Saddam isn't the problem - he's a part of the problem. The great cause of the 19th and early 20th century for Arabs and Moslems was independence from European colonial rule. It wasn't just that they detested foreign rule, it was that they'd always believed their civilization to be superior - God-blessed! - and couldn't fathom being ruled by barbarians. When, after the world wars, independence was achieved, the assumption was that prosperity and eventual technological & cultural triumph over the barbaric infidel West would naturally follow. It didn't.
The first reaction was Arab nationalism, which stretched across religious lines to include (in fact be led by) Christian Arabs. Nasser in Eqypt, Qhaddafy in Libya, Assad in Syria and Saddam Hussein in Iraq were all a part of this wave. They were usually involved with socialist political movements like the Ba'athists. After several failed wars against Israel, however - Israel representing not so much the conquerer of their Palestinian brothers as the local Trojan Horse for the West in the Arab lands - the Arab nationalist cause fell apart, especially when the Eqyptian and Syrian UAR failed.
It has been superceded by Islamic fundamentalism, the belief that nationalism is a Western, materialistic and anti-religious phenomenon and that only devotion to Allah and strict shariyah (holy law) can revive Islamic fortunes. Of course, as with any fundamentalist movement, there's always the problem of interpretation; what did the prophet really mean when he said... or did...? Some say he meant this, others say he clearly meant that. Anyway, Islamic fundamentalism - which had its origins in a non-Arab nation, Iran - has come to be seen as the solution for the region's problems. The 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War was a war between these two ideologies; Iraqi Pan-Arab nationalism versus Iranian Pan-Islamic fundamentalism. The Lebanese Civil War, sparked by Arafat and his Fatah, was also a war between Islamic militants and Arab nationalists. Qhaddafy has had to suppress several Islamic uprisings in Libya.
The bottom line here is that simply eliminating Saddam will not do the trick. Yes, he's a murderous bastard who deserves a Tomahawk missile up his butt, but he's more a product of a larger cultural conflict than the cause of it. Rulers like Saddam rely on a powerful sense of abbhorance among their peoples of having been conquered and ruled by the infidel West. These rulers stoke this anti-Western passion by blaming the poverty, corruption and technological backwardness of their countries on a few decades of Western imperialism. The point is to keep the focus away from themselves and their own corruption....
The only hope, methinks, is the kind of social maturity and development that's been taking place in Iran with Khatami - ironically the country that kicked off the last wave, Islamic fundamentalism, that destroyed the first wave, Arab nationalism. Truly the Iranians are trend-setters. If a successful Islamic democracy can develop in the Middle East, free of Western influence and seen to be completely "home grown", then - and only then - will the dictators like Saddam and Qhaddafy become obsolete in their peoples' eyes. No, an Iranian democracy is not likely to fall into the West's arms and embrace us, saying "Let's let bygones be bygones"; but functional democracies can at least deal with each other on a civil level without using terrorism against one another. In this way Iran could become the democratic example that Eqypt and Indonesia have failed to be for the Islamic world, and proof that Islam can co-exist within a modern, democratic society without resorting to medieval laws & practices.
Well, there's my $.02...
------------------
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."
[This message has been edited by Vrylakas (edited July 28, 2001).]
