|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Saddam Hussein's Capture A Watershed |
Current rating: 3 |
by Joe Futrelle
Email: futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
14 Dec 2003
|
|
The capture of Saddam Hussein is a watershed that will dramatically change the terms of debate over U.S. policy in Iraq. |
The capture of Saddam Hussein is a watershed that will dramatically change the terms of debate over U.S. policy in Iraq.
Supporters of U.S. policy in Iraq will be watching the resistance very closely. If it continues or grows, that will refute the claim that the resistance was coordinated by or inspired by loyalty to Saddam. They will also rightly credit the Bush administration for deposing Saddam, which will draw attention away from the issue of whether the policy of pre-emptive "regime change" (PERC) is right or wrong. Saddam's trial will be an opportunity to further expose his atrocious human rights violations, which will vindicate the case for deposing him but also expose the administration’s selective attention to human rights (why do we look the other way when we and our allies violate human rights?) If Saddam doesn’t lead us to WMD, it will be almost impossible for administration-boosters to maintain their claim that there were any, but don’t expect the promised apology from Bill O’Reilly. The formation of the new Iraqi government becomes critical now, because to the extent that it represents independence from U.S. interests, it will temper the neocon argument for PERC and threaten their project to use PERC elsewhere in the world.
Opponents of U.S. policy in Iraq will be placed on the defensive, forced to explain why they mostly supported policies that would have left him in power. Pacifists and isolationists will just re-assert their axioms. Others will need to qualify their positions to the point that they will make poor soundbites. It will no longer be possible to criticize the Bush administration for failing to find Saddam, but many opponents of the administration will shift to criticizing the administration for failing to find Osama Bin Laden, which will mask any disagreement on how this should be accomplished. Those who favored containment will have to continue to do so in the face of a parade of evidence of Saddam’s atrocities, in effect aligning themselves with isolationists unless they can concisely articulate a means other than PERC (which will appear to have irrefutably proven itself effective) to bring other human rights violators to justice. Saddam will not be tried in the International War Crimes Tribunal; critics will call for that. There continues to be an opportunity for leftist opponents of U.S. policy in Iraq to align themselves with traditional conservatives in decrying the massive costs PERC incurs, but it appears that the Democrats feel that they will only get traction on this issue if the domestic economy sputters. WMD will be a critical issue for administration opponents, who, given that no new evidence will emerge, will be able to continue criticizing the administration for being wrong or deceptive on WMD and shifting justification for the war after the fact.
Terrorist enemies of the U.S. may feel pressure to act sooner, and on a more destructive scale, to punish the U.S. and its allies for achieving a victory, however irrelevant the victory may be operationally to those terrorist groups. That is a scary prospect.
There is a wonderful opportunity now for real democracy in Iraq. This requires a new Iraqi government independent of U.S. influence. Few critics of the Bush administration believe that it has any commitment to that proposition, but with Saddam gone the political resistance in Iraq to U.S. influence can articulate its position immune to the rhetoric that would conflate it with loyalty to Saddam. This will place the CPA at a political disadvantage, since its enemies--the remaining scraps of Saddam’s regime--have become almost completely irrelevant to Iraqi politics. But effective democracy in Iraq also requires commitment among powerful Iraqis to a political system that is fair and beholden to its people. Powerful Iraqis may lack this commitment, and the U.S. can neither manufacture this commitment nor impose it by force. There remains the possibility that the guerilla resistance to U.S. presence in Iraq will continue to escalate into full-scale civil war, but Saddam’s capture will possibly, though by no means certainly, deprive the guerillas of some of the political support they depend on. |
Comments
|
Re: Saddam Hussein's Capture A Watershed |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Dec 2003
|
My view of Iraqi politics is still pretty simplistic. Reading other commentaries over the weekend it seems that Saddam's capture primarily affects the Sunni resistance, and that Shia resistance, such that it is, is going to be affected much more by the continuing debate over the form of the new Iraqi government, an issue which has almost nothing to do with Saddam's capture.
Also, unless I've missed something, no one seems to be talking about trying Saddam in the IWCT. I don't know if this is because it's an inappropriate venue for some legal reason I don't understand, or because it's unrealistic to expect the U.S. to go anywhere near that court. |
|
Re: Saddam Hussein's Capture A Watershed |
by chef
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Dec 2003
Modified: 02:50:27 PM |
This is a thoughtful response to the arrest. The ANSWER response to the arrest was so vile I'll let you find it yourself should you choose to do so. However, I have some criticism:
Hussein should absolutely be tried in Iraq, by Iraqis. Dismantling a government-by-tyrrany once and for all through the rule of law is a critical first step in forming a new Iraq.
