The capture of Saddam Hussein has more symbolic than military value, but symbols have power. This symbol has power to many people. Most foreigners will give it a cheer and think little more of it. Americans and supporters of the American presence in Iraq may have a morale boost, and some opponents may lighten up a bit. But the real symbolic value of the capture of Saddam is reserved for the Iraqi people. Can you imagine the joy they must feel? The things this man has done to them, the very real memories millions of Iraqis have of relatives and friends disappearing and dying, or returning home broken by torture. All that ended half a year ago, but it was pictures of him that hung on every streetcorner and in every home for all those years. The whole Iraqi regime was focused on this one man. And so I suspect was the hatred of the Iraqi people, now released in joy and relief. A symbol, but one of the really big ones.

A few reactions, or perhaps I should say testimonies, from Iraqis living in Norway: Sanger Kader Hamza from Akershus celebrates the capture by halving all prices in his two pizza restaurants:

- This is a day of joy for all the Iraqi people, and for all those who fought to remove the worst tyrant of our age. I am a Kurd from Iraq. When I was three years old, my father was arrested and later executed by Saddam's people. When this dictator now is arrested, we can start to live again. .. All of us who have felt this tyranny first hand, and had to escape from Iraq because of their opinions, will in retrospect see December 14 as the real day of liberation. When I early on Sunday morning got the message from my home country that Saddam really had been arrested, I was so glad that I decided to mark this day in some way or another.

Another Kurd in exile, Jemal Wali, believes the trial of Saddam should be held in Halabja, the town where he massacred 5000 Kurds. Wali was there when it happened:

- Saddam bombed us for seven-eight hours. He did this so we would seek refuge in the basements. As you know gas is heavier than air, and it would sink down and kill us all. .. Three or four types of gas were used in the attack. I saw everything with my own eyes. More than 5000 people were killed, and more than 10 000 wounded. Everyone else escaped to Iran. .. Wali says he finds it difficult to tell of all he saw. The horror scenes were many. Mothers who in death still clung to their children. bodies lying in the streets and making it near impossible to get anywhere with car for those who were trying to escape the city. It should all be documented in several books, he says.

- We are very happy that the dictator has been caught. As Kurds we deeply hope that he will be sentenced in Halabja, for that is the right place to judge him.

Omar Khorsid and Khairi Hassan, asylum seekers in Halden, are just as happy, but pessimistic of the near future:

- We celebrated long into the night. There were several glasses of whisky before we went to bed. .. We're very happy that he has been caught. This we have waited for very long, says Omar Khorsid, who like his friend believes it is good for all Iraqis that Saddam Hussein is behind bars. .. Neither Omar Khorsid nor Khairi Hassan believes there will be peace in Iraq soon. Different groups will continue to fight each other. .. - No, we won't go back to Iraq. It's not safe and it's not free.

Even more pessimistic is Amin Ahmad:

- I am glad, because the criminal is gone. And I am sad, because it was the Americans who did this, and not the Iraqi people. The consequence of the Americans starting this war is that different groups in the country fights. It will be difficult to find peace again, says Ahmad. .. While we sit in the family's living room on Bjørnebekk, the Arab news channel Al-Jazeera is on in the background, again and again with the picture of the humiliated ex-dictator. Suddenly the image changes to the streets of Baghdad, where buildings are being bombed, and cars blow up. .. - This is the result of the war. Old Baath-supporters won't accept the loss of influence. Nobody but Bush has won on this.

Notice Al-Jazeera running in the background. I wonder if this man knows that many Iraqis accuse Al-Jazeera and other Arab channels of siding with the terrorists and guerillas. I wonder how much damage that channel is doing to the American mission of introducing democracy in the Arab world. The US is fighting a battle of ideas, escalating only occasionally and temporarily into a battle of guns. And in this battle of ideas, Al-Jazeera is mostly on the enemy side. Many Iraqis are onto them, though, (some were carrying posters about it in the big anti-terror demo in Baghdad last week), and that's a very good sign.

