If Uday and Qusay are actually dead, what are the future ramifications?

Great Debates
121

I agree with SimonX - I believe that the decision was made in the field to kill the occupants of the building rather than capture them. I was not there, so I obviously can’t mke any judgement on that decision.
I do think that they knew someone important was in there, if not the spawn of saddam themselves, otherwise why did they have 200+ troops and heliicopters surrounding the place.
I still maintain that, if there really are any WMDs in Iraq, and if anyone in the administration really believes there are, then they would have been more concerned about capturing these two alive.
The least fortunate aspect of this whole thing are the reports coming in that the single remaining survivor who was killed was saddams 14 year old grandson, fighting to the end. If that’s not a rallying point for the pro Baath party fighters I don’t know what is.

Don’t get me wrong, the kid was more than asking for it, but in a culture like Iraq (even in one like the US), such an image is very powerful and will strengthen the resolve of the resistance movement.

122

I did a little bit of googling and it turns out that apparently Qusay was the top man in charge of hiding WMD’s:

"This chart highlights the key organizational components that direct Iraqi national-level D&D efforts for WMD and their missile programs. Not surprisingly, the system is directed from the highest political levels within the presidential office and involves, if not Saddam Hussein himself, his youngest son, Qusay, who is in charge of the special security organization. It’s a highly centralized effort. The program encompasses intelligence and security services, the special Republican Guard, the military-industrial commission and the ministry of information.

The higher security committee you see on the chart under the president’s office is in overall command of concealment and deception operations. The special security organization, or SSO, under Qusay Hussein, is responsible for supervising the so-called concealment mechanism directed specifically against the inspection programs. According to former UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler, Saddam Hussein at one point assigned foreign minister Tariq Aziz the responsibility for concealing Iraqis’ (sic) weapons program. "
This is from a US Department of Defence presentation on Iraqi WMD deception and denial.

Here’s the whole presentation:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021008-dod01.htm

So we really should have fired missiles into the building this guy was in? What about the fact that he’s apparently in charge of Iraq’s program to hide WMD, which we haven’t found yet?

Surely we could have gassed them out, or waited them out. Sure it was in a rough part of town but 200 highly trained soldiers with chopper support…etc should be able to establish some sort of perimiter. If not call for reinforcements.

We’ve lost over a hundred people looking for these WMDs in this war, so NOW, when we are finally able to grab the guy who knows where they are, the risk of loss of life is too great and he must be immediately terminated?

This would be the most important catch of the war, which, I remind you, was originally all about finiding those WMDs.

123

It’s definitely not my reading comprehension skills that are at fault here. What you said was: “It isn’t that difficult to put together a legal system.” “Legal system” is synonymous with “judicial system.” The phrase “it’s not rocket science” means that the task in question does not require a great deal of skill; I have never heard it used to mean that it doesn’t require a large sum of money. In any case, you’re wrong. The ICTY operates on a budget of $100 million a year, and by all accounts it’s severely underfunded. It hasn’t received enough funding to allow it to produce more than a handful of convictions in ten years of operation. Of course that’s nothing compared to the cost of the military operation in Iraq, but more than the Bush administration prefers to spend money on the military.

Yes, we’re discussing why the Bush administration would prefer them to be dead rather than put them on trial. It’s an issue that’s going to come up again in the future as other members of Sadam’s regime are killed or captured, so it’s still relevant.

124

If, not why.

There has been no evidence produced to date that the Bush administration took any action, or made any indication that they thought, that Q+U should be executed rather than captured.

Regards,
Shodan

125

That does seem to change the priority level that live capture might’ve had. Maybe we have better sources for the locations of the banned weapons.

126

Or maybe we don’t care. Maybe we (or the Bush administration) have decided that as long as they are out of the picture, it does not matter if they are killed or they are captured.

Or maybe this is a deep-laid conspiracy. Absent any evidence, we can’t say.

Regards,
Shodan

127

No, but in your first two posts directed at me it looked like you were developing a serious case of rolleye. Thus, the reason you should see the eye doctor. Your interpretation is equally reasonable unless you could read my mind.

Anyway, the costs of rebuilding a legal system to handle every case in Iraq is a far different thing than reconstituting a high court in Iraq and letting it handle two cases of multiple murder and crimes against humanity charged against former leaders. It will still be years before an indictment would be properly submitted–as I already mentioned–unless it could be freely amended as more bodies and witnesses turn up. IOW, no rush. In theory, given the nature and scope of the offenses, our hypothetical court could keep U & Q without bail forever and then try them for various crimes, also forever. Which would, of course, eventually utilize all the resources in the universe. Good thing that didn’t happen.

128

There is evidence that the Bush Admin didn’t feel very strongly that the two should be captured instead of killed though.

