Middle East Focus: Dichotomy of Arab Despotism: Let Twenty Saddams Bloom?………….

Arabia Deserta

Dichotomy of Arab Despotism: Let Twenty Saddams Bloom?………….

Walking on water

“One telling example is Saddam's criteria for selecting the commander of the Special Republican Guard. This unit, designed to protect the regime against internal threats, represented the most highly trained, best equipped, and most loyal element of the Iraqi military. Common sense would seem to dictate choosing an outstanding officer to lead this unit. Yet post invasion interviews with senior Iraqi military leaders indicate that those who filled the post were selected for three reasons: nepotism, stupidity, and cowardice. Promoting weak leaders to important positions allowed Saddam to remain safely ensconced in power. Indeed, much of what made Saddam such an effective dictator was his ability to manipulate senior leadership and preclude the formation of alternate power centers. High-ranking officers were actively discouraged from communicating with each other or even coordinating on military matters, and all units had designated informers who reported to Saddam on internal developments. ……”

“Selected for three reasons: nepotism, stupidity, and cowardice.” Some things never change across borders in the Arab world. Nepotism and stupidity, especially, are highly desired traits and eagerly sought after by the potentates. This was not just a Saddam thing, it is in the genes of most Arab leaders. The difference is that Iraqis are a more fractious people than usual (tribes, sects, ethnicity, race, politics) and unlikely to accept such a leader peacefully. He had to resort to extremely violent means to stay in power, while most other Arab leaders can get by with the use of just plain violence when needed. They would also use extreme violence when needed to remain in power; the many political prisoners and “interrogation centers” are a good indication of that.

Actually Saddam forced the near-complete domination of one section of Iraqi society, a small minority at that, over the rest. Ironically he enforced a kind of phony Iraqi unity in appearance, while other Arab oligarchs nowadays seek to ignite divisions and sectarian passions in their countries in order to retain and enhance their power. He violently enforced a uniformity that did not exist in Iraq, forcing everybody to pay lip service to a “pan-Arabist” Iraq. In comparison, other Arab oligarchs are deliberately fanning the flames of division within their societies, making sure their peoples know there are serious religious (Sunni-Shi’a, Muslim-Copt….) differences.

Saddam the dictator relied on enforcing his vision of unity through the use of extreme violence- other Arab regimes now rely on sowing divisions and the use of violence in order to maintain power. Two completely different approaches to leadership, both unsavory in its own way, wouldn’t you say?
Cheers
mhg

m.h.ghuloum@gmail.com