Saddam’s capture has all sorts of implications.
The biggest is that it will greatly accelerate the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. This is obvious enough if the resistance fades away and large numbers of troops aren’t needed. But suppose this doesn’t happen. It’s hard to see the US public putting up with a continued stream of casualties when the main objectives on which they were sold the war have either been achieved (get Saddam) or proved illusory (WMDs). The instant reaction Good. Can we go home now, is going to be fairly widely shared as time goes on.
On the Iraqi side, as Juan Cole points out, this will only strengthen the Shia demand for proper elections and a US withdrawal. Now that the fear of Saddam’s return is gone, the dependence of a future Iraqi government on the US is significantly reduced. Shias might well judge that they could do a better (because more ruthless) job of suppressing the insurgency on their own.
Next, there’s the trial. The big issue is not so much whether Saddam will get a ‘fair’ trial as whether he will want to, and be permitted to, bring evidence of Western (particularly US) complicity in his worst crimes, committed during the 1980s.
Next, there’s the question of the extent to which Saddam’s capture justifies the war. Obviously, it’s a better outcome than Saddam remaining at large. And it makes it easier to argue that despite the (uncounted) thousands of Iraqi deaths in the war and its aftermath, Iraqis are, on balance better off. But the huge amounts of money, military power and political capital expended on this war, and the breaches of international law it required, need more justification than that. If the same resources had been allocated to implementing, say, the proposals of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, millions of lives could have been saved. Even spent on improvements to health in the US, the war budget could have saved around 10 000 lives. From a less utopian viewpoint, if more military and economic resources had been allocated to Afghanistan, and more political capital to North Korea, everyone in the West would be significantly safer at the end of 2003 than at the beginning. Instead, the threat from North Korea is substantially worse. If Al Qaeda is less of a threat than before, this is due to its own criminal folly in attacking fellow-Muslims and not to the Iraq war or to wise handling of postwar Afghanistan.
Finally, there’s the political implications, particularly for the US election. Obviously these favor Bush, but the time when Iraq could have been a winner on its own has already passed. I don’t think Saddam’s capture gives the Democrats a good reason to switch from Dean. The crucial issue in 2004 won’t be a retrospective judgement on Iraq but the problem of preventing complete fiscal collapse. By taking a firm stand on Iraq, Dean has heightened the credibility of his pledge to fully repeal the Bush tax cuts, which is the minimal basis for a policy that will have any chance of success. The only other major candidate to pledge full repeal is Gephardt, who has vacillated on the war, and therefore seems likely to do so again when his tax policy comes under pressure.
{ 15 comments }
Andrew Boucher 12.15.03 at 10:23 am
No problem with looking at the situation without rose-tinted glasses. And it probably always is better to be a pessimist: if things turn out that way, at least one has the satisfaction of being right; while if they turn out better, at least one can be pleasantly surprised.
Still, let’s hope for better than your post.
The American people may think they can go home now, but many in the Bush Administration do not. For them establishing a democracy in Iraq is still the lynchpin of their grand-vision strategy – establishing democracy (for the cynical, American client states) throughout the Middle East.
On the Iraqi side, I don’t think the Shias ever feared the return of Saddam. And the basic facts of Iraqi politics remain: the Sunnites fear the retribution of the Golden Rule, with the Shias doing unto them what they did to the Shias. A U.S. presence serves to stabilize the situation.
Matt Weiner 12.15.03 at 2:44 pm
I didn’t see John as advocating early withdrawal, simply saying that it’s politically inevitable. This is largely the fault of the feckless Bush Administration, which spent too much time switching between different justifications of the war, and has thus left the American people unconvinced of any rationale for us to leave troops in there to get shot at now that Saddam is captured and there are no WMDs.
The American people may think they can go home now, but many in the Bush Administration do not.
Nor do I, but many in the Bush Administration seem to, and they wield more influence. The accelerated transfer to Iraqi sovereignty looks to me like cover for a withdrawal before the election. (At least, I think you ought to address that concern before you start patronizing John.)
John, dead right on N. Korea and the U.S. domestic situation. Bush’s insouciance in the face of N. Korea’s nuclear program has been horrifying. And I don’t think that the economic situation will be the most important issue electorally, but I think it will be the biggest problem the new President faces. The Bush Administration’s irresponsible foreign policy initiatives can be unilaterally abandoned; the irresponsible fiscal policy will be much harder to fix.
Thomas 12.15.03 at 5:49 pm
My understanding–and I could be wrong–is that Dean is in favor of higher taxes and more spending, which wouldn’t solve any long term fiscal problems we face. Isn’t that right? Doesn’t have favor increased spending on Medicare and Medicaid, increased spending on Homeland Security, increased spending on education, and so on.
Dean’s website says as much: “Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.”
If the tax cuts are repealed and the funds are used for new spending, where does that leave us?
james 12.15.03 at 7:05 pm
“…Gephardt, who has vacillated on the war…”
Surely Gephardt was the only candidate bar Lieberman to vote for the Iraq money, for which he deserves great credit (and which puts Kerry and Edwards to shame).
Zizka 12.15.03 at 11:39 pm
I have suggested that Iraq after Saddam might not be dominated by those who have been hoping for democracy, but rather by those who aspire to be the next Saddam. My guess is that even when he was free Saddam had lost control of his forces, and that all of his former supporters were biding their time and following their own agendas. (To say nothing of his enemies). The next couple of months should be a test of my suggestion.
If things do quiet down significantly in Iraq, and the US is able to withdraw without significant embarassment, Bush will be very tough to beat. We Democrats are being slimed for thinking about the political consequences of this, but the mainstream media Sunday was an orgy of assertions that Bush is now unbeatable.
The people I know who are wired or who read British media are hip to what Bush really is, but the ones who are dependent on American newspapers, television, and radio are completely fooled. I don’t think that Democrats can expect even a minimally non-partisan press in 2004; it looks to be even worse than 2000.
Any of you Euros over there need a housesitter, gamekeeper, or free-lance alienated intellectual for your country estates?
Dick Fitzgerald 12.16.03 at 4:49 am
Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.
Dick Fitzgerald 12.16.03 at 4:49 am
Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.
Dick Fitzgerald 12.16.03 at 4:49 am
Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.
Dick Fitzgerald 12.16.03 at 4:49 am
Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.
Dick Fitzgerald 12.16.03 at 4:49 am
Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.
Dick Fitzgerald 12.16.03 at 4:49 am
Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.
Dick Fitzgerald 12.16.03 at 4:49 am
Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.
Dick Fitzgerald 12.16.03 at 4:49 am
Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.
Dick Fitzgerald 12.16.03 at 4:49 am
Yr. remarks are naive: Even the US military admits that Saddam was running no insurgency. The CIA warned Bush that an invaded Iraq wd. be a tarbaby, period.
Alan K. Henderson 12.16.03 at 6:32 am
The capture certainly cements our good relations with the new Iraq (excepting the insurgents, of course).
Comments on this entry are closed.