Literally:
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was captured Saturday night near his hometown by U.S. soldiers who found him hiding, haggard and disheveled, in a hole in the ground in a small, rural compound, U.S. officials announced today.
A great day for the victims of Saddam's reign of terror -- although in the end probably more a symbolic victory than anything else. Even before his capture, the odds of Saddam himself personally returning to power in Baghdad had to be rated at somewhere between none and none. The odds of him actually being brought to "justice" -- in the conventional sense of the word -- are only slightly higher, as we shall see.
An even greater day for President Bush: the fates (with an assist from the U.S. Army) just handed him an enormous propaganda victory for a Christmas present. Who needs a display turkey when you've got a former dictator trussed up on a platter and ready for the TV cameras?
The PR possibilities are almost limitless. If it were feasible to airlift Saddam to Madison Square Garden, so the emperor could pose before the adoring masses with his boot planted firmly on the vanquished dictator's neck, I'm sure the White House Communications Office would be tempted to do it. For Bush, I suspect, this really is "mission accomplished" -- a final victory over the family nemesis, the happy ending to a multi-generational psychodrama.
What it most emphatically was not, however, is what Proconsul Bremer called it: "a great day in Iraq's history." Rather, Saddam's capture -- like Saddam's rule -- is a testament to the utter failure of the artificial nation cobbled together by the Western powers after World War I, to which America has become the residual heir.
Bush's mission may be accomplished, but the true test of the significance of yesterday's rat trapping is still to come. Is the Sunni insurgency simply the last gasp of Saddam's "dead enders," or a popular movement that could simmer for years, posting a perpetual threat to the stability of any American-backed government in Iraq?
The answer may not be long in coming, judging from today's news:
Car Bomb at Iraq Police Station Kills 17
Bomb Kills U.S. Soldier in Iraq
We've been through this drill before. After the deaths of Saddam's sons back in July, it seemed -- for a time -- like every story about the insurgency included some sort of disclaimer to the effect that the attacks continued despite the coalition's glorious destruction of Uday and Qusay. Then, after a while, when it became fairly clear nothing had changed, the media simply stopped talking about it.
To do otherwise would have been to admit that the insurgency existed independently of the Husseins and even of the Baath Party, but rather represented the Sunni minority's response to the loss of its historical powers and privileges. This, in turn, would have poked big holes in the administration's fantasy of a grateful and united Iraq marching shoulder to shoulder with its American liberators into a glorious future.
Obviously, Saddam isn't likely to disappear down the same memory hole -- both because of his celebrity status as the Arab Anti-Christ, and because he had the unmitigated gall to be captured alive. This creates problems for everybody: For the coalition, which has to decide whether to turn Saddam over to the Iraqis or keep him for themselves, and for our Iraqi allies, who, in their heart of hearts, probably would rather avoid the public spectacle of a show trial.
Everybody has things to hide here -- things that Saddam no longer has any motive to conceal. This is especially true on the American end of the prosecution bench. Just to recap a few items that I posted after the deaths of the Husseini boys:
One awkward find was a cache of missiles that were made in the United States. Though details of the discovery are classified, sources in Washington say that military and intelligence agencies launched an urgent investigation to find out how the weapons got to Iraq and whether American firms might have violated U.N. embargoes and U.S. laws. Recently the inquiry was abandoned when convincing evidence turned up that the missiles had been exported legally from the United States to Iraq in the years before the first gulf war, when American policymakers cozied up to Saddam as a counterbalance to Iranian ayatollahs.
Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ... and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show.
We have been here for 40 days and haven't received a single part to fix broken vehicles. The good news is that we supplied the Iraqis with American equipment during the Iran war in 1982. I've looted many Special Republican Guard barracks (there is a 30 km stretch of SRG barracks between us and Tikrit) for Browning .50 Cals, in perfect condition, literally still in packing grease. We also found a stock pile of M-113s ...
The Iraqis, too, would probably find a public Saddam show trial less a catharsis than an agonizing exploration of the past, one that would reveal just how thoroughly the Baath penetrated every nook and cranny of Iraqi society, and -- even worse -- that would badly compromise many of the putative leaders of the New Iraq.
This is particularly true of the shadowy figures now being groomed to assume control of the New Mukhabarat -- Iraq's post-Saddam intelligence service. As the Washington Post reported just a couple of days ago, this is rapidly emerging as a power center for the Iraqi National Accord, an organization of ex-Baathist military officials and security bureaucrats.
The INA already has emerged as the party in charge of the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which will control not only the secret police, but also the national police, the civil defense force (Iraq's version of the National Guard) and, it seems, the new paramilitary force being formed from the various existing party militias.
Some INA officials, like the group's leader, Iyad Alawi, defected from the Baath decades ago, before the regime's criminality reached its full flower. But others are of considerably more recent vintage. Having served Saddam deep into the 1990s, they aren't likely to welcome a public accounting of his crimes now -- not a real trial, with a real discovery process and lots of public testimony.
So what is to be done with the big fish? Bush says Saddam will face "justice." But the wheels of justice, as we all know, can be made to grind exceedingly slow.
Assuming Saddam's allegedly good health doesn't unexpectedly deteriorate while in custody, it should be easy enough for the coalition to keep him stashed away until next July's scheduled transfer of power to a nominally sovereign Iraqi goverment. It also shouldn't be too hard to delay any kind of public accounting until after next November's elections -- and, if the administration has its way, until well after the American presence in Iraq has been reduced to the bare minimum required to keep a puppet government in power in Baghdad. At that point, whatever Saddam might reveal about U.S. complicity in his crimes could safely be filed under old news.
