Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, and a very successful one. If a terrorist is someone who seeks political ends through violence and terror or the threat of violence and terror against civilians, then Saddam fits the definition to a T. Saddam didn’t just imprison political prisoners but tortured them; he didn’t just execute political prisoners but made their deaths as ghastly as possible to deter any dissent. Yet somehow we don’t seem to consider Saddam and those like him as terrorists because they achieved their aims. Instead, we seem to only consider failed terrorists as real terrorists. The successful ones, like Saddam, or Castro, or Khadafy, or Lenin, or even Mugabe or Marcos aren’t considered terrorists once they seize power and achieve the objective of their terror – namely power. No, its failed movements like the IRA, or Basque separatists (ETA), Shining Path in Peru, or lone wackos like Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) that we label as terrorists. Yet their motives and methods are the same — only the scale and success differ.

We may talk of state sponsored terrorism when once country uses terrorism against another, like Pakistan does in Kashmir or Syria (and previously Iraq) against Israel, but we never mention that some states are simply ruled by terrorist organizations that have taken over the country. What is the difference between Saddam Hussein and Abu Nidal, or between Fidel Castro and Abu Abbas? One has achieved his goal, and the other one didn’t. That’s it. Is Yasser Arafat a terrorist or the head of state? He’s both, and at the very same time. He and his government probably kill about as many (same order of magnitude) Palestinians it claims to represent as it does Israeli’s it wages war against. 

I suppose it’s too unsettling to consider that governments can be the cause of misery rather than the promoting the general welfare. I suppose the understanding that too many countries are ruled by terrorists would shame us for our indifference to the plight of our fellow man forced to live in those countries. We don’t have the ability to topple every terrorist organization masquerading as a government; it’s easier to ignore our limitations than to recognize them. 

We also like to think that violence never settles anything. Yet far from being ineffective, violence is far too effective. And even worse, the person who ups the ante on the violence tends to be the winner. Its usually the dictator who manifested a scruple who is overthrown than the one who is willing to do anything to stay in power. Thus the real problem isn’t that it is ineffective, but that the outcome is usually not the one we want or deem fair or right. Might doesn’t make right, but it usually makes the victor.