By deciding to go ahead with the execution of Saddam Hussein, the US hasgiven the Sunni jihadi terrorists one more martyr in their jihad againstnon-Muslims and one more pretext for indulging in their orgy of killing innocentcivilians. It has deepened the divide between the Sunnis and the Shias. It hasmade the prospects for a reconciliation with the Sunnis of Iraq even moredifficult than it is today.
US officials have claimed that the decision to go ahead with the executionwas taken by the sovereign Government of Iraq. It was not a US decision. The USrole was purely to facilitate the due legal process in accordance with the Iraqilaws by the judiciary of independent Iraq. So, the Americans claim.
The Muslims of the world are unlikely to believe them. In fact, even not manynon-Muslims in the world will believe them. They would believe it was an actionprompted by the US as an act of self-justification for invading Iraq. TheUS advanced three arguments for its invasion: the threat posed by Iraq's allegedpossession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the alleged links between theSaddam regime and Al Qaeda; and the demonic nature of the regime, which wasallegedly indulging in the brutal suppression of the Shias and the Kurds.
The first two reasons have been proved to be false. Only the last reasonremains for being used as a fig leaf to cover up the totally illegal invasionand occupation of Iraq, the wisdom of which was questioned even by the lateGerald Ford, former Republican President, before his recent death. Saddam'strial and execution could be flaunted as the justification for the US invasionto remove from power a dictator "hated by the Iraqi people" and bringhim to justice.
Whatever be the merits of the evidence against him, whatever be the legalvalidity of the judicial process which led to his execution, that is not the wayit will be seen by the Muslims of the world. It will be seen as an act of crudevengeance, an anti-Muslim act of what they describe as the leader of theCrusaders against Islam.
Even many non-Muslims will see it not as an act of a super power, confidentof its power and its ability to prevail over global jihadi terrorism, but as anact of impotent anger of a power, which has been held at bay by the jihaditerrorists. In an article written after the US occupation of Iraq, I describedthe US policy as follows: "If we can't get Osama's head, let us at leastget Saddam's".
Saddam's head is at their feet—-placed there by a double-dealing quislingregime, which has been openly fraternising with the US and secretly conspiringwith Iran against the US.
Successive US administrations have shown a chronic inability to readthe writing on the wall of the Ummah. The Clinton Administration colluded withPakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to godfather the Taliban in 1994,in the hope of using it to facilitate the project of the UNOCAL, the US oilcompany, to bring oil and gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan. TheNATO forces in Afghanistan are paying a heavy price for this folly today. TheBush Administration colluded with Iran and anti-Saddam Shia leaders tofacilitate their invasion and occupation of Iraq. The result: a defiant Iranwhich, after having achieved its purpose of getting rid of Saddam andempowering the Shias of Iraq, today spits on the face of the US and Israel,flaunts its growing nuclear capability and undermines US and Israeli interestsin the Lebanon. The US has colluded with the regime in Iraq to hasten theexecution of Saddam, thereby burning one possible last bridge to the Sunnis ofIraq.
I have always held and continue to hold that whatever be the mistakescommitted by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is in the interest of theinternational community that the US prevails against jihadi terrorism in thosecountries. The failure of the US to prevail could be catastrophic to the rest ofthe world.
That was why I was hoping and praying for the success of the US forces intheir brave campaign against the global jihadi terrorists spearheaded by AlQaeda and the International Islamic Front. I am doubtful over the chances ofthis happening now.
There are increasing numbers of Muslims in the world, who are burning insidetheir hearts against the US—- each for his or her own reason. Wisepolicy-makers would have realised the importance of not adding to this anger,even if they are not able to immediately extinguish it. The present USpolicy-makers seem determined to add to it by one unwise action after another.The execution of Saddam is one more unwise act, which will add to the fire inthe heart of many Muslims.
They will be asking themselves—it is more than three years since the UScaptured Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who orchestrated, on behalf of Osama bin Laden,the massacre of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians in the US on 9/11. He has notbeen tried so far, not to talk of being executed. Why the hurry in the case ofSaddam? Abu Zubaidah, Ramzi Binalshibh, Hambali, Abu Faraj al-Libbi and manyothers involved in the most cruel acts of terrorism killing hundreds ofcivilians have not even been tried so far. Why the hurry in the case of Saddam?
Rightly or wrongly, they will come to the conclusion that in the US analysisif they try and execute these terrorist leaders, there could be more acts ofmass casualty terrorism directed against the US and its nationals.
Saddam was not a terrorist. He was just a dictator like many other dictatorsspawned and fattened by the US in other parts of the world. He was hated by AlQaeda when he was alive because he was one of the very few secular leaders inthe Ummah and because he was a socialist. In the US calculation, the death ofSaddam could provoke reprisals, but manageable ones.
His head will be a trophy—not comparable to that of bin Laden, but sometrophy all the same. Their calculation that acts of Islamic reprisals would bemanageable could go seriously wrong as many calculations of the US in the pasthave gone.
The choice in Iraq was between retribution for the past and reconciliation inthe future. The US seems to have consciously chosen retribution for the pastwithout worrying about its impact on the prospects for reconciliation in thefuture.
I weep for Saddam. He was a good friend of India and its people. He alwaysstood by us in the best of times and in the worst of times. I remember the daysafter the Mumbai blasts of March,1993, in which nearly 300 innocent Indiancivilians were killed by terrorists trained by the ISI. We went from oneintelligence agency to another asking for help in investigating the role ofPakistan. The Americans rebuffed us. Protecting Pakistan and its ISI was moreimportant for them than grieving for the Indians killed and helping India tobring to book those responsible. Saddam rushed to our assistance and helped usin whatever little way he can.
Who is a friend? Someone who stands by you in your hour of grief, in yourhour of need. Saddam stood by us in our hour of grief, in our hour of need.
Let us weep for him.
As I am writing this, I am flooded with telephone calls. Are you not watchingthe TV about the execution of Saddam? Even Sunnis are supporting this, I amtold. I don't believe the TV visuals and sound-bytes. I believe the hearts ofthe Muslims in the streets. They are welling up with anger. I fear for thefuture.
Also See: After Saddam, The Mullahs & Imams
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. ofIndia, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, nstitute for Topical Studies,Chennai.