With Saddam on ice, the administration no doubt will be even more eager to abort its half-assed nation-building exercise in Iraq. Saddam's capture was the only PR upside left in the war -- what remains is the painful and dirty business of pacifying the Sunni Triangle and the endless headaches of trying to impose stability and democracy on a country that has never known either. Iraq may not be ready for true self government, but it's about to get a cheap imitation of it, and fast.
Listening to NPR this morning, I caught a fraction of an interview with the usual foreign policy sound bite artist -- I didn't catch the name clearly, but I think it was Walter Russell Meade of the Council on Foreign Relations. The reporter asked him to explain the "big picture" meaning of Saddam's capture. His response, and I quote:
"Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead!"
I didn't stick around to listen to the rest of the interview, so I don't know if Meade(?) was being sarcastic. But it struck me that that is exactly how the American public is likely to react to Saddam's capture, and they won't be sarcastic. To them, like to Bush, and to most ignorant people, everything is about personalities: If we've nabbed Saddam, then we must have won the war. It's the People magazine school of geopolitics.
But if you recall, the Wicked Witch's death was actually part of the plot mechanism whereby Dorothy discovered the Wizard of Oz was a fraud, and couldn't really send her back to Kansas. The Middle East isn't the Emerald City, and there's no Good Witch of the North to tell us to click our heels together and say "there's place like home."
Having destabilized Iraq, America will have to live with the consequences, which probably won't be much more pleasant than they were before Saddam was captured. If the insurgency collapses completely (and even the coalition's professional optimists don't seem to expect this) the political Lebanonization of Iraq is still likely to continue, providing a breeding ground for extremism and terrorism -- the very threats we supposedly invaded Iraq to prevent.
How much more fuel will the coalition's Israeli-style pacification campaign add to the fires of jihad throughout the Islamic world? And how long will it be before an American president -- maybe this one, maybe the next -- will have to choose between the collapse of a weak but friendly government in Baghdad, and an even deeper military commitment to Iraq?
The truth is that while the rat has been caught, the rat catcher is also trapped -- and in a hole much bigger, and deeper, than the one Saddam was found cowering in.
Well you're just one big ray of sunshine aren't you?
I agree, of course, it is odd to watch the Bush administration try to minimize expectations and pat itself on the back at the same time. The winger pundits are going to go nuts alternating between crowing and snarling and I think snarling is going to win out. The "Send the Dixie Chicks to Gitmo" crowd will be unable to contain themselves and will be looking for something, anything, a liberal says that isn't surrender to the PNAC vision so they may shout "J'accuse!" once again, just like the good old days when the drums of war first sounded in synch with the beating of their black little hearts.
The press, of course, will now play the "This Changes Everything" game so they can stop reporting on how well Dean is doing and breathlessly report on the resurgent fortunes of the Bush administration. It will be portrayed like Hulk Hogan, on the ropes, suddenly shakeing off the stupor into which he had appeared to have been beaten, and ripping off his shirt to the delight of his screaming fans.
Its all so freaking predictable. Gloatfest coming, get out the hip waders. We should look for some "gloat quotes" to add to the collection. Keep up the good work Billmon, set us up another round when you get time.
Remember that wonderful campaign slogan, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"
My new slogan;
"Are you safer today than you were on September 12, 2001?"
Actually, this is great news!
While Saddam's capture is irrelevant to Iraq's future, I must admit a certain amount of glee at witnessing Bush's biggest PR failure to date. Hussein was W's trump card, and he's been forced to play it nearly a year before the election.
Saddam's capture is probably only good for a month or so of positive spin. Even if the Great Bug Out gets under way immediately, it will take a month or two, by which time Iraq falling to pieces will be more pressing news. If American troops stay, they will continue to be targets right through next November.
So three cheers for the U.S. armed forces! One distraction down!
So Saddam's toast. Good, I wonder what he's gonna tell us about this whole story. I can see the US admin has no interest in a big public prosecution, because a few interesting things might make it into the daylight. My guess ? Saddam will commit suicide, and take a lot of compromising stories with him.
I'm quite pleased with the bastard being catched, but what interests me is what he'll have to say.
Also, as in most cases, I find the timing of this event quite odd. Isn't it funny that this happens while "Janitor Jim" Baker gets to negociate a massive, strategic, debt relief with the yurpeans ? Humm.
I wonder if the admin is Trying to make a deal
with Saddam to stop the bombings, looting,
kidnaping, and pipeline explosions ? Just heard
there are 4200mi of pipeline in Iraq. That is a
BIG target.. I figure the US could offer Saddam
a villa on the Rivera and as many virgins as he
wants but I think what will swing the deal is
belly dancers. It probably won't work so more
money thrown into the Bottomless Iraq since Bush
opened Pandora's bush and he has a Medusa by the
head or arm or whatever they have multiples of.
I kind of enjoy what the boys come up with to
explain the fiasco, Like the looting was a Little
Untidiness.. It is entertaining in a depressing
way.
"(...) but the apparent unability of the American Media to analyze what is really going on in Iraq." (...)
I dare to speculate that it has nothing to do with lack of ability, but everything with lack off will. A complete analysis of the Saddam era would inevitably show the US as one of the enablers (along with France, Germany, Britain etc. etc.), or one of the "bad guys", so to speak.
Since the majority of the American public doesn't want to hear about this "dirty" stuff, the media whores consider it bad for business and therefore it'll never reach a broad audience.
(News anchor): "Tonight, we bring you a different kind of story from Iraq. A story without a pre-determined ending and no US flags waving from Saddam Hussein's palace."
(TV audience): "What do you mean "different"? No happy end? Fuck this - I'm going to the movies."
But fear not my friends, there will always be another Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Idi Amin waiting right around the corner - and there'll always be a western, "civilized" government more than eager to supply him with weapons - just a question of when and where.
