WORLD OCTOBER 21, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The pictures of Muammar Qaddafi’s death have made me reflect, as they must have made many people reflect, on the equally gruesome images of Saddam’s death. Did Qaddafi himself think about Saddam, in those last minutes of his life? My question is speculative, but I do not think it is unreasonable.
We do know whom Saddam was thinking about—if not at the moment of his execution, then certainly at his trial in Baghdad, when he came face to face with his impending fate. On December 5, 2005, at the moment when the first witness testified against him, Saddam waved his fist in the courtroom air and cried, “I am Saddam Hussein!” And then he shouted, as reported by Robert F. Worth in The New York Times, “Like the path of Mussolini”—such was his cry—“to resist occupation to the end, that is Saddam Hussein.”
This may have seemed odd, on Saddam’s part, to the many people who keep insisting that extremist ideologies in the Arab world of our own time bear no relation to the fascism of Europe a few generations ago. But the invocation of Mussolini came naturally to Saddam, I would imagine. The invocation was, in any case, prophetic. In 1945, after Mussolini was executed by Italian partisans, his body was cruelly and grotesquely displayed to the public in Milan, upside down on a meathook, where people could throw stones at the corpse. Saddam, upon his own execution, was turned into a similarly barbarous spectacle, by means of the cell-phone cameras of certain Iraqi witnesses—a defeated tyrant, lifeless and demeaned in front of the world.
Tyrants are a brotherhood of anti-brotherhood. They do seem to identify with one another. And the tyrants feel their sinister brotherhood no more keenly than at the moment of their own deaths, when each new executed tyrant reflects upon the death of his predecessors. We know this from the execution of Louis XVI, in 1793. “I will suffer the fate of Charles I,” Louis XVI wrote to his lawyer, referring to the execution of Charles I in England in 1649 (if I may rely on the account given by Chateaubriand). And of whom did Charles Stuart think, as he himself was led to the gallows? Did Charles I reflect on the trial and execution of King Agis of Sparta in 241 B.C.E.—his only obvious precedent? We do not know.
Nor do we know where Qaddafi’s own thoughts led, in his last weeks and minutes. Perhaps someone will tell us. The idea that Qaddafi might have reflected on Saddam seems to me plausible, if only because we know that, after the invasion of Iraq, Qaddafi offered to abandon his own nuclear program—a fact suggesting that Qaddafi was following the Iraqi events closely. Probably the question will never be answered. If only Qaddafi had been brought to trial, we might have learned. He would have enjoyed, as Saddam enjoyed, a last opportunity to wave his fist and to invoke his heroes and role models.
The photographs and videos are horrific. We might take the occasion to recall that tyranny, too, is horrific. And we might soberly reflect that America has been associated, one way or another, with every one of these regicides—apart from that of King Agis of Sparta. America was born, on its Pilgrim Fathers’ side, of the Puritans who brought down Charles I. The overthrow of Louis XVI was directly influenced by the American Revolution of 1776. Saddam was executed as a result of the American-led invasion of 2003. Qaddafi fell victim to a Libyan revolution that triumphed only because of support from NATO and the United States. America’s role in regicidal events is not a reason to gloat. Even the death of a tyrant is a sorrowful occurrence. To shudder at anyone’s untimely death is a humane instinct. Let us shudder. But we have no reason to feel ashamed.
Paul Berman is a contributing editor for The New Republic.
45 comments
I'm slightly ashamed that the uprooting was as brutal as it was. But then again, I didn't live and die in the tyrant's regime for my entire life. Note that the people seen around Qaddafi were young people who have known no other form of government and have never lived without his fear. You have one data point. That's not enough to generalize that all dictators are linked together in a timeless sodality. But it is probably enough if you want to speculate that Qaddafi was hiding in shame. We've seen the pathetic hideout that the rebels wrested him from. Saddam, too, was in a terrible place when he was uprooted. Osama, on the other hand, was living in a fortified bunker when he was surprised to meet the barrel of a gun. I'm sure Wieseltier can write something poetic on the ruminations of the damned.