The notion that "the terrorist enemies of the U.S. may feel pressure to act sooner" is patently absurd - that somehow restraint on their part is what has prevented them from acting, and that arresting Husseing will finally push them over the edge! The only thing that has thwarted them has been the actions of the intelligence community, law enforcement and the military - precicely the actions that critics of the war on terrorism have so adamantly opposed. I think another argument that will no longer ring true is that the administration hasn't done enough to capture bin Laden or that it has abdicated its duty in failing to find him by now. If the example of Hussein - or for that matter, Eric Rudolph - is considered these things take time; fortunately, the learning curve seems to be improving.
This event is the light at the end of the tunnel. There was no way that the US was leaving Iraq until all chance of Hussein or his cronies returning to power was eliminated. Regardless of how you feel about the way in which we got to this point, this is a huge step forward for the formation of a new Iraq. |
|
Re: Saddam Hussein's Capture A Watershed |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Dec 2003
Modified: 05:19:24 PM |
> Dismantling a government-by-tyrrany once and for all through the rule of law is a critical first step in forming a new Iraq.
Sure, but he's accused of international war crimes (for instance atrocities committed during the Iran-Iraq war and the first Gulf War), and it seems to me that the IWCT would be an appropriate place to try him on those charges. And it's problematic to me that the U.S. has resisted this court in order to avoid any U.S. citizens from being tried in it.
> The notion that "the terrorist enemies of the U.S. may feel pressure to act sooner" is patently absurd - that somehow restraint on their part is what has prevented them from acting, and that arresting Husseing will finally push them over the edge!
That's not absurd at all. Terrorists' primary goal is to inflict psychological damage on their opponents, and organizations like Al Qaeda do this by biding their time and striking in carefully planned, coordinated attacks right where their opponents feel safest. They don't just indiscriminately kill at every opportunity. 9-11 is a perfect example of a meticulously planned operation that took years to coordinate. You'd better believe that organizations capable of that kind of planning are capable of restraint while they're in the planning phases of their horrible operations. And if they feel like a window of opportunity has opened and won't stay open for long, they're going to accelerate their efforts if necessary so as not to miss their opportunity.
Now I grant that I may be wrong that they'll consider this a limited window of opportunity, but I'm just doing the political math that now that we feel really safe because Saddam is caught, they'll want to up the violence to beat us back psychologically and assert their desire to control the situation.
It's dangerous to underestimate the ability of terrorists to plan and coordinate. Look where it's gotten us before! |
|
Re: Saddam Hussein's Capture A Watershed |
by TPR
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Dec 2003
|
|
After spending tens of billions of dollars, stretching its military readiness to the limits, and engaging in two wars and a lengthy embargo that left a million dead, the United States has captured the former dictator of a country with a population roughly that of Texas, a size twice that of Idaho, military expenditures 0.36% those of the US, and a GDP roughly the size of the annual revenues of Sony and one-third those of Wal-Mart. The Washington Post devoted 16 pages to the incident and the News-Gazette devoted almost its entire A section to it. |
|
Re: Saddam Hussein's Capture A Watershed |
by chef
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Dec 2003
Modified: 09:38:33 AM |
I think the best idea floated so far is "international help for an Iraqi trial". While Kuwait, Iran, and the US may all have claims against him, I just think it's critical that Iraq use the rule of law and the trial as a way to found their new government turn the corner on rule-by-terror.
While I still think that it's really unlikely that AQ or associated fundamentalist terrorist groups have been biding their time for politically opportune moments to strike (perhaps before September 11, but not now), I'll concede that it's possible that Iraqi terrorists/intelligence agents could respond with strikes against the US. After all, Hussein's government was sheltering Abdul Rahman Yasin, a fugitive from the first attack on the World Trade Center. Still, I think it's probably unlikely.
|
|
Re: Saddam Hussein's Capture A Watershed |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Dec 2003
Modified: 11:05:27 AM |
TPR, agreed that the costs are high and the benefit to the U.S. unclear. The benefit to Iraqis has yet to be realized unless there's a truly democratic Iraqi government independent of U.S. influence, and no civil war, but they've paid huge costs up front in economic terms and in human lives.
The media coverage of this "shows" how signficant this is in domestic politics. I say "shows" because the media is part of the system that determines what's important in domestic politics, but hey, we all know that or we wouldn't be hanging out on the IMC, n'est-ce pas?
But the situation on the ground in Iraq does not reflect domestic U.S. politics. People who expect the capture of Saddam Hussein to halt terrorist attacks on the U.S. and our allies, or to halt the insurgency in Iraq, are in for a nasty shock.
For instance less media attention is being given to the fact that in Afghanistan, the Taliban is basically re-taking the country outside of Kabul, and it's not like Al Qaeda required the entire country of Afghanistan to provide a safe haven for its training camps and planning operations. If this is what it's like to be winning the WOT, I sure would hate to be losing it. |
|
Assumptions |
by Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky (nospam) yahoo.com (verified) |
Current rating: 5
24 Dec 2003
Modified: 25 Dec 2003 |
The arguments here seem to follow pretty well from the apparent assumptions, but I think those assumptions are missing a lot. This shows up in, for example, the list of possible political positions: containment advocates, critics of cost, etc. Nowhere do I see mentioned a political position or argument that takes into account the decades-long pattern of US foreign policy of making and breaking alliances with vicious dictators and murderous thugs based on political conveniences (and corporate profits). Iraq is even an excellent case in point.