If it is true that Qusay was in charge of hiding the banned weapons, then this seems to be a grave failure on behalf of those whose concern ostensibly is to find the banned weapons.

129

“Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence”

It is quite probable that, as the report of who was in the villa was passed down the chain of command, at some point some commander felt that it was not appropriate/relevant/whatever to pass that informtion on to his subordinate, so the guys on the scene eventually showed up with a knowledge that the targets were important, but not with a knowledge of how important. As the request for assistance and firepower went back up the chain of command (and branched laterally to pick up aircraft and other troops), there is no clear picture that the last guy who knew the names of the targets was clued in to what was going to happen.

Until we get some information that a high-ranking officer ordered them killed, I am more likely to believe that it was an opportunity missed than a decision reached.

130

Locking people up indefinitely without a conviction is considered a violation of their due process rights (speedy trial and all that), a concept the Bush government doesn’t seem to have much respect for.

Now you’re thinking like the Bush government! My point is exactly that – they don’t want to see them tried, and that motivation might help explain why there’s no evidence that an effort was made to take them alive.

131

Uday and Qusay Killed By U.S. Troops. Millions of Iraqis Cheer the Death of Saddam’s Two Sons Who Murdered Thousands of Innocent Iraqi People

*"… then this seems to be a grave failure on behalf of those whose concern ostensibly is to find the banned weapons."

“Surely we could have gassed them out, or waited them out. Sure it was in a rough part of town but…”

“… Essentially they asked for surrender and when they didn’t get it they were almost immediately prepared to kill everyone in the building.”

“Don’t get me wrong, the fourteen year old kid was more than asking for it, but in a culture like Iraq (even in one like the US), such an image is very powerful and will strengthen the resolve of the resistance movement.”

“It is more convenient that they are dead.”

“… Why do some folks consider it “absolutely unacceptable” and “propaganda” when the Arabic news network al-Jazeera showed pictures of American soldiers killed in battle, but don’t have any similar criticism now that the Pentagon released pictures of Saddam Hussein’s sons killed in battle?”
“Oh, yeah, three more Americans were killed today as well.”

“And no one is going to accept the legitimacy of a tribunal in which the prosecutors, investigators, and judges are appointed by the United States,…”*

Hmm…aren’t you all just a little bit happy that the mudering bastards are dead?

132

Where are you getting that? The reports I heard on network TV were that Iraqis were harassing US soldiers and mourning at the site of the attack.

133

In the begriming, we parade Iraqi POWs around on TV. Then Iraq takes some of OUR solders prisoner. We tell Iraq, you bastards better not parade our POWs around on TV.

So now we kill Saddam’s sons and we splatter their mutilated faces all over our media. How would WE react if some other country did that to US? We would call them slimy barbarians that’s for sure.

Uh huh … gotta love good ol’ American propaganda and hypocrisy.

134

The Iraqis are in mourning? Oh, yeah…

The only Iraqi I heard so far who was in ‘mourning’ was upset because he never got the chance to put the bullet in them himself.

These two were hated in Iraq. Passionately. Possibly even more so than Saddam himself.

135

Well, that certainly would be the sensible, reasonable thing to expect, Sam. People aint always like that, people wept openly in the streets when Stalin died. The public display of grief when Kim Il-Sung croaked…you wouldn’t believe. There are video clips of it sometimes, see it, you still wont believe it.

The process of turning a vile slimeball into a national hero/martyr can happen in the twinkling of an eye, and need not have even the remotest fact.

136

There has been quite a bit of grief reported in Mosul and other Hussein strongholds, although I agree that the general reaction has been rather different.

137

One suspects it’s the kind of grief that mobsters show when one of their kind gets whacked. You ‘pay your respects’, because if you don’t, one of the dead guy’s boys may come by and whack you too.

138

Alternatively, it is the grief of people who were on the high side when “their” guys were in power and seeing them taken down confirms that the “other” side is winning. However much it may be a matter of choosing sides or feeling like the wrong side won, I think it is wishful thinking to simply believe that no one would grieve except out of fear of retribution. As noted above, people mourned Stalin and Kim. (A recent museum of Stalin era artifacts in Moscow brought out a very large number of people over 60 who were quite open in their praise of him and their objections to the way that he has been “vilified” since Kruschev.)

I think it is naive to believe that Hussein and his kids could not inspire the same loyalty–especially in a nation still influenced by tribal loyalties.

139

Are you accusing me of making this up, Sam? This is my source, but there are plenty of others:

140

I recall the convoy that was blown up because someone thought that Saddam or his sons may have been there; shoot first, ask questions later. It turned out that those where sheep smugglers (geez, what a way to go, blown up while smuggling sheeps :p)
That, at least, sets a precedent.