The Saddam-Bush showdown
Comparing the characters and careers of the war's two protagonists tells us a lot about the world we live in, writes Abdel-Moneim Said* in this installment of a series of articles
The so-called "Iraqi question" goes far beyond Iraq, the fall of Saddam Hussein and the Anglo-Saxon war in Mesopotamia. It holds the key to the whole issue of Arab political, social and cultural development; it is central to our relationship with the rest of the world. Indeed, the primary significance of the "Iraqi question" at this particular juncture in history lies in the way in which it has cast into relief problems which have generally been submerged under an accumulation of details, our determination to blame others, and the perpetual confusion generated by the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In my two preceding articles, I discussed the historical roots of Iraqi civilisation up until the arrival of the Ba'athist regime, which proceeded to plunge the country into four major wars in three decades. War provided the Ba'ath Party with a means to simultaneously perpetuate their hold on power and decimate Iraq's civilisational heritage. Today, I want to take this investigation a step further.
Every war or major conflict comes to assume an epic dimension, as the opposing camps are reduced to two monolithic groups, or sometimes, to two single protagonists. Their rivalry then either swells to such a pitch of intensity that we cannot imagine how the world can ever be the same again, or else fizzles out in an anticlimax. The Iraqi crisis is no exception to this rule: the drama has been heightened by the clash of contrary fates and a full cast of characters, some larger than life, others just ordinary folk. There have been major stars of war theatre and screen, others with only walk- on roles, and yet others, such as Blix and El- Baradei, who have become embroiled in complicated subplots which threatened to hold up the main action.
As a result, we have had to be careful not to lose track of the central plot, which pitts Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against US President George W Bush. These two arch- enemies, upon whose minds and hearts the fate of millions has come to depend, worked out their antagonism both in dialogue and through feats of arms. At the outset, no one knew how their contest would play out -- would it terminate in compromise, war, or some sort of standoff? No one knew how much blood would be shed, how many cries of pain would be heard, or whether the future would take the form of dream or nightmare. Indeed, many of these uncertainties can only be resolved through the benefit of hindsight, now the war is over and the Hussein regime has collapsed.
There are Arabs who would wish us to forget that the Hero of Al-Qadisiya ever existed; for them, this history begins with the US occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately, that is not how the story went; this drama cannot be confined to the post-Saddam period, for events which preceded the war have consequences which are still being unfolded today. Rather, this is a tale that began long beforehand and which is deeply rooted in our societies, which have demonstrated an alarming capacity to create not just one Saddam, but many, many others like him.
Ultimately, it is not nations, governments or classes which determine the course of such a drama, but individuals -- people with unique names, tangible features, good traits and bad, whose moods swing between anger, sorrow and joy. These individuals are the end result of everything that has happened to them from birth onwards, they are the product of all the innumerable factors which have shaped their personality and behaviour. The stories of the US and Iraq, of WMDs and Gulf Wars I and II, have their own importance; but it is the tale of "Saddam and George" that really sums up the recent conflict. Analysts and observers may analyse events in terms of the rights of the Arab people, access to oil, balance of power or the current monopolar world order. But what we really need to understand is the central role played by two very human figures -- the one in Baghdad, and the other in Washington.
The first of the pair was always difficult to pin down. Indeed, he had no known address either in the Iraqi capital or elsewhere. It was generally believed that he moved frequently between assorted presidential palaces and various hideouts in order to evade a strike from without and betrayal from within. Indeed, he may still be inside Iraq today, constantly shifting from one place to another. The second of the two figures is, by way of contrast, extremely easy to locate. He resides in the White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC. You can visit his home, pray before it or even mount demonstrations on the grass outside, if you so wish.
