"Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard"

The phrase “Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard,” as famously attributed to Phil Donahue, encapsulates the morally ambiguous and often cynical nature of international relations, especially as practiced during the latter half of the twentieth century. The words allude to a policy stance by the United States and its allies during the Cold War and beyond: that the character or the reputation of a foreign leader mattered less than whether his interests aligned with those of the West, particularly American geopolitical priorities. Saddam Hussein, as the leader of Iraq, was widely acknowledged for his brutal domestic policies and his role in regional conflicts, yet still received political and sometimes even material support from Western powers.

The use of the term “bastard” underlines the reprehensible nature of Saddam’s regime, acknowledging the reality of his oppressive actions and disregard for human rights. However, the phrase “our bastard” is a startling admission that such qualities could be overlooked if the leader in question served a strategic purpose. Throughout the 1980s, for example, the US provided support to Saddam’s government during the Iran-Iraq War. The rationale was governed largely by the desire to counter Iranian influence after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which had turned Iran into a geopolitical adversary. In this context, engaging with a problematic ally became a lesser evil compared to confronting a greater threat.

Implicit in Donahue’s expression is a critique of realpolitik, where ethical concerns are often subordinated to strategic interests. It exposes the readiness of powerful nations to compromise their stated ideals, such as support for democracy, human rights, and rule of law, when it suits larger national objectives. This mentality has led not only to controversial alliances, but also to a legacy of unintended consequences when supported regimes falter or turn against their former backers. Ultimately, the phrase reveals an uncomfortable truth: that international alliances frequently hinge on expediency rather than ethical clarity, sometimes with costly and tragic outcomes.