imo he was a wanker, but I might be biased because he gassed my people T-T
Obviously he was for a long time a brutal and useful tool of the West against communism and against the Islamic Revolution in Iran, so in no way an ally of progressive causes. But objectively it is also true that Iraq was better off before 2003 and especially before 1991. It was more stable, more united, militarily and economically stronger, and most importantly more independent than it is today. To some degree it represented a regional counter-balance against the Zionist entity, alongside Assad’s Syria, Gaddafi’s Libya and (much earlier) Nasser’s Egypt. It is not a coincidence that all of the regional powers that were able to mount a real defense against the Zionist entity’s regional ambitions were targeted and destroyed (by the way this is also why Yemen, South Sudan and Somalia were targeted), regardless whether their governments and leaders were progressive or reactionary.
I recall a political cartoon in some US rag that had Dick Cheney saying, "Of course Sadaam has WMD, we sold them to him!” and Sadaam in the background checking a receipt. But those wmd were probably all spent on the Kurds, by then.
Ig thats true, but it’s hard asf to have an objective view of his government just because of the atrocities he committed in kurdistan, I agree tho
He massacred and tortured members of the Iraqi Communist Party.
yea he also gassed kurds but at least was a counter to zionists in the region
Had a Iraqi colleague who mentioned getting a subsidised/free tertiary education there before heading overseas for work. She didn’t have any love for Saddam’s group, but definitely lamented the current state of her home country as one would expect…
Was America’s ally for years. Used chemical weapons against Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war. The moment he decided to step out of the US’ influence, they got rid of him along with the destruction of Iraq.
I come from a half Iranian family so obviously my opinion is going to be very biased, but I view Sadaam quite negatively. I’ll preface and say he undeniably was a thorn in the West’s side by the end if his government, and had it survived, I suspect it would have become less egregious in its brutality. Life in Iraq is undeniably materially worse than it was before, and the US murdered millions more Iraqis then Sadaam ever could.
With that being said, he still acted as a bulwark of Western imperialism in the Iran-Iraq war, and set the country back decades. His use of chemical weapons was only possible due to Western support, and it’s well known his ascension to power was orchestrated by the US, who made sure a more left wing Bathist didn’t come to power. His righist Ba’ath faction persecuted Communists and made what was once one if the largest communist parties in the Arab world irrelevant.
I know Comrade Hakim of The Deprogram likes to bring up the point that the majority of Iraq’s weapons during the Iran-Iraq war were of Soveit Irgin, as well as the fact that their will clerics in Iraq who want to do an Island revolution of their own who were connected to Iran, however I find both these points moot.
For one, Iran received nothing from any world power besides what they could smuggle in, or like 7 missiles from Ghadaffi that they had to reverse engineer. So it’s not as if Iraq was propped up by the USSR and Iran by the US, the Iraqis were just using the weapons they had already obtained decades prior, or for which they could secure.
Secondly, the West demonstrated its support for Sadaam in the war through West Germany being allowed to sell chemical weapons to him, as well as the US supporting Iraq in the UN.
Finally, Sadaam may not have been installed in a complete color revolution, but his coup was largely able to succeed because of CIA intervention. The Islamic Revolution in Iran, though not a socialist one, was still a popular revolution supported by the masses. It inspired many of the masses of other regional powers, as can be seen with Lebanon. Sadaam suppressing that popular uprising in Iran and potentially his own country isn’t justified due to them being Islamic rather than socialist. I’m not saying it should have succeeded in Iraq, or that I think a socialist revolution in the region wouldn’t be more effective. However I’d say it’s arguable that those uprising had a closer seal of legitimacy as popular mass movements then Sadaam’s own coup, which further makes his invasion unjustified.
I usually don’t like to poke Iraqi comrades on the war, but too often I find that the disdain put upon Iran (in some respects justified) is a little misplaced. It’s not as simple a conflict as is often described, but I think it’s fair to say that Iraq was acting as a tool for imperialism unnecessarily.
I respect Comrade Hakim immensely, but this is probably the one point I diverge with him more significantly on.
That’s, a general overview on Sadaam, though it could be much more expensive.
Saddam sucked, he was way better than what came after him and did unite Iraq, but he was deeply involved with the US and the West in sabotaging Iran and regional left-wing movements. He is a bit like the Manuel Noriega of the Middle East, though Saddam was more genuine about his own ideology than Noriega.
For how he is viewed in LatAm, he was seen as a good president in the 1980s because he was “fighting radicals” and because he was one of the few leaders to give aid and trade with us during a time the US and Europe pulled out all money from here. After his fall, his position was mostly replaced by Iran and Erdogan, both still shares a good relation with the Latin American Left. Gaddafi still is seen positively to this day, unlike Saddam.
Other comrades have said it pretty well. If you want more detail and enjoy podcasts, the first season of Blowback covers Saddam and the Iraq War.
Saddam was like one of those smaller predators that hunts in packs but tend to get picked off by bigger predators when isolated. In this case the U.S. was the bigger predator.
“There’s always a bigger fish.”
Rest in piss, #PACKWATCH, etc. but what came after him was definitely worse. Same with Assad. If Putin falls and a Western lackey replaces him it’ll be the same deal.
He was the president of Iraq and he frequently wore hats
And wrote erotic novels
I think he sucked probably (i’m not a saddam head i haven’t gone out of my way to educate but i haven’t heard things that have left an overall positive impression like with Gaddafi) but also i found it super interesting when I learned that Saddam’s Ba’ath Party was the ARAB SOCIALIST Ba’ath Party and iirc was actually the same organization as Assad’s Ba’ath Party. Since i can’t remember ever hearing “Arab socialist” in reference to that party ever during the 2000s
Iirc the party is just opposed to western capitalism and not capitalism in general but still its like OH THAT’S WHY THE U.S. INVADED
The Iraqi Ba’ath is not the same as the Syrian Ba’ath, they almost act like a left-right split. The Syrian Bathists were significantly more charitable to Communists, (though there’s definitely a rough history) even bringing them into coalition with Hafez Asaad’s “National Progressive Front” which was the ruling coalition until Bashar’s fall.
The Syrian government’s official name until Jolani was actually “The Syrian Arab Socialist Republic” as well. Many people conflate the two Bathist parties together, and it’s a useful comparison in a lot of ways, however I think it should be noted that Syrian and Iraqi Bathism both had various factions and tendencies. And, if one is to describe the manifestation of each Bathist party in either country, it’s important to recognize their expirements were extremely different.
Oh sorry i thought it was
I thought it was too until a month or so ago and asked, probably in this magazine.