MuThetaTilde: I think Bin Laden is Bush's biggest trump card. He will be conveniently captured next October (if it is within Bush's power at all to capture him).
But with the capture of Hussein, I expect that we will now see a great acceleration of Bush's cut & run plan for Iraq. I expect us to declare victory and start going home soon, Iraqis be damned.
Now the news will just be how the insurgents "didn't get the memo." The idiotic rationalizations will fly fast and furious after after RPG/mortal/car bomb attack. I do have to say that it's about damn time this administration bagged a name that people recognize...
I wonder how much of the Hussein capture is designed for domestic consumption in the US. This may be a little of the subject, but does anyone here know how the Iraqi government worked during the Hussein regime? I read recently in Newsweek of armed militias personally loyal to different leaders in that country. I would guess that these were present during the rule of Hussein. Did he buy them off, intimidate them into submission, or play them off against each other? These groups seem to have little to do with Hussein and seem to enjoy a large following.
Listening to NPR become the "all Saddam" channel this morning I was ready to scream, what about bin Laden.
Yes, Saddam was a thoroughgoing bastard, but he had been our "TB" for years. He hid for 8 months in the small area we knew about, which isn't bad for someone who loved his comfort.
He was captured with two men who had a total of 2 AK-47s and a pistol among them. He had $750K, a herd of sheep, and a taxi. No communications equipment reported.
He wasn't controlling, coordinating, or financing anything except hiding himself.
When the attacks continue they will, no doubt, be labeled as attempts to free Saddam.
Bin Laden is still free and still plotting. Kudos to the guys on the ground in Iraq, but al Qaeda is the real problem.
I wonder if the admin is Trying to make a deal
with Saddam to stop the bombings, looting,
kidnaping, and pipeline explosions ?
The thought did occur to me the "capture" might in fact be a planned surrender -- with the exciting details staged for dramatic purposes.
That's a little more conspiratorial than I want to be, but I will say this: The ONLY reason to stage such a farce would be for the purposes of U.S. domestic politics. If winning the war in Iraq is the primary objective, then the coalition would be nuts to stage something like this -- or agree to stage something like this, if that's the price Saddam demanded to try to save a little face.
A voluntary surrender -- in public -- presumably would have a much more powerful effect on the will to resist of any true "dead enders" than a staged capture.
That said, I doubt there was any deal: What could the administration offer Saddam that it would be able to sell politically? I think a mansion in the Riveria is kind of a non-starter for the "biggest war criminal since Adolph Hilter."
On the other hand, since Saddam surprised everybody by not committing suicide rather than being caught, it's clear that his life (even a life in a cage) still has value to him. So maybe the deal was a promise to spare him the death penalty -- no matter what the Iraqis might want to do to him.
A staged capture still seems unlikely to me, but in the looking glass world we now live in, it can't be ruled out entirely.
When my father told me about this this afternoon, he at first called Saddam "Osama," so I wonder just how many other Americans--two-thirds?--will conflate the two?
But Saddam never really scared me, not even the evil all-powerful Saddam of the PNAC fantasies. I mean, how many American civilians have died at Saddam's bidding? And from all accounts, the Iraqi resistance has as little use for him as we do, so I don't know if landing Saddam is going to help the security situation there. I suppose there will be a reset on the casualty count, though: X number of American soldiers killed since the capture of Saddam.
Hope we can keep that number low.
Bin Laden and the whole al-Qaeda movement scare me more, much more. Sure, Bush might have Osama's head on a pike in time to parade it around New York next September. But I'd lay money that a Qaeda mass casualty attack on American soil will happen by then as well.
keep paying attention to the bastards. This is when they get overconfident in their crowing and make mistakes.
Damn.
How many people read this blog every day? Five hundred? A thousand?
This essay ought to appear in Tom Friedman's slot, available to the hundreds of thousands who read the Times. What you've written should get the play that CNN's squawking does, told to that station's audience of millions.
NPR goes always for the tried and tested, or rather, the tired and trivial. What I wouldn't give to see your analysis substituted for the conventional wisdom presented in that medium ... or any other that reaches more than a couple of handfuls of people.
Eloquent, profound, nuanced. All-around excellent, sir. I'm not shocked, but I am awed.
First of all, kudos to Billmon for the reference to the vanquished Emperor Valerian of the Fallen Roman Empire getting his neck stepped on...
Second, I'm guessing this is a case of Bushco going Yay! we got him! soon devolving into Oh shit! we got him.
Look at the options going forward: they hand him over to IGC who can either a) throw him in jail, b) exile him, c) send him off to The Hague, or d) show trial+firing squad. Jail or exile means he'll try to come back or there's a chance of escape. I'm betting the big fight in the U.S. administration is going to be whether to go with (c) or (d). A long show-trial involving the international community defangs the whole lack of UN backing argument and makes for good TV, but will not end in a firing squad. The other group, however, will be pushing hard for a quick show-trial and the firing squad to get closure. The locals will probably prefer option (d), since that's how they've been doing regime change housecleaning since forever (like they did with Qasim and Arif). It'll be interesting to see who wins out.
Whatever the outcome, Billmon, I hope you keep track of all the gloating quotes. It will no doubt make for a most entertaining post six months from now...
Yes, a great symbolic victory.
And, after all, what other kind of victory is this (mal)Administration capable of?
Ahh...it feels so good to see the inchoate jumble of thoughts that have been in my head all morning written down so succinctly. "The People magazine school of geopolitics" - that pithy phrase/concept will serve me well in future rants to friends. Thanks, Billmon, for this and many other outstanding posts.
Timothy Klein: curses for ruining my glee, but you are totally correct - Osama will be trotted out for the press this coming October.
