John Nixon, a former CIA officer who interrogated Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, said recently that the man should have been left to run the country, stating that it would have been a better option.
John Nixon will be revealing lots of discussions he had with the former Iraqi dictator, when he had the chance of interrogating him in 2003 after Saddam was captured by coalition forces. He disclosed that Saddam had predicted to him during their various sessions that USA would not be able to govern Iraq since the occupying forces did not understand the minds of Arabs. "When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: 'You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.' When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: 'You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.' "In Nixon's book “Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein” he writes that Saddam had spent his days in hiding “writing novels”.
He writes: “Saddam appeared to be as clueless about what was happening inside Iraq as his British and Americans enemies were.
“He was inattentive to what his government was doing and had no real plan to prepare for the defence of Iraq.”
Saddam bristled when asked about taking his second wife Samira Shahbandar – a blonde flight attendant.
And he admitted that his son Uday – widely regarded as psychotic – was a “particular problem”.
According to Nixon, though Saddam was a brutal leader who often used excessive tactics, militant groups such as the Islamic State would never have gained a foothold in the country.
"Saddam's leadership style and penchant for brutality were among the many faults of his regime, but he could be ruthlessly decisive when he felt his power base was threatened, and it is far from certain that his regime would have been overthrown by a movement of popular discontent," he wrote. "Likewise, it is improbable that a group like ISIS would have been able to enjoy the kind of success under his repressive regime that they have had under the Shia-led Baghdad government."
The former CIA chief said that though he didn't like Saddam Hussein, he came away with a 'grudging respect' for the Iraqi dictator for keeping the country as a whole for as long as he did.
Both President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump believe the United States never should have invaded Iraq in 2o03 (or, at least, Trump claims he now does). The war in Iraq and its chaotic aftermath in many ways prefigure the present moment in the Middle East; it triggered a sectarian unraveling that now haunts both Iraq and Syria and looms large in the minds of an Obama administration wary of further intervention in the region's conflicts.
In a new book coming out this month, John Nixon, a former CIA officer who interrogated Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein after he was captured by coalition forces in December 2003, details his encounter with the toppled despot and the varied discussions that followed. Early on, Hussein warned that the occupation of Iraq wouldn't be as much of a "cakewalk" as Washington's neoconservatives assumed at the time. From an excerpt published on Time magazine's website:
When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”
Nixon now reckons Hussein had a point and that a ruthless strongman like him was necessary to "maintain Iraq's multi-ethnic state" and keep both Sunni extremism and the power of Shiite-led Iran, a Hussein foe, at bay.
"Saddam’s leadership style and penchant for brutality were among the many faults of his regime, but he could be ruthlessly decisive when he felt his power base was threatened, and it is far from certain that his regime would have been overthrown by a movement of popular discontent," he wrote. "Likewise, it is improbable that a group like ISIS would have been able to enjoy the kind of success under his repressive regime that they have had under the Shia-led Baghdad government." (ISIS is another name for the Islamic State.)
This may all be rather true. Trump himself insists that regime change should no longer be in Washington's interest and has embraced dictatorial leaders such as Egypt's President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi.
"Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did," wrote Nixon. "He told me once, 'Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!'"Many Arab commentators, though, reject the simplicity of the assumptions here — that if not ruled by tyrants, their nations would automatically turn into breeding grounds for militancy. That's a logic, after all, that serves the autocrats. Moreover, there's a direct connection between the heavy-handed policies of the region's autocrats and the conditions that spawn extremism and deepen sectarian animosities. Pluralistic, multi-ethnic societies have been the norm, not the exception, for centuries.
