Name That Dictator

In the 1980s, the U.S. squared off against Moammar Qaddafi. In the 1990s, the new enemy is Saddam Hussein — but it seems little is different except the names.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


If you saw the United States’ December bombing of Iraq as anything other than a suspiciously timed counteraction to the House impeachment hearings, you might have wondered why the military scenario seemed so familiar.

Compare
AP/Wide World Photos

In fact, American tilting at Saddam Hussein in the 1990s is remarkably similar to U.S. tussles in the 1980s with Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi.

But it’s not as though the State Department has a bogeyman-of-the-decade form that it fills out every 10 years — or is it? Sometimes, we’re not so sure.

Dictator straddling strategic waterway? Check. Gushes oil and World War I-era chemical weapons? Check. Attacks neighbors? Check. Talks pan-Arab unity when chips are down? Check. Resists sanctions? Check, check, check.

Read the parallel stories on the following pages. With only the dates and proper names masked (Country X for Libya or Iraq; the President for Reagan, Bush, or Clinton; the Dictator for Hussein or Qaddafi; and so on), can you tell which stories are about Libya and which are about Iraq?

Hand-wringing by European allies? Check. Top Gun-ish air battles between our creaky F-14s and their creaky MiGs? Check. …

 

He’s used gas before …

“It’s dangerous for the entire region, and for the entire world, you could say,” said the State Department spokesman, citing “the Dictator’s regime’s support for terrorism.”

“There are reports that Country X has already used a weapon of mass destruction — chemical weapons — in combat,” said the spokesman, referring to allegations that Country X used chemical weapons while invading a neighboring country several years ago. (Chicago Tribune)


 

The Dictator could still spread toxic agents on at least a limited scale, using low-tech devices such as agricultural sprayers, aerosol dispensers, fog generators or terrorist “suitcase bombs,” U.S. officials say. …

U.S. officials and outside experts predict that the Dictator will soon once again develop the ability to deliver the toxic agents over long distances and with even greater deadly power — on the tips of missiles.

“We’re talking about — and I use the term advisedly — a diabolical effort,” said a senior U.S. official. (Los Angeles Times)

Which is Libya and which is Iraq?

Get the answer — and the next scenario.

WE'LL BE BLUNT:

We need to start raising significantly more in donations from our online community of readers, especially from those who read Mother Jones regularly but have never decided to pitch in because you figured others always will. We also need long-time and new donors, everyone, to keep showing up for us.

In "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," we explain, as matter-of-factly as we can, what exactly our finances look like, how brutal it is to sustain quality journalism right now, what makes Mother Jones different than most of the news out there, and why support from readers is the only thing that keeps us going. Despite the challenges, we're optimistic we can increase the share of online readers who decide to donate—starting with hitting an ambitious $300,000 goal in just three weeks to make sure we can finish our fiscal year break-even in the coming months.

Please learn more about how Mother Jones works and our 47-year history of doing nonprofit journalism that you don't find elsewhere—and help us do it with a donation if you can. We've already cut expenses and hitting our online goal is critical right now.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

We need to start raising significantly more in donations from our online community of readers, especially from those who read Mother Jones regularly but have never decided to pitch in because you figured others always will. We also need long-time and new donors, everyone, to keep showing up for us.

In "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," we explain, as matter-of-factly as we can, what exactly our finances look like, how brutal it is to sustain quality journalism right now, what makes Mother Jones different than most of the news out there, and why support from readers is the only thing that keeps us going. Despite the challenges, we're optimistic we can increase the share of online readers who decide to donate—starting with hitting an ambitious $300,000 goal in just three weeks to make sure we can finish our fiscal year break-even in the coming months.

Please learn more about how Mother Jones works and our 47-year history of doing nonprofit journalism that you don't find elsewhere—and help us do it with a donation if you can. We've already cut expenses and hitting our online goal is critical right now.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate