Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Saddam's Execution Was a Gargantuan PR Disaster

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted January 5, 2007.


When will we recognize that the best thing we can do in Iraq is to get out of there?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Matt Taibbi

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"The president's view is that in the absence of a U.N. endorsement, this war will become 'self-legitimating' when the world sees most Iraqis greet U.S. troops as liberators. I think there is a good chance that will play out." -- Thomas Friedman, New York Times, March 2003

I thought of Thomas Friedman over the weekend as I watched the United States proudly gallop into its 9,598th consecutive gargantuan p.r. fuckup in Iraq, better known to the rest of the world as the execution of Saddam Hussein. In fact, I thought specifically of the above-mentioned column of Friedman's, written right on the eve of

the initial invasion almost four years ago.

It was in that particular column ("D-Day," March 19, 2003) that Friedman long-windedly lamented President Bush's failure to secure broader international support for his invasion, which he feared would detract from the legitimacy of the operation. This was a blow to the Iraq war effort, in Friedman's mind (excuse me: in what passes for Friedman's mind), but in that "D-Day" piece of his he said that we could all still make things work in Iraq -- all we had to do, he said, was to "turn these lemons into lemonade."

Lemons into lemonade! That line has been stuck in my head throughout this war. It would be absolutely impossible to find a better example of just exactly why we should never have gone into Iraq.

Remember that this war was cooked up by American bureaucrats, people who know an awful lot more about bowling than they do about Islam. True, there were a few genuine lunatics involved in dreaming up the invasion -- that crazy fraternity of neocon academics, wannabe revolutionaries who spent the whole 1990s bitter about Clinton and wired on coffee and Goldwater biographies, waiting for their Big Chance. Those people came up with the specific details of the Iraq plan (when, where, ostensibly why) and it's doubtful that anyone else but a lunatic could have dreamed up those particulars, since their logic generally eludes the sane and the normal.

But the engine behind this entire escapade was really the great mass of ordinary Beltway apparatchiks and media creatures who cheerfully assented once the idea squirted out of Bush's mouth. You're talking about a bunch of half-bright golfers from the Virginian suburbs, people raised on Archie comics and fuzzy patriotic platitudes and old saws gleaned from William Holden war movies and their postwar corporate-executive Dads. They went for the war because people they trusted told them it was a good idea, and some of them even ended up running parts of the operation, either in Iraq or in positions of responsibility here at home.

Tom Friedman is the oracle of this crowd, the tormented fat kid with a wedgie who got smart in his high school years and figured out that all he had to do to be successful was shamelessly and relentlessly flatter his Greatest-Generation parents, stroke their outdated prejudices, sell them on the idea that the entire aim of the modernization process is the spreading of their amazing legacy through the use of space-age technology.

So he goes into America's sleepy suburbs with his seventies porn-star mustache and he titillates the book clubs full of bored fifty- and sixty-something housewives with tales of how the internet is going to turn Afghanistan into Iowa. The suburban guys he ropes in with a half-baked international policy analysis -- whats "going on" on "the Street," as Friedman usually puts it -- that he cleverly makes sound like the world's sexiest collection of stock tips: "So I was playing golf with the Saudi energy minister last week, and he told me..."

This is just a modern take on the same old bullshit rap that traveling salesmen all over America have been laying on wide-eyed yokels at 99 Steak Houses and Howard Johnsons hotel bars for decades: So I was having lunch with Jack Welch at the Four Seasons last week when I heard about this amazing opportunity... And these middle-manager types who live in Midwestern cubicles or in the bowels of some federal bureaucracy in Maryland eat it up; they buy every one of Friedman's books, treat his every word like gospel, and before you know it they're all talking about Israeli politics and "the situation" in Yemen or Turkey or wherever like they're experts.

And so this is how we got where we are. You get a whole nation full of people who spend 99% of their free time worrying about their lawns or their short iron game, you convince them that they know something about something they actually know nothing about, and next thing you know, they're blundering into a 1000-year blood feud between rival Islamic groups, shooting things left and right in a panic, and thinking that they get make it all right and correct each successive fuckup by "keeping our noses to the grindstone" and "making lemons out of lemonade."

