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.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of 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.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

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