In 2004, the movie The Butterfly Effect was released to theatres. The movie, starring Ashton Kutcher, focused on the misadventures of a young man who realizes he has the ability to travel back in his own timeline and alter the present. Each change he makes further compounds the error and the agony of his initial decisions in life, and he is forced to accept things as they were, or accept a present/future/past that is bereft of the one outcome he fought so hard to preserve.

- The butterfly effect refers to the extreme dependence of a system on initial conditions, in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. This is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position. [Wikipedia] -

Like the idea of a butterfly flapping its wings instigating a chain of events that could start a tsunami on the other side of the world, or even catalyze the collapse of a world economic power, Saddam Hussein's hanging is likely to have an impact in the unfolding of world events for some time to come. On this, and the question of Saddam's fall from power, I would like to pose several rhetorical questions for reflection. In particular focusing upon the many consequences of U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Question number one: Should Saddam Hussein have been removed from power? (Now, I'm not asking for a response to this question. I already said the queries would be rhetorical.)

Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a man of extreme means. He was responsible, directly or indirectly, for alleged acts of genocide ( I say 'alleged' because genuine acts of genocide require the wholesale persecution of a people or culture, and Hussein's attempts did not solely include the Kurds). He was responsible - again, directly or indirectly - for mass assassinations, instances of torture, and the profiteering of war. He made money being a dictator, and lived in lavish palaces while his nation's majority suffered sub-second-world, if not third-world conditions. (These terms being antiquated.)

However, the question is not whether or not he was a good person, or whether or not he had any legitimacy of rule (save that supported by force of arms), but whether or not he should have been removed from power. Think on this a moment before reading on, and be certain that you are sure you understand what I am asking. I'm not asking if Hussein was right for rule, or if removing him from power was the right thing to do. Those are questions of ethics and morality, and I do not claim to be a master of these. The question I ask is: Should Saddam Hussein have been removed from power?

When people ask me the common question, "If you could go back in time and shoot Adolph Hitler, would you?" my answer is always no. Because I understand that the vacuum created by his loss at any point before his suicide would have left room for Himmler or Mengler to assume power. I believe that Hussein's removal has had an effect opposite to that proclaimed by the U.S. before intervention in Iraq. Alleged WMD's aside, the U.S. said they wanted to remove the threatening aspect of leadership, cut the head off the snake.

However, removing the head from this snake didn't kill it, but turned it into a hydra, with several equal heads popping up to replace the offended appendage. Now, the hydra feeds upon itself, each motivator seeking to designate the course of the whole.

So, my question lays there before you on your computer screen. Consider this, with questions of ethos, theocracy, and creed aside. What are the consequences of Hussein's removal from power on world politics, and how will his execution further impact these consequences?

__________________
"Negligence is an extreme thing." - Tsunetomo