- chaitless
October 21, 2011 at 11:42am
"Even the death of a tyrant is a sorrowful occurrence" No. It really isn't.
- Tristan
October 21, 2011 at 11:44am
This is unusually silly. Regicide is killing a king (Rex) and, in the cases cited, Christian monarchs who claim to rule by divine hereditary right with deep roots in religion, tradition, history and popular feeling. Saddam and Ghadaffi were something different, unusually successful thugs. Why not include Hitler, Mussolini, Ceausescu, Sukarno among the thugs? Or, on the other side, King Faisal? Heck, even Abraham Lincoln was called a tyrant, by John Wilkes Booth. One could just as well throw him into the soup, no?
- homeros
October 21, 2011 at 11:47am
The video images reminded me of Mussolini's execution.
- arnon
October 21, 2011 at 11:48am
Homeros has a point.
- arnon
October 21, 2011 at 11:49am
...To shudder at anyone’s untimely death is a humane instinct. Let us shudder. But we have no reason to feel ashamed... I'm not following. Is this knocking down a straw man? What reason is being offered for anyone shuddering, ie anyone revulsed at the brutality of Kadaffy's going, feeling ashamed? Who says any such one feels ashamed or feels they ought to?
- basman
October 21, 2011 at 1:05pm
Qaddafi and Saddam have a useful purpose: they make it easy to identify the bad guy and provide a nice contrast to our "friends" who aren't altogether good guys.
- rayward
October 21, 2011 at 2:15pm
..."Even the death of a tyrant is a sorrowful occurrence" No. It really isn't... Methinks it can be. A problem with Hussein and Kadaffy as pure bad guys is that under interest based, balance of power politics they at times were America's friends,and so at a minimum in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine.
- basman
October 21, 2011 at 2:31pm
Personally found the lynching appalling and the westren leaders reaction to it (especially we came we saw he died Clinton) disturbing and beneath us.
- IggyPop
October 21, 2011 at 2:38pm
I feel the same way about qaddafi being shot down like a dog when he could have been taken alive (and the subsequent cheering by many at the footage) as I do when a man is executed for having raped and murdered a child, a man who had previously done time for sexual assault against a child and was (stupidly) released. I am against the death penalty... but am I going to give even a single moment of my time to being sad about this particular execution? That's a big nope. Feel free to call me a hypocrite all you like.
- Tristan
October 21, 2011 at 2:53pm
Just a note and one more thought: ...That's a big nope. Feel free to call me a hypocrite all you like... I'd call this anticipatory defensiveness. Regardless, I for one understand you "big nope" and wouldn't call you a hypocrite over it. The other thing: Kadaffy's death was so brutal and bloody and pounded into our heads so relentlessly that it's not hard to understand in our mix of emotions some pity for even him and some revulsion at the treatment of him--Berman's "shudder" I presume.
- basman
October 21, 2011 at 5:14pm
nope I feel zero pity for Gadhafi, the soldiers there said "we want him alive" he was bloody because Nato had taken out his convoy and he had been lucky enough to be in a car that was not directly hit but still suffered extensive damage (you be in a line of vehicles where the front one is hit by a hellfire missile and see how it goes). We don't know if there were elements of Gadhafi forces who attacked, remember it was in Sirte which had not yet been secured, and if the freedom fighters killed him so that he would not escape or was killed in the crossfire or it is entirely possible one soldier who had lost his family just blew Gadhafi away, what is sure is that it was not an organized lynching. So I think Basman is wrong, he is leaping to conclusions where the facts are not in evidence. Gadhafis convoy was hit by a hellfire missile, he fled into a drainage ditch with a few other men. The images we have are of him being handled roughly but not being torn apart, he managed to wipe blood from his face, demanded to be treated better, these are not the reactions of someone being pounded on by an out of control mob.
- blackton
October 21, 2011 at 8:04pm
Always happy to be guided by the evidence.
- basman
October 21, 2011 at 9:42pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/gaddafi-how-did-he-die?newsfeed=true ...There is footage of what appears to be a mob attack on Gaddafi on the ground. The difficulty with this segment is that it is not clear whether Gaddafi is alive or dead. In the other fragments that appear to show him alive he is wearing a gold coloured tunic and trousers. By the time this footage has been taken, his shirt has been removed suggesting it may be later in the sequence of clips – perhaps after Gaddafi was already dead...
