Why Is Saddam America’s Foe Now?
Dec 21, 2003
The capture of former Iraq strongman Saddam Hussein is a most exhilarating Christmas gift the American Army has given to US militarist president George Bush and his committed disciple, British premier Tony Blair.
The capture of former Iraq strongman Saddam Hussein is a most exhilarating Christmas gift the American Army has given to US militarist president George Bush and his committed disciple, British premier Tony Blair. Be that as it may, the consequences of the humiliating arrest of the man who proclaimed himself a descendant of the mighty Nebukadenezer of ancient Babylon, are grossly unpredictable.
Despite the immediate effect of releasing George Bush from the tension caused by pressure at home and agitation from abroad, one has to heed the wisdom of the English saying that not all that glitters is gold. In fact, given the host of shocking surprises which have littered the course of events surrounding the invasion of Iraq, a Saddam arrested alive poses more potential for diplomatic trouble than would have been the case if all the Americans discovered was merely his dead body.
If historical precedents are anything to go by, it is too early to advance any theories as to which way the cat will jump. Let us take a quick look at the precedents. At the time George Bush and Tony Blair decided to defy the UN security council and invade Iraq, they were dead certain that Saddam had stocks of weapons of mass destruction hidden in some secret places in Iraq. All that was necessary was to overthrow him and the stocks would be easily discovered, or so they thought. But after months of unhampered exhaustive search, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq, and the conclusion that there are no such weapons in that country is growing increasingly inevitable. Here is another interesting aspect of the whole melodrama.
The coalition forces mounted the invasion on Iraq with the full conviction that the war would last within two or three days. They were gravely mistaken! The war continued for several months before the capture of Baghdad precipitated George Bush’s proclamation that the “war†was over. Even then the “war†was actually not over, it is continuing even as you read this! Given the rate at which the killing of US troops and Iraqi policemen as well as iraqi civilians regarded as being accomplices of the occupying coalition forces, the natural conviction was that Saddam was managing the whole show.
The American and their British allies expected that their attempts to capture Saddam would be faced with substantial force at the crucial moment, alternatively, that Saddam would avoid arrest by taking his own life. Neither of those possibilities materialised. Saddam surrendered to his US captors without a shot being fired.
The manner in which he surrendered and the environment in which he was living, gives the impression that he could not have been the one orchestrating the ambushes and suicide bombings which have claimed the lives of hundreds of American and British soldiers, UN diplomats, Red Cross agents, and thousands of Iraq citizens. That view has acquired credibility by virtue of the fact that the bombings have continued after Saddam’s arrest. His arrest will not bring the entire system to an immediate halt.
Some of Saddam’s admirers have lashed out at him for surrendering without a fight. They argue that he should have resisted and been shot dead rather than face the humiliation to which he is being subjected. The angrier ones label him a coward, but there is more to Saddam’s capture than readily meets the eye.
If he had been killed or had killed himself, there would be no debate about him now. He would have been buried and relegated to the rubbish heap of history. Now that he is alive, several questions are being asked. Where should he be tried and by whom? The governing council in Iraq says Saddam must be tried in Iraq by an Iraqi tribunal, and President George Bush seems to concur. But several voices from the international community contend that only an internationally set-up tribunal can guarantee a fair trial for the fallen dictator.
There is also the other question whether Saddam should be sentenced to death if convicted. The British oppose the death penalty and indeed capital punishment was abolished in Britain several years ago.
But the Americans who are holding him have capital punishment on their statute books. That is why George bush wants to wash his hands of the trial issue, Pontius Pilate style, and he is saying, it is up to the people of Iraq to decide what to do with him. And there is something interesting on the other side of the coin. History has it that when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran he had the full backing of the United States. It is said the United States supplied arms to Iraq and offered assistance which enabled him to use biological weapons in the war against Iran!
Why, one might ask, is it that now Saddam is America’s number one enemy?
Whether Saddam will at his trial make reference to the time when his war in which he used weapons of mass destruction against Iran was backed by the United States, anybody’s guess is as good as
mine.
Ends
Despite the immediate effect of releasing George Bush from the tension caused by pressure at home and agitation from abroad, one has to heed the wisdom of the English saying that not all that glitters is gold. In fact, given the host of shocking surprises which have littered the course of events surrounding the invasion of Iraq, a Saddam arrested alive poses more potential for diplomatic trouble than would have been the case if all the Americans discovered was merely his dead body.
If historical precedents are anything to go by, it is too early to advance any theories as to which way the cat will jump. Let us take a quick look at the precedents. At the time George Bush and Tony Blair decided to defy the UN security council and invade Iraq, they were dead certain that Saddam had stocks of weapons of mass destruction hidden in some secret places in Iraq. All that was necessary was to overthrow him and the stocks would be easily discovered, or so they thought. But after months of unhampered exhaustive search, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq, and the conclusion that there are no such weapons in that country is growing increasingly inevitable. Here is another interesting aspect of the whole melodrama.
The coalition forces mounted the invasion on Iraq with the full conviction that the war would last within two or three days. They were gravely mistaken! The war continued for several months before the capture of Baghdad precipitated George Bush’s proclamation that the “war†was over. Even then the “war†was actually not over, it is continuing even as you read this! Given the rate at which the killing of US troops and Iraqi policemen as well as iraqi civilians regarded as being accomplices of the occupying coalition forces, the natural conviction was that Saddam was managing the whole show.
The American and their British allies expected that their attempts to capture Saddam would be faced with substantial force at the crucial moment, alternatively, that Saddam would avoid arrest by taking his own life. Neither of those possibilities materialised. Saddam surrendered to his US captors without a shot being fired.
The manner in which he surrendered and the environment in which he was living, gives the impression that he could not have been the one orchestrating the ambushes and suicide bombings which have claimed the lives of hundreds of American and British soldiers, UN diplomats, Red Cross agents, and thousands of Iraq citizens. That view has acquired credibility by virtue of the fact that the bombings have continued after Saddam’s arrest. His arrest will not bring the entire system to an immediate halt.
Some of Saddam’s admirers have lashed out at him for surrendering without a fight. They argue that he should have resisted and been shot dead rather than face the humiliation to which he is being subjected. The angrier ones label him a coward, but there is more to Saddam’s capture than readily meets the eye.
If he had been killed or had killed himself, there would be no debate about him now. He would have been buried and relegated to the rubbish heap of history. Now that he is alive, several questions are being asked. Where should he be tried and by whom? The governing council in Iraq says Saddam must be tried in Iraq by an Iraqi tribunal, and President George Bush seems to concur. But several voices from the international community contend that only an internationally set-up tribunal can guarantee a fair trial for the fallen dictator.
There is also the other question whether Saddam should be sentenced to death if convicted. The British oppose the death penalty and indeed capital punishment was abolished in Britain several years ago.
But the Americans who are holding him have capital punishment on their statute books. That is why George bush wants to wash his hands of the trial issue, Pontius Pilate style, and he is saying, it is up to the people of Iraq to decide what to do with him. And there is something interesting on the other side of the coin. History has it that when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran he had the full backing of the United States. It is said the United States supplied arms to Iraq and offered assistance which enabled him to use biological weapons in the war against Iran!
Why, one might ask, is it that now Saddam is America’s number one enemy?
Whether Saddam will at his trial make reference to the time when his war in which he used weapons of mass destruction against Iran was backed by the United States, anybody’s guess is as good as
mine.
Ends