Ex-CIA officer says Saddam should have been left to run Iraq

[Dawood Ibrahim]

WASHINGTON: John Nixon, a former CIA officer who interrogated Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, said recently that the man should have been left to run the country, stating that it would have been a better option.

John Nixon will be revealing lots of discussions he had with the former Iraqi dictator, when he had the chance of interrogating him in 2003 after Saddam was captured by coalition forces. He disclosed that Saddam had predicted to him during their various sessions that USA would not be able to govern Iraq since the occupying forces did not understand the minds of Arabs.

"When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: 'You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.' When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: 'You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.' "

According to Nixon, though Saddam was a brutal leader who often used excessive tactics, militant groups such as the Islamic State would never have gained a foothold in the country.

"Saddam's leadership style and penchant for brutality were among the many faults of his regime, but he could be ruthlessly decisive when he felt his power base was threatened, and it is far from certain that his regime would have been overthrown by a movement of popular discontent," he wrote. "Likewise, it is improbable that a group like ISIS would have been able to enjoy the kind of success under his repressive regime that they have had under the Shia-led Baghdad government."

The former CIA chief said that though he didn't like Saddam Hussein, he came away with a 'grudging respect' for the Iraqi dictator for keeping the country as a whole for as long as he did.

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1...s-Saddam-should-have-been-allowed-to-run-Iraq

@war&peace @Indus Falcon @Khafee

 

[Serpentine]

This Ex-CIA officer can literally go to hell with his ridiculous statement.

 

[war&peace]

Exactly that's what all peaceful people of the world think now. He was iron fisted but charismatic leader who kept everything under control..there was no ISIS and sectarian issues...Middle-East was a peaceful place..But he made an idiotic mistake of attacking Kuwait which provided USA an excuse to attack Iraq and finally bring the terrorist like Noori Malki in power who destroyed Iraq and rest of the middle east by spreading sectarian hate and corruption.

 

[Dawood Ibrahim]

Exactly that's what all peaceful people of the world think now. He was iron fisted but charismatic leader who kept everything under control..there was no ISIS and sectarian issues...Middle-East was a peaceful place..But he made an idiotic mistake of attacking Kuwait which provided USA an excuse to attack Iraq and finally bring the terrorist like Noori Malki in power who destroyed Iraq and rest of the middle east by spreading sectarian hate and corruption.

KUWAIT war was because of Kuwait fault. Which led this to happen

 

[T-72]

who cares about some ex CIA

 

[YeBeWarned]

Iraq will never be the same again no matter which country or sect ruled it .. Thanks to Yanks they have divide the country into 3 fractions Sunni , Shia's and Kurds ..

 

[somebozo]

a planned and negotiated exit of Saddam would have been highly favorable solution to war...

 

[maximuswarrior]

Too little too late Yanks. No use crying over spilt milk. The damage has been done and the world is paying in blood.

 

[Khanate]

Iraq only exists on a map. It is no longer a nation-state.

If you read the Kurdish media, they have been demanding and discussing independence for years now. They are essentially a separate state in Iraq.

 

[Serpentine]

Exactly that's what all peaceful people of the world think now. He was iron fisted but charismatic leader who kept everything under control..there was no ISIS and sectarian issues...Middle-East was a peaceful place..But he made an idiotic mistake of attacking Kuwait which provided USA an excuse to attack Iraq and finally bring the terrorist like Noori Malki in power who destroyed Iraq and rest of the middle east by spreading sectarian hate and corruption.

Interesting since you mentioned terrorism, because Saddam was the greatest terrorist in contemporary history of Middle East. The reason Iraq is like this is that Sunnis in Iraq started violence from day 1 after American invasion, they can not get it into their heads that they can't rule Iraq like Saddam's era anymore.

And Saddam Hussein wasn't in control always. In 1991, he lost most provinces of Iraq to Shia and Kurdish demonstrators and it was only because of silence of international community and use of excessive force (and the fact that Shias weren't nutjobs who would create terrorist groups like Nusra/Ahral al-Sham, ISIS in today's Syria and Iraq) that he could rule Iraq until 2003. Iraq used to be a prosperous country in 60s and 70s, but the bastard attacked Iran and then Kuwait and brought Iraq the misery it is fighting to this very day.

Go tell common Iraqi in streets of Baghdad that Saddam was a good ruler and they will slap you in the face left and right.

a planned and negotiated exit of Saddam would have been highly favorable solution to war...