The whole war has been characterized by this kind of behavior. The Americans continually make ghastly mistake after ghastly mistake, and they keep responding to their mistakes by digging down and seeking the aid of the same homespun American pseudo-folk wisdom that got them into this mess in the first place. Our foreign policy initiatives in the area resemble attempts to mend fences with a neighbor whose lawn has been mussed by bringing him a tuna casserole cooked specially by wifey; only in Iraq, when casserole-presenting Dad ends up with his eyes gouged out and his skull charred black, hanging upside down from a telephone wire and impaled on the shards of the casserole dish, the neighborhood committee convenes and... decides to bake a bigger casserole.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hussein, execution

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush: It's About Demonstrating "American Superiority"
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 5, 2007 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, indeed, Friedman is an idiot. Not just over Iraq, but over a lot of things, like being the guru of that blatant stupidity called "free trade." I don't know if GW Bush believed he was back in Texas or something with Saddam's execution. Perhaps Bush thought nothing better to "stir up some support" then to do it the way he did it back home, by a good ole execution. I don't think he has ever really cared what the Arab world thought about it or the invasion to begin with, it is "American Supremacy" all the way. It is debatable if Bush is just a plain old idiot or if there is a method to this madness. He is allied with the neocons and there agenda is clear, install friendly governments, support Israel no matter what, and spread American power. On this last point, perhaps this is really what Bush is after. Just as Rome did thousands of years ago, conquering territory, installing brutal governments loyal to the empire, capturing slaves, perhaps Bush is just the modern version of "the Emperor." If all the other countries think it's all crazy it does not matter, he who has the power, the bombs, the guns, makes the rules.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHAT THE SCRIBES SAY by Malcom Lagauche
Posted by: rwa on Jan 5, 2007 10:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
January 5, 2006

For a few days after the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the press had a field day in analyzing and editorializing the incident as well as Saddam himself. Most were writing well out of their league and their ignorance of history shows. But, most readers do not know the history either, so their words are taken as true.

Many articles stated that justice was not done because Saddam was hanged for a lesser crime than the major ones assessed against him. The "progressive" writers wanted to see him tried for the gassing incidents so they could tie together U.S. involvement in the "misdeeds" of Saddam Hussein. Article-after-article mentioned Rumsfeld’s visit to Iraq in the 1980s and said the U.S. gave Iraq the technology for Saddam’s WMD. However, not one questioned the reason for the war. They all blamed it on Saddam and wrote as if Iran was a benign and aggrieved country.

The biggest part of using this illogic, however, was missing. At the same time Saddam and Rumsfeld met, Iran was killing Iraqi soldiers and civilians with missiles supplied by the U.S. The U.S. had already made the deal with Iran to sell them missiles and other military material, with Israel getting the obligatory 10% for being the middleman.

Saddam and Iran were both supplied by the U.S.What short memories these writers have.

Let’s look at a few comments by some scribes. Now that Saddam is dead, they make up new charges.

In "So Long to 'Our’ Tyrant," Andrew Cockburn stated:

"Though he was expelled from Kuwait and his economy wrecked by sanctions, Hussein was allowed to survive because Washington for a time continued to believe that he was useful as a bulwark against Iran abroad and militant Shiism at home in Iraq."

Cockburn, of all people, should know that after Desert Storm, many plots to get rid of Saddam emerged. For instance, even Scott Ritter, once head of the U.N. inspection team, has stated that the goal of the U.S. personnel on the inspection team was to overthrow Saddam. He admits that he was a part of the plot. In 1996, Kurdish fighters were about to embark on Baghdad to overthrow Saddam. The group had the blessing of the U.S., although the U.S. withdrew its promise of air cover. In 1995, Allawi’s group, the INA, committed terrorist acts in Baghdad to facilitate the demise of Saddam Hussein. Again, his bosses were in Washington.

