The Vicious Dictator Saddam Mike Rappaport

My post on Benj Hellie s post Better Off Under Saddam“ provoked a series of comments by Professor Hellie.  My initial post was a short burst of antipathy towards the sentiments and thinking expressed in his post, which argued that it is now OK to say that one prefers to have Saddam back.  Hellie does not appear to understand what caused my reaction to his post, so let me elaborate.

First, and most importantly, I find his quickness to think that Iraqis were better off under Saddam to be a sign of moral blindness, if not depravity.  Saddam was an evil dictator and vicious killer. One should be extremely reluctant to say that people were better off under him just as one should be hesitant to say that blacks were better off as slaves or Russians were better off under Stalin.  It is not impossible that people were better off under Saddam, but one should be pretty sure of it before saying so.  No amount of Bush hatred justifies such an attitude, which insults the memory of Saddam s victims.

Second, what is Hellie s evidence that women are better off?  A study by activist women s groups that women are less respected now and that some religious leaders have also begun insisting that women wear the veil.   Under Saddam, by contrast, women used to serve in government.  This is not particularly compelling evidence.  An unspecified survey by a women s group requires more scrutiny. It may be accurate, but it also may be ideological, as are so many of the false statistics about rapes and other matters publicized by activist women s groups in the US. 

Even accepting the evidence in the story at face value, much of it is underwhelming. That women used to serve in Saddam s tyrannical government that they could oppress other people is not something the new Iraq should try to emulate.  Some of the other evidence is troubling, but also complicated.  That some women now feel pressured to wear veils is regrettable.  But some of the pressure appears to be the result of greater freedom for the community to express its moral views.  I certainly hope that women are not coerced into wearing veils, but if they live among fundamentalist Muslims, we need to expect some of this on the road to freedom.  Progress, like life, does not always proceed on a straight path.

Third, even if some women were better off under Saddam or even if most women were (although I see no evidence for this latter claim) that still does not mean we should prefer Saddam. If some women must wear veils or are treated badly in some divorce proceedings, but other (Kurdish) women are not killed by the government, then on balance women may be better off now.  And since when are women the only people who count?  If men are also the victims of Saddam s aggression, that counts too.   

Finally, in considering well-being, one must also make a prediction about the future of a country that is slowly gaining political freedom (and hopefully economic freedom).  If I were an Iraqi, I would prefer that my children grow up in the new Iraq than in Saddam s Iraq even though we can t be sure of the future.  I ll take my chances on an emerging democracy over a tyranny any day, for both my sons and daughters.                                                                                                    

Update: I have corrected a typo in the post and also added the omitted end quotation mark, to which Benj Hellie refers in his comment.  I also struck-through my mistaken reference to Benj Hellie’s post by the name of my previous post.