U.S could easily topple Saddam in 1991, but they didn't and it is also one of the reason Iraq is in current situation. They destroyed Iraq in 1991, but let a humiliated lunatic to continue ruling Iraq and take his revenge from the Iraqi people instead until 12 years later. If Sadaam had been toppled in 1991, Iraq would be in a much better shape today. But Americans used Saddam like a used toilet paper and threw him away only when they thought it suits them.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Interesting since you mentioned terrorism, because Saddam was the greatest terrorist in contemporary history of Middle East. The reason Iraq is like this is that Sunnis in Iraq started violence from day 1 after American invasion, they can not get it into their heads that they can't rule Iraq like Saddam's era anymore.

And Saddam Hussein wasn't in control always. In 1991, he lost most provinces of Iraq to Shia and Kurdish demonstrators and it was only because of silence of international community and use of excessive force (and the fact that Shias weren't nutjobs who would create terrorist groups like Nusra/Ahral al-Sham, ISIS in today's Syria and Iraq) that he could rule Iraq until 2003. Iraq used to be a prosperous country in 60s and 70s, but the bastard attacked Iran and then Kuwait and brought Iraq the misery it is fighting to this very day.

Go tell common Iraqi in streets of Baghdad that Saddam was a good ruler and they will slap you in the face left and right.



U.S could easily topple Saddam in 1991, but they didn't and it is also one of the reason Iraq is in current situation. They destroyed Iraq in 1991, but let a humiliated lunatic to continue ruling Iraq and take his revenge from the Iraqi people instead until 12 years later. If Sadaam had been toppled in 1991, Iraq would be in a much better shape today. But Americans used Saddam like a used toilet paper and threw him away only when they thought it suits them.

So you are grateful we invaded and toppled Saddam, since he was your country's biggest stumbling block towards Iranian expansion/influence in the region. Can blame you though, it's normal.

To be honest though, I agree with this CIA officer. I do admit that the U.S and U.K did a big mistake toppling Saddam. It destroyed the balance of power that existed in the region.
Sometimes we should let these people in the region deal with their issues, sectarianism and dictators themselves without intervening directly like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. That way they won't blame us like always. I believe we did the right thing by our parliament voting against imposing a no fly zone in Syria(toppling Assad) and Obama refusal to attack Syria after ASSAD(just like Saddam before him) crossed that "red line" by using chemical weapons against his own people.
It was the best thing to do. Let them sort out their mess themselves. We should limit ourselves in dealing with consequences of non intervention and limiting our involvement.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

So you are grateful we invaded and toppled Saddam, since he was your country's biggest stumbling block towards Iranian expansion/influence in the region.

To be honest, I do admit that the U.S and U.K did a big mistake toppling Saddam. It destroyed the balance of power that existed in the region.

When you cannot remove an enemy/adversary yourself, you can always cheer when an supposed enemy (USA) removes that enemy (Saddam) in question, for you.

Funnily enough almost everything that he said about Saddam can be applied to the Mullah's that he supports and the current Iraqi regime and past Iraqi regimes post 2003.

 

[Serpentine]

So you are grateful we invaded and toppled Saddam, since he was your country's biggest stumbling block towards Iranian expansion/influence in the region. Can blame you though, it's normal.

To be honest though, I agree with this CIA officer. I do admit that the U.S and U.K did a big mistake toppling Saddam. It destroyed the balance of power that existed in the region.
Sometimes we should let these people in the region deal with their issues, sectarianism and dictators themselves without intervening directly like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. That way they won't blame us like always. I believe we did the right thing by our parliament voting against imposing a no fly zone in Syria(toppling Assad) and Obama refusal to attack Syria after ASSAD(just like Saddam before him) crossed that "red line" by using chemical weapons against his own people.
It was the best thing to do. Let them sort out their mess themselves. We should limit ourselves in dealing with consequences of non intervention and limiting our involvement.

No, I don't support the disasterous 2003 invasion by the nutjob Bush and smaller nutjob, Blair. The point is, if there was any plan to overthrow him, it should have been done in 1991 and not in 2003 and Iraq would be in a much much better shape today if that was the case. But back then in 1991, Saddam had not still overstayed his usefulness. Yes Saddam was Iran's enemy, but after 1991, he was only a paper tiger. He couldn't and wouldn't d anything against Iran anymore.

 

[The SC]

Wow, it took CIA almost 20 years of analysis to come to this conclusion.. how idiotic..

 

[TruthSeeker]

Don't you think this is a sweeping and racist statement and especially coming from an able TTA?
A bad instance for the other members on the forum?

Yes. You are right that my post is in bad taste. "Racist" is not correct. I was being anti-ethnic, not racist. That is, my sweeping condemnation was prompted by my opinion of Arab culture rather than any negative opinion about Arab genetic material or innate abilities. I have removed my post. It will live in your quote, however.