The late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein chose war and military confrontation by refusing, on March 18, 2003, to go into exile granted to him by former US President George W. Bush, in order for "Mesopotamia" to face a difficult fate, which began with the US invasion in April 2003 and the intertwined operations. There was war, killing and destruction, and then Iraq would suffer after that many security, political and economic problems that it is still facing.
Saddam's nature refuses to surrender and accept defeat (Reuters)
pride
Retired Major General Majid Al-Qaisi believes that "the arrogance and pride of Saddam Hussein pushed him to go to the option of a military confrontation with Bush, who was insisting on war with his military build-up in the region at the time, which was impossible to return even if Saddam steps down."
He added that Saddam believed that he could resist this fierce onslaught, and stand up to it by betting that someone will stand with him, but the world has let him down.
Al-Qaisi - who was an army officer with the rank of major general - said that compared to the 1991 and 2003 wars launched by America on Iraq, we find that in the first, Bush the father was able to mobilize the international community against Saddam and force him to leave Kuwait, but Bush Jr. in 2003 failed to gather opinion The international attack on Iraq, with the exception of the British and some eastern countries, who were lured by Washington with money.
Al-Qaisi considered that the decision to step down or choose exile was not in Saddam’s accounts (Al-Jazeera Net)
In response to a question by Al-Jazeera Net about why Saddam resorted to a military confrontation instead of stepping down despite his awareness of the weakness of the military capabilities of his army and the inability to repel the American army, Al-Qaisi affirmed that the decision to step down or choose exile was not in Saddam’s calculations, adding that the heads of dictatorial regimes choose to destroy the country ( As happened in Iraq, then Libya and Syria later) in order to remain in power.
But the Iraqi journalist Mustafa Kamel believes that Saddam was president of the republic, and constitutionally and morally it is not permissible for him to give up this responsibility, flee the confrontation and secure himself, and the country falls prey to the invaders, indicating that the American side did not give security to Iraq and the Iraqis in the event Saddam steps down.
Kamel considered that the responsibility incumbent on Saddam, being president of the country, necessitates that he not accept exile, but rather confront the invaders (Al-Jazeera)
The journalist - who held the position of secretary of Al-Jumhuriya newspaper, which was published during Saddam’s era - adds that the Bush administration had announced that it would continue invading Iraq even if Saddam left power.
He continued an interview with Al-Jazeera Net by saying that it was later proven that all the reasons and excuses that America cited to justify the invasion of Iraq were false, whether it was related to weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, or bringing democracy to Iraq.
Al-Saffar considered that the state of despair that the Iraqis reached in 2003 negatively affected the armed forces (Al-Jazeera Net)
America wanted a clash
For his part, the psychological researcher Dr. Alaa Al-Saffar considered that the state of despair reached by the people in 2003 negatively affected the armed forces and prevented them, which was represented on the ground by the inability to resist for more than 3 weeks with weak and modest mechanisms that do not rise to the mechanisms and capabilities of the American forces.
He adds: Ostensibly America put the option of exile in front of Saddam, but in fact it wanted to clash with him because it was fully aware of the weakness of the capabilities of the Iraqi army, which was "frustrated and despairing," as well as the lack of professionalism and professionalism in the management of battles by Saddam, and this is what made the military, civilian and mobilization morale. The general public is in a remarkable decline, heading towards a gradual collapse at an accelerating pace with the start of the war, despite Saddam's claim to the ability to confront America.
Al-Alousi: The attempt to change Saddam's regime was a risk, which made Washington resort to the option of overthrowing him through a military war (Al-Jazeera Net)
Railing system
Iraqi politician Mithal Al-Alusi comments on the matter by saying that Saddam succeeded in building an iron system that was mixed with the Russian Cuban-Chinese school, the most prominent of which was the lack of confidence in the citizen, and the oppression not only against the opposition but also against the opponent, in addition to his use of the East German Intelligence School to train his men with the security and intelligence services. It made it impossible to overthrow him and his regime from inside Iraq, and this is what pushed America to wage war on it.
Al-Alusi describes the attempt to change Saddam's regime as being more like a "risk" that no one approached, which made Washington face one option, which is the overthrow of Saddam through a military war.
He added that Saddam was with the choice of war, because he believed that America would never do that.
Al-Jawary considered that Saddam refused the option of exile because he knew very well that international courts would pursue him in his exile (communication sites)
However, the military expert Rabih Al-Jawary believes - in an interview with Al-Jazeera Net - that Saddam refused the option of exile because he knew very well that international courts would pursue him in his exile and bring him "for his crimes that he carried out against his people first in addition to invading Kuwait again."
Al-Jawary, a former army officer, confirms that Saddam did not think about the people as much as he thought of himself through his decision to go to the war that left a total destruction of the country.