If you watch the video of Saddam's execution, you can hear his executioners chanting "Moqtada, Moqtada!" They were VERY obviously 'Sadrists,' members of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. To give you a short history lesson, the Mahdi Army has killed hundreds of US troops since the war began, many with Iranian-designed IEDs and EFPs.
Why did Bush allow Mahdi Army members to execute Saddam? Why did US military officials hand-pick Mahdi Army members to do this work? Does it just come down to raw incompetence? These are some of the very LAST guys in Iraq you'd want to carry out the execution.
2007-09-27 08:28:54 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The US didn't pick these people, the Iraqi government did. This internationally-televised incident shed light on the dark truth that the Iraqi government is run by Shi'ites closely tied to radical Shi'ite terrorists such as Muqtada al-Sadr. You can see here a picture of Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki doing a joint press conference after a meeting with al-Sadr:
http://gdb.rferl.org/C6C5B045-0540-4153-9F2A-EA3AAA2B4D12.jpg
al-Sadr's forces were also involved in attacks on US troops
The execution of Saddam Hussein was supposed to be a victory for all Iraqis, but it was run by the extremists, using Shi'ite prayers and praising of Muqtada to mock Saddam and the Sunni minority before his death.
2007-09-27 08:34:47 · answer #1 · answered by MrPotatoHead 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Bush was not in charge of the Iraqi government, the trial, or the execution. The US military were asked to hold Saddam prisoner only because it was the best way for the Iraqi government to be sure he wouldn't be busted out of jail by his gang. This was obviously a real possibility. But the US military turned Saddam over to Iraqi government officials for the execution.
I believe Bush expressed some disappointment at the taunting prior to the execution.
I noticed that when the witnesses started chanting "Moqtada," Saddam laughed. He could predict the future of our relationship with the Mahdi Army! Evil he may have been, but not stupid.
However I think it may have been good that at least some of the witnesses were Sadr supporters; they would be highly credible witnesses to the fact that Saddam Hussein was really dead.
2007-09-27 15:41:12 · answer #2 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Could have been incompetence, but it also could have been because the US wanted to maintain a facade that the Iraqis were in charge of the execution itself. So although the US had custody of Saddam, they were hands off once they turned him over to be killed that day.
2007-09-27 15:35:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I believe it was ignorance. I don't think it was intentional. We (the administration and the military in general) had very little insight into the internal politics in Iraq when we went in.
It's been the biggest problem and the reason the battling factions were such a surprise to us.
It amounts to not having all of your ducks in place, and not doing the homework about what we were getting into.
It's kind of appalling.
2007-09-27 15:43:57 · answer #4 · answered by maxmom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Saddam's crimes were against Iraqi people. It stands to reason that justice, whatever it is, should be carried out by them. To have the US do it would have ticked off many Iraqis who may not have liked him but would have been upset because outsiders did him in.
It is like if Bush were tried and found guilty of a crime or two. Wouldn't you want Americans to take care of him rather than some outsider. The premise is like when we call Bush an idiot. He is our idiot and not someone elses. It was not right for the presient of Iran to call him an Idiot. We can do that because he is our idiot not theirs. The people of Iran call their president an idiot and maybe he is but it is for them to call him that not for us. Same sort of alnalogy.
2007-09-27 15:45:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well, the US isn't taking sides in Iraq. Sure there's sectarian struggle, which Sadr's movement is largely a part of, but we can't very well ban them. The Iraqi government even has Sadr supporters serving in various branches, we are trying to be fair about it, even if it does shoot ourselves in the foot.
2007-09-27 15:37:31 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Give it a rest. The only involvement the US had was lending the aid of our excellent CJ system's principles, including the defense of Ramsey Clark.
2007-09-27 15:38:57 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That was up to Iraqi people and it was an Iraqi hanging.
So take it up with the Iraqis.
Frankly isn't it a little late to bring that up?
2007-09-27 16:10:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The voices came from the crowd who besides watching played no role in the executions.
Just a little lesson in reality.
Nice try though.
2007-09-27 15:37:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
The Iraqi people found him guilty on crimes against humanity or did you miss that part?
2007-09-27 15:35:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