by Matthew Smolak

Saddam Hussein may be a tyrant, murderer, former business and political partner of the United States, and current captured enemy, but he is also a dedicated amateur brewer. Or was.

As part of his involvement with the non-governmental organization (NGO) Brewers Without Borders (BWB), Matthew Smolak recently met with Saddam Hussein in an undisclosed location for a brief discussion of the media’s portrayal of him/his characterization over beer. The meeting was BYOB.

Brewers Without Borders: Saddam Hussein, thank you for accepting my request to meet with you.

Saddam Hussein: You are welcome.

BWB: Now, not having much information about what your conditions here are like, I brought a small selection of beer from my personal stash for our meeting. Unfortunately, all of the bottles have been opened by the U.S. military for testing prior to our meeting, just to make sure I wasn’t some crazed assassin who has infiltrated both the BWB and this facility to poison you. So please, be assured that while some of the beer is starting to go flat, none of it is poisonous.

SH: I’ll just pretend I am drinking Real Ale. You know, I have always appreciated the principles behind the Real Ale movement, but I prefer more carbonation in my beer.

BWB: (Begins pouring a dark imperial stout). Here, I thought we’d start with something hearty, one of the few bottles I have left of an imperial stout I brewed last year.

SH: You have a painfully subtle sense of irony. (Takes a long, deliberate sip)

BWB: Now, I am not just a simple amateur brewer. Brewers Without Borders are also interested in international issues that transcend borders. Of course, part of that is the pursuit of better beer, but another part is a better understanding of international politics and politics in general.

Of particular interest to me are the implication of personalities and relationships in politics and the role of the media in fostering these relationships.

Oh, you’re done the stout already?

SH: The United States military may be vigilant in ensuring her soldiers do not cause me any physical or obvious mental harm or distress, but the food they provide is not adequate for a man of my stature and taste. It is a sterile mess, like tofu cooked in the sanitizer you use for cleaning your brewing equipment. I can’t remember the last time I had a decent shish kabob or sweet maamoul. This hearty stout is far superior in fibre and nutritional content than the white bread they serve me.

BWB: Well, it isn’t maamoul, but here’s a robust porter I’ve brought. A delicate palate like yours will hopefully appreciate the hint of cardamom and other spices in it. (Pours Mr. Hussein another glass of beer).

Now, there is a particular issue, very particular, that I’d like to discuss with you and it deals with how you are portrayed in the media.

SH: Mmmm. This is a high gravity beer. I haven’t brewed many like this.

You know, I had quite an elaborate home brewing operation and encouraged brewing throughout Iraq – it was quite enlightened. In fact, what the ill-intentioned Unite States military thought were weapons and facilities of mass destruction where often actually brewing kettles, fermenters and assorted brewing ingredients. What they perceived to be weapons and the means to weapons where actually instruments of nourishment and enjoyment. The U.S. military has completely mischaracterized it.

BWB: Well, speaking of mischaracterization, I’d like to discuss your character and more specifically your name because I believe it can help to inform us of how the media can shape our perceptions of people and events through its use of names.

Shakespeare said, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” In other words, names are constructs or conventions, like units of time or measurement. But that does not mean they are unimportant, because they still have an assigned meaning or even multiple meanings. The meanings attached to names can hold a varying amount of power.

Now, to the West you may not smell as sweet as a rose, maybe more like a rat…

SH: If the Americans smelled a rat, it was only their own hypocrisy!

BWB: Please, I’m just setting the scene. I’m trying to describe the context in the West for how you are presented and therefore perceived. Speaking of which, how do you like the porter?

SH: It is fine.

BWB: Good. Now, in any entertainment story, or even in a media story, and the line between the two is often blurred, it is necessary to pit a protagonist against an antagonist. In the Western world you are the antagonist to President George W. Bush, the protagonist.

SH: You mean the second George Bush?

BWB: Yes. Well, you actually served as the antagonist to both, but I am thinking of the second George Bush, the current president.

SH: Well, they are one and the same. George W. Bush is merely seeking vengeance against me and Iraq to settle a personal vendetta of his father and family. The Bush family and the United States were embarrassed by their inability to defeat me the first time around. You should not underestimate the pettiness of personalities in politics.

BWB: That’s quite apparent.

SH: This war is simply a matter of two things: the petty vendetta of the embarrassed Bush family and the desire of the Bush family to pad their own pockets and those of their friends at the expense of Iraq and the Muslim world. It doesn’t matter whether it is Bush Senior or Bush Junior; they are one and the same.

BWB: Well, that would be an interesting study, with the family as the base unit of political life, to look at the desires of one family driving the foreign policy of an entire country to make war with another.

The distinction between the two Bushes, or the confusion of them, sort of hints at what I am interested in. It was important for the current president, George W. Bush, to be referred to as “George W. Bush”, as his own entity. He couldn’t be referred to as “Junior” or even “Bush Junior”. “Dubya was okay, because it sounds like a college nickname. But to be called “Junior” or “Bush Junior” is sort of demeaning, and some of that was seen when he was first elected. Those who did not like him or did not see his presidency as legitimate and wanted to deride him called him “Junior” or more commonly “Dubya”. To call him “Bush Junior”, or especially “Junior”, and to some extent to call him “Dubya”, is almost to lower our expectations of him and suggests a lack of maturity, as opposed to “Bush Senior”, which sounds authoritative. “Junior” sounds childlike and to refer to the president as “Junior” would suggest the president is a child, incapable of performing adult work.

