July 31, 2004, If true, wouldn't it be conveeeeeeeenient
This week's visit to Pravda gives us various accounts of the possibly (or probably) failing health of Saddam Hussein. I agree with the central thrust, of course, that Mr. Hussein's death-- from health problems rather than "shot while trying to escape"-- would be most convenient for Messrs. Bush and Blair-- especially Mr. Bush, in the few months before the presidential election.
Among the myriad of things not planned for in the course of the Iraq adventure was what to do with Saddam Hussein, if captured alive. Orders to shoot him on sight would have been, of course, illegal. Our usually well-trained American soldiers would not have fired on a surrendering unarmed Saddam Hussein (or one who surrendered his side-arm upon surrendering). Which takes us back to the "bad-apples" fantasy: even our reservists would not have taken it upon themselves to commit the outrages of Abu Ghraib but for definitive NOT illegal-on-their-face orders, which came from on high-- either Secretarissimo Rumsfeld OR HIGHER. But I digress.
Having bollixed things up and captured Saddam alive, besides using the occasion to drive another spike into the candidacy of the troubling Howard Dean (the second-to-last man Rove wanted to face, only slightly less troublesome than Edwards), Saddam's capture was nothing but bad news. The casualties continued to mount unabated after his capture-- proving that capturing him was not a panacea for anything. The issue of who would try him led to thorny questions as to the legality of the occupation-- as it still does.
The easiest (and by far the smartest) move would have been to turn him over to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, or rush through a UN Security Council resolution authorizing an ad hoc tribunal. But the Bush Administration has been mired by intelligence failures-- in the more usual sense of the word. So Saddam is in our custody, awaiting trial, before a rigged game of our construction and management.
If Saddam really did have a heart-attack, or really does have some sort of terminal (and preferably fast acting) cancer, then we will save us from these troubling issues. I tend not to accept the "he'll squeal on Bush, Rumsfeld, et al." rationale for why his "trial" will be more Kafkaesque than usual-- he was in a position to have pre-leaked those goodies to journalists around the world (think "French, German or Russian journalists"), in the event of his capture. He didn't. There seems to be a dictator code about that sort of thing, and the fantasy that all such trials from Pinochet to Noriega to Mislosevic to Tikriti would involve the dictator disclosing all of the really bad stuff done at the behest of the Imperialist Yankees never happens. Saddam is in an end-game and knows it.
With the occupation technically over, he should have been turned over to "the Iraqis", and not merely "legally but not physically" either. But the occupation really isn't over, and everyone knows it. It may or may not continue well past the Iraqi election that may or may not happen before February, as mandated. If Saddam is tried, or worse, tried and executed, under a widely perceived as illegitimate occupation, that will not be good news for anyone.
Hence, while his attorneys may well have every incentive to overstate his health problems, if Saddam Hussein Tikriti really does have severe health problems, it would be most welcome good news for Bush. The way things are going for him right now, I'm sure he'd be delighted for it.
Comments
Keep up this great resource. I bookmark your site, best greetings ...
Posted by stories kristen at August 7, 2004 09:06 AM