- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
Saddam I would argue in 2003 had started to lose his value as a Necessary Evil. He was doing a worse and worse job of maintaining control, and was setting his sons, who were real peices of work, up as the successors. You know how some shows stop when things are declining but still good, while others get run in the ground? "Who's Iraq is it Anyway?" was canceled when it was still good, but it was on its well on its way to becoming shit.
But its the leadership they deserve. Iraqis have been untrustworthy shit bags since at least 680AD.
Gaddafi on the other hand was, by most accounts, becoming much less shit, opening up the country and starting to give more powers to the local councils. He was still kind of fucking crazy in a way that would have been amusing if he didn't hold literal life-or-death power over people's lives, but he was really serious about rejoining the international community and playing nice with others. The son he was grooming to be his successor was better than Dad on just about every front, and speculated to be behind the reforms. In proof that this is a God and he loves irony, it was this releasing of his Iron grip that lead to Papa Gaddafi's downfall....but his son still might end up as taking over for daddy anyway.
But again, necessary or not, how else could the rest of the world have responded when he was carrying out airstrikes on protestors? That is, the value of a "necesary evil" dictator is in providing and maintaining control, keeping the trains running on time as it were. He'd obviously lost control, and was only going to get it back with lots of blood.
Except there was still the Ba'ath party to hold some kind of order. One of Saddam's sons was out raping and torturing the populace but I believe the other one was in control and Saddam thought of that son as the successor. In either case, the Ba'ath party would have kept order but when the Bush Admin ordered the invasion everything was dismantled. Leaving a power vaccum where Islamic Extremists piled in.