I. WHAT WAS IN IT FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN?

When no weapons of mass-destruction were found in Iraq, it became easier to pose a question that had not been raised earlier: What was in it for Saddam Hussein? Why had Saddam Hussein not let the inspectors do their work? If he had acted less provocatively, perhaps the United States would have backed off. Why did he not make a greater effort to avoid the outbreak of a hopeless war—to prevent the assault that destroyed his castles and kingdom, killed his sons, forced him to live in a hole in the ground, and led to his execution?

In the build up to the war (and even now) commentators rarely posed—much less attempted to answer—these questions, which essentially are psychological ones. We may pose a broader question: Why is psychology absent in our efforts to ameliorate political violence that endangers the future of the human race?

On Dr. Phil television programs—and many others like it—people spend endless hours talking about psychological motives and individual pathologies: why people gain weight, why relationships fail, why families fall apart, etc. Within the disciplines of psychiatry, individual forms of psychopathology are classified and probed in depth. Millions of people seek psychotherapy and counseling in order to understand their personal problems. Yet upon the stage of international politics, psychological issues rarely are raised or addressed.

Before the war, Iraq was a nation about the size of California. Iraq’s population consisted of approximately 26 million people (12 million fewer than currently reside in California). As the war began, Iraq possessed virtually no defenses to deflect the massive American aerial assault. Yet—before military action was initiated—Saddam Hussein did little to prevent an encounter with the greatest military power in the world.

The first Gulf War had begun twelve years earlier—on January 17, 1991. In this case as well, Hussein made little or no effort to dissuade the American attack.  When it became evident that Saddam Hussein was not going to back down and withdraw his troops from Kuwait, U. N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar said (on August 27, 1990): "I cannot imagine that someone wants war for the pleasure of killing his own people."

In November 1997, Hussein again provoked a military showdown with the United States by going to great lengths to obstruct UN inspections. Military analysts were hard pressed to understand why Hussein was pushing the confrontation so far. "It’s a big puzzle," said W. Seth Carus, an analyst at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, a Pentagon think tank. "The cost to Iraq is almost unaccountable. In terms of direct oil revenue losses, you are talking about surrendering $100 million plus (see “Enigma: Why Saddam Courts Disaster”).

If Saddam had cooperated with the UN and turned over suspected stocks of biological and chemical weapons, analysts say, he could have won an end to the sanctions. Instead, he was confronting once again the world’s mightiest military power. As the probability of unilateral American military action grew, analysts were baffled. Dr. Carus concluded: "I think this has a lot to do with the psychology of Saddam."

On March 11, 2003, Charlie Rose interviewed Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British Ambassador to the United Nations—shortly before the outbreak of the second US-Iraqi war (the invasion began on March 19, 2003). The Ambassador described the machinations of diplomacy, providing detailed arguments on why war was necessary. Then Rose bent over the table and asked the Ambassador, "But what’s in this for Saddam Hussein? Doesn’t he know what’s going to happen to him?"

Taken aback by the question, the Ambassador replied, "Maybe he does think he can win. Maybe he’s stupid." Rose leaned over the table again and said, "Saddam Hussein isn’t stupid." At a loss, the British Ambassador terminated the discussion: "We don’t care what his motives are." Why such willingness to go to war—yet such a refusal to analyze the motives that compel human beings to go to war?

David Brooks on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on January 24, 2003 noted that analysis of Hussein’s intentions—his vision and what he wanted—had been entirely absent in public discourse. Who was Saddam Hussein and what did he want? These questions were barely posed, even as so much attention was devoted to the person of Saddam Hussein.

We return to the words spoken by U. N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar before the first Gulf War— when it became clear that Hussein would not withdraw from Kuwait and that the Iraqi people soon would be subject to a relentless, massive assault: "I cannot imagine that someone wants war for the pleasure of killing his own people." We are not quite ready to say it this way—that a political leader wages war for the pleasure of killing his people. So let us say that Saddam Hussein waged war for the pleasure of sacrificing the lives of his own people.

II. THE PLEASURE OF KILLING ONE'S OWN PEOPLE

Our inability to conceive that societies wage war in order to sacrifice the lives of their own people lays at the heart our difficulty in comprehending political violence. We continue to think of warfare in terms of economic gain, conquest, victory and defeat, etc., pretending that people like Saddam Hussein go to war for “rational” reasons. Perhaps by examining war and other forms of political violence through the lens of the concepts of martyrdom and sacrifice we can achieve a deeper understanding.

A martyr is someone willing to suffer or die in order to give witness to the depth of his commitment to an idea or belief. The act of martyrdom testifies to the sincerity of one’s devotion (see Jonah Winters, 1997). The idea of sacrifice, similarly, suggests self-abnegation or renunciation in the name of an ideal. In warfare, societies sacrifice individuals in the name of a larger entity—the nation—whose value is perceived to be greater than the value of the individual.

In his speech of January 17, 2000, Saddam Hussein celebrated the Ninth Anniversary of the First Gulf War, addressing the "wondrous, great people of Iraq." On a day like today, he said, evil ridden humanity had "delegated you to act for it"—and your valiant army "responded to the call."

Battlefields were "anointed with the fragrant blood of men and women believers." Hussein expounded that the value attached to what a man loves ranks on the same level as the "sacrifices he renders to them."

Hussein commended the Iraqi people for having fought the Gulf War: "You have sacrificed noble Iraqis all that is dear and precious, and have shed your blood seeking the love of God in hope to win His satisfaction." The suffering of the Iraqi people, Hussein explained, had not been in vain: "Because you have sacrificed so much for your high principles out of love for your people, your homeland and your nation, your chance of winning God’s satisfaction is greater than that of any other people." Because its people had been willing to confront the infidel superpower—Iraq would become the nation most beloved by God.

Hussein’s words evoke a sense of Iraqis as the chosen people. Citing the prophet Mohammed, Hussein stated that the reward for a man of faith is based on the "greatness of his afflictions." If God loves a people, he "visits them with afflictions." Since the Iraqi people had suffered so deeply as a result of the Gulf War, this meant that now they were "nearest to God and ranking highest in His love."

By virtue of the two wars between Iraq and the United States, the attention of the world focused upon this small nation. The plight and fate and suffering of the Iraqi people became the fulcrum of world history.