I don’t think I have any brilliant insight or unique analysis to offer on the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but I have a few thoughts to share.
First, let me be among the last to state the obvious: Hussein’s capture is an obviously good thing. He was a brutal dictator with a record of ruthless cruelty. Hussein may have never been a serious threat to the United States, but the Iraqi people are certainly better off having this guy in custody. I also applaud the troops who were able to successfully capture Hussein without firing a single shot.
We can certainly hope that violence and strikes against U.S. troops will begin to recede now, though it’s still unclear what role Hussein may have been playing in organizing attacks on our forces. Either way, he’ll have no role in the attacks from his cell.
I think it may be wishful thinking, however, to believe that Hussein’s capture will suddenly change the dynamic of international support for the war effort.
I noticed, for example, that Sen. Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum (R-Pa.) said that the arrest should pave the way for war skeptics around the world to put aside their opposition and back U.S. efforts.
“With Saddam gone, maybe there will be another opportunity to re-look at the situation and understand that it is in everybody’s best interest to participate in this process,” Santorum said in a conference call with reporters.
This doesn’t make any sense to me at all, but then again, very little of Santorum’s remarks strike me as coherent. Does anyone really believe that France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada, and Mexico, among others, have been unsupportive of the war and occupation because they believed Hussein was still alive? I’m sure they’re just as glad to see Hussein in custody as we are, but I can’t imagine how or why this would change their minds about our efforts.
It’s a shame, I suppose, that everything has to be considered from a political perspective, but I’m afraid that’s the reality. Reporters can’t help themselves and neither can either side of the aisle. And besides, this is a political blog, so what do you expect?
I haven’t seen or heard it yet, but I feel pretty confident that over the next day or so, someone on Fox News or a similarly conservative “news” outlet will accuse Democrats and the left in general of being “disappointed” about Hussein’s arrest. They’ll say, I suspect, that Dems wanted to try and undercut support for Bush, that we’re so blinded by our opposition to the war that we can’t appreciate a good day in Iraq when it comes along, and that we “root” for bad news. To hear the right tell it, the left is incapable of patriotism and/or military support.
This argument is as offensive as it is idiotic. Patriotism is not so inflexible that it can’t allow us to take pleasure in Hussein’s arrest without losing sight of the questions that have burdened this war from the outset.
So far, the Dem presidential candidates haven’t played along with the right’s script, offering nearly universal praise for the military’s success in capturing Hussein. In fact, despite the overwhelming number of questions that continue to burden the Bush administration regarding its multiple failures in Iraq, it would appear that that the Dems are not inclined to play politics with the Hussein arrest at all. Can we expect the same from the White House? Or is it more likely that this will turn into yet another event for Karl Rove and the Bush team to manipulate and exploit in campaign ads? Time will tell.
Already, we’re hearing that the military’s success yesterday will turn into political success for Bush for the foreseeable future.
“The Democrats can’t touch him at the moment,” said Columbia University historian Henry Graff. “He said he was going to get him. He got him. What more do you want?”
Actually, as grateful as I am for the military’s extraordinary efforts, there’s a great deal more that we want. We want an honest telling of why this war was fought in the first place. We want a realistic plan for how the war is going to end. We want a “war on terrorism” that goes after real terrorists that actually threaten the United States. We want a concerted effort to bring our allies into the fight. We want the White House to stop suggesting that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorism of 9/11. We want the administration to enjoy a few high-fives about catching Hussein, but begin to refocus attention on stabilizing Afghanistan and catching Osama bin Laden. (The name may sound familiar to you; he’s the one who orchestrated the murders of 3,000 Americans.)
Yesterday reminded me very much of the day Hussein’s statues fell in Baghdad eight months ago. On April 9, I couldn’t help but enjoy the obvious jubilation of Iraqis and our troops. They were thrilled and so was I. But seeing Baghdad fall wasn’t a vindication of Bush’s war; the same problems and questions didn’t simply disappear because the world could take temporary solace in an exciting and exhilarating day. The same goes for the day U.S. forces killed Uday and Qusay Hussein. We could take some pleasure in knowing that these two wouldn’t be able to brutalize any more Iraqis, but that didn’t mean we would simply forget the lingering questions about the war itself.
And the same is true about yesterday. Anyone who wasn’t happy about learning of Hussein’s arrest without a single shot being fired needs to reevaluate their priorities. One can still disapprove of the president and this war while acknowledging that this was obviously a positive development.
But I think it’s a mistake to forget that the war is still ongoing and Bush’s policies for Iraq remain misguided and inconsistent. Yesterday’s news was terrific, but we didn’t wage a war to “get” Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, I’m happy to see Hussein behind bars, but I don’t feel any safer because of it.