|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Iraq |
|
On The Capture Of Saddam Hussein |
Current rating: 0 |
by War Resisters League
(No verified email address) |
18 Dec 2003
|
|
The capture by no means justifies the invasion and occupation of Iraq |
WASHINGTON - December 16 - The media emphasis on the capture of Saddam Hussein repeats one of the fundamental mistakes made by successive U.S. administrations: that Hussein is Iraq. Iraq - as the peace movement has been saying, and as the U.S. occupiers and media are only beginning to discover - is a vast and complex country, and Hussein's capture does not retroactively justify the invasion and occupation. Neither does it mean that Ba'athist underpinnings of the resistance to the occupation have been dismantled or that Iraq will come to love the U.S. occupiers - or that the resistance will end.
His capture might mean, however, that the cause of international justice will be served. Whether that happens will depend on what the United States does with its captive, and whether the Pentagon and the Bush administration become willing to conform to established norms of international law.
. The capture by no means justifies the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The only possible legal justification for invasion would have been if the Iraqi government had possessed weapons of mass destruction, and if their threat to use such weapons constituted a clear and present danger to the international community, and if peaceful means of resolving the crisis were inadequate. Had all those conditions prevailed, invasion would have been a matter for the U.N. Security Council. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that those conditions did obtain when he spoke to the Security Council on February 5, 2003; eleven of the fifteen SC members rejected his argument. The United States never brought the matter to a vote before leading an invasion itself. For a U.S. invasion without Security Council authorization to be legal, it would have to have been proven that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States itself, an assertion that is simply unsustainable.
No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, even after months of well-financed inspections by the U.S. occupying forces. We have statements from inspectors that WMD did not exist in Iraq or if they did, not in sufficient quantities to threaten even their neighbors, let alone the United States. Given the technological sophistication of U.S. intelligence, there is a strong case that the United States knew all along that there were no such weapons.
Some legal theorists have suggested that a case might exist for humanitarian intervention by U.N. forces, but there has been no legal precedent set. In fact, the last several years have seen a number of U.S. invasions for "humanitarian" reasons that were decidedly extra-legal. (We note, too, that none of those theorists called for humanitarian intervention while the U.N. sanctions were devastating Iraq and killing hundreds of Iraqis.)
The War Resisters League and others committed to nonviolence hold that military activity is never justified. In the particular case of Iraq, certainly, plunging an entire country into chaos for the sake of removing one man can be seen as disproportionate even by those who justify war.
. Hussein's capture does not mean that the Ba'athist infrastructure has been removed On the contrary, the United States has supported the preservation of Hussein's governance structure and has hired back hundreds of Hussein's Mukhabarat - his feared secret police - to assist in crushing opposition to the occupation. Milan Rai's book Regime Unchanged shows how the United States has appointed "second level" Ba'athists to assume the positions vacated by their immediate bosses.
. The capture will not make Iraq love its occupiers.
We must be careful of interpreting anti-Hussein sentiments in Iraq. The televised images of Iraqis celebrating are extreme close-ups of the same few people, repeatedly looped in 20-second segments. And even if the Iraqis are justifiably happy in being rid of a tyrant, that does not mean that they are in favor of being occupied. Nor can we fully understand the cultural impact of showing a humiliated Saddam Hussein on TV. This may discourage some, and infuriate others.
. Thus, the capture almost certainly will not end armed resistance to the U.S. occupation Hussein, disheveled, bewildered, and hiding incommunicado in a hole, was clearly not masterminding the attacks. All reports from commanders in the field indicate that the attacks are locally organized.
Further, the War Resisters League believes that the capture of one man - even one as significant as Saddam Hussein - does not address the fundamental causes of the attacks, and that true peace will come to Iraq from greater justice, not more military activity. The increasing impoverishment of ordinary Iraqis must be reversed: clean water, electricity, food, medical facilities and schools must be returned to them immediately. Their looted national heritage must be sought out and recovered. The occupiers must stop invading their homes, bulldozing their farms and neighborhoods, humiliating their families, imprisoning suspects without recourse to legal means in camps closed to human rights workers. The large-scale looting of Iraq by companies like Bechtel, Halliburton, DynCorp and other friends of the Bush administration must cease, and the country and its resources be returned to the Iraqi people.
