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.
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.
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.
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?
“…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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The capture certainly cements our good relations with the new Iraq (excepting the insurgents, of course).
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review