Cockburn is way off in the assessment that the U.S. allowed Saddam to stay in power.

John Simpson of the Sunday Times relayed some re-writing of history in his piece "Tyrant Met His End with Fortitude:
"Every important step he took was a disaster, from the attack on Iran in 1980 which started a hugely debilitating war that lasted for eight years, to the foolish invasion of Kuwait which brought him into open conflict with his former friends, the Americans. Yet he knew how to appeal to ordinary people across the world. He was hated by most of his own people, but loved by the poor and disinherited of the rest of the Arab world.

He ruled Iraq by relying on the Sunni minority. His ministers were mostly Sunnis and so were most senior officers in his army and police force. Tens of thousands of Sunnis died as a result of his repression and his wars, but since his overthrow by the British and Americans in 2003, Sunnis have tended to identify more closely with him."

The glaring mis-representation in this piece is that his ministers, the officers in his army and the police force consisted mostly of Sunnis. In fact, 60% of the Republican Guard officers were Shia. As were two-thirds of the ambassadors to the U.N. during Saddam’s tenure.In the infamous deck of 55 playing cards, 35 individuals were Shia. Maybe Simpson should take a few minutes and read about Iraq before he makes such preposterous allegations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHAT THE SCRIBES SAY #2
Posted by: rwa on Jan 5, 2007 10:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bruce Shapiro wrote, in the article, "Rule of Noose:"

If Iraqi executioners have a particular expertise with the gallows, it is because Saddam gave his country so much practice. Hanging, shooting, gassing, beating, Saddam and his agents were masters of them all. Saddam, depraved and sadistic, was the polar opposite of the banal bureaucratic evil Hannah Arendt famously saw in Adolph Eichmann.

Shapiro packed much vile into such a short span of words. "Depraved and sadistic" stick out. But, I’m sure Shapiro does not have a degree in psychology. Like Juan Cole, he dissects Saddam’s brain. On December 30, 2006, the only "depraved and sadistic" Iraqis we saw were the ones taunting Saddam and pulling the lever for his hanging.

On the other hand, some articles contained realistic information. According to Robert Dreyfuss, in his article, "The Consequences of Killing Saddam:"

An overwhelming majority of the Sunni Arab population of Iraq now supports the resistance, and its intensity is likely to grow significantly in the wake of Saddam's death. Earlier this year, 300 Sunni tribal leaders met in Anbar to issue a demand that Saddam Hussein be released from prison, just one indication that support for the former president of Iraq was widespread. "The execution of Saddam means that the flame of vengeance will be ignited and it will hurt the body of Iraq with unrecoverable wound," a Sunni tribal leader told the New York Times.

Michael Boldin wrote "Saddam Was Right and Bush Was Wrong." He began to scratch the surface of the myths and lies of U.S. administrations:

The non-existent weapons of mass destruction weren't the only falsehood. There were the phony uranium purchases, lies about al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, mobile weapons labs, and drones that were going to attack the East Coast of the US.

Remember the lies about babies being thrown out of incubators? The propaganda started years ago. Even the claims of Saddam's brutality are suspect. Why? Because most of these claims come from the same people that have already discredited themselves.

Al-Quds of al-Arabi probably declared the best assessment. Its editor Abdel-Bari Atwan, told Aljazera News:

Arab public opinion wonders who deserves to be tried and executed: Saddam Hussein, who preserved the unity of Iraq, its Arab and Islamic identity and the coexistence of its different communities such as Shi'ites and Sunnis ... or those who engulfed the country in this bloody civil war?

The pundits had a great time writing about Saddam’s execution. Many work for huge publications with limitless resources for research. It is pathetic to see them come up with such trash when they could have researched and wrote something meaningful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberals runnin' away like a cat infested by fire ants
Posted by: texshelters.com on Jan 6, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey liberals!