SH: I have heard the doubts about his military service and I would suggest that he is not a man, unlike me. I have proven myself – I am junior to no one and Iraq flourished because of it.

BWB: Well, my point is that the choice about what he is called, how he is named, in turn shapes the perception of him. Using “Junior” in his name gives the perception of someone who is, literally, junior to someone else. The president shouldn’t be junior to anyone else – he needs to be perceived as being in charge. “Dubya” is not as bad because, functioning as a nickname, it gives him a semblance of the everyman, the everyday Joe. This can be a bit of a good thing, ensuring he is not separated from the mass of people he serves. But overall, it falls in between “Junior” and “Bush”.

To call him “George”, well, that sort of falls in the realm between “Junior” and “Dubya”. It sounds a bit juvenile by its lack of formality. It is a name used by family or between friends.

SH: But what is your point in all this? And the porter is done – what else have you brought?

BWB: I also have a bit of an experiment here – it is quite refreshing – a raspberry heffeweizen. The light colour, taste, the sweetish-tart raspberries and the softness of wheat, highly carbonated … it is very refreshing and light after the porter.

SH: I don’t mind heffeweizens but have never ventured to put raspberries in one – it seems like a frivolous woman’s drink. It is like something only the West would come up with.

BWB: Well, anyone can enjoy the taste of it. I wouldn’t call it a woman’s drink at all. But try it and see.

Now, to my point about the names. Your name is Saddam Hussein.

SH: (Sipping) Mm-hmm.

BWB: But how do the Western papers refer to you?

SH: How do you mean?

BWB: Well, in newspaper headlines, George W. Bush can’t be called “George W. Bush” because it would take up the whole headline. So eventually, and pretty much always now, he is referred to in headlines and subtitles as “Bush”. It is formal, mature and authoritative.

You are always referred to as “Saddam”, not as “Hussein” or “Saddam Hussein”. Why?

SH: You tell me why.

BWB: Well, your name is confusing to those who take the issue seriously. “Hussein” is not your formal name; it is your father’s given name. To call you “Hussein” or “Mr. Hussein” is not the same or comparable to “Mr. Bush”. What is the closest you have to a family name or surname?

SH: Well, there is “al-Majid”, sort of a family name, and “al-Takriti”, which is the name of the region my hometown is found in, but that is the case for all Iraqis from that clan and region. Everyone from al-Takriti would have “al-Takriti” at the end of their name. It is very general.

BWB: Yes, too general for the use we are referring to. Saddam is sort of your adopted name, correct?

SH: Yes, it translates as “Destroyer”.

BWB: So it is your own self-anointed name and title that you have created. But people in Iraq wouldn’t call you “Saddam”, would they? They would likely call you Mr. President.

SH: That is how it was and will remain. It is a sign of respect for the legitimate leader of Iraq.

BWB: So for us in the West, we really have only two convenient ways of naming you: as “Saddam Hussein”, your common name, or as “Saddam”, the name you have given yourself.

SH: I imagine these would be the most appropriate and likely choices for Westerners.

BWB: Now, for the purpose of writing headlines, “Saddam” is preferable because it requires less space. However, we must also consider this in light of Western conventions, which, however incorrectly, might consider the name “Saddam Hussein” to be an equivalent to “George Bush”…

SH: They’d be mistaken.

BWB: I agree, though maybe not for the same reasons. To get back to the question of why you are generally referred to as “Saddam” not as “Saddam Hussein”, besides the convenience, I don’t think it is because “Saddam” sounds like a combination of “Satan” and “Damn”. There may be the opinion by many that it is appropriate or acceptable to use “Saddam” as an equivalent to “Bush”. However, I think it might also be because of the status it accords to you. Calling you “Saddam” is like calling the president “George” or “Junior”. It lowers your status. It makes you out to be less an authority figure and more like a child.

SH: (With a dry throat) I am much more of a man than President Bush!

BWB: That is not the point of my argument. My point is that by referring to you simply as “Saddam” you are knocked down a notch. You are no longer an equal to Bush or to Blair in Britain.

Doesn’t it seem like by being called “Saddam” the tension between protagonist and antagonist, between Bush and you, became one between an authority and someone who is not an authority figure and therefore not worthy of addressing as one?

SH: I was referred to as Hussein when our relations were warmer in the 1980s.

BWB: But just as beer wort must be chilled quickly after the boil before the yeast can be pitched, so too did your relationship chill. And when it did, it became like the relationship between an adult and a child. The adult knows what is best and since the child is misbehaving, the adult must intervene, punish the child and set things right.

SH: I disagree and would suggest that the name Saddam or Hussein or Saddam Hussein will strike fear into the United States long after they do whatever they intend to do to me. Inspired by my leadership, the faithful in Iraq will continue to fight back against the bloodthirsty imperialism of the United States that kills innocent Iraqis everyday. The United States has shattered the prosperity and peace of Iraq…

BWB: Now wait a minute – peace and prosperity? How many innocent Iraqis have died at your hands – their “leader”. Your name is “Saddam”, “Destroyer”…

SH: I brought peace and prosperity to Iraq, and the United States enjoyed riches from that peace and has become greedy and envious and now is out to take it all for themselves. And just as the raspberries in this beer have soured what might have otherwise been a tasty drink, so too will the inspiration I give to Iraq sour the Americans’ ability to conquer the Middle East.

BWB: Well, thank you for your time, Mr. Hussein and your critique of my beer, the remainder of which I’ll take with me since it doesn’t please you.Guard!