In other words: Of course Saddam Hussein and his regime are guilty of heinous crimes against humanity, AND so is every US presidential administration since WWII. In fact, the last several US presidents - Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush at least - are guilty of war crimes IN IRAQ and have certainly killed more civilians there than Saddam did.
The US never tried to "appease" Saddam Hussein or his Baathist regime. It supported him from the 1960s when he was involved in attempting to assassinate the Iraqi leader at the time. He was every bit as cold-blooded a murderer then as later, but he remained a valuable US ally until the 1970s when limit production and raise prices. But by the close of the decade he became a useful ally of the US again, when the Islamist revolution in Iran overthrew the US-installed dictator Shah Reza Pahlavi, a close ally for decades right through the Carter Administration.
During the Reagan years (with Rumsfeld's help) Saddam's Baathist regime committed many crimes against humanity, including the much-touted gassing of Kurdish civilians and many apparent war crimes against Iranians, part of a(n) (illegally) US-sponsored war against Iran. The US gave the Iraqi regime agricultural credits so it could shift resources to fighting the war, and a helped secure what are now called WMDs. Kuwait, another dictatorship and close US ally, provided a massive loan to Iraq to help with the war effort. None of Saddam's crimes, or those of the Kuwaiti government, deterred the US, which continued providing "material aid" to its Iraqi ally.
After the devastating 8-year Iran-Iraq war, Saddam fell out of favor again. He had failed to deal with the Iranian enemy and still remained loyal to OPEC, which Kuwait was not. Kuwait violated OPEC's oil quota, driving down the cost of oil and costing the war-torn Iraq millions. Kuwait also demanded immediate repayment of its loan to Iraq. Saddam began rattling his sabre, and the US officially announced it had "no position" on the conflict. We can see this statement as a trap on the order of the "Afghan trap" that Carter Admininstration advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski describes that the Democrat administration had set for the USSR.
But even after Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait, the US continued to commit crimes in Iraq. There were many US atrocities during the war - some I confess I naively believed US soldiers would no longer commit - shooting unarmed soldiers trying to surrender, burying men alive in the sand with bulldozers, etc. And after the war officially ended, and the US imposed its no-fly zones (without permission from the UN), US forces granted Saddam's regime exceptions so that Iraqi forces could crush uprisings in the Kurdish North and Shi'ite South. Once again, the US was not an appeaser but an accomplice.
Then, of course, followed 11 years of brutal sanctions that killed as many as a million civilians, half of them children. And at the same time the Bush and Clinton administrations continued almost weekly bombings of Iraq on various pretexts, destroying much needed civilian infrastructure such as water treatment plants, etc. And as we know this finally culminated this year with a savage attack on a desperately poor population under the pretext of wiping out weapons that no one, before or since, has been able to prove existed any more. Iraq had them, of course, but all the evidence says they had destroyed years before the US invasion.
US atrocities in Iraq continue, as do anti-US crimes, while an illegal US occupation fans the flames as it struggles to set up a puppet government it can leave in charge. In this context Saddam Hussein's capture has only two meanings to us in the US: (1) it is a desperately needed political victory for Bush, and (2) one of the many criminals responsible for millions of deaths in Iraq may now be tried by representatives of the more powerful criminals in the US. These more powerful criminals, including a few past presidents, should be our primary concern if we are at all interested in justice. That is our responsibility as US citizens, and that is the only morally or politically defensible position on Saddam's capture that I've heard. |
|
Re: Saddam Hussein's Capture A Watershed |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Dec 2003
Modified: 08:11:09 PM |
Dear Little Ricky,
I will admit, that Saddam was once a useful idiot in our ongoing dispute with Iran. However, did not Henry Kissinger state, "This is one war that you wish both sides would lose". What Ricky will never tell you, is that we helped both sides in that war. We did this because of the strategic relationship to the former Soviet Union. This was enemy #1 at the time and every decision reflected this. I realize that most of you saw the defeat and utter destruction of the communist ideals as a bad thing, however, most of us did not.
Ricky, with all due respect, could you please show me the evidence that we have killed more Iraqis than Saddam or is this just another "If I say it enough, it has to be true" kind of thing. I'll be waiting.
Jack |
|
Re: Saddam Hussein's Capture A Watershed |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2004
|
Ricky,
Just as I thought, you proclaim that we killed more Iraqi's than Saddamm but failed to prove it or provide any evidence. I wonder why you keep saying it then.
Jack |
|