Tay Alhasnwi doubts American intentions, while his friend wears an American flag:

- The Americans created Saddam Hussein. Now they have him, but it is impossible to say what they will do now, says Tay Alhasnwi. .. [Tay] has spoken to his family in Baghdad today. They were glad, but they don't think the Americans have the right Saddam, he says. He ran away because the Baath Party was trying to get his brother. - If we can't get him, we'll take you, was the message he got. ..

- I think most are very happy, especially those who live in the south and north. Shia muslims and Kurds have the most reason to cheer, but Saddam has been horrible for the whole country for nearly 35 years. It is not easy to believe that it is over now, says Abdul Ameer, who for the occasion wears an American flag on his chest. - Now we just have to wait.

Aladin Said calls this the greatest day in his life:

- This is the greatest day in my life. At the same time, I have mixed feelings. I am very sorry about all that has happened to my country. .. I had six brothers who all took part in the war, and who told how horrible it was. I didn't want to take part in a war I thought was deeply unjust. On top of this, my own life was put in danger when I helped a communist friend to escape from prison. He had been sentenced to death for his political views. .. I want to go back, and Iraq needs me and my skills. But my family there tells me to wait, they believe it's too unstable yet, says Said. He believes the criticism against the US and Great Britain is unfair. - They are the only ones who have actually helped us. They have stopped the streams of refugees and the suffering. Now I feel it will be more safety in Iraq.

Fatima Khalil in Oslo:

- We congratulate Iraqis all over the world, and not least in Iraq. I hope this becomes our new national day. .. I lost one of my uncles in the war this winter. Another uncle was killed by Saddam's soldiers when he was 19 years old, because he refused to take part in the war against Iran.

Notice how nearly all these people have personal reasons for hating Saddam? These are not the abstract emotions and pseudo-intellectual word games of Western peacemongerers. These people had their family killed by a mad tyrant. Imagine their joy and relief times 25 million.

But if you thought some of the joy Iraqis feel at the arrest of Saddam would rub off on the NGO's and the pundits, you'd be wrong. Amnesty International Norway's pleads on behalf of Saddam's life. "Saddam Hussein is a despot of the worst kind. He must be punished harshly, but ..":

.. Norway must use strong pressure to prevent Iraq and the US from sentencing the despot to death. .. If Saddam Hussein is executed, we sink down to his level. We legitimize murder as a method. By abstaining from execution, we also abstain from his methods. But it's obvious that he should have a very harsh punishment, and should be passivized for the rest of his life. .. Saddam Hussein is responsible for countless violations of human rights and war crimes. Even more reason why the process against him must satisfy international demands, and stand above criticism.

I believe Amnesty's Petter Eide means what he says when he calls Hussein a "despot of the worst kind". And he's perfectly right. That's exactly what he is - or was. But what do you think happens to the meaning of the words "despot of the worst kind" when Eide five seconds later claims that executing that same despot is all it takes to sink to his level? We're forced to conclude either that being a "despot of the worst kind" isn't very bad, or that Saddam's execution will mark the birth of a new regime of terror. If you read Eide's statement logically, that is. But making sense out of statements by Western NGO's often requires you to think on two levels at the same time, obeying different and incompatible rules. One is their level, the level of horrific third world barbarians, who by their nature are cruel and inhumane. The other is our level, that of the enlightened, civilized West. Anything they do is not as bad as it seems, or in any case just status quo, and they wouldn't listen to us anyway, so why make a fuss? Anything we do is far worse than it appears - the first step on a slippery slope that leads straight down to Hell. This is perspectiveless, cruel, and borders on racism. It is also what people in the West want to hear. From that point of view Eide is merely doing his job. From an objective point of view, he's a hypocrite. The inverse kind, but still a hypocrite. (Also wrong. Norway executed Vidkun Quisling and a few other Nazi collaborators. We may have been overzealous in punishing collaborators, like most Nazi victims were, but we did not become Nazi's.)

I find it difficult to explain why, but Harald Stanghelle's column in Aftenposten annoys me more than anything else I've read about this. It's not what he says. Like everyone he congratulates the Americans, and points out correctly that this may not end the fighting, then goes on to analyse the effects. What offends me is the cautious and distanced tone, the detached and slightly arrogant attitude. This is a historic moment, an emotional moment. It is a moment of hope for everyone who lives in oppression, of inspiration for the entire Arab world, and of fear for the world's numerous small and big tyrants. It will be remembered by Iraqis for generations, and hopefully come symbolize a permanent change of direction for Iraq and the Arab world. This being a mostly symbolic event, it is a time to appreciate the symbol, to shout: Hah - gotcha, you evil bastard! I'm not entirely sure what those Iraqi journalists at Bremer's press conference were shouting as they saw the photo of Saddam in captivity, but somehow I suspect that was the essence. Hah - gotcha, you evil bastard!

