In Tony Blair’s press conference today a journalist from Al Jazeera suggested that if Saddam Hussain is killed, then it may accelerate the armed resistance by the Iraqi people. He suggested that the continued existence of Saddam and the possible threat of a/ his return and b/ the possibility of being seen as one of his supporters is inhibiting the rise of freedom fighting in Iraq. With Saddam gone and thus the threats removed, guerilla resistance might increase.
I suspect that he has a point. I have not bought the Rumsfeld line that the resisters are Baathists, or ex-army or just trouble-makers. I suspect that with Saddam gone there would be no bar to an organized resistance force growing up within Iraq.
I’m not convinced that the violence in Iraq is “pro-Saddam.” I think it’s anti-America, plain and simple. These people are not fighting to restore the old regime, but to expel the United States forces from their country.
If the violence really were Saddam related, I think we would have seen a sharp increase in attacks on our troops after the deaths of Uday and Qusay.
My prediction is there might be a small percentage of “die hards” who would attempt to stir up some trouble - but the moment they did they’d be registering on the radar and making themselves open to targeting.
In the long run though, it’s extremely unlikely that too many Iraqi’s are going to risk their lives merely to fight for the good name of a former thug who happened to rise to power. His era has come and gone now - with some minor reverberations in the near future I’d wager.
However, what CAN’T be argued is that USA has fumbled the football quite a bit since the beginning of April, and in doing so, has allowed an awful lot of legitimate bitterness to manifest itself in general Iraq proper.
The Whitehouse would like to avoid such truths, and they like to put a spin on recent events saying that the deadly attacks on US forces are 100% old regimers wanting to hang on to “how it used to be” but I personally don’t buy that.
In closing, I’d suggest that the huge majority of Iraqi’s would prefer to see Saddam brought in alive as averse to dead - just so that justice can have the final say. This wouldn’t be a bad thing in my opinion.
I obviously did not make myself clear in my original post. The Al Jazeera Journalist was saying that if Saddam was killed there would be MORE resistance because people would then be free to fight for their independence without the threat of Saddam’s return or the possibility of their actions being interpreted as pro-Saddam.
I am not saying that the current resistance is necessarily pro-Saddam, just that with Saddam out of the way, such actions might increase rather than decrease.
I find it hard to believe that resistance fighters are all that concerned about what the people they’re trying to kill think about their motives. Should they be captured, the punishment wouldn’t be different whether they’re fighting for Saddam or fighting to rid their country of the American presence.
I think it’s pretty clear to everyone at this point that this time, we mean it. Saddam’s regime is as dead as the dodo and only a certified lunatic would think differently. Killing him is just the icing on the cake.
But the important thing is what their peers and neighbors think. An ordinary Iraqi who was against the illegal occupation of Iraq by the US and UK might be unwilling to take up arms against the oppressors when this might be interpreted as support for Saddam, but with Saddam gone there would be no social bar to such action.
And BTW, intending to kill him now would be a war crime. It is only acceptable to intend to detain him and kill him ‘accidentally’ in the process. If you think about it, they could have starved his sons out but chose not to- probably a war crime. Now we can see why Bush does not want his actions brought before an international court!
I think the resistence in Iraq comes from people who want to win – that is to drive out the Americans. Saddam’s death would be perceived as reducing their chances of winning, so I think it will reduce Iraqi resistance.
I’m amused by the idea that resistance fighters are concerned about how their actions will be interpreted. It presumes that these thugs think like Western liberals – a dubious proposition.
I’d be interested in the contention that setting out to kill Saddam would be a war crime. What’s that based on? What laws would it violate?
I definitely disagree that killing his sons was any sort of crime. They were given an opportunity to surrender (which is more than they deserved). They chose to fight to the finish.
"I’m amused by the idea that resistance fighters are concerned about how their actions will be interpreted. It presumes that these thugs think like Western liberals – a dubious proposition."
Of course, only Western liberals care what their friends and neighbors think about such decisions. If you believe that you are more detached from the real world than I thought!
**I’d be interested in the contention that setting out to kill Saddam would be a war crime. What’s that based on? What laws would it violate?
I definitely disagree that killing his sons was any sort of crime. They were given an opportunity to surrender (which is more than they deserved). They chose to fight to the finish.**
Bush has declared the war is over. The UN has reluctantly recognized the US/UK co-belligerents as the occupying powers. Setting out with the intention to kill anyone would be murder as the war is over. It would only be excusable to kill him (and his sons) if either no other option to prevent them from endangering others were available or they were killed in consequence of attempting to capture them.
I don’t know that it’s at ALL “clear” to Iraqis that Saddam is gone forever.
My guess is, most Iraqis believe he’s alive, and that a guy with his instinct for survival is sure to be back on top eventually. And even Iraqis who despised Saddam and the Baathists know that it’s neither safe nor prudent to do or say ANYTHING that might get them in trouble when (not if) Saddam is back in charge.
s long as that’s the case, creating a functioning democracy in Iraq is going to be mighty tough. Would YOU run for Congress in Iraq, if you thought Saddam was still out there, ready to make a comeback and sure to punish those who tried to replace his regime?
A lot of people don’t consider that Iraqis can be both Anti-Saddam and Anti-Occupation at the same time, which is what I believe is precisely going on.
America had a golden opportunity to capture the hearts of Iraqis. Unfortunately, we spent more time strategizing the fastest way to secure oil wells and race to Baghdad than actually figuring out how to get Iraq back in working order with a western-friendly government as soon as possible.
The push to Baghdad was so strong and so fast- supply lines were stretched thin, vehicles that broke down and could not be repaired immediately were either towed by other vehicles or left behind, and there were many accidents because of the dust from other vehicles obfuscating their vision. Not to mention when you abandon a vehicle in the desert, the people in there have to hitch a ride with a working vehicle- packing some people in like sardines. While, being packed close together may not be awful- imagine if an RPG found its way there.
We had the chance to win over Iraq and falter ME opinion on the US, but we screwed it up big time. Well… so far.
Will killing Saddam stop the attacks? Of course not. Many people in Iraq are genuinely displeased at our presence for a number of reasons.
I think that that is close, but is missing one critical point. Whoever gets in charge wont like Americans. So even if Saddam does not get back in charge and some other group does they face the same exact threat. They get nothing except for death if they help Americans.