The End of the Ba`th Party. In the Republic of Fear, Samir Khalil (or whatever name he now uses) engaged in the silly exercise trying to attribute the tyranny of Saddam to this line or that line that `Aflaq had written. `Aflaq is responsible for this: he "spotted" Saddam and promoted him in the early 1960s. I don’t believe that the Ba`th ideology—whatever it is as it never has been clearly defined or identified—created the tyrannical regimes of Syria and Iraq, but that the tyrannical regimes utilized the ideology of the Ba`th for their own ends. And `Aflaq was really only influential in the Ba`th Party when it was out of power, not when it was in power. In Syria, the Ba`th party version would have killed `Aflaq, and they tried; `Aflaq, it had to be remembered went into exile in Latin America. And when he was invited back to Iraq, to live in luxury, and massive monstrous buildings were created for the Ba`th party, but he only was allowed to offer seasonal praise for Saddam, but not much more. The irony of the Ba`th is this: the party that promised Arab unity, was not only the most divisive and divided party there is in the Arab world, but it also contributed to fragmentation in the Arab world, and the Syrian-Iraqi Ba`thist rivalry was much more important for the leaders of both regimes than the verbally important Arab-Israeli conflict, to which the Ba`th only contributed empty rhetoric and lousy performances on the battlefield. And certainly the Ba`th party (and Nasser and King Husayn let us not forget) increased vulgarization of Arab political discourse. But the easy and ready declaration of “treason” and “agency for foreign powers” was a constant refrain of Ba`thist political literature. `Aflaq, if you read his earliest writings (which were all literary and not political, and deeply influenced by French literature and German philosophy—I still don’t know why and how this man who was ascetic and misanthropic would emerge as the leader of a popular party) you see that `Aflaq had only notions of the future and of justice. He had a vague idea of what was wrong in Arab society, but his political ideas never developed. And Zaki Arsuzi, who died a bitter man because he claimed that his original “invention” of the Ba`th was later stolen by people who would become later much more famous and much more influential than him. And this claim is not inaccurate; but Arsuzi was daringly atheistic, and dared to speak about Muhammad from the standpoint of “historical materialism” so to speak, much more daring than that famous speech on the anniversary of Muhammad’s birth by `Alfaq in 1943). And would the party have risen if the great political genius of Akram Al-Hurani and his organizational and electoral skills were not put in its service? `Aflaq on his own would not have traveled far with the party, but all depends on context. School teachers and students were thirsty for organization, any organization, and the Ba`th came along. Let us remember that SSNP also recruited in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine at the time. But the Ba`th would not have made it into power by organizing or democratic elections; it only reached power by “conspiracy.” And in conspiracies the Ba`th excelled. I early on wrote in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq that the Ba`th out of power can be as scary as the Ba`th in power. That is why it was useful for the Ba`th to watch (if not to plot) the Zarqawi media cult; it helped divert attention from the real culprits, and to give the Ba`th party organization in Iraq the chance to pick up the pieces, and gain momentum. But the Ba`th party will not have a chance when people have their (real) self-determination; but I don’t rule out as conspirators. Whether in Iraq, or even in Syria if the regime falls—and I still don’t believe that the US or Arab government will permit the fall of the Syrian regime—the Ba`th will adjust to the loss of power by plotting to return to power. But in the Arab public imagination, what does the Ba`th mean or signify except horrific torture techniques, grotesque personality cults, rubber political bodies, wooden rhetoric, and failures on the battlefield with Israel? We still need a study of the Ba`th; of its history and of its ideology. I still like a little-known article that Eric Rouleau wrote in 1967 in New Left Review on the Ba`th. (How much I respect that man although I have been disagreeing with him lately, especially as he seems to show little disagreements with French policy.) There is so much to be said here, alas I have no time.