fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Saddam: Experienced In The Field And In Bad Need Of A Job

As we are reminded in the latest TAC, in May 2004 James Pinkerton in The American Conservative (sorry, article not online) started the Bring Back Hussein gallows humour that has become increasingly popular over the past two years.  These efforts at satire (which is all anyone has dared to try so far) have not always succeeded entirely as satire or […]

As we are reminded in the latest TAC, in May 2004 James Pinkerton in The American Conservative (sorry, article not online) started the Bring Back Hussein gallows humour that has become increasingly popular over the past two years.  These efforts at satire (which is all anyone has dared to try so far) have not always succeeded entirely as satire or serious policy proposal for the reasons Ross outlined recently.  It is a dramatic way of making a point, because nobody would seriously advocate such a thing.  Right?  Actually, that is right.  But if nobody was seriously advocating such a thing at any point, why do some people write as if someone has been advocating it?  That Chait had to write an exculpatory post saying, “No, but, seriously, folks…” highlights just how bereft of ideas about Iraq the pundits are (I don’t say this accusingly–I have no magical fixes or solutions, either), since there was a 40/60 chance that Chait was perfectly in earnest in that funny TNR counterintuitive style that we all pretend to regard so highly. Next on the line-up of funny counterintuitive ideas: maybe we should give Iraq WMDs!   

As satire, the Hussein gag really only works if we all believed that bringing Saddam Hussein back was some unthinkable, horrific thing that, like devouring one’s own children, would stand out as so ludicrous that everyone would understand that it was all a roundabout way of saying something else, such as, “Toppling Hussein sure was stupid!” or saying, “The situation in Iraq is so bad that even this psycho idea sounds remotely plausible.”  But it is just slightly plausible enough that it might be considered daringly counterintuitive and forward-thinking.  When all else fails, try Saddam!  A surprisingly large number of people might grimacingly nod their heads and say, Kinky Friedman-style, “Why the hell not?”  That is why the satire fails as satire, but the satire doesn’t fail badly enough to make the joke seem like an acceptable replacement for the current joke of an Iraq policy that we already have in place.

There are a good arguments to be made for establishing some sort of new authoritarian regime in Iraq.  Or, rather, there might have been good arguments for it three years ago, but we are well past the point of no return.  Had a new strongman been put in place straightaway in 2003 and been left to secure his position, it just might have worked in a clunky, ugly sort of way.  But we might as well be talking about what Iraq might be like now had we not disbanded the Iraqi army or purged the Baathists.  At this stage, this kind of talk, while amusing to disillusioned and cynical pundits and political junkies, is as productive as thinking that the answer for Iran policy is, “Bring the Pahlavis back!”  Unfortunately, the ideas about Iran policy in circulation right now aren’t really much better than that.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here