Back to despair as usual.
Great post Mr. Billmon.
Saddam being captured is big news, yet utterly meaningless. This is supposed to make it all worthwhile. I mean, thats what this was about, right? To get Saddam. Or was it WMDs'? Or to liberate Iraq for the Iraqis? Or to pave the way for democracy in the Middle East? Or as vengence for 9/11?
In fact, this whole Iraqi War has had no valid rationalization beyond the twisted self-reality that nightmare have.
Can we wake up now please? This is giving me a headache.
We've unleashed events and forces over there that we can't control. The next year will be a cliffhanger, for sure. I'm thankful that we'll have a candidate (and hopefully, Clark as VP) who can articulate what's wrong with the picture. Iraq was always a diversion, and every death/dollar we lose over there from now on will come back to bite us.
excellent analysis.
I think this is the start of the exit plan. US has the bad guy, our work is done. I dont see how he was leading the resistance from a hole in the ground but then Cheney and chelabi thought the Iraqis would welcome the Coalition with flowers.
"(...) but the apparent unability of the American Media to analyze what is really going on in Iraq." (...)
Re: the press. Did you note the reaction to Bremer's "We Got 'Em" statement? The press--at least some of them--cheered, whooped, and threw their fists in the air. These are the people who are supposed to give us information on Iraq? I hardly expect Baathist sympathies from the press but the over identification with the occupation must color and filter (to use Bush's term) the press's analysis. If your cheering for one side your probably not really getting the whole picture--or as full a picture as you might get if you tried to retain a little objectivity.
yes again, the outraage is not the capture but the transparent spin readily and eagerly consumed by the nazcar brown shirt nation. untidy indeed.
in perusing the blogs the common sentiment of those whose minds arent lobotimized by osamatization is the criticism of how quickly the reactionaries spin this into 'mission accomplished' sorta.
the world groans and w gloats.
will the enfante be reselected? we sit here typing away. away oh dixie land.
go, dean, go.
I can't help but feeling this has to have been staged, or be the result of a change in counter-insurgency tactics at some point. Saddam had a 25M bounty on his ass for a while, so I suspect there had been quite a lot of false leads on his whereabouts in the rencent past. Yet, I have not seen many accounts of 600 soldiers being dispatched to a Saddam hunt in the recent past, as it happened today. Launching a large scale operation to nab Saddam that turns out to be unsuccessful has to make some noise in the end, which certainly isn't what centcom wants. And I guess there would have been plenty of such failures in hunting Saddam, all these false leads, and Iraq being the size of California and all.
But for some reason, this operation turned out to be successful, and not another 4ID blunder. Hmm.
What event prompted the dispatch of 600 soldiers, to fetch 3 guys holed up in a rat's hole with no equipment, and turn out to be so successful ?
- New exceptional quality intelligence ?
- Deliberate surrender ?
- Change in the way the army gathers intelligence ? I heard some Israeli specialists were on the ground to help on things like this.
Why has Saddam not committed suicide, and become a legend ? I mean dying fighting a 3 to 600 rifle fight with one pistol and 2 AK's against 600 fully equipped US soldiers certainly opens you a few gates up there and makes up for a collection of virgins too in the good Jihadi's manual I would think ?
If this was staged, then it can prove a huge embarassment to a number of people if Saddam starts being talkative about a few dirty stories.
If it's been staged, then why now ?
I'll hazard a guess Saddam's position probably was known for a while. It seems to me he's been cropped at a convenient timing OR he just surrendered. I'll also dare to propose that Osama is probably already in US custody, and will be dragged into the limelight when convenient.
Just wondering who will be first to describe this as th "ace in the hole"?
Rule Of Law! Rule Of Law! Rule Of Law!!!!
I want a trial, with all the gory details. Please, nice and public and in the Hague or something.
but that'll never happen.
what with the abhorence the current administration feels towards anything that might even approach law enforcement that isn't directly beneficial for their political wellbeing.
Plame? who'se that?
am I the only one who smells a rat?
Here was an operation involving 600 soldiers going after a tip on saddam hussein, and NOT A SHOT WAS FIRED???
THat tells me they knew that not a shot would be fired at them.
Saddam was found disoriented in a hole in the ground with a gun and a couple of local goons, not his own men.
I think this was a hand-off. Someone has had him on ice for a couple weeks, he got too hot, so they sold him to the US for concessions to be paid at a later date. Some war-lord turned him over to the US.
But meanwhile, back in Baghdad, from the Guardian:
Large Explosions Rock Central Baghdad
Sunday December 14, 2003 6:01 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Large explosions rocked central Baghdad Sunday evening and flames and thick smoke rose from the area, just hours after U.S. officials announced the capture of Saddam Hussein. A policeman said there were no casualties.
Shortly afterward, bursts of gunfire rang out from the area. The explosions occurred at 8:20 p.m. local time in the central Baghdad area of Karadah.
A policeman said a white four-wheel drive vehicle had exploded on Saadoun street, a busy thoroughfare, after two men jumped from the vehicle and fled the scene.
Two fire trucks arrived a few minutes later and started putting out the blaze.
superdupont and others:
I saw this story today and my bullshit detectors went off! I mean they stage manage everything else from the SCOTUS acclimation of Bush to the yellow cake to the flight deck to the turkey...why not this!?
Give it a couple weeks/months and Billmon will have to pull out quotes once again to show the levels of lies that come from the WH.
pardon my spelling...acclamation
Re: Rule of Law
I was watchin CBC Newsworld and a reporter was interviewing a Human Rights Watch member.
The Human Rights member was making the case it would be better for the trial of Saddam to be under international law, for crimes against humanity--genocide specifically. It would also set a presedent for Rule of Law and Due Process in Iraq, helping the Iraqis break from the past of show-trials like Saddam had.
