Why not just let the Iraqi Governing Council decide what to do with Saddam's corpse?

[GoHeels]

Marley23:

I’m not worried about Western Europe so much. I’m worried about the Arab - or North Korean - despots who might take a US-approved council stringing up Saddam’s corpse as a VERY direct threat.

We’ve already shown the bullet-riddled corpses of Uday and Qusay on TV. I think the despots ought to know by now the U.S. means business (for better or for worse). We’ve already shown the will to take down a government we considered (rightly or wrongly) to be a threat, against the wishes of our friends (again, for better or for worse).

Besides, quite frankly, if the despots are nervous, I’ve got no problem with that (although I strongly favor Bush coming to the negotiating table with North Korea).

Publius:

I’m afraid I don’t have time for much of a post, as I’m afraid I’m about to run to the airport and will probably be out of touch for a week. I did, however, want to apologize to GoHeels for being snarky last night. Sorry.

You don’t have to apologize - I didn’t think you were being snarky at all. Since you won’t be reading this for a week - I hope you had a good trip.

As far as what I meant by my comment, Marley23 said it: to Europeans, and any other observers, the distinction between an Iraqi government and the CPA-I in such a case would be meaningless. Rather than make the Iraqi advisory council appear more independent, it would merely reinforce its image as a puppet of the United States.

Again, though, I don’t see how this is so. If we explicitly say that the final decision rests with the council, have the council engage in debate open to public scrutiny (hopefully with all viewpoints ranging from parading the corpse to a dignified burial being heard) and a vote among members of the council, I don’t see how that reinforces the image of the council as being a puppet - I think it reinforces the image of the council gaining authority .

And as I said previously, the goal is not to boost the legitimacy of the council in the eyes of Europe - it’s to boost its legitimacy among the Iraqi people. What Europe thinks, quite frankly, really doesn’t matter.

Dissonance:

My problem with this is that Ceaucescu, Mussolini, and his mistress were summarily executed by partisans who had captured them. The execution and subsequent treatment of their bodies was a consequence of the crowds venting years of outrage against atrocities they had committed. As such, I see nothing inherently barbaric about it. While handing the corpse of Saddam over to the Iraqi Council might not result in his head on a pike being paraded through downtown Baghdad, should that in fact ensue, the damage to US credibility will be a nightmare. The conclusion that it was at least desired by the US will be impossible to avoid and will not help international effort at Iraqi reconstruction. Should a group of Iraqis capture Saddam, execute him and drag his carcass through the streets, more power to them. If on the other hand the US hands his remains over to the Iraqi Council, winks slightly and watches as the carnage ensues, the damage will not be worth any gain.

But if the U.S. takes a position that it wishes to only show video images of Saddam’s body to prove to the Iraqi people that their decades-long nightmare is over but says it will respect the Iraqi council’s decision after open debate and vote, I don’t see how that damages us.

I think if the council decides to parade his body AGAINST our expressed wishes, that helps the council GAIN legitimacy among the people and helps REFUTE the idea that the council is a puppet in the eyes of the Iraqi people.

The audience is the Iraqis, not the rest of the world.

Besides, what credibility does the U.S. have left to lose in the first place? According to the European press, nothing we do is going to be right, anyway.

Hell, I can already predict how they will react:

• If we show the image on TV, we’re macabre (we’ve already seen this example with Uday and Qusay).

• If we bury the body according to Muslim burial rites, we’re arbitrarily denying the Iraqi people their rightful ability to vent their outrage.

• If we let the body be paraded and abused by the Iraqi people, we’re barbarians.

So fuck it. Might as well attempt to imbue a council that we desperately want to succeed with some authority on an important matter. If the world wants to criticize, we can retort that we’re doing what we can to transfer authority back to the Iraqis, which is what the world seems to want.

One of the consequences of all the criticism levelled at the U.S. by the Europeans is that Americans have become inured to it, and many Americans, quite frankly, just don’t take it seriously anymore. Perhaps the European press, in their glee to heap scorn on the U.S., should realize this.

[Desmostylus]

Marley23, here’s what Bush said about the Kurds:

http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2003/n03152003_200303151.html

WASHINGTON, March 15, 2003 – President Bush today held up the March 16, 1988, chemical attack on the civilians of Halabja, Iraq, as a prime example of the evil Saddam Hussein perpetrates.

Bush stressed the nature of the Iraqi dictator’s regime in his weekly radio address.

“The chemical attack on Halabja – just one of 40 targeted at Iraq’s own people – provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world,” the president said. “He is among history’s cruelest dictators, and he is arming himself with the world’s most terrible weapons.”

What did the Defense Intelligence Agency think at the time?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq’s main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds’ bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

[Dissonance]

Originally posted by GoHeels ***
But if the U.S. takes a position that it wishes to only show video images of Saddam’s body to prove to the Iraqi people that their decades-long nightmare is over but says it will respect the Iraqi council’s decision after open debate and vote, I don’t see how that damages us.*

Desecration of corpses doesn’t get decided by democratic vote. It happens in the rush of events. Can you honestly picture the IGC holding a vote to decide whether to draw and quarter the corpse?

