After Saddam Hussein’s forces were defeated in Iraq and driven from Kuwait, US and Allied leaders had a decision to make. Saddam
Hussein was a brutal dictator who victimized his own people and was proven to be willing to engage in warlike activities with neighboring nations. At the same time, the people of Iraq were divided along religious and ethnic lines. Without a strong leader, the country might devolve into chaos. US leaders decided to keep Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq with severe limits on Iraq’s military. It was thought that the instability that might rise without a strong leader in Iraq was worse than Hussein’s brutal rule. Put yourself in the difficult position of making the decision as to whether to remove a dictator from control of an unstable country. What arguments could be made for removing the dictator? What arguments could be made for keeping the dictator in power?
What arguments could be made for removing the dictator?
Arguments for removing the dictator are: allowing the country to establish a democracy. Helping out or improving the situation of those demographic groups that were oppressed by the dictator. Another argument is simply punishing the dictator for his crimes.
What arguments could be made for keeping the dictator in power?
The main argument for keeping the dictator is to ensure the stability of the country, even if such stability is unfair at many times, and comes along with the oppresion of certain social and political groups.
Another argument is simply to prevent the country from getting worse.
A final argument is pragmatic: keeping the dictator in power might serve everyone's interests better. Democratic countries have frequently established ties with authoritarian governments.
In an attempt to expose and criticize the actions of the government against enslaved populations, Helen Hunt Jackson wrote this non-fiction book in order to create critical thinking about the problem.