Then I turned the channel to CNN, and say some lawyer-type from some "Center of International Justic" (or something like that), telling a CNN reporter it would be better if Saddam was tried in Iraq, because somehow it would give the Iraqis their carthesis.
I was struck by the agenda of the coverage.
Here we had a Canadian broadcast reporter interviewing a Human Rights Watch member, asking for the Rule of Law to be used, while on CNN, the need for a quick decisive trial with an assured death penalty.
This incident really put the coverage of the War into a crystal-clear perspective, showing the underlying bias US reporters have in their coverage, but more importantly in their thinking.
the rat catcher is also trapped -- and in a hole much bigger, and deeper, than the one Saddam was found cowering in
Can't we just send them both to the Hague and have done with the whole thing?
Saddam won't get a chance to talk publicly until there's a trial (and maybe not so much even then), but I don't see suicide either unless it's done for him. He apparently has another way to play it, and this speculation about a setup makes me think it's pretty likely.
Accounts I've read say there was a general feeling in Iraq that Saddam was the Americans' man, and supposedly he spread that story himself just before the actual invasion. So now he surrenders without a fight and is said to be singing like a little bird, very cooperative.
If you were an Iraqi and had suspicions he was on the US payroll, what would that tell you? What would you conclude from his being held incommunicado and supposedly cooperating freely?
This is the real danger here, because, as Billmon says, it will bring back all the feeling that the US was behind the Iran war as well as the Gulf War and the sanctions. He hasn't said a word, and yet he's apparently setting up the situation so that people will remember their long-held resentments about the US.
This is really dangerous. I think the admin should have put out stories that he was defiant and didn't give them a word, a very tough prisoner. They don't want to for domestic reasons, but it would be better for the Iraq situation if they did. They need to start doing that now.
I wonder if the admin is Trying to make a deal
with Saddam to stop the bombings, looting,
kidnaping, and pipeline explosions ?
If Saddam has had any connection at all to the bombings, looting, kidnapping and pipeline explosions, it is at best insignificant. He is in no position to stop anything, deal or no deal. It is all quite, quite beyond his control.
Contrary to the ignorant assumptions/propaganda, which have become by now the received "truth", the resistance is not and has never been about Saddam or Saddam supporters. Iraqis recognized very early on that Saddam was irrelevant to Iraq's future.
Also contrary to the ignorant assumptions/propaganda, Sunni does not equal Baathist and Baathist does not equal Saddam supporter. So, even to the extent that Baathists have been involved in the resistance Saddam has never been a significant factor.
There is one significant effect Saddam may have had on the resistance, and that is a negative one. The fear that he might one day return to power very likely has kept certain groups and individuals from actively resisting the Americans. It is quite possible - probably even - that we will see these groups joining the resistance now that he is in captivity. And once the Shi'as begin real resistance, the Americans are finished in Iraq for a very long time.
It may be that within a year or so we will have a new Iraqi republic - Al Jumhuriya Al Islamiya Al Shi3iya Al Dimoqratiya Al 3iraqiya - the Democratic Shi'a Islamic Republic of Iraq. And thought that is not my fondest dream for Iraq, is far from the worst thing that could happen for the country.
There has been relatively little discussion about the bounty that the U.S. tax payers ostensibly are to pay out for the capture of the big fish in the little pond. Who gets the $25 million? KPFK reports that Saddam's wife turned him in. So the money goes right back into the Hussein family coffers to pay for his defense?
dying fighting a 3 to 600 rifle fight with one pistol and 2 AK's against 600 fully equipped US soldiers certainly opens you a few gates up there and makes up for a collection of virgins too in the good Jihadi's manual
Well, Saddam never believed much in the heavens and virgins stuff. Despite that last-minute islamic rhetoric, he never was a true beliver.
For certain, what we get is not the full story. But I don't think you can use his non-islamic-suicide as a sign that something is staged.
I mean, the guy was in a cave hiding out, he was a non-player, and looks like he was a prisoner. he means nothing.
Oops, that was not meant to be an anonymous post. It was me.
Anyway: a post full of wonderful insight, Billmon. I agree with Meteor. This text should be in the Times's everywhere.
Like someone said way upstream, I'm surprised Bush played one of his high cards so early. They must be worried a lot more about the election than they are letting on.
Or maybe a lot of Bushie's friends got where they wanted in the stock market and are ready to cash in on Monday when the best news of the Bush millenium hits the markets.
Somehow, I don't think we're done in Iraq. I just don't think that furry rat in the drain had all that much to do with the deaths of nearly 400 coalition soldiers since fleeing Baghdad in April. Bet there's a new boss in Iraq, and given the proven dot-connecting capabilities of our intelligence, we don't even know his name at this point.
OK, so the guy is in custody of the US Imperialist Army. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, $250 billion has been spent (so far), the world's Muslim fanatics are militarized and focused on resisting the USA, over 500 US troops are dead, 10,000 more have been debilitated for life, and the US economy is tanking. Nobody is actually running this country because the people who are supposed to be running the government are fully busy doing all kinds of irrelevant things instead. Watch these guys in the repug party act like they've achived something good for us. I just can't see that it's anything more real or valid than a freakin' puppet show in the midway at the county fair.
Question: Why is Saddam alive?
Answer: How else to prove the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection but to hear it from Saddam's own mouth. If he says it, it would have to be true, right?
Also, as in most cases, I find the timing of this event quite odd.
As if someone was actually keeping Saddam "on ice", as it were, until the Bush poll numbers could use a significant boost?
(And, while we're at it, will we see Osama bin Laden's corpse defrosted next fall for a pre-election "October Surprise"?)
