Can America Defeat Saddam

(written 15/10/05)
This week Iraq will see the most important criminal trial in its history; that of Saddam Hussein. This would appear to be a great victory for the world’s largest democracy. America went to war to defeat a dictator who it claimed (1) was harbouring terrorists and then later (2) had weapons of mass destruction - and succeeded. The “end of major combat operations”, as somewhat unwisely claimed by President Bush after flying on to the deck of an aircraft carrier, and then the subsequent capture of Saddam, however, are not the end of the matter. They are the beginning of America’s troubles. Now that they have Saddam, combat operations have greatly intensified in an insurgency that shows no sign of abating. The question of Saddam Hussein becomes “What Now?” The obvious answer, of course, is to try, and hopefully, convict and sentence him. Unfortunately, this is only a partial solution that raises more problems than it solves. The last thing America, and the rest of the world for that matter, needs is another martyr.

Over the past few months, the name Saddam Hussein has been largely absent from the media as earthquakes, tornados and bombings have attracted the world’s attention. The next couple of weeks, however, will see his name once again given prominence in the daily news and he will no doubt become a focal point for terrorists and fanatics the world over. It is the next big Iraq issue now that the referendum on the country’s proposed constitution has taken place.


One possible solution is to hold Saddam’s trial behind closed doors but the reality is that such in camera proceedings inevitably give rise to accusations of miscarriages of justice. In order to avoid this, and the ever-popular ‘anti-Americanism’, the trial must remain open and public, thereby attracting both positive and negative consequences.

Perhaps a better answer would have been for those who originally found Saddam to have simply shot him on sight and disposed of the body. (This would be in direct conflict with America’s professed values, such as respect for the rule of law, something that appears to be less of a priority outside of US borders as numerous CIA black operations over the years attest.) Over time, however, Saddam’s name and memory would have faded from the minds of most people had he been quietly eliminated. The downside of this course of action would have been the general view that America was unable to find Saddam, and for the next few decades, this little fact would have been raised by anyone wishing to embarrass the American government. It would also have left America unable to justify its invasion of Iraq. These are things that America has to avoid at all costs. There seems to be an ingrained view in the national psyche that America must come out on top in any and every situation. There is no room for weakness, humility or compromise. It is this need to be seen as unyielding, triumphant and, above all, the ‘good guys’ that is the root of the problem.

America went into Iraq because of claims that Saddam was aiding terrorists – now shown to be false, then a claim that he still had WMD – also now shown to be false. The American government promised the Iraqi people freedom, peace and democracy. Unfortunately, these promises have not been fulfilled and many people, including Iraqis, are of the opinion that America should leave. America appears to be rapidly losing control of the situation in Iraq with an increase in kidnapping, suicide bombing and general unrest. It now finds itself in a no-win situation. It is unable to leave without losing face by abandoning those it sought to help but to stay will invite further condemnation of an already unpopular war and raise questions about America’s right to continue with its current agendum. What began as a War on Terror has resulted in a marked increase in terrorism and America now faces the prospect of another Vietnam-style humiliation. As things deteriorate, there is the possibility of resurgence in support for Saddam Hussein.

Having captured Saddam, America is faced with two options – either charge him with crimes against humanity or release him. It is obvious the issue of release can never be considered seriously. His appearance in the dock is necessary to justify the millions of dollars (and thousands of lives) expended in this exercise. It is equally obvious that his trial must be open, honest and a showcase of democracy. The Americans must be seen to afford him all the rights and civil liberties he denied his countrymen. After all, they’re the good guys. They play fair.

Despite the necessity of the trial and the need to be seen to do the right thing, there is little doubt in anyone’s mind what the verdict will be. If America is to be seen as Iraq’s liberator, it must also be seen as the power that ensured the complete and total removal of its oppressor. There can be no hope of acquittal. To do so would leave the way open for Saddam and his supporters to condemn America and expose it as weak and ineffective.

After Saddam’s inevitable conviction, there will remain the issue of sentencing. Few people would question the justification of the death penalty but this is the one option which must be avoided. To execute Saddam would elevate him to martyrdom. Even those Iraqis who welcomed his removal may well be outraged at the thought of ‘them’ murdering one of ‘ours’. This would not be some innocent bystander caught in the crossfire. Rather it would be seen as the deliberate assassination of a man many still consider to be the nation’s leader.

The only realistic outcome of the trial is a sentence of life imprisonment. This sentence cannot reasonably be carried out in any country other than Iraq and there is no guarantee that an independent Iraqi judiciary will not show leniency and eventually release him. Whatever the outcome of the trial, the result will most probably be an increase in protests, riots and terrorism.

Meanwhile, it looks as if last week’s referendum will approve Iraq’s constitution, leading ultimately to a democratic federalist government. Unfortunately, for the Americans, any such government is increasingly likely to be dominated by Shiite factions who will transform the country into an Islamic religious dictatorship similar to nuclear weapons aspirant and regional Shiite power, Iran. The prospect that such an Iraq will become a haven for terrorists, the very thing America sought to prevent, is not the only worry. In such a nightmare scenario, the minority Kurds and Sunnis will surely want out and the country will disintegrate. A significant portion of the world’s oil supply will be disrupted, something again the Americans sought to prevent and something which would have profound consequences for the global economy. America sought to give the Iraqi people a democratic choice but it might not like their ultimate decision. Perhaps Americans naively believed that Iraqis would opt to embrace American values. For all of Saddam’s cruelties and inhumanity, in the near future there may be many policy makers who will look quietly back to his time in power with something approaching nostalgia. He was someone, prior to his invasion of Kuwait, with whom America could do business, as an infamous photograph of current Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam demonstrates. Iraq’s first democratic election may be its last for a very long time.

America invaded Iraq claiming the noblest of motives (we shall politely avert our eyes from the issue of oil). The publicly stated intention was to free the country from the grip of tyranny and rid the world of one of its greatest despots. Once again, America embarked on its self-appointed role as the great white saviour of humanity but unfortunately failed to foresee the long-term consequences. America has backed itself into a corner and no matter which way it jumps it is unlikely to win this one.