- basman
October 21, 2011 at 9:46pm
Nevertheless, Gaddafi would have shown no mercy to anyone had his forces regained power and defeated the Transitional Council and the rebel army. Anyone who thinks he would have is either a knave or a fool, and to that extent he met the end that he, with his notion of authority and power, liked to intimidate others with.
- ironyroad
October 21, 2011 at 10:10pm
I get the sense the cross fire thing is bogus, having just watched some footage and heard some up to date accounts on CNN. That footage also showed him shot and bloody, getting stomped on and punched out by those in whose custody he was. So, yeah, one of my mixed feelings is the shudder of pity Berman ends his piece referring to, saying, rightly, we need not feel ashamed for it (now answering my own previus question about that.) Instructive here too is the difference between pity and compassion. That Kadaffy met with an end like the ends he wielded is to no point here that I can see. And shuddering has zero to do with thinking that Kadaffy would have shown mercy. That last, thinking he'd show mercy, is a gigantic straw man, neither suggested nor initimated here by anyone be they knave, fool or anything else.
- basman
October 21, 2011 at 10:45pm
According to the American ultra left, Khadaffy was a hero of the struggle against American imperialism, and a real humanitarian. No matter how far left you are, there is a always some psychopath like Noam Chomsky or Alexander Cockburn who does you one better. http://www.counterpunch.org/ William F. Buckley way back in the fifties read the John Birchers and the anti-Semites out of the conservative movement. When are liberals going to clean up their house and denounce the totalitarian, anti-Semitic, anti-Western, left?
- bulbman1066
October 21, 2011 at 11:12pm
Apparently relatively few people think of themselves as evil or enjoy hurting others. Most of us have enough empathy that we want to think of ourselves as good and don't want to harm others. History shows, however, that we have huge capacity to rationalize evil activities as necessary. The line is not that clear. If one of us kills or hurts someone in clear self-defense, such action seems clearly justifiable. If we spot somebody we believe to be dangerous, but not at the moment engaged in some clearly threatening or dangerous activity, and we take him or her out in a preemptive strike we are getting on shaky ethical ground. If we engage in violent (but justifiable) action but start to enjoy it or get a taste for it, we are also on shaky ethical ground. Something like a sheep dog that kills a coyote and then begins to "think," that was fun and the blood tasted good, why not take a bit of sheep while I at it? I'm glad Khaddafy is gone. I'm not sad that he was killed. I don't know the "facts" of his killing in detail, but given the situation (fog of war), I don't think there is much justification to quibble about it happening. With all that said, any times humans are intentionally killing other humans, the situation is sad and we are not any where near the best humans can be.
- skahn
October 22, 2011 at 12:39am
Imagine if a Republican president had taken out Qaddafi. Liberals would be howling and squealing and wetting their knickers. There is something to be said for divided government. I wouldn't be altogether displeased if Obama wins a second term and the Republicans take both houses of Congress. Obama would have to do a Bill Clinton, to the benefit of the country. Remember the nineties.
- bulbman1066
October 22, 2011 at 12:50am
If neither knaves nor fools, here nor anywhere else, intimated anything at all, I am certainly not going to raise straw men to knock down. I mean, that would be silly, right?
- ironyroad
October 22, 2011 at 1:17am
>With all that said, any times humans are intentionally killing other humans, the >situation is sad and we are not any where near the best humans can be. skhan, that is meaningless sentimental drivel. Would you condemn the attempted assassination of Hitler by Claus von Stauffenberg and other brave souls? Would you condemn the assassination of Islamo-fascist terrorists by President Obama? Far from being sad, the killing of a scum sucking pig like Qaffadi is an occasion for celebration on the part of all decent human beings.
