Pondering a bit on Saddam’s remarkable stupidity.

Since 1989, we’ve performed a number of experiments in knocking down a variety of brutal dictators. So far, all the experiments have succeeded in an astonishingly easy way. Even the “futurists” and writers of alternate-history SF novels didn’t foresee any of this as late as 1988.

Why is it so easy? Why do dictatorships break like eggshells when tapped at the right place? Dictators are just stupid bully-boys who hold power by killing everybody smarter than themselves. Is that their weakness?

Are there any important exceptions?

Or maybe the better question is “Why did we believe that brutal dictators are a normal and perpetual part of nature?” … or … “Who led us to believe that, and what advantage was gained by maintaining that belief?”

I think part of it is that dictators are much harder to oust early in their rein than later. The bad effects of dictatorship take time to rot out the country.

There’s also the Bay of Pigs. That set the tone for this kind of thing for a long time.

As for assuming that dictators are a “normal and perpetual part of nature”, when haven’t they been? That’s 95% of the history of government. People in America have difficult understanding just how wonderful and unique our government is. It is certainly far from the historical norm.

Finally, there’s issue of ousting vs. repair. It will cost a lot more lives and money to repair Iraq than it took to occupy it. Does that count as part of the cost of ousting the Ba’ath?