On the day that Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity deserving the hangman's noose, I heard several educated Iraqis, interviewed on the BBC, defending him very plausibly on the grounds that his cruel tyranny had at least provided the people with a degree of security quite unimaginable under conditions of freedom and democracy.
In other words, his cruel misdeeds had been a necessary evil. Look what happened, they went on to say, when his regime was overthrown: anarchy and chaos and a degree of terror and bloodshed far greater than had ever been caused by Saddam Hussein.
This is a view which many impartial Middle East experts also hold. So bitter are the religious divisions in Iraq, a reign of fear may be the only effective system of government. If that is the case - and I suspect
|
|
|
  |
Peregrine Worsthorne  |
|
So bitter are Iraq’s divisions, a reign of fear may be the only effective government
|
|
|
|
that it is - then it is possible that reasons of state could be used to justify Saddam's conduct rather more plausibly than, perhaps, President Truman's massacre of innocent women and children at Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the Second World War was already won.
Let me give another stir to these deep and muddy waters. In the inconceivable circumstances of an Iraqi victory against the coalition forces, would Saddam have been justified in stringing up Bush and Blair on a charge of having been guilty of unprovoked aggression - a charge successfully levelled against the Nazi leaders? I rather fear so.
Needless to say, no tears need be shed for Saddam Hussein and the world will be well rid of him. Nevertheless, victor's justice - even when delivered by puppets - leaves a bad taste in the mouth. 
|
