Saddam’s hanging sparks increase in hostility, political discontent

Last month’s violent execution of Iraq’s former dictator, Saddam Hussein, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of Americans and others worldwide.

Iraq’s new duly elected government, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, has been painted as a savage group of revenge killers by the global press.

President George W. Bush is attempting to make his former claims that democracy in Iraq would act as a fix-all for the Middle East as clear as possible. So why isn’t everything all peachy?

The topic hovering around water coolers, if only for a brief period after the execution, was the lack of solid media coverage of Saddam’s final days.

News reporting during the deliberations over his impending demise was impotent at best. Most astute information seekers found out about the court’s decision from various Internet sources in the beginning, and even then the information was often buried under other more important items. Media outlets buried the story because it seemed to be a plus mark in the government’s agenda. Unfortunately for them, this was not the case.

No doubt Bush knew how the Iraqi people would deal with Saddam, no matter what sort of shocked or disappointed air he displays.

Only one question remains: could the negative backlash have been avoided?

In these politically tumultuous times, timing really is everything. If American troops had captured Saddam earlier in the war, public response to the grisly hanging might have been more forgiving. After all, this was a man who viciously persecuted and gassed thousands upon thousands of men, women and children in retaliation for an assassination attempt.

However, in lieu of recent escalation of violence in the region, as well as the “civil war” phrase controversy in the media, the only good thing that seemed to come from it all is the lack of one more evil dictator in the modern world.

Two weeks after Saddam was hanged, the Iraqi government also executed his half-brother Barzan Ibrahim al- Tikriti, and former court official Awad Hamad al-Bandar, for their roles in numerous mass killings.

The Iraqi people are completely justified in the pursuit to indemnify their families from tyrannical men. But if the overall goal is to become a democratic and more civilized society, the execution has set Iraq back a few steps.

The situation was a catch-22 for the Bush administration, as there seems to be an inescapable, unwritten law that leaves execution of dictators in the hands of those they oppress. It’s tough to say which would have been worse: the United States playing a hand in the execution of a dictator or the revenge killing that occurred.

At the very least, however, some presence could have been shown by U.S. forces.

Nobody expected the families of those whom Saddam killed to just roll over and let him slide. The price of countless lives rested on his head, and somebody had to pay.

From now on, our government should allow families of victims of mass genocide the right to decide the fate of their tormentors, while keeping a closer watch over the process to allow for complete justice combined with civility. This will prevent such debacles from happening again.

Saddam’s execution has sparked increased violence in Iraq and has cast a shadow on a young government that has a lot of growing and maturing to do. While there is no way to erase the blotch of the mishandled execution, perhaps it will teach the world what it means to be a civilized nation.