In many countries in the past, citizens have often initially welcomed fascist leaders, or leaders who rule by repression and force. For example, in 1930s Germany, the German people were initially enthralled by Adolf Hitler, who pledged to protect them from communism; when a fire broke out in the Reichstag in 1933, Hitler blamed communist dissidents and was subsequently granted dictatorial powers over the German people. When Hitler began to take repressive actions, such as imprisoning and killing those who spoke out against his government, the German people generally went along under the common idiom, “if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear.” The situation in Germany was like what took place in the Soviet Union, or in Vietnam, or in the many other countries in which repressive leaders have taken power.

In Iraq, the accession of Saddam Hussein brought to the fore another fascist government that ruled by fear and repression. Yet Iraqi society was relatively stable, free from major crime and violence. Now, conversely, Iraqi society is utterly unstable. There is no central authority, other than the Iraqi Governing Council that the US admittedly controls. The police force is completely inadequate, and Iraqis now face the constant threat of robbery, assault, rape and death. Thugs capitalizing on the power vacuum created by the fall of Saddam are running loose in the city, stealing from the citizenry. The infrastructure in Iraq has been devastated, partly due to US bombing and years of austere sanctions, as well as to career criminals and desperate citizens who are either sabotaging Iraq’s energy capabilities or simply stealing critical equipment to make a profit; these actions have left much of Iraq without electricity (and even water), meaning refrigerators and air conditioners are not functional.

Because of this lack of stability, many Iraqis are reminiscing of the days under Saddam’s rule. As brutal as his reign was, those that were apolitical were able to at least have food, water and electricity, and could roam Iraq’s streets without fear of robbery, assault, rape or murder. Support for Saddam is evident by the scores of Iraqis constantly seen holding up pictures of Saddam, or chanting his name, not only in Saddam’s hometown of Tikrit, but in Baghdad and other areas of Iraq.

Indeed, Noeleen Heyzer, executive director of the United Nations Development Fund for Women, commented on September 23 that in many ways Iraqi women are worse off now than they were under Saddam. Under Saddam, Iraq was a secular society in which women enjoyed many of the same rights as men. Now, however, due to the rising extremism in Iraq which has developed out of the power vacuum created after Saddam’s fall, women feel they are being forced into playing traditional gender roles that they have no prior experience with. Heyzer stated, “There was a lot of hope that the lives [of women] would improve... but we have a situation where a lot of extremists have come into the country and women do not want to live under such extremism.” 

Other Iraqis who recognize Saddam’s brutal legacy have no such nostalgia for the fallen despot; however, they also are passionately angry at the US occupation. Their anger lies in the methods that the United States used to remove Saddam: by launching a vast unilateral military assault that put the lives of ordinary Iraqi civilians in serious jeopardy. Furthermore, the failure of the US to adequately prepare for both the political and military fallout following the initial invasion has angered Iraqis, as this negligence is partly to blame for why Iraq is teeming with violence and instability. Critics of the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq argue that the US should have kept applying pressure on Saddam to reform, using the massive support the US had before the conflict in both the United Nations and in the Middle East as leverage.   

But now the instability in Iraq shows no sign of abating. Coalition forces admit that they are subjected to an average of 10-14 attacks each day, many of these resulting in wounded and dead soldiers. For the limited amount of coalition forces in Iraq, such casualty rates need to be avoided if the US mission there is to be a success. In addition to isolated attacks, other more orchestrated endeavors such as the car bombings at the UN building and Iraqi police stations contribute to the overall sense of instability; these overt signs of violence also fuel the resentment and growing hostility amongst Iraqi civilians toward not only the individuals attacking the coalition and other soft targets, but also against US forces who they blame for not doing enough to stop the violence.   

There is, moreover, the more dreadful factor of the lack of experience of individual US soldiers. Not accustomed to “peacekeeping,” US soldiers have frequently been guilty of fearfully attacking civilians, journalists, and, recently, with the attack on an Italian diplomat, politicians. The recent killing of a 14-year-old boy who was engaging in cultural celebratory gunfire during a wedding ceremony is one such example of an event that damages US credibility in the country. 

If these conditions persist, the Iraqi people are going to become more radicalized and more willing to support another autocratic ruler such as Saddam Hussein who will promise the Iraqi people security – a condition that the coalition has failed to meet – in exchange for their political freedoms. Indeed, such a chain of events is actually the historical norm in Iraq, beginning with the British occupation and now continuing with the US one. With a mixed record at rebuilding societies, Washington’s outlook in Iraq does not yet look hopeful.

Erich Marquardt is an analyst with the Power and Interest News Report, found on the web at www.pinr.com.