There are reports this week that Judge Raouf Abdul Rahman, who sentenced former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to death by hanging in 2006, has been killed by rebels in retaliation for the execution. It is the nightmare of judges who could find themselves called to account for prior rulings by a mob. In this case, Rahman could see the steady territorial gains of the Sunni ISIS militants and must have known that he was at great risk.
In reality, Rahman should never have the judge in the trial. He was the replacement chief judge of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal’s in 2006. The prior judge was removed over perceptions that he was too lenient. Rahman however, was sitting in judgment over, among other crimes, Hussein’s killing of 148 people in the town of Dujail. Yet, Rahman’s home town had been the subject of a poison gas attack in 1988 by Hussein.
In the meantime. Saddam Hussein’s former generals and Baathist party members are joining the ISIS insurgency in a deepening sectarian war against the Shia. So we could have not only an Al Qaeda offshoot (that didn’t exist before we invaded) and Saddamists create a new government in Iraq after spending $2 trillion and suffering thousands of military deaths and injuries.
Thanks, Darren. It seemed as though the filter had a hang-up with the text of UNSCR 687.
Max-1,
“Renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism” was one of Saddam’s ceasefire obligations from the outset, and that particular piece of uncured guilt did gain weight with 9/11.
Excerpt from UNSC Resolution 687 (1991):
“32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism”
Eric, I restored your comment at 1:54.
Max-1,
Renouncing terrorism was a ceasefire obligation for Saddam from the outset, although that particular UN mandate for Iraq did gain weight with 9/11.
Excerpt, UNSC Resolution 687 (1991):
http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html
Eric, I restored your comment at 11:07.
Al Zheimers: “We spent trillions of dollars to get rid of him and all we have is this vast pirate territory back to square one.”
There are questions about how the cost of OIF has been counted as compared to much bloodier wars and much longer post-war peace operations in our history, but setting aside the cost issue, my take is much of the money spent on Iraq was wasted because the solution for the problems we faced in Iraq wasn’t more money, but rather we needed to find the right method (eventually, Counterinsurgency) coupled with better security for Iraq.
The US role for post-Saddam Iraq was parental. Like raising actual children, lavish gifts and a bottomless debit card can’t replacing proper parenting in a safe home. A safe home is even more important in an unsafe neighborhood. Proper nation-building, like proper parenting, isn’t cheap either, but it’s not that expensive.
We finally found the right parenting/security method in Iraq with Counterinsurgency, and the turnaround for Iraq with the “Surge” came fast. One problem is we left Iraq while our ‘parenting’ was still needed within Iraq, but the larger problem is we took away the necessary security when we left Iraq. The necessary condition for building the peace in the short and long term, with all its varied developmental areas, is security.
We’ve routinely failed and made errors in our military history, war and post-war, but the one thing we got right was persist in providing security, which allowed us to work our way through the failures and errors to eventually secure the peace.
Max-1,
Excerpt from UNSC Res 687 (1991):
http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html
Eric, I restored your comment at 11:07.