**The audience is the Iraqis, not the rest of the world.

**Many of whom have blood ties to Saddam. Not all of them are going to feel overjoyed by such treatment, particularly if it happens with tacit American approval. Assuming that the IGC actually does hold a macabre vote on which streets to drag Saddam’s body down, it’s going to be impossible to not have the US blamed for it. Should this in fact happen, though, like I said, just don’t be too outraged when a dead American is mutilated and dragged through Tikrit.

**Besides, what credibility does the U.S. have left to lose in the first place? According to the European press, nothing we do is going to be right, anyway.

**It isn’t the press I’m worried about, it the governments, and not just the European ones. Doing this with Saddam’s body will be a quick way to watch the trickle of international money and aid flowing to Iraq get cut off. If the US wants to play ‘screw international opinion,’ it doesn’t help efforts to get the UN involved, which at this rate is desperately needed. The US is already finding that it needs to maintain much larger numbers of troops than Rummy had predicted and is getting rebuffed in appeals for troops from other countries to become involved. Gratuitously pissing off the world further over something as relatively trivial as the disposition of Saddam’s corpse is not a wise idea.

[RedFury]

Interesting that the talk here centers about what to do with Saddam’s corpse. So much for ‘democracy’ ’ due course’ and ‘rule of law’, this is a big game hunting party and Saddam is the ultimate prize. I’m surprised no one has brought up the possibility of bringing his head to a taxidermist for mounting on a wooden frame to display over the fireplace at Dubya’s ranch.

He could then use the gruesome backdrop for a whole new series of cozy fireside chats to the nation – while reminding the world what a straight shooter he is. After all, it would fit right in with his macho image, “fight evildoers” “dead or alive” “with us or against us” “bring them on” landing on aircraft, etc., etc.

The Old West was best and we have a new Sheriff in town. Catchy, ain’t it?

OTOH, if democracy and validating the selected Iraq Council are really of any concern to the OP and those who agree with him, why not simply listen to what the head of the council has to say now:

US-picked Iraqui leader blasts occupation:

**AMERICA’S favourite to become the leader of a new democratic Iraq has moved to distance himself from the US following the deaths of Saddam Hussein’s two sons last week.

In an interview with Scotland on Sunday, Dr Adnan Pachachi, acting head of the US-backed Iraqi Governing Council, even indicated that the Iraqi people might take up arms against the Americans were it not for the fact that they were ‘tired’ of war.

Only two weeks after the council came into existence at the behest of the US, Pachachi - in London on his way to Baghdad after addressing the United Nations in New York - issued a stream of criticisms of the United States’ role in Iraq.

Speaking about the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein during a fierce gunbattle with American troops in Mosul, he said: “The previous regime was based on a family organisation surrounding Saddam. So killing the two sons means that the neck has been cut. But we would have preferred it if they had been captured. Killing is not our preferred option.” **

Hmm…likes democracy and is not bloodthirsty. Think he’ll last long?

[GoHeels]

Dissonance

It isn’t the press I’m worried about, it the governments, and not just the European ones. Doing this with Saddam’s body will be a quick way to watch the trickle of international money and aid flowing to Iraq get cut off. If the US wants to play ‘screw international opinion,’ it doesn’t help efforts to get the UN involved, which at this rate is desperately needed. The US is already finding that it needs to maintain much larger numbers of troops than Rummy had predicted and is getting rebuffed in appeals for troops from other countries to become involved. Gratuitously pissing off the world further over something as relatively trivial as the disposition of Saddam’s corpse is not a wise idea.

Fair enough, and upon thinking this over, I realize this probably is a pretty lousy idea, more likely to have many more costs than benefits. I believe we do need international help, and the U.S. should adopt a much more humble approach, and allowing for the CHANCE for Saddam’s body to be paraded around just to give the council the appearance of autonomy is short-sighted.

I guess I’m just frustrated that it seems like nothing we do is right in the eyes of the world. Certainly this is due to the irritating effects of some of our leaders, but I also think international opinion sometimes takes a knee-jerk anti-American approach. I don’t know whether our arrogance causes the naysaying, or the naysaying causes the arrogance - I guess it depends on your perspective.

I guess I’m just looking for ways to empower the council in the eyes of the Iraqi people, and I realize this will only happen if direct benefits to the daily lives of the people occur. To me, it’s becoming more apparent that international help is necessary to help the daily lives of the people - and significant international help will only happen if we go back to the UN prepared to eat some crow.

Mods, please feel free to lock this thread.

[GoHeels]

RedFury, please read the third paragraph of my last post.

I respectfully ask that you stop implying that I’m some sort of cowboy, or that I favored the war because I wanted to jerk off to American firepower and the war is like a Bruce Willis movie. I’ve got a loved one over there right now, and I have a hard time sleeping at night because I’m scared shitless that I’ll get a hysterical call in the middle of the night with awful news.

I’m not “enjoying” this war one bit, and in the run-up to the war, I struggled to figure out whether or not I supported it. I recognize that those against the war feel just as passionately and have very valid reasons for their beliefs, and some of the ultra-patriotic quelling of dissent in this country was deeply disturbing. I was also completely upset that Donald Rumsfeld became the face of the new American arrogant diplomacy, and continue to be pissed that we’re not going back to the UN with our hats in our hands to ask for help.

But like my cousin in Mosul, I believe deeply in this mission in the hope that Iraqis - and the larger Arab/Muslim world- will interpret the war as an attempt to bring freedom to the MENA region. I realize most of the anti-warriors scoff at this, and I realize I might be terribly wrong.