February 2, 1999

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 CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

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