<I would be interested in your explanation of how the proper model could have been applied to Saddam Hussein.>
1. If we hadn't meddled in Iraq in the 1960s, the Baathist Party might never have come to power in Iraq.
2. If we hadn't supported him, with money from our Arab allies, with weapons and technology from the West, during the Iran-Iraq war, there was a good chance the Iranians would have overthrown him.
3. If, when he first used chemical weapons (1980s), we had organized an economic and weapons boycott of Iraq, and/or refused to buy his oil, he would certainly have fallen then.
4. If we had an Energy Independence policy since the 1970s (or 1980s, or 1990s), and had developed domestic renewable energy sources, we could forget about who owns that patch of distant desert.
5. Every scientist in the Iraqi nuclear program, was trained at American universities. Why?
6. To sum up: What we did is, we handed a loaded gun to an undisciplined child. Well, maybe we didn't give him a gun, but we did give him money, and sold him the gun parts, and an instruction manual for assembling guns. And now we've killed him because he pointed the gun back at us. You really can't see any other alternatives?
Nonviolent conflict resolution works best when it is institutionalized, and acts to prevent (as opposed to stopping) conflict. Doesn't work so well, to try it after a long history of mutual demonizing, in the middle of a crisis. By then, there are no good choices. Like now. |