- bulbman1066
October 22, 2011 at 1:18am
...f neither knaves nor fools, here nor anywhere else, intimated anything at all, I am certainly not going to raise straw men to knock down. I mean, that would be silly, right?... Yeah, for sure. And that's what I don't get. You said: ...Nevertheless, Gaddafi would have shown no mercy to anyone had his forces regained power and defeated the Transitional Council and the rebel army. Anyone who thinks he would have is either a knave or a fool, and to that extent he met the end that he, with his notion of authority and power, liked to intimidate others with... That's a strongly intoned rebuttal to what point made *here* by whom relevant to what issue being mooted here how? If you are not, by your castigation of the knaves and fools thinking that Kadaffy would have been merciful, touching on such point, made *here" by someone here, going to some issue being mooted here, isn't that knocking down a strong man?
- basman
October 22, 2011 at 10:22am
Then again there is the poetry of A.R. Ammons who, I'm ashamed to say, I never read before today and just knocks me out. Makes whether a straw man seem an exercise in nonsense. ...After a long muggy hanging day the raindrops started so sparse the bumblebee flew between them home... Like a fleshier W.C.W.
- basman
October 22, 2011 at 1:26pm
Basman, are you trying to rile me just for fun, or what? It was an independently focused comment responding in a general way (not specific to any poster's comments) to the issues raised in Berman's post and the discussion that follows. To spell it out more painstakingly, there is no implication that knaves or fools are represented among the posters with comments prior to mine. Or indeed subsequent to mine. OK? As you noted yourself, for example, shuddering has nothing to do with whether or not G. would have shown mercy (he wouldn't have, of course, so the conditional is entirely rhetorical, but whatever), so the shudderer is not per se either a knave or a fool. Indeed, s/he is showing a normal human reaction to violent death, and I don't see where I disputed that.
- ironyroad
October 22, 2011 at 1:28pm
OK! At 10/22/2011 - 10:22am EDT and before I thought I had a point. Time eviscerated whatever I thought was the point to pointlessness. Hence me trying, graciously I thought, to change the subject vis a vis 10/22/2011 - 1:26pm EDT and to make clear the former subject's silliness, the delict mine. Ok?
- basman
October 22, 2011 at 1:36pm
basman, the video footage is all grainy, it was in an active war zone in the city of Sirte that had not yet been secured. If I had been there and believed that Gadhafi and his guards were within that sewer I would have thrown hand grenades in first. Would you have considered that wrong or simple self defense. I think it is apparent that there were people there that wanted him captured alive and to somehow state that his death represents a failure of humanity which would precipitate a shudder is a reach. Likely one young soldier lost it, he was shot once in the head, not bullet ridden and torn to shreds which would have been what a mob would have done.
- blackton
October 22, 2011 at 2:28pm
and bulbman, what absolute bullshit. I supported the war in Iraq, was happy to see the Husseins eliminated but was sickened and outraged at the gross incompetence of the Bush administration in their execution of the war. When the first Bush drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait papa Bush's approval rating skyrocketed, why the hell were Democrats not screaming and squeeling then...or could it be that Democrats, at least, appreciate success. Republican assholes are trying to state that Gadhafi was brought down because of....you guess it...Bush. (after all, if we did not invade Iraq the freedom fighters would not have risen up...8 years later...or something)
- blackton
October 22, 2011 at 2:32pm
Bush the Elder drove Saddam out of Kuwait with only a handful of Democratic votes. Aren't you ashamed of that? It took Bush way too long to find a winning strategy in Iraq. It is true, as Bush's defenders point out, that no war in history has gone as planned. But Bush shouldn't have taken so long to put General Petraeus in change. Democrats who supported the war turned against it when the going got tough. They tried to politicize the war to their own advantage. That was unprincipled and unpatriotic behavior.
- bulbman1066
October 22, 2011 at 3:17pm
Yes indeed, basman, ok x 2 and apologies for not grasping the A.R. Ammons -- but have you heard Gillian Welch's CD "Time (The Eviscerator)"? Actually, it's "Time (The Revelator)" but your phrase provoked an inner grin.
