You’d think the over throwing and condem-nation to death of a ruthless dictator would draw relief and gratitude from his oppressed people, right? But instead of welcoming the announcement of Saddam Hussein’s death with jubilation, silly as it may sound, reactions from the Iraqi people are mixed, with many Iraqis upset that they are losing a man they still consider their representative.
The Sunni faction of Iraq, which comprises between 32 and 37 percent of the total population, according the Web site CIA World Factbook, has taken to the streets in protest of the death sentence issued to Hussein. Many Sunnis still claim Hussein as their president and Hussein’s lawyer is even saying he’d give his client a medal for his valor in the massacre of 148 Shiites killed in the town of Dujayl, according to an article in the Nov. 6 issue of the Los Angeles Times.
Despite the ambiguity felt in Iraq, the death of the former leader surely can only benefit the tumultuous nation, reducing the violence of the Sunni insurgents, that is, unless they see this as a means of taking back their leader and start taking Americans as collateral until they get their president back.
Our suggestion: Kill him quickly.
If Hussein is killed soon, there is less of an opportunity for insurgents to capture and kill hostages. This would probably bring much of the turmoil in Iraq to a halt – or at least a brief pause.
Hussein symbolically represents a lot of things to the diverse population of Iraq. For Shiites and Kurds, he may represent death and torture, while to Sunnis he is their representation in government and hailed leader. With him gone and a new democracy under way (albeit in an extremely belabored way), Iraq may soon quell some of the chaos it has been experiencing.
The timing also couldn’t be better for the ailing and defeated Republican party. According to a Nov. 5 article in the New York Times, President George W. Bush has been touting the conviction of the wretched former leader as a vindication for the war in Iraq.
Let’s get one thing straight, though. Eradicating a horrible man from his position in government was not our initial motivation in pursuing the way in Iraq – or at least it shouldn’t have been.
Whatever happened to the alleged weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be so prevalent in Iraq? The ones that posed us a serious threat and compelled us to act without the support of the United Nations?
The term WMD was shunned from the right-wing vocabulary soon after no weapons were found, and the focus quickly became the tortuous totalitarian who, as the Bush administration constantly reminded us, indiscriminately killed Shiites and Kurds.
The sentencing two days before a major election, which may cause many supporters of the war in Iraq to lose their seat in Congress, is probably not a coincidence.
Let’s just not lose sight of the fact that the losses incurred from the war have yet to be justified to the American public. At least it’s a victory for the people in Iraq, who may soon be enjoying some peace.