If Hussein's capture will bring about none of those results, what good can come of it? Certainly, as believers in and advocates for nonviolent solutions to conflicts, the War Resisters League hopes for a speedy and fair trial for the ex-dictator - or perhaps more than one. We believe Iraq has a right to try him for crimes against its people - and that the international community has a duty to try him for crimes against humanity. In the former case, we would hope that a trial would represent the interests of all the Iraqi people, not those who speak as U.S. appointees. As for a war crimes trial before an international tribunal, we would hope that the appointed tribunal had enough scope to prosecute those powers outside Iraq - most notably in the United States - that helped instigate and maintain Hussein's power.
|
See also:
http://www.warresisters.org
|
Comments
|
His Capture Changes Nothing: I'm Anti-Saddam And Anti-war |
by Arsalan T. Iftikhar
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Dec 2003
|
SADDAM has been captured," was the only thing that I heard on the other end of the phone before jarring myself out of bedand darting to the television. As I watched Administrator Paul Bremer and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez show the video of Iraq's most notorious villain in custody, I felt a sigh of relief for all Iraqis, who would never have to face the prospect of this man ever hurting them again. I felt that our soldiers had accomplished something important last weekend.
Nonetheless, I have always opposed the war in Iraq and continue to oppose Iraq's subsequent occupation. As several news outlets called to get interviews on the American Muslim community's reaction to Saddam's capture; most of them were aware that many Muslims and Arabs, along with a significant number of other Americans, including presidential candidates, have been morally opposed to the war since its outset.
A recurring question from several journalists was the following: "Is it possible to be happy about Saddam's capture while still opposing the war?"
The answer is an emphatic, unqualified and resounding "Yes." It is imperative and logical to see the two issues of opposing the war and Saddam's capture as mutually exclusive. The primary reason is that there was not one person, President Bush included, who had a crystal ball when this war began. When America was debating the merits of going to war, there was absolutely no guarantee that Saddam would ever be caught, let alone found alive and unkempt in a "spider hole" near Tikrit nine months later.
Since President Bush is hardly clairvoyant and no one supporting the war had any idea that Saddam would be caught, any criticism of anti-war foes' delight at Saddam's capture is pro-war analysts' placing the chicken before the egg.
Many people see Saddam's capture as the complete redemption for supporting the war. With Saddam's dictatorial regime brutalizing Iraq for so long and with the video coverage of Saddam's capture, some people may mistakenly believe that we have accomplished all of our objectives in going to war.
Well, where are the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which were President Bush's chief justification for instigating this war? If these weapons do indeed exist, our boys in Baghdad had better find them, because now they have the only person who may know of their existence or lack thereof.
Even though the madman is no longer relevant to Iraqis, it is an unfortunate reality that Iraq is more of a threat to its neighbors and American interests today than it ever has been before. President Bush has stated on numerous occasions that Saddam loyalists are primarily responsible for the current insurgency. Although there are elements of Saddam loyalists involved in the insurgency, it would be myopic for anyone to believe that these attacks in Iraq will now stop.
This is quite clear from the facts of Saddam's arrest. If his "loyalists" supported him so stoically, it would seem logical to surmise that these throngs of supporters would be providing him food, shelter and clothing. Last weekend, he was found inside a mini-catacomb with only two cronies and some dirty plates -- hardly a place in which to be masterminding a national insurgency.
As in any other conundrum, there is no absolute right or wrong. So, even though I think the capture of Saddam is truly in the best interests of the Iraqi people and an accomplishment, when it comes to the war, many Americans see the egg before the chicken and still oppose this war and occupation.
As an American Muslim, I am thrilled that Saddam's cult of personality went out not with a roar, but with a whimper. With that, I hope that the healthy and constructive criticism of the occupation will continue on the home front. For that is the only way to demand the best foreign policy from the Bush administration, one that expedites the full autonomy and self-governance of Iraqis and brings our boys and girls in the armed forces quickly back into their families' loving arms.
Because once the elation from Saddam's capture recedes, we will soon realize that even though we have won the battle of capturing Saddam Hussein, we are still a long way from winning the war.