- ironyroad
October 22, 2011 at 3:34pm
Blackton, you I think you take me wrong. I'm not meaning to judge the rightness or wongness of how Kadaffy was killed. And I'm not pronouncing on how that happened. Rather I'm applying what Berman finally said, which I didn't at first understand, but now think I do, namely: ...Even the death of a tyrant is a sorrowful occurrence. To shudder at anyone’s untimely death is a humane instinct. Let us shudder. But we have no reason to feel ashamed... to the footage I saw of a bleeding, shot and fading fast Kadaffy being stomped, kicked, punched out and handled exceedingly roughly. One of my immediate and abiding responses to that savaging was to shudder, the shudder comprised by shock and sadness, the latter taking the form of some pity, for which response I feel no shame. My present thought is it would have been better, were it possible, in these particular Libyan circumstances, to have had him tried in an appropriate form by an appropriate tribunal and (almost certainly) sentenced to death. I say this ona number of grounds, not the least of which is the theory that revenge is a dish best eaten coled and well prepared.
- basman
October 22, 2011 at 5:13pm
Irony, good x 2 and I'll check out the Welch.
- basman
October 22, 2011 at 5:14pm
basman, your post is utterly clueless. If the rebels had left Daffy alive he might have provided a rallying point for his followers, and further combat might have resulted in the lost of thousands of more lives. On top of that Libya doesn't have a legal system. The Daff man got what was was coming to him. Anybody who says otherwise is a liberal hermaphrodite (but I repeat myself).
- bulbman1066
October 23, 2011 at 12:29am
"The Daff man got what was was coming to him. Anybody who says otherwise is a liberal hermaphrodite (but I repeat myself)." Drawing and quartering was an unusually cruel punishment during the Middle Ages and was given to particularly egregious traitors in the Sceptred Isle we call England. But it was done after some sort of judicial process. Kaddaffy deserved the manner of his death but how much more reassuring would it have been to know that the rebels could have exerted some kind of self-discipline in the administering of that deserved end. It's not about what the loon deserved. It wasn't an assassination, which is done in cool, controlled and fast execution. In killing him in this way the rebels proved that they were his match, they shared his violent worldview. And that's not a promising start for a democracy or even just a decent kind of governance.
- noga1
October 23, 2011 at 7:46am
Too bloody for my taste Bulbman. If the calculation was that keeping Kadaffy alive for a while to give him some process meant necessarily more fighting and killing, then I grant you your point to a point. That grant of course depends on the cogency of that calculation. But then either a more truncated process to upend that calculation would have been preferable. And if not that then at least a rational dispatching of him as set out in post 10/23/2011. But on what you say Bulbman there was no calculation. What you speak to is cheering on lawless, blood letting savagery. Last time I checked, not that long ago, my hermaphroditism was, as usual lately, non existent. You oftern take the piss out of your own arguments by being needlessly splenetic.
- basman
October 23, 2011 at 12:18pm
>You often take the piss out of your own arguments by being needlessly splenetic. That's a good point, a solid piece of constructive criticism. Thanks for offering it.
- bulbman1066
October 23, 2011 at 7:21pm
noga1, Let's hope the day comes when there is the rule of law everywhere, including Libya. But in fairness to the Libyans who lynched Khadaffi they live in a country, and a culture, where the rule of law is not even a concept. Look at the situation in Iraq. Given every opportunity to develop some kind of constitutional democracy, they persist in remaining stuck in loyalty to clan, tribe and sect. The Islamic world is a civilization that is still in the Dark Ages. They need to have a Renaissance and an Enlightenment in short order. Good luck with that. Idealists like G.W. Bush believe that all people long to be free. But it turns out that the the concept of freedom is culturally specific, and that the only places it has grown organically are Great Britain, the United States, Switzerland, France, the Scandinavian countries, the Baltic States. Poland, and the Czech Republic. Latin America presents a collection of intermediate cases. India and Japan are exceptions to "you can't impose democracy from the outside".
- bulbman1066
October 23, 2011 at 7:54pm
Even if the rebels had wanted to take Khadaffi alive they couldn't have. The K. man said that he wouldn't be taken alive, and I don't doubt he meant it. The lynching of Khadaffi had net humanitarian effects. It he had been captured he might have been able to rally his followers, and the civil war might have dragged on for months if not years.
