Are We Better-off Without Saddam?

By Leon Hadar

The conventional wisdom among foreign policy wonks is that, all things considered, the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein. Even the harshest Bush-bashing pundit tends to qualify his or her criticism of the war in Iraq with the line, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was an evil man and we should all be thankful that he and his cronies have been deposed, but...."

In fact, you can already envision neoconservative columnists insisting a year or two from now that despite the fact that we weren't successful in establishing a democracy in Mesopotamia, we should appreciate the "legacy" that President George W. Bush has left behind. Our grand ambitions of making Iraq and the Arab world safe for political freedom weren't fulfilled. But at least we don't have another bloody dictator around anymore. Right?

To respond to that question, one should press the rewind button of 20th century history. There was a time in the West, 100 years ago, when liberal intellectuals in New York, London, and Paris were united in the certainty that the most anti-democratic and corrupt regime in Europe was Czarist Russia. The Czar and his cronies were regarded as leading reactionary figures who opposed reform, repressed their people, launched anti-Jewish pogroms and dominated a huge empire.

It wasn't surprising then that when Czar Nikolai II abdicated in 1917, the event produced a sense of euphoria among liberals everywhere. They expected that now that the evil tyrant was gone, Russia would enter the age of political and economic progress. All things considered, the Russian people were expected to be better off without Czar Nikolai II.

Such reactions also followed the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in the aftermath of Germany's defeat in World War I. That authoritarian and militarist figure was regarded by most Western observers as a warmonger responsible for the outbreak of the Great War. That he was now in exile and his rule was replaced by a republican system committed to democratic principles was seen at the time as another step in the worldwide march towards progress--together with the end of the Czarist rule in Russia as well as the collapse of the despised Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. The world was supposedly now better off without all these autocrats and despots. Right?

Well, we know the answer to those questions as we press the fast-forward button of history and are exposed to the revolting personalities of Hitler and Stalin and to the horrific images of Auschwitz and the Gulag, to the bloody scenes of the battlegrounds of World War II and the long history of the Cold War. And after following the terror of the civil war in Yugoslavia and to the continuing mess in the Middle East, some may even feel nostalgic towards the Austro-Hungarian emperors and the Ottoman Sultan.

Might we--and more important the Iraqi people--feel a similar sense of nostalgia towards Saddam Hussein years from now, if the country degenerates into a bloody civil war a la Afghanistan, with weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of warlords and terrorists? If parts of Iraq come under the rule of a theocratic Shiite regime, where women and Christians wouldn't even enjoy the limited freedom that they had under the secular Baath rule? If Iran, equipped with nuclear weapons, becomes the hegemonic power in the entire Persian Gulf? Or if Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia become embroiled in a regional war in which they would carve Iraq? Or if the United States would be forced into a lengthy and costly occupation as part of a strategy to prevent these scenarios?

We should recall, however, that Czar Nikolai II was forced out of power by the Russian people and not by an outside power. And, notwithstanding President Woodrow Wilson's slogan of "making the world safe for democracy," World War I resulted from political and strategic considerations and was not aimed at "regime change" in Russia and Germany.

The United States ousted Saddam Hussein, a man known for brutality against his own people and for his threats against his neighbors, in a war of choice. We have become responsible for whatever scenario might unfold in Iraq or its remnants, for better--or more likely--for worst.

###

Leon Hadar is a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy and a research fellow in foreign policy studies with the Cato Institute. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Sandstorm: American Blindness in the Middle East. (Palgrave Macmillan)