Saddam Hussein is a dangerous and evil man, and the world would be a better and safer place if he were removed from power. A killer from early adolescence, he is brutal and psychopathic even by the high standards of inhumanity prevailing in his region.
His constant and unremitting search for weapons of mass destruction or mass terror augurs little good for the Middle East and the world. It has been argued, however, that even if he were successfully to develop such weapons, he would be unlikely ever to use them. After all, the military potential of Iraq is very limited, and Saddam, while utterly ruthless, is not known to be personally suicidal. His enemies have, and will always have, far more destructive weapons than he can ever hope to obtain. By using any such weapons as he managed to develop, he would risk total annihilation.
If he accepted this reasoning, however, he would not have tried to develop the weapons in the first place. They are for use, if only in blackmail operations. Having observed the value that the West places on human life – that is to say, on its own human life – he has realised that even a small number of potential American deaths would be a very useful bargaining tool. Moreover, a man of his psychological disposition is quite likely to rage against the dying of the light. He knows that the loss of his power by now means the loss of his life; he cannot hope to retire gracefully and cultivate his garden. And he has no reason to fear the annihilation of his country, for which he cares nothing except as a stage for himself. After me not the deluge, but the void.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in