- bulbman1066
October 23, 2011 at 8:01pm
The great seal of Virginia pictures a triumphant Virtue astride a conquered tyrant, whose crown lies nearby. The caption, in Latin, reads "Thus Ever to Tyrants." Would that it had ever been so with us. Instead, we find two competing traditions. One that opposes tyranny, or what we consider tyranny in the context of the time: George III, Santa Anna, the Kaiser, Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, Khomeini, Khadaffy. On the other hand, we've been famous for our support of tyrants. In the last 100 years, we've supported Stalin (during WW II), Noriega (Panama), Batista (Cuba), Saddam Hussein himself (in his glory years), Pinochet (Chile), and the Shah of Iran, just to name a few. I think our confusion may be best reflected by John Wilkes Booth, just after he shot Abraham Lincoln. "Sic semper tyrannis!" Wilkes yelled. Well, maybe.
- unclejeems
October 23, 2011 at 8:11pm
bulbman1066: You claimed that "The Daff man got what was was coming to him. Anybody who says otherwise is a liberal hermaphrodite (but I repeat myself)." I understood it to mean that in your opinion the lynching was merited because he was an evil man. Now you are saying that the society that killed him is violent and that we shouldn't have any other expectations from it. So perhaps you and I are in basic agreement in what I said, that the rebels proved that they were G's match, that they shared his violent worldview, and that this is not a promising start for a democracy or even just a decent kind of governance.
- noga1
October 23, 2011 at 8:18pm
I see a number of high ranked and place voices calling for an investigation of Kadaffy's death, wishing he would have met his end some other way, some wishing there had been some process either in Libya or internationally. Clearly the issue is at a minimum debatable one. I wasn't feeling clueless, but did take some comfort from these voices that some influential in the world have decided to rally to my position, no doubt after reviewing the comments on this thread.
- basman
October 24, 2011 at 10:50am
"Anybody who says otherwise is a liberal hermaphrodite" Meanwhile, of course, the Republican hermaphrodite is busy explaining to Fox News that s/he is the victim of the liberal media's campaign of vilification, that s/he never accepted federal hermaphrodite funding, and that s/he has always been two completely distinct genders that individually share the Tea Party's position on deregulation and tax cuts.
- ironyroad
October 24, 2011 at 1:48pm
"I understood it to mean that in your opinion the lynching was merited because he was an evil man. Now you are saying that the society that killed him is violent and that we shouldn't have any other expectations from it. So perhaps you and I are in basic agreement in what I said, that the rebels proved that they were G's match, that they shared his violent worldview, and that this is not a promising start for a democracy or even just a decent kind of governance." It's not so much the treatment of Kadaffy that suggests that the prospect for democracy or even good governance in Libya is slim, as it is the treatment of prisoners by the rebels. That and the total absence of the rule of law and of civil society. I suppose the best that can be hoped for is a dictator less loony that the late Col. K. I guess someday the oil will run out and the only place you'll read about the Arab countries will be in the National Geographic.
- bulbman1066
October 24, 2011 at 3:27pm
Colonel K's death was of his own choosing. He could and should have gone into exile like Idi Amin. No?
- bulbman1066
October 24, 2011 at 3:32pm
bulbman1066: Your observation has nothing to do with the issue with are talking about. This is not about K's preferences or just deserts. This is about something else. It is about the quality of the culture and society poised to take over liberated Libya and how there is no distinction between their kind of violence and his. He may have deserved his gory end but they were supposed to be something better.
- noga1
October 24, 2011 at 5:03pm
Noga1, if you re-read what I have written my position is pretty much the same as yours. We are talking about a society that shares few of our values. The best that can be hoped for is the next dictator in Libya will be sane, and willing to cut a deal with the West along the lines of you help us make money with our oil and we won't engage in terrorism or ally with terrorists. Khadaffi himself made a deal along those lines. But he made so many enemies over the course of his career that he ended up getting overthrown. It's true that the rebels couldn't have won without American and French help. But the Americans and French took the right course of action. It was time for Col. K. to either step down or be stepped down".
- bulbman1066
October 24, 2011 at 7:02pm