December 1, 2002

THE SILENCE OF THE IRAQIS:

Saddam's chambers of horrors (MARGARET WENTE, November 23, 2002, Globe & Mail)
For three decades, the most vicious war Saddam has waged has been the one against his own people. Iraq's most devastating weapon of mass destruction is Saddam himself. And the most powerful
case for regime change is their suffering. [...]

Saddam personally enjoyed inflicting torture in the early years of his career, and he has modelled his police state after that of his hero, Stalin. According to Kenneth Pollack, a leading U.S. expert on Iraq, the regime employs as many as half a million people in its various intelligence, security and police organizations. Hundreds of thousands of others serve as informants. Neighbour is encouraged to inform on neighbour, children on their parents. Saddam has made Iraq into a self-policing totalitarian state, where everyone is afraid of everybody else.

"Being in Iraq is like creeping around inside someone else's migraine," says veteran BBC correspondent John Sweeney. "The fear is so omnipresent, you could almost eat it."

To Stalin's methods of arbitrary arrests and forced confessions, Saddam has added an element of sadism: the torture of children to extract information from their parents.

In northern Iraq -- the only place in the country where people can speak relatively freely -- Mr. Sweeney interviewed several people who had direct experience of child torture. He also met one of the victims -- a
four-year-old girl, the daughter of a man who had worked for Saddam's psychopathic son Uday. When the man fell under suspicion, he fled to the Kurdish safe haven in the north. The police came for his wife and tortured her to reveal his whereabouts; when she didn't break, they took his daughter and crushed her feet. She was 2 then. Today, she wears metal braces on her legs, and can only hobble.

"This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents," writes Mr. Pollack in his new book, The Threatening Storm. "This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid. . . .

"This is a regime that practises systematic rape against the female victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him." And if he has fled the country, it will send him the video. [...]

Saddam's Iraq is a rebuke to anyone who may doubt that absolute evil dwells among us. No one has put it better than Mr. Sweeney, the BBC reporter. "When I hear the word Iraq, I hear a tortured child screaming."


Here's what I don't get about the Left's opposition to this war: when did they stop hearing the screams of the oppressed? Posted by Orrin Judd at December 1, 2002 12:58 PM
Comments

If nothing else, you'd think those on the left would object to his draining the marshes.

Posted by: Pete Drum at December 1, 2002 7:41 PM

They didn't hear the sobs of the muzhiks in

1929, either.

Posted by: Harry at December 1, 2002 8:21 PM

Let me put on my leftist headgear -- hey, it still fits pretty well! -- and pose a rhetorical question back at ya, OJ: Why doesn't the right advocate an invasion of China, if it values liberty so much?

Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh at December 1, 2002 10:37 PM

One at a time, Charlie, one at a time. Start with the easier ones, and work our way up.

Posted by: scott at December 2, 2002 12:19 AM

Charlie -- the right loves liberty everywhere and denounces evil everywhere, including China. But you can't fight every evil in the world, otherwise the world would be in perpetual war. It's a judgment call.

Posted by: pj at December 2, 2002 7:23 AM

Charles:



The Right makes fairly little pretext of actually caring about foreigners; it's the Left that at least claims to care. But I personally support taking out China's military satellites, nuclear weapons, navy, and air force.

Posted by: oj at December 2, 2002 7:36 AM

The right loves liberty everywhere? Latin America?

South Korea before about 1980? Greece?

Turkey?



I could go on.

Posted by: Harry at December 2, 2002 3:38 PM

You'll have to provide more details if you expect me to acknowledge any of those cases as counterexamples. So I'll just take two instances of left-right divergences toward Latin America: Pinochet vs. Allende in Chile, and Sandanistas vs. contras in Nicaragua. In both cases, the side supported by the right won and produced vibrant democracies. In both cases the side the left supported were clients of Communists and aimed to establish socialist dictatorships.



Of course the right's decision to support Pinochet and the contras were "least of evils" choices, but the desire of liberty for the people of Chile and Nicaragua was a leading motive.

Posted by: pj at December 2, 2002 4:15 PM

And South Korea is the most democratic Asian country (or among them) while Turkey leads the Islamic world. Who would you have supported in Turkey, Harry?

Posted by: oj at December 2, 2002 7:28 PM

I wouldn't have supported anybody in Turkey. It should be broken up into an independent Armenia, independent Kurdistan and the rest Lower Slobbovia.



Maybe I'm just older than you guys. I can remember how representatives of the rightist Brazilian government used to machine nightclubs. To shrug and say that a

few thousands murders (by, say, Pinochet) along the way to "vibrant democracy" seems callous.



I don't live in any of those hellholes, I don't have to choose among the lesser of evils. But I can recognize evil when I see it.



Atrocity-mongering is a zero-sum sport if ever there was one. Who cares whether it's Red terror or White terror? The point is, it's terror.

Posted by: Harry at December 3, 2002 1:32 AM
« AL-QAEDA'S QUEEN OF DIAMONDS?: | Main | WEDGE: »