I know dictators love to wipe out any possible leadership… but does Saddam have an “heir apparent” ? If the US finds Saddam afterall will the Saddamites rally behind someone else ? Some minister that survived ?
Or do you think some new “leader” will come forth from the Saddam supporters ? Since the Saddam supporters will hardly give up fighting… they have little to gain and much to lose from a US admin or an independent Iraqi Council with loads of discontent iraqi.
Forgot to add. How much do you think Saddams fall would affect resistance to the US ? Afterall they are pariahs to many Iraqis. They dont have many prospects except to fight on.
Other resistance groups might eventually accept them more easily if there is no Saddam supporter's leader ?Just a matter of time. One would think the breadth of the nationalist/fascist sentiment that created Ba’ath is as strong as ever, just waiting to recoalesce behind a new leadership, if it hasn’t started to already. Saddam himself was never the fundamental problem; he’d never have been able to take power so thoroughly without a base of real support for his “program”, just like any real dictator. The conditions that make a dictatorship look attractive to much of the populace are always the real problem, and they’re not going away quickly if at all.
Resistance to the US following Saddam’s fall doesn’t seem to have slacked off any; in fact we’re seeing growing numbers of reports of ordinary Iraqis turning to violent resistance.
Really? And where could one get these reports if one was interested?
I was trying to keep apart “ordinary” resistance from Baath/Saddamite fueled resistance. I think the ordinary resistance is more dangerous since it wont go away if Saddam dies… or in fact it might grow.
A dictatorship is a twisted version of monarchy (Aristotle, Politics).
The monarchy arose from the agricultural revolution of several thousand years ago, as a means to keep order in agricultural societies, and needs, as its prime means of holding power, the ability to effectively threaten violence, as this is the main means of controlling a piece of land. (Toffler, Third Wave, 1980).
It is a self-evident truth, at least in my country, that governments continue by “deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed” (Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776).
Therefore, for Hussein to have an “heir apparent”, there must be someone who has the support or the acquiescence of the Iraqi people, who can threaten violence effectively.
In the current situation, where hatred in Iraq of the US is expanding among the general populace (NPR News, 9/19/2003), I fear that all it will take is one attack against occupation forces that kills in the triple or quadruple digits all at once for such an “heir” to emerge.
Wouldn’t his heirs have been his sons?
Supposedly Uday at one time was his heir, but after he went off the deep deep end Saddam chose Qusay instead. Qusay and Uday are both dead.
But of course, it really is difficult for a dictator to chose an “heir”. The heir must have real power in order to take over after the big man is gone, but how can the big man be sure that the heir won’t hurry the process along? And if the heir has no real power independent of the dictator, then how is he supposed to seize power afterwards?
A dictator can have no independent power centers, all power must originate with the dictator and everyone else in the country must be the dictator’s slaves. Anyone with any popularity or political power must be eliminated. Someone will eventually take over after the dictator is gone, but it will depend on the people left alive, not the wishes of the dictator.
Saddam supposedly has another son. Ali (age 15 IIRC) has been in hiding since before the war started.
Here’s one cite…others claim he’s a nephew or cousin, either way Saddam’s got an heir.
Actually, some reporters managed to get an interview with real Iraqi resistance, not Al Qaeda or Saddam supporters, but those who think the US is there to steal their oil or something.
The silver lining to that is that they favor democracy, they just don’t think we are really there to do that. But once democracy is established and we leave, they won’t be giving the government any trouble like the Ba’athists and Islamists will. In fact, they will likely be fighting against them as occupiers as well.
To expand on that point, Iraq doesn’t have any kind of democratic tradition. The process of ‘growing’ a democracy from the roots up could be very difficult.
How crass. To be expected, I suppose.
The situation in Iraq is improving. (Gee, try Googling that.) You hope the situation is getting worse. It would serve your twisted world-view if the situation was getting worse. Reality and your blabberings are in conflict.
Brutus: I don’t know about the second part, but the first part has been pretty widly reported in the news. It does appear that the resistance has strengthened rather than weakened. Especially in the so-called Sunni Triangle.
The “Sunni Triangle” is where a majority of the population of the country lives. The term is a form of spin, implying that the problem is somehow limited to a containable minority of malcontents. It’s not dissimilar to the widespread “Bush Country” maps of county-by-county votes in that regard, since associated maps of Iraq do show vast expanses of empty desert without serious insurgent activity in them. We do need to be careful of using the term here.
hehe… never heard the Sunni Triangle thingy before… 
Yep it seems that the Baathists are being outshot by other rebels… still guys… I said “heir” not heir. His sons are gone… I was curious to know if any of his high level goons is capable of filling his shoes.