John Cherian, the leftist foreign editor for Frontline magazine, gives us his assessment on five years of brutal American occupation of Iraq. In a nutshell, Cherian writes, Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein. Cherian gives numerous examples, of course, including the usual set of indicators that make most leftists swoon for the likes of Saddam, Castro, and Mugabe: advancement of women, outstanding health and education systems, standing up to the United States, etc.
Mussolini made the trains run on time but he was still a fascist. Saddam was from the same mold but even crueler. Cherian does not mention this because it would mar an otherwise perfect narrative. In addition, there is no mention on how Saddam dealt with dissent from dissidents, Kurds or Shias - that he simply annihilated them. Saddam was not one for democratic niceties. And, finally, no mention of the fact that the famed Oil For Food program, which was riddled with corruption, did very little to ameliorate the suffering among Iraqis, but did line the pockets of Saddam, his family and his sycophants.
If the United States was brutal as Saddam was, and as colonialist have been in the past, Iraq, perhaps, would be peaceful and prosperous as in Saddam’s time. This is what leftists like Cherian want, right? But I doubt they would be so charitable.