Arsalan T. Iftikhar is director of legal affairs for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil-rights and advocacy group.
http://www.cair-net.org
Copyright, Belo Interactive, Inc.
http://www.projo.com
|
|
Celebration Aside, Nothing Has Changed In Iraq |
by James O. Goldsborough
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Dec 2003
|
It was sheer luck that news of Saddam Hussein's capture came on a Sunday, between church and football games, fitting right in with our weekly celebrations of virtue and violence.
It was the perfect time for President Bush to crow victory over this pitiful, bedraggled Third World dictator, who looked as if he were just dragged from the sewers of Victor Hugo's Paris. The triumph of virtue over evil, said Bush, for Saddam had defied the gift of freedom "from the Almighty to the people of Iraq."
Fortunately for the Almighty, he has George W. Bush to deliver his terrible swift sword. Whose blood isn't stirred by such grand events? We are back in the Crusades, the time, Runciman told us in his great history of the era, "of so much courage and so little honor, so much devotion and so little understanding."
"How will we know the infidels from the faithful?" asked the general. "Kill them all," replied the bishop, "God will know his own."
In this moment of holiday rejoicing, allow me to point out the ugly realities: Nothing has changed in Iraq. Americans are still a detested occupation force using, according to widely disseminated news reports, "Israeli-style" tactics at a time Israel's own military has told its politicians they don't work.
Saddam's capture does not turn a bad war into a good one, or improve the lot of the wretched Iraqis or change the evidence that Bush's crusade has transformed Iraq into a terrorist state. It will not bring back the estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces (Iraq's governing council has just ordered the body count halted), or the unknown numbers of Iraqi soldiers killed defending their nation against aggression. It will not remove the miles of razor wire spread around the nation to separate the liberators from the liberated.
But Sunday was a day to rejoice. Why be a wet blanket? What harm is done by a little celebrating, assuming it does not inspire the king to launch new actions against other infidels?
Before this is over, we will wish Saddam had used his pistol or that the sergeant had been allowed to drop his grenade into the "spider hole" where he hid, which looked like a tunnel to me. It was a great military triumph to be sure, diminished only slightly by the member of Saddam's clan who fingered him, though he won't collect the $25 million reward because he volunteered his information "under duress," whatever that means.
Why didn't Saddam do the honorable thing in his bunker, as Hitler did? Was he "trembling" and afraid to die, as the news accounts said? Is this man who has killed so many a coward himself? He knows the warriors' creed, "live by the sword, die by the sword." Why did he lay down his sword at the last minute?
Because he wants to turn his trial to his advantage, that's why. Since he has a real chance of success at that, don't expect the trial to happen before next year's U.S. elections. If Saddam is turned over to the Iraqi Governing Council anytime soon, we can expect an Iraqi version of Jack Ruby to spare the nation (or rather, our nation) the expense of a trial.
Already the Bush administration is waffling about the timing, nature and jurisdiction of a Saddam trial. Such a trial, if America is faithful to its past traditions, should be speedy, fair and public.
Judging, however, from what has been reported about Guantanamo, the treatment of Jose Padilla, Yasser Hamdi and Army Capt. James Yee, and about the legal challenges of Bush's Justice Department, we cannot expect fidelity to traditions.
If, miraculously, Saddam survives the many pitfalls between him and a speedy, fair and public trial, expect a doozy. Every Arab and Muslim nationalist and fundamentalist from Baghdad to Damascus (traveling east) will be listening as he tells the court, in Arabic, that Bush's invasion was a brutal and unjustified war of aggression against a sovereign nation.
He will not deny responsibility for past wars and deaths and will spell out in detail the support he received from the Reagan and Bush I administrations at the time, perhaps producing minutes of his meetings with Reagan representatives still prominent today, such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. That would be interesting.
I felt for the Democratic presidential candidates Sunday. Aside from Joe Lieberman, a hawk from the beginning, they were cowed into deferential silence. Except for angrily attacking each other with accusations the Republicans will dutifully file away for future use, they said nothing of substance.
With the whooping over, the scalp on the belt and the hide nailed to the wall, Americans still face a long, hostile, costly and unnecessary occupation. George W. Bush may rejoice in capturing the man "who tried to kill your dad," as a reporter said at his press conference. Americans need to know that their family vendetta is being settled at a very high price.
© Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
http://www.signonsandiego.com |
|
