The lion cub in the protracted U.S.-Iraq conflict

Riza Sihbudi, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta

There is a popular saying among people in Iraq: "With our blood and our lives we willingly sacrifice ourselves for Saddam." It is not clear whether this motto has helped President Saddam Hussein survive or if the people's willingness is driven by love or terror for the leader of this "republic of fear". A vendor in Baghdad was once quoted as saying, "This is radio, but if Saddam says this is refrigerator, it is refrigerator."

Saddam, 65, is often described as the most authoritarian leader in the Middle East. He has not only refused to provide space, more so dissent, for his citizens, but he also has no qualms about eradicating his political enemies in brutal ways. He considers the Shi'ites (Syiah; Muslims who, among others, believe in the messianic return of the last Imam -- Ed), who amount to 55 percent of Iraq's population compared to the 17 percent of Sunni Arabs, as the main threat.

His repressive ways also target the Kurds (some 20 percent of the population) and his own Ba'th party, especially those who are against his policies. As president, Saddam also commands the military and other leading positions. He has executed a number of his ministers, and in 1996 he even executed two son-in-laws.

Saddam will go down in Iraq's modern history as, in the words of one scholar, the one "introducing violence and terror in a state security network to maintain his power". He will also be noted as a leader who dragged his people into two large-scale wars: The one against Iran (1980-1988) and the Gulf War (1990- 1991). Since he took power, the people have enjoyed only two years of peace. Saddam, a name translated in his official biography as "a resolute fighter", is obsessed with becoming "the leader of the Arabs".

His figure which has become identical to the politics of violence and political violence, seems inseparable to a childhood familiar with hardship. Saddam was raised by his stepfather Ibrahim al-Hassan, which the writer Mussalam Ali Musallam in 1996 described as a "cruel, brutal and illiterate peasant".

In his teenage years he entered politics as a member of the Ba'th party. At 22, he was part of the party's "sharp shooters", which attempted the assassination of the then prime minister, Gen. Abdul Karim Qassim. At 31, he was assistant to the party's secretary-general and was part of the party's crucial success in taking over power in the 1968 revolution. Eleven years later in 1979 he threw out Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, who was not only the nation's president and party secretary-general, but also a close relative.

Under Saddam, Iraq became one of the region's strongest military-political powers, particularly in the Persian Gulf. He brought more domestic political stability compared to his predecessors, apart from making his country the second largest oil exporter within the oil-producing countries, before the United Nations imposed sanctions following his attack on Kuwait.

Yet Saddam's success in building up military power with Iraq's various types of weapons of mass destruction, is inseparable from the support and the assistance of the western nations, including the United States. The U.S. policies at that time seem to have been based on its fears of the spread of Iran's Islamic revolution to surrounding countries.

What the U.S. has done to Iraq is similar to nurturing a lion cub: When the cub has grown it is ready to jump and feast on its master. The U.S. and the United Kingdom are trying with all their might to overthrow Saddam. After a number of failed military actions against Iraq, both legal and illegal under international law, the U.S. has also encouraged combat from within.

The U.S. has reportedly set up three alternative scenarios: Persuading the elite Republican Guards to isolate Saddam; weakening the Guards, or weakening the military while arming the opposition, particularly those in the Iraq National Congress.

On paper, it might not be too hard for the U.S. to overthrow Saddam as they did in Afghanistan with the Taliban. But although the Afghanistan model has succeeded in breaking down the old regime, it has not entirely created political stability in the country. Also, Iraq is clearly not Afghanistan.

Even if Saddam is feared and unliked by most leaders in the Middle East, they would mostly disapprove of interference by the U.S., which is considered too far into Iraq's domestic affairs. An indication of that is the lack of support from Mideast leaders for the U.S. As a member of NATO, Turkey almost always supports military actions against Iraq by the U.S. and the U.K., but Ankara is worried about a Kurd nation emerging in northern Iraq. Twenty percent of Turkey's population is also made up of Kurds.

Another obstacle for the U.S. would be its image in the Middle East. First, it has been very difficult for the U.S. to abandon its double standards in its policies pertaining to the region. The U.S. has repeatedly accused Iraq of being a country that "threatens regional peace and security" because of Baghdad's various weapons of mass destruction.

But what about America's attitude toward Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Israel has so far refused to sign the non- proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons, while the International Atomic Energy Commission says Iraq does not have the capability to develop nuclear weapons. So who is really the threat to peace and stability in the Middle East?

Second, the U.S. has always charged Saddam of not being trustworthy. Indeed, during the Iraq-Iran war, Saddam did not hesitate to unilaterally call off the 1975 Algiers agreement, which he signed himself as he was then the vice president, before attacking Iran in 1980. But Saddam is not the only untrustworthy one here. What about Israel, which also never follows the agreements to which it is a part of.

Toward Iraq, the U.S. always acts like the fair international- scale law enforcer by forcing Baghdad to follow dozens of resolutions from the UN Security Council in such a short time. However, the U.S. has never shown the willingness to make Israel follow merely two resolutions from the same body; resolutions No. 242 and No. 338, which are half a century old.

Third, the U.S. boasts of establishing a democratic political system in Iraq. Yet this is highly doubtful, as almost all pro- U.S. regimes in the Middle East are not democratic.

If democratization occurs in Iraq, power will most likely fall to the Shi'ites, the majority. Will the U.S. allow a Shi'ite-led regime? This is unlikely. Regarding Palestine, the U.S. is the busiest party trying to avoid the establishment of an independent Palestine state; while the right to freedom is the most basic right of all nations.

So whoever comes out the victor in the prolonged conflict between Iraq (Saddam Hussein) and the U.S. will not mean much to those who love democracy. It would be better to call the conflict a battle between two dictators, on a national and international scale. The difference is that one has a small "d" and the other, a big "D".

The writer is also the chairman of the Indonesian Society for Middle East Studies in Jakarta.