Seriously.

THE DEBATE about Iraq has moved past the question of whether it was a mistake (everybody knows it was) to the more depressing question of whether it is possible to avert total disaster. Every self-respecting foreign policy analyst has his own plan for Iraq. The trouble is that these tracts are inevitably unconvincing, except when they argue why all the other plans would fail. It’s all terribly grim.

So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.

I’m obviously not ‘everybody’ cause I don’t know that it was a mistake.

Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren’t for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale.

He’s joking, right??

The author of this article, Jonathan Chait, goes on to decry the fact that the Iraqis are in a civil war. The constant wailing and gnashing of teeth about the possibility of civil war in Iraq has been a source of some irritation for me.

If you use the American Civil War as a reference point, you might come to the conclusion that there are times when a nation is so grossly divided that the ensuing conflict can result in bringing the waring factions together as a nation. We would not be the nation we are today had we not fought out our differences on the fields of battle at Gettysburg, the Wilderness and others.

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying civil war is a good thing. But it is a necessary thing at times. There are centuries long blood feuds between the waring factions in Iraq. They were exacerbated by the rule of Saddam who kept all but his own people under his tyrant thumb with torture and murder. Regardless of what is done, they will find a way for revenge and eventually, when enough blood is shed, they will hopefully pull together as a nation. That will be up to them.

Chait goes on to state that if Saddam is put back in power, he’d be so grateful to not be hung that he would not be so difficult to deal with as he was before. He also says that Saddam would not allow Iran to dominate Iraq.

Mr. Chait must have forgotten that Iran has been the slop out of Iraq every time they have gone to war. So I won’t be holding my breath that Saddam would be able to control Iran.

I’m also not going to hold my breath that Saddam would suddenly become a grateful and humble ally out of gratitude for not being hung. Mr. Chait must not have been watching Saddam’s trial. He also must not have any understanding of the ‘honor’ of a man of Saddam’s calibre. He would undoubtedly see a ridiculous action like that as a ‘win’ for himself and would despise us for our weakness. He would never let him go. In his world, that would be validation that he can defeat America and the revenge blood shed in his country would reach levels we can barely fathom.

All of that is moot, of course. Saddam would be assassinated the minute he is out from under his jailers watchful eyes.

I suggest that Mr. Chait doesn’t have a clue

tiara tip: Darlene’s Place who gives some information on the author and his previous causes du jour:

Obviously, post-election, Chait feels comfortable in advocating for Iraqi’s what he would never advocate for himself.