Re: Olaf's "ace in the hole" comment.
It was the headline on Drudge, of course.
Did you note the reaction to Bremer's "We Got 'Em" statement? The press--at least some of them--cheered, whooped, and threw their fists in the air. These are the people who are supposed to give us information on Iraq?
To be fair, my understanding is that most of the reporters who were cheering were from the local Iraqi press. If anybody has a right to bend the rules of journalistic objectivity in this case, it's them.
While U.S. reporters in Iraq haven't exactly covered themselves in professional glory, I think that by and large, most of them done a reasonably fair job of covering the story since the fall of Baghdad -- and some of them, like the Washington Post's Tony Shadid, have done an excellent job.
I just don't think that furry rat in the drain had all that much to do with the deaths of nearly 400 coalition soldiers since fleeing Baghdad in April.
Be assured he had for all practical purposes nothing to do with it. In fact, Saddam Hussein has never done anything to the USA or to Americans.
Bet there's a new boss in Iraq, and given the proven dot-connecting capabilities of our intelligence, we don't even know his name at this point.
Good point about the proven dot-connecting abilities, but it is clear that there is no new boss. The resistance is decentralized and consists of literally dozens of different groups who are resisting for different reasons. Some but by no means all of these groups appear to be working together in a coordinated manner, but most are quite independent of one another. Also, from all the information I am getting each group is pretty decentralized with no one "boss" calling the shots.
Watch these guys in the repug party act like they've achived something good for us. I just can't see that it's anything more real or valid than a freakin' puppet show in the midway at the county fair.
I have avoided watching the news today because I don't want to watch Bush strutting and crowing like a rooster who thinks the sun rises because of him.
The capture of Saddam Hussein will not change anything in Iraq that really matters in any significant way. Hopefully the "glow" from it will not last long enough to get us another four years of the most dangerous regime in the world.
Already in NY the focus of the news cycle has shifted to the season's second snow storm. Bush's statements have been positively reserved when one considers the mission accomplished hoopla of the past. Karl Rove is learning.
I got to watch El Prezidumbte's speech on ABC today. The lead-in by the ABC "reporters" was clasic, and I wish I could have taped it. the questions smelled like set up - "will he show emotion? will he take questions? will he speak to the Iraqi people?
Then, right on cue, Bush delivers exactly as the answers said he would.
Earlier, I think the truth slipped out. In response to a questions when it "wasn't clear if Bush was going to speak" (heightening the drama?), "will he take questions" came up then. The answer was - No. The handlers didn't want Bush to speak "off the cuff".
I wonder why?
Lastly, we aren't going to be leaving Iraq any time soon. Thar's still OIL in them thar dunes! Who cares how many GIs have to die to pay for it all?
Certainly not Bush and the PNACers.
Brilliant essay.
Spot on commentary: It's the People magazine school of geopolitics.
So sad the media can't/won't do better. You know People in the News will have a Paula Zahn narrated special about how brave Bush was to repel down that rat hole & take on SH & his Baathist ninjas single handedly while a BA pilot almost blew the covert op because he asked "Did I just see Halliburton's G-V?" Steno Sue will write the print version, unless Top Gun uncovered WMD in the hole, then Judith Miller will step up (although she will only see Saddam's back).
If Bush is gonna step on Saddam's neck in MSG, then they better shave him up & put his uniform back on him. He looks more homeless than tyrannical now.
Highly and strangely unfortunate that BushCo went and captured Saddam alive, after trying to pulverize him with ordinance so many times in February and March.
They really have a problem on their hands now, aside from very short term PR gains. Since they don't believe in international law, the Hague must be out. A trial by Iraqis could have disasterous impact given the World focus given to such an event, in an already war torn and chaotic country. Exile him, and screams from the Bush base support would be deafening.
And then there's always the horrifying scenario that Hussein might be given a global forum to actually speak. How many Bushies, Powells, Rummies, etc would probably prefer that this particular option not manifest? It would certainly make for some unusual singing.
So, for this miniscule intellect anyhow, the question remains: Why did they "capture" him alive? The smell of a corpse is a bad thing, undoubtedly. The smell of all the deals and lies and crooked connections that could now be tossed before the planet could well prove overpowering.
Bet there's a new boss in Iraq, and given the proven dot-connecting capabilities of our intelligence, we don't even know his name at this point.
Actually, I bet there's more than a few guys vying for the spot of Big-Sunni-Dog now that Saddam is in the pound. And what better way to prove your pack dominance than by taking a bigger bite out of the dog catcher than the next up-and-comer.
I fear the struggle to fill the power vaccum is going to make life even more unpleasant for our poor GIs, since the ability to kill Americans will be the new currency for leadership in post-Saddam Iraq.
Can't say I am sorry to see him go, but actually the timing is poor. Now, with both excuses for going into Iraq gone -- WMD and the "brutal dictator" -- even the dumbest amongst us are going to start to question pouring billions into rebuilding the country when Americans need that money on the home front. With Saddam gone, Bush is going to have more and more difficulty keeping troops in Iraq since any perceived threats (which never existed) are now over and the world is safe for democracy again. Pity that Halliburton and the other leeches may find themselves high and dry if the public and the troops rebel. Can't wait to see how he presents this.
Plan to cash in all my stocks if there is a Saddam high since there is no telling what our heroes in Washington are going to do next.
Can't stand 60 minutes tonight. Stomach retching time. It's on the level of "I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." But like in PRINCESS BRIDE, it ain't over.
Incredible post, Billmon, thanks. Like everyone else, I'm not certain how events will unfold in the coming months. But I do remember that Bush the Elder had a 90% approval rating in Feb. of '92 and conventional wisdom questioned the need for a Democratic candidate. Let's hope history will repeat itself once again ...
