Was Iraq Better Off Under Saddam?

Talking about the Iraq War is a touchy issue. Labels are flung about so automatically that at this point it is difficult to be anything other than an apologist for an evil war or an anti-American who hates the American troops. But what is forgotten the majority of the time is what is actually going on in the streets of Iraq outside of the heavily-fortified Green Zone. Are we to believe the administration's claims that great steps are being made and that victories are on the rise even when the next page of the Washington Post recounts the death of over a hundred Iraqis in a bombing? Are we to believe that the United States' invasion of Iraq has made life miserable for Iraqis even though they had been under the rule of a dictator for over twenty years? These are difficult questions which this article will hopefully shed light on. The main question is, is Iraq better off now than it was under Saddam Hussein?

Are Women Better Off?

When people talk about the Iraq War, it is generally with respect to the three major Islamic religious groups: the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. However, what about a group that comprises fifty percent of the population of Iraq? The status of women in Iraq has changed dramatically over the course of the past twenty-eight years. Saddam Hussein shunned the idea of an Islamic state, and designed a secular state similar to that of Nasser's Egypt after he gained power in 1979. This secular state included offering women high-level government and industry jobs. According to the Integrated Regional Information Networks in April of 2006, "women's basic rights under the Hussein regime were guaranteed in the constitution and more importantly respected, with women often occupying important government positions." Today, although women's rights are protected in the new Iraqi constitution, in practice many of their rights have been lost. Due to the erosion of Saddam's secular state and an increased influence of Shiite leadership, many more men are ordering women to adopt the traditional Islamic veil and style of dress. According to findings in the aforementioned Integrated Regional Information Networks report, there are fewer women today working in professional jobs in Iraq than there were under Saddam's leadership.

Are women safer now than they were when Saddam was in power? It has been documented by the Iraq Research and Documentation Project in a 2002 report of human rights practices that Saddam's regime used rape as a means of intimidation in Iraq. Women were kidnapped by agents of the government and raped in order to coerce their families and husbands into submission or to divulge information. Videos of rapes were sent to family members in order to force families to cooperate with the regime. Also, according to the UN Commission of Human rights in a 2002 report, up to 4,000 women were victims of "honor killings" in which Saddam had granted immunity to men who killed their female relatives in defense of familial honor. However, under Saddam's rule women were entitled to legal rights in civil courts that were based on western law courts rather than traditional Islamic Sharia courts. Today women are increasingly intimidated into being submissive to male and Islamic influence. Many women have taken the veil in order to be less of a target for violence in the streets and as traditionalist Islam has filled the void of Saddam's toppled secular society, women are being pressured to adopt limited social, economic, and political roles. According to Housan Mahmoud of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, "Under the previous dictatorial regime, the basic rights for women were enshrined in the constitution. Women could go out to work, university, and get married or divorced in civil courts. But at the moment women have lost almost all their rights and are being pushed back into the corner of their house." In present-day Iraq for many women it has been a desire to survive in a climate of lawlessness that has caused them to surrender rights extended to them legally.

Are Christians Better Off?

Saddam's secular society was much more conducive for Christians living in Iraq than present-day Iraq. Under his strongman leadership, religious violence, particularly between Christians and Muslims was largely quelled due to severe penalties that could ensue. However, today under the current democracy of Iraq, there is little to stop violence against Christians in a country where fundamentalist Islam has increased its hold. The current constitution of Iraq declares that Islam is the national religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws, even though religious freedom is upheld. It appears that the erosion of Saddam's secular state has led to a swell in violence against non-Muslims in Iraq. Since 2004, incidents of violence against Christian-run facilities, including churches and liquor stores have occurred across the country. There are between 250,000 and 700,000 Christians living in Iraq.

Are Intellectuals Better Off?

Saddam's secular society needed intellectuals. However, as Islamic fundamentalism has increasingly been able to encroach on the modernization his Iraq had achieved, intellectuals have become targets of extremist anger toward western ideas. According to the Monitoring Net for Human Rights in Iraq, over 1,000 Iraqi Academics have been shot to death between the beginning of the military invasion and late 2005. If Iraq ever hopes to attain true independence and develop a successful government and state, then campaigns of violence against intellectuals needs to stop.

Is the General Population Better Off?

Globally, there has been in a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of jihadist attacks since the 2002 invasion of Iraq according to a March 2007 study conducted by Mother Jones. Nearly half of these attacks have occurred in Iraq. It is primarily this increase in terrorist activity and civil violence that has caused many Iraqis to believe that they had been better off under the regime of Saddam Hussein. According to a recent poll conducted by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies, ninety percent of the respondents think that the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.

What is at work in Iraq is a conundrum of freedom versus safety. Under Saddam, citizens surrendered freedom of speech and expression in order to conduct daily affairs. Saddam's Baathist party which constituted a mere 8% of the population conducted all political affairs exclusively. Relative safety was given as a price for a lack of political voice. Currently, Iraqis have these freedoms extended to them legally but have largely surrendered them due to ongoing threats to their safety. Saddam used torture and murder as intimidation tactics, as insurgents do today. However, as John Pace, former director of the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, remarked "Under Saddam, if you agreed to forgo your basic right to freedom of expression and thought, you were physically more or less OK. But now, no. Here, you have a primitive, chaotic situation where anybody can do anything they want to anyone." Saddam's regime had largely quelled civil violence with the threat of state-imposed violence and harsh penalties for criminal offenses. As brutal as his methods were, Iraqis were able to conduct their daily business without fear of being shot, kidnapped, or blown up by inconspicuous car bombs. According to Kofi-Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, "they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school."

Estimates place the number of Iraqi civilians dead since the start of the Iraq War between 50,000 and 100,000. It is not known how many Iraqis Saddam's regime systematically murdered or tortured during his twenty-three years in power. His ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War claimed as many as 50,000 lives. Bombings, terrorist activity, and infighting have destroyed much of the Iraqi infrastructure and many of its citizens are currently without basic utilities such as electricity and running water. Curfews have been imposed and movement through Iraq is severely restricted due to fear of violence. Saddam had also severely restricted movement into and out of Iraq by using highway checkpoints and requiring women to use male escorts, but citizens could at least leave their homes with a smaller sense of fear.

Conclusion

There is no clear conclusion. On the one hand you had a brutal dictator whose iron fist had been able to ease centuries-old religious and ethnic conflict at the price of many personal liberties. On the other hand you have a botched war that has brought a weak central democratic government to the forefront and allowed those social tensions to exacerbate to the point where guaranteed individual freedoms are inert in the face of violence. Whatever polls, numbers, or accounts you wish to believe, Iraq has been a violent place for the past twenty-eight years. And it's getting worse.