These two figures were miles apart in more than just their places of abode. Saddam, orphaned of his father while still in his mother's womb, was born in 1937 in a village near Tikrit. He launched his political career by making an assassination attempt on President Abdel- Karim Qasem. His story, both before and since, is widely known, thanks to the many works that have been written about his life, his struggle, and his victories, from "Awwil al- Qadisiya" to the "Mother of all battles". Thanks doubtless to this glorious record, he became the most electorally popular president in history, his share of the poll rising from 99.6 per cent in 1995 to 100 per cent unanimity in 2002. Never before, with the exception of the late North Korean President Kim Il Sung (who remains 'honourary president' of the democratic republic to this day -- even death is no obstacle to such a hero), has any leader, commander or even prophet been blessed with such an accumulation of laudatory epithets as Saddam Hussein. Nor has a political leader ever been through so many changes of costume. With a wardrobe that encompassed Arab, Bedouin and traditional Iraqi costumes, alongside Armani suits and silk ties by Pierre Cardin, he was set for all occasions, and was often to be seen in one or another of these garbs, riding a horse or tank, and brandishing sword or machine gun. Indeed, everywhere one turned in the capital Baghdad, there he was, larger than life, with that stern face, that familiar thick moustache and those eyes that stared down on everyone, penetrating the deepest recesses of their hearts.
One of the first lessons many Arab leaders should draw from the fall of Saddam Hussein is to economise on the pictures and the statues. For one never knows when the people will abandon their customary awe and reverence before such representations and turn on them violently. Indeed, one could even argue that those statues were the cause of the war itself. Several weeks before the military operations in Iraq commenced, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked whether there was anything that could be done to prevent war. Yes, she said: Saddam could commit suicide. And she added, "But then, I don't know anyone in history who had such a quantity of statues and pictures of themselves who ever committed suicide."
Facing Saddam on the other side of the stage is George Bush, a man whose life could not have been more different from that of his arch rival. If anyone was ever born with a golden spoon in his mouth, it was this US president. No other family, perhaps, could match the Kennedys in wealth, power and political influence. Indeed, they say that one in eight Americans is related in some way or other with this great southern Republican clan.
Unlike Saddam, George W's political career was launched not by a gun shot, but with a pat on the back from his father, whose patronage set him on his way up the political ladder. His progress too was measured by the ballot box: beginning at zero, he slowly made his way to be state governor, before entering the White House thanks to a Supreme Court ruling that rescued a few hundred extra votes from the oblivion that threatened them in Florida. Unlike his adversary in Baghdad, the polls never gave Bush junior anything near a 100 per cent approval rating, and I doubt that such an achievement ever entered into his wildest dreams. Nor does the American citizen meet gigantic pictures of Bush gazing down at him from every street corner, or majestic statues standing proud in the centre of every square. His range of attire is similarly restrained, alternating generally between a sombre suit offset by a red tie, and the jeans, cowboy boots and Stetson which befit a native Texan.
Of course, the clean-shaven, almost boyish looking George Junior is the product of the complex institutions and multifarious tribes which govern the politics of American society. In two, or at the most six, years from now he will retire to his cherished ranch, where he will assemble a library and start writing his memoirs. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is the product of a society in which the primary tribal elements had no complex institutions to deal with, and which he could reshape to suit the needs of a man worthy to be called Supreme Commander and Awesome Leader Championed by God. The rewards available to the person who controlled Iraq were duly parcelled out among his sons and kinfolk, from Uday, Qusay, Sabawi and Watban to the Kheirallah and Al-Madjid clans. While we await his memoirs, Bush's record is open for political analysts to interpret and criticise as they wish. Saddam, however, used his inimitable style, his matchless poetry and inexhaustible wisdom to write his own, irrefutable version of the truth, in which he embodies the spirit of Hammurabi, the sword of Khaled Bin Al- Walid, and the spear of Salah Al-Din, the glory of a nation and the history of a people.
As the strands of this drama converge on the two protagonists, we can learn much by studying them, beyond their respective individual traits. In particular, we can learn a great deal about a world that allowed these two characters to occupy its centre stage. Although the contest between them is now over, the story they set in motion has not yet drawn to a close. The American challenge to the Arab peoples, governments and elites still persists.
This challenge is manifold. It extends well beyond the military level to embrace democracy, globalisation and the overall course of contemporary civilisation. Indeed, it would be pure fantasy to imagine that the Iraqi or Arab "question" has been resolved by the fall of Saddam. The main question facing Iraq and the Arabs has still to receive anything like a satisfactory answer. That question is: what is our position on the American project for the world at the outset of the 21st century?
* The writer is director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
