The Scene in Iraq: US troops zero in on Saddam’s hideaway and surround him. Rather than fighting or committing suicide, he decides to surrender and asks to be tried at International Criminal Tribunal (ICT).
The Question : Will the US allow that, or will they shoot him on the spot, no matter what?
“Mr. Hussein, did you attack Iran with chemical weapons? Yes, you supplied them to me, plus strategic and considerable intelligence as where their troops were and how I could use them more effectively. Mr. Hussein, did you invade Kuwait without reason? Yes, I told you I was going to and you all said you will look the other way. Mr. Hussein, did you murder thousands of your regimes opponents? Of course I did. Don’t you remember we were friends while I was doing it?”
Subject of debate:
You wake up one morning to hear that “the US zeroed on Saddam. It is not clear whether he was killed in a shootout or he commited suicide”.
How would the U.S. “look[ing] the other way” mitigate the invasion of Kuwait?
Anyway, even if he tried to “spin” his testimony to shift as much blame as possible onto the Americans… so what? Anyone who falls for that is an idiot. It’s clear that he had totalitarian control of Iraq, and thus must take responsibility for its actions.
As to the specific question… I can’t say I much care about the circumstances of Saddam’s death, even if someone suggests an over-eager squad of Army Rangers rogered him to oblivion.
The OP’s premise only makes sense if it could be demonstrated that none of the Ba’athist’s enormous list of atrocities against Iraqis and others would have ever taken place if the US had not been ‘friends’ with the Iraqi regime at some arbitrary point in time. This, to put it charitably, seems highly unlikely.
I can think of two, IMO, far more pertinent reasons why Saddam might not be taken alive: 1) He’s in his 60s, has lost everything including his sons, and thus has very little indeed to look forward to if captured alive 2) the fact of a live Saddam seems to have had an influence on the strength of guerilla-style resistance to the occupation and his remaining alive after capture would likely continue this influence, even if indirectly.
Thing is, a blataqntly ‘martyred’ Saddam would likely cause problems for the US as well, so flip a coin.
Well, obviously you would not believe such a story, and I’m sure you’re just bustin’ to tell us why, so please go ahead.
For me, depends on how much detail there is to the story. Why? because I do not believe the entire world press would simply go along for any significant amount of time with a false rendition of Saddam’s hypothetical death.
Given that you only just posted this I feel free to bump it just one more time to say:
What? If you’re so happy this sank like a stone, why give it a straw to cling to by bumping it?
Bizarre!
Anyway, all outcomes are problematic, Saddam disappears/is killed/commits suicide – none of these scenarios is wholly positive.
I would be amazed (and possibly even disappointed) if there hadn’t been high level discussions on how to spin each scenario, including “If we kill Saddam, would it not be better to just pretend he’s disappeared/committed suicide?” and mutatis mutandis.
Well, whether he’s taken alive or not, the ICT will not be involved. The US has stated it will let the Iraqis try him in their system. Seems like a good idea.
I can’t link at work, Sailor, but it’s the second lead of the NY Times today: US WANTS IRAQIS TO JUDGE HUSSEIN. Basically we want them to set up a tribunal just in case.
FWIW, I don’t think Saddam will be taken alive. He may be, like bin Laden, with a guard or two that has orders to kill him at the last moment to avoid being captured. He sees himself as the new Saladin, and Saladin never was taken to Geneva to try and explain himself
