There shall be a haste to arrange a short shrift and a long jump for Saddam Hussein. Whether it is a befitting departure for a person who had the attributes of handsomeness, leadership and focus of power in him, may not be decidable from a this-worldly perspective alone.

If this man was of noble attributes, which came in combination with a vicious destiny, then there are other arenas to be searched for the reasons of his emerging tragedy.

In many ways, all leaders of negative social systems are doomed to be despoiled by the requirements of their social systems.

Even Napoleon and Hitler, despite exhibiting grand mental stamina, remained in the clutches of their social system. They could come to power and maintain it only by playing out dubious games that was naturally required by their social systems. Napoleon may be called a genius in administrative reforms, and in natural leadership. Yet, he could whet these qualities only by an enduring appeal to mass emotions that fringed on dangerous themes. Same can be said of Hitler, who doubtless had qualities of understanding the essential requirements of German Language codes and connected social passions. When he played the game correctly, he came to power. Yet, the same codes held him to ransom. He cannot leave it and take a newer stand.

I do not know much about Saddam Hussein. His army did a lot of atrocities, it is said. It is possibly true. He acted on moods of vengeance, when he was targeted for assassination.

If it is military atrocities that categorises him for the long jump, then the administrators of many other nations, including Pakistan, India, Philippines, South American nations, and many African nations, also may have to be given the facility for the long jump. If it is that he personally gave command for the military atrocities, then there are moods that can only be understood from the undercurrents of the local social codes. These things remain outside the parameters of English understandings.

The reality is that if Saddam Hussein has shown villainy, the reasons may be in the vicious social system of Iraq. Saddam may be only one among a long list of administrators there who may come and go; yet the essential manner in which they run the nation may have a sameness, which can be discerned only by studying this nation’s long, very long periods of history. After Saddam is gone, will Iraq show a change in its social codes? I doubt. It will repeat. The new leaders, either as dictators or as groups, essentially will function in the same manner; maybe with a little more refined cunningness. The leaders can only exist in a particular area decided by the language. Maybe individual leaders may show personal peculiarities; but they all will be confined inside large parameters of common thought processes, and emotional triggers.

What is the English nations’ mistake here? America has, over the years, been a champion of individual freedom and a nonsense called democracy. The shallow intellectuals of America sees democracy as something they have produced from some American machinery that can be sold to other nations at will. Being a nation devoid of long historical and administrative experiences, that should have naturally given them the present day administrative and scientific advances, they have been misled to believe in some sort of magical formula in them that has made them reach the height.

Actually, America is not a nation that sprung out of sheer vacuum, one fine morning, when George Washington and his Yankee Doodles arrived with the Stars and Stripes. It was a nation that literally used all British experiences of immense centuries, along with the lessons of fascinating and unique political experiments that took place there. Britain itself was given much international inputs by its colonial experiences, which were imbibed after a lot of scrutiny and filtering, by the various inbuilt institutions that did the functions of checks and balance. Now America is devoid of this essential input.

What this creates is a scenario wherein America is led by persons who are academically brilliant, yet with near zero understanding of international people’s mood. A few years back I did see the Senate question of one of the senior persons in the US administration. The way finesse with which she answered the various question were of brilliant levels, reminding me of senior administrator of Indian administration, who are terminologically correct and superb. Yet, international relations cannot be confined to the shallow terminologies of the academic subject called Politics and International Relations. This shallow subject does not detect the other emotions that move human emotions and focuses of emotional appeal.

I am saying all this to say that whatever happens in Iraq will repeat, maybe with more viciousness; why should the English nations taint their conscience with terrible things that will be done by the traditional leaders of these nations. Be it India, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, China, South America, Vietnam, Sir Lanka, African nations; keep a sharp distance from all contending groups. Even in South Africa, the issues are more complicated than mere colour issues. Supporting any group in any of these places, can be in the eyes of God a most sinful act. For, they all have are reacting to emotions and hurts that cannot be detected from English. Moreover, the passions and charisma that exist in these places are all with certain diabolic characters.

Thinking that all these things can be beaten flat into a universal sameness using a very feebly understood stick called democracy could be the height of folly; of historic proportions.5