What the hell is wrong with you and why do you hate 'Merka?! God gave us a job to do, runnin' things so others can learn from our freedoms, and just when the profits are gettin' good, you want to run away? That's why we have such a trade deficit, everytime we can make a few buck helpin' out a poor country, the liberals pull the plug, just like they did to Terry Shiavo!

Tex Shelters
texshelters.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

glaring fuckups!
Posted by: Grozny_Guy on Jan 6, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking of glaring fuckups, this column needs a proofreader:

1)...whats [SIC] "going on" on "the Street"...

2)...shooting things left and right in a panic, and thinking that they get make [SIC] it all right and correct each successive fuckup...

3)... minority already

deeply [WTF?] upset at being made the subjects...

Check facts and proofread copy, please. Maybe this is why this writer has problems with the CJR?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks
Posted by: RobbieUMD on Jan 6, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Matt, you are the heir to Hunter Thompson's throne. Keep doing what you do!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like the casserole analogy
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 6, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You sum up the Middle American mentality pretty well. It's like Letterman when he "told off" to O'Reilly by saying he wanted to go to war because he "wanted to do something." When you're a little bored and restless, why not start another war?

The Muslim holiday thing is beside the point: If you don't interrupt one of their 10,000 holidays, you're going to offend them with something else. The US shouldn't be over there executing anybody, but it's a highly dysfunctional part of the world, a place where you can't do anything right even if you did everything right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Friedman bits are spot on
Posted by: lessbread on Jan 6, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is just a modern take on the same old bullshit rap that traveling salesmen all over America have been laying on wide-eyed yokels at 99 Steak Houses and Howard Johnsons hotel bars for decades: So I was having lunch with Jack Welch at the Four Seasons last week when I heard about this amazing opportunity...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a joke...
Posted by: Stayne on Jan 6, 2007 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...right?

If so, good play.

If not, I'm sorry you had to be raised so stupidly. :(

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is a joke... Posted by: Stayne
» RE: This is a joke... Posted by: texshelters
Taibbi: One of the best journalists
Posted by: JDHURF on Jan 6, 2007 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the best piece on Saddam’s execution that I have thus far had the opportunity to read, second place goes to Christopher Hitchens piece on Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2156776/
Taibbi illustrates better than any the sheer incompetence and ignorance of U.S. behavior in Iraq, the Saddam execution travesty being the latest example, example:

“You get a whole nation full of people who spend 99% of their free time worrying about their lawns or their short iron game, you convince them that they know something about something they actually know nothing about, and next thing you know, they're blundering into a 1000-year blood feud between rival Islamic groups, shooting things left and right in a panic…..It was like nobody in America noticed that all this catchy talk about high horses and handouts and hand ups was completely meaningless to anyone except the sloe-eyed residents of the American suburbs, people raised on this language of corporate memos and canned efficiency slogans and pep talks.”

Taibbi’s articles are as intelligent as they are entertaining. Reading his critiques of individuals, such as Friedman, are just as good if not better than reading a piece by Christopher Hitchens on Mother Teresa or Mel Gibson or a piece by Hunter S. Thompson on Nixon, Hubert Humphrey or Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cool
Posted by: Valdis on Jan 7, 2007 12:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bold = Bold
Italics = Italics
linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the revolution will not be televised?
Posted by: jimsenter on Jan 8, 2007 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with apologies to Gil Scott Heron

One aspect of this sordid tale is not getting the attention it deserves. The execution PR spin would have worked if it were not for one person with a cell phone camera. We would never have learned about the Shia taunting that filled Saddam's last moments, or the fact that his final prayer was interrupted by the trap door spring.

The proliferation of communication technologies has once again dealt a blow to the lairs and theives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poor Matt!
Posted by: badkitty on Jan 8, 2007 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poor Matt, you're so young (at least by your picture) and so upset by this illegal war! Just think how those of us who lived through Vietnam feel! It was a terrible movie the first time, and the remake is even worse. Unfortunately, those responsible won't get a clue until it is rammed down their throats and they choke on it. Time to abolish the military!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]