Saddam's Honor

in General Discussion edited January 2014
James Bowman considers the role of an honor culture in Saddam's denouement.


Saddam's Honor

Would he have lied about his WMD just to appear strong?

By James Bowman


Published 4/4/2003 12:03:00 AM

Ten days into a war fought under the flag of disarmament, U.S.-led troops have found no substantial sign of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction... "All the searches have turned up negative," said a Joint Staff officer who is following field reports. "The munitions that have been found have all been conventional."..."The president has made very clear that the reason why we are in Iraq is to find weapons of mass destruction," [Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John S.] Wolf said in a telephone interview yesterday. He added, "The fact that we haven't found them in seven or eight days doesn't faze me one little bit. Very clearly, we need to find this stuff or people are going to be asking questions." - Barton Gellman, in the Washington Post of March 30, 2003

Questions, eh? What kind of questions? Like maybe, why did we go to war in the first place? Yet even those opposed to the war rarely attempted to argue that there were no weapons of mass destruction - only that Saddam would not use them, or would not use them on us. Does this entitle them to say "I told you so"? More seriously, if the coalition forces don't find any weapons of mass destruction, does this mean that the war was mistaken and that those who sacrificed so much, including those who made the supreme sacrifice, did it all if not for nothing at least unnecessarily?

These are hard questions. Of course there can hardly be any doubt that the end of the barbarous Hussein regime is a good in itself and a boon to humanity - especially to the Iraqis themselves, many of whom chose to die in defense of it. Yet it would never have come about if only Hussein himself had been open and forthcoming about his weapons of mass destruction. Why would he not have been more honest and open with the inspectors in order to save his regime? Is he, like some liars, so accustomed to lying that he can't tell the truth to save his life?

I don't think this is the answer...


  • Reply 1 of 3
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Strange article, Saddam alway claimed to not have WOMD. Perhaps he was not enough friendly with the inspectors giving the impression he was hiding something, but calling this a liar is inapropriate. The liar will be to discover WOMD, not the reverse.
  • Reply 2 of 3
    No. Its inappropriate to be in a situation where you can´t call Saddam a liar.
  • Reply 3 of 3
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member

    Originally posted by Anders the White

    No. Its inappropriate to be in a situation where you can´t call Saddam a liar.

    The worst thing with a mac , is it's un-PC
Sign In or Register to comment.