Does anyone really believe that they are going to let Saddam sit in the witness box like Herman Goering and tell the whole world all he knows? It is like getting kicked in the head with iron boot, it just isn't going to happen.
They will certainly try to get him to confess as to having WMD but disposing of it just days before the invasion and of course he will admit to planning the 9/11 attacks - perhaps they will promse him exile if he tells all he knows and like the stupid old fool who allows himself to be taking alive by his nemesis he might actually believe it.
Once they get what they need out of him - he will be visited late at night by men in white coats who will administer a chemical cardiac arrest.
The man has secrets and I for would love to hear them, but I don't think anyone ever will ...
Uday and Qusay fight to the death against overwhelming odds; while Saddam is captured, hiding in a hole in a basement, without body guards and without a shot being fired. This is the man who survived countless assassination attempts over the past twenty years. The same man who refused exile to avert the US invasion, only to be pulled out of a hole in the ground to face trial and certain execution. Since I don't believe anything that emanates from the Bush Administration, I don't believe this either.
good riddance to bad rubbish, i say. i know as a christian i'm supposed to pray for my enemies and all that, but i can't help cheering when tyrants come to an ignominious end. pol pot for instance. richard nixon. i'd throw in a pithy three word latin quote about tyrants here, but under the circumstances, it doesn't seem advisable.
howzabout we all just kick back and celebrate for a change? there'll be plenty of time to debate what it all means tomorrow. it'll be monday morning, after all ;-).
bartender - couple bottles of champagne, on me.
The same man who refused exile to avert the US invasion
Going into exile would not have averted the invasion and he knew that. The Bushies stated explicitly that they would invade Iraq whether Saddam went into exile or not.
Billmon, sicko-and-horno, it is easy to work hard and dig and dig and find a way to make any situation look bad for GOP. After all, a horny and sick guy like you who gets an orgasm whenever Dean is mentioned in audio, video, or text. It must be very dipressing for you to wake up and hear that something good is happening to someone who is not a "liberal-hypocrite" (i.e., all partisan democrats). I mean you just cannot stand. So, what you do? Become "Stephen Glass" and dig and dig and dig until you come up with an ass-hole theory why the good news is really bad news in disguise of.
Trav
Literacy is a wonderful thing, Travis. You ought to try it some time.
"Family nemesis"? What the fl@$k are you talking about?
Saddam Hussein is an old Bush Family retainer.
He was launched into his career as a killer by none other than the CIA, who trained him, paid him, and helped him recuperate when his first mission was a Bush-league f@#k-up.
The Reaganauts loved him. Washington supported him throughout the disastrous war with Iran, sent him bio-terror weapons stocks even after we knew he would use them -- or maybe because we knew he would use them --, and for Pete's sake, the guy even asked for permission to invade Kuwait and was given the go ahead by the Bush I Administration's ambassador, April Glasbie.
If we rejoice over his capture, surely we should equally demand the demise of his sponsors and benefactors:
George HW Bush
Ronald Reagan
Donald Rumsfeld
etc.
When I see the aforementioned swing from a yardarm on the Washington Mall, then I'll believe that justice in Iraq has been served.
Much is being made of Hussein's capture, and rightly so. He was a monstrous dictator. The ramifications of his capture are not clear, and the final fate of Iraq is also not known. I suspect that in 2 or 3 months, we will declare victory and begin to withdraw the troops. Hopefully, most will be able to return by April or so. I'm not so sure that the Iraqi army that we are training will be able to control the armed militias which seem to be very common in Iraq. Without a reasonably strong central authority, fighting might break out between rival factions who have been emboldened by our destruction of Hussein and the Baathists. I have doubts that any government which we create will last more than a few years, but who knows?
Also, Trav, I was blown away by the content of your post. The word is spelled "depressed," dolt.
Billmon, I'm sorry about Travis, he probably came over here after I was singing your praises over at Atrios. This little mental defective has been buzzing in our ears off and on all day. Sorry to inadvertantly inflict him on y'all.
Saddam Hussein is still alive, but not for long. He will probably be found dead soon, either by "assisted suicide" (he killed himself by shooting himself in the back or something) or "he tried to escape so they had to shoot him". He knows too many embarrassing secrets to be allowed to talk in a trial. Same fate as his two sons.
Yes, Saddam might have lots of interesting things to say. As did Manuel Noriega. Fantasy cellmates -- Saddam and Mannie. Their conversations would take "Bush hating" to a whole new level.
Before the GOP victory dance becomes too orgiastic, I wish someone in the media would dig up Dubyah's declaration initiating an optional $200 billion war to capture Saddam Hussein.
To put it another way, where are the WMDs? The evidence of imminent threat? The connection between Saddam and 9/11? The shred of a semblance of justification that the military invasion was done to "enforce" UN resolutions -- though the UNSC vehemently fought the action?
The chickenhawk refrain that this is a stick in the eye of traitor anti-war evildoers, as usual, misses the point. While no fan of Saddam, I believed (and still do) that there are no military solutions to human-rights problems created by corporate and political expediency -- like empowering the likes of Osama and Saddam cause they're against the enemy du jour of the time. Next thing you know, this travesty will be spun as a victory in Commander Codpiece's War on Democrats. Too bad that only delays what's needed in Iraq: a clear plan, with international oversight, to return Iraq to the Iraqi people ... you know, where it was before the Dick Cheneys and Don Rumsfelds puffed up Saddam to fight Iran.
The sinister Hussein, scourge of the free world, has been apprehended by 600 soldiers. He was found cowering in a rat filled hole with a couple of guns and three quarters of a million dollars. It requires a lot of imagination to picture this Unabomber-like figure as the greatest threat this nation has ever known.
