Tyranny’s temptation

That America’s liberation of Iraq left that country worse off than under Baathist rule is a dangerous argument, one that advocates putative stability at the expense of actual liberty. Such sentiment was recently expressed by Washington Post columnist William Rasberry, who opined: "We can argue all day that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant whose defeat and humiliation should evoke no sympathy from us. But he did have a functioning country. There was a government in place. People went to work and to the market and to school in relative safety. Can anyone really believe that the U.S.-spawned anarchy has left the Iraqi people better off? We broke it."

This line of thinking is anti-democratic, at best, and recklessly counterproductive at worst. As the Washington Times soberly reminds us in an editorial rebuking Rasberry, under Saddam Hussein "Iraqis were subject at any given moment to arrest, torture and execution. They were at the whim of a maniacal despot whose death would have seen two even more maniacal sons vie for power. This is what the United States and coalition allies ‘broke’ when they deposed Saddam and hunted down his regime."

The editorial continues: "Those who align themselves to his idea will have fallen for tyranny’s great temptation. For thousands of years, security has been the tyrant’s raison d’etre. When the edifices of society begin to crumble, a tyrant will surface to offer subservience in the guise of security. He will promise peaceful order. And as the bodies mount, he will use security as his justification. Such was the ‘relative safety’ Saddam provided the Iraqi people."