the game. His joy or depression is ten fold compared to the most ardent "cheese head" watching the Green Bay Packers in Siberian temperatures.) 

     In the case of Saddam, the myth is the idea that somehow or other, this man's capture has a positive effect on our American lives: We are now more secure; we are safer; he was a fearsome enemy capable of hurting us. Hooray! Hooray! We got him! My life is now better. All this, in spite of the fact that he has had virtually nothing to do with you or yours. (Unless you are a military family.) 

     In some kind of extremely marginal, long-term way, the American people may find some benefit in securing the huge source of energy represented by the defeat of Saddam Hussein, although the cost in lives and money might prove too great even for this goal, without even mentioning whether our domestic economic needs give us the right to kill, maim and severely traumatize millions of people --- human beings, in case you've forgotten --- half way around the world. I suggest that almost all Americans, being the basically good folk they are, would never agree to such slaughter based upon the vague necessities of our nation in the global economy. And that is why the "powers to be" had to create the myths discussed in this essay. 

     I finish with a short word of contempt for perhaps the greatest myth of all the Gringo-Imperial lies: the nation building-democracy scam. 

     Being that the United States is the only imperial power to use such fables to justify its conquest, one can only refer to the United States in saying the following: this country habitually uses the creation of a "democratic" government as a euphemism for the creation of a "satellite" government. The Americans will accept any government democratically elected in any country it has intervened in, (Or even not democratically elected. Who cares, really?) but with one small string attached: it must be one we approve of. 

     Ain't democracy great? 

     Relevant Material:  "The only fundamentalism that frightens me is the North American one. ( .) They believe they can do anything in the name of democracy. That is the new fascism, the new colonialism, the new interventionism." From the novel "La Prueba del Laberinto" (The Proof of the Labyrinth) by the brilliant Spanish global dissident, Fernando Sanchez Drago.                           

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info