Post of the year nomination for Billmon.
I was genuinely surprised that Saddam was taken alive. This will get messy. So many skeletons. Remember, this war started with a "decapitation" strike, and a kind of sneaky one at that. Capturing Saddam was not Job One. Did somebody screw the pooch here? The maximum leader's reaction was pretty muted . . . .
A trenchant and succinct commentary, Billmon. Well done.
I admit to being irked because this event has been and will be presented by the media to the Teeming Yahoo Masses as some kind of important victory and vindication for the plutocracy. At least for the moment, the day, the week, the Usurper POTUS' public relations spin doctors have hung the frame on the Big Lie-- i.e. first Hussein was swapped for the elusive bin Laden as Public Enemy Number One, a wholly unjustified war was conducted as part of this charade, and now taking Hussein into custody magically equates to Satan himself being brought in chains before the throne of the Fisher King. And of course everyone is compelled to publicly hail the event and praise our fearless leaders and all the king's men.
When tuning into WHYY 91FM, the local NPR channel, I found that Harry Shearer's politically astute and satirical "Le Show" had been inexplicably pre-empted by an edition of "Whatd'ya Know?" Later, I tuned in again, hoping the show had just been delayed. Instead, an NPR newsreader was archly summarizing a range of responses to the "great news." Anyone not in, or supportive of, the administration was made to seem meek and obsequious. Creepy...
I wish, and hope, that truth and clear-sightedness will prevail, but there seem to be an awful lot of people who get lost in a PCP-like War rush, or a Power rush, or a Mob rush, or whatever. The country seems to be in no mood to be distracted by inconvenient facts. Time will tell.
PS: I was scanning this thread, and wondering how Billmon managed to keep away the trolls and mutants that clog other blogs like flies on flypaper-- and then Travis McGee popped up...
Thanks for yet another brilliant post Billmon. I second for Post Of The Year catagory, but if it that was a catagory .. you might win all three top slots!
Yes, Saddam might have lots of interesting things to say..
Definitely. I don't know why our govt tries to show him as an iliterate bumpkin. The man was a law student and probably knows how and what to write quite well. To think he is going down silently is a neocon fantasy. I am sure there are several manuscripts already carefully tucked away with an entire history of all the dirty dealings of the American and British government and corporate involvement in Iraq over the past 25 years. Wonder how soon before it starts leaking?
I think your post is well articulated, Billmon. You really do bring up some interesting questions.
I just wonder why certain trolls spew "liberal-hypocrite" and use this as their "victory". What victory for them? We support saddam being caught, just like them.
I support saddam being caught, I just don't like the means for going into war leading up to Saddam's capture.
Dom
The reality of Saddam's capture is that it that it may be setting up the ultimate disappointment: as long as Saddam was at large, one might hope that his capture would stop the insurgency. If, as I expect instead, the insurgency proceeds as before, then there is probably nothing we can ever do to make it stop.
Most likely, Saddam's capture will become as distant and irrelevant a memory as the toppling of his statue.
How about this for conspiracy theories:
From Dec 2:
U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood held his thumb and forefinger slightly apart and said, "We're this close" to catching Saddam Hussein.
Once that's accomplished, Iraqi resistance will fall apart, said the five-term Republican congressman from Peoria who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.
A member of The Pantagraph editorial board -- not really expecting an answer -- asked LaHood for more details, saying, "Do you know something we don't?"
"Yes I do," replied LaHood.
This inevitable capture has nothing but pr value, something that Lieberman, Gephardt et, al., seem to realize since they are already using it against Dean.
What's amazing is that people seem to think that capturing the other "Wicked Witch", Bin Laden, would be truly significant - the end of Terror.
The Israelis have been executing their local wicked witches for years. The result? Nada. The resistance just continues. And the reason is not hard to see - there are genuine grievances in the region against US and Israeli policies, period.
I have to take issue with the notion that the American people will think it's all over now. A poll conducted after the capture - just as sentiment was at its peak - suggested that few Americans think it will make all that much difference in the rebuilding of Iraq or in the insurgency (I can't find the link right now). What's more, the poll gave Bush only a 4 point boost - much less than I would have thought. I think people are much more realistic - and pessimistic - about the Iraq adventure than we assume.
Put me on the list of those who wouldn't be surprised to see Iraq begin to fade from the news the way Afghanistan has. However, shall we ask the Russians how easy it is to colonize Islamic countries?
It is nevertheless easier to loot the public treasure when a war is on; and since we have a perpetual war with no end in sight -- the "War on Terror" -- how convenient -- I guess we'll need to enter the Iran phase, next. But I'm rambling -- keep up the good work!
tenstring - if the government can convince CNN, FOX et al to pull their reporters then you would see a fading of Iraq from the news. We saw this with Afghanistan. YOu bring the cameras home and you get the big news fade out.
Unfortunately I do not think that the Russian experience in Afghanistan is a good mirror for the current situation. Instead people should be asking how hard has it been for Amoco, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell to exploit the resources of Islamic countries? The oil is still flowing, the oil corporations are still making money and unfortunately once again the "villain" portrayed in left-wing articles will be imperialist politicians rather than criminal corporations. The politicians will eat the bad press but the corporations will continue to flourish. Governments have been held accountable but it seems corporations formed during the mercantile period of history continue to avoid blame.
Like you I believe that, in realpolitik term, this is rather meaningless: Saddam was no longer a player, Iraq has moved on.
Where it matters is here, in the US, and what I find depressing is not the capture of that rat bastard (I cheered when Franco died too) but the apparent unability of the American Media to analyze what is really going on in Iraq. It's the cognitive dissonance that's scary, and Saddam's capture made it spike even higher.