I'll skip most of the obvious stuff and say that the most important thing about his capture is the symbolic value of seeing the dictator powerless and helpless.

Some dictators have to be either killed or publicly humiliated before they're not a psychological factor for people. The pictures of him docile and unkept, a shadow of his former self, is in a way more important than what happens to him now (I'm pretty sure he has no information value whatsoever). At the danger of slipping into psychobabble, I'd say the manner of his capture and his public degradation can provide a kind of closure for many Iraqis that will be needed before a lot of progress can be made.

My preferred fate for him would be long, painful, execution (prolonged as long as possible, as in weeks).
Since this is obviously out of the question, I'd like to see him spend the rest of his life in prison, in a small cell, where he can contemplate his ignoble end for many long hours and be ordered around by (hopefully) petty tyrant guards.

I'd like to see Saddam tried and hanged. Those who are against the death penalty for ALL crimes are kind of prissy.

I am generally against the death penalty because there is so much room for error in the trials and sentencing of criminals. In the state of Illinois, for example, we have recently had a terrible scandal regarding the sentencing to death of people later proved to be innocent.

However, this is quite a different matter than the execution of a savage criminal who has brought misery to so many. I believe that it is simple justice for this man to be executed.

Amnesty International is one of the worst of the hypocritical organizations out there. I can't believe I ever donated money to this foul group. They have probably done more to legitimize terror and murder than all the jihadists of the past decade.

Whenever Amnesty International speaks, I immediately start to take the opposite view. Therefore, if they think Saddam should be saved, it's a clue that he really should be put down like the mad dog that he is (apologies to all dogs).

"Detached and slightly arrogant attitude . . . " seems to pretty well summarize the problem with a lot of people who take the "holier than thou" road. From the comforts of the cozy home, it's difficult to imagine the horrors that millions of people face. Why should mass murderers be protected from paying for their crimes?

This is much more than symbolic.

Saddam was - even as a man on the run - a real threat.

Reports are coming out that he was found with over a few hundred thousand dollars, a brief case with maps, contacts, instructions, etc. It's obvious that he had some hand in the violence against coalition troops, while, obviously, there are still others.

Furthermore, he will be the ultimate fountainhead of knowledge and intel about Iraq before the war, during the war, and now the insurgents. After a few weeks of interogation, he'll unwittingly reveal more than we'll hear about.

I agree that it is hugely symbolic, but it is also more than just a symbolic catch. It is tacticly and strategically important that he is captured.

I agree with Anonymous.

This was much more than symbolic. This was HUGE.

We are just beginning to feel the ramifications of Saddam's capture, and more will come. The anti-war crowd is already greatly diminished, and Bush's re-election is becoming a sure bet at this point.

Supposedly the Iraqis at the press conference were shouting FU.

Hang him from a lamp post in Baghdad w/a basket of shoes underneath.

$1 a whack as a fundraiser.

They need their Mussolini moment.

--Bush's re-election is becoming a sure bet at this point.--

Still too soon to tell. But if so, it'll be big, probably 40++ states.

Sandy P: agree fully on the sentiment, except I wouldn't really talk of "Mussolini moment", that was a mob lynching with no trial, understandable after two years of war and resistance but still disgraceful, also because it provided an easy way out for those others who escaped their responsibility; this is hugely different, justice here is going to be a lot more proper and thorough, and hopefully the trial will reveal the full responsibilities of others who carried out orders.

I may be overlooking other cases in the past, but seems like it's the first time a dictator this big is brought to justice. Milosevic and the extradition farce resulted in nothing; Pinochet sort of got away; Noriega... there was always some "dirty" conclusion, not public accounting. This is immense.

I share Bjorn's dismay with the chorus from Amnesty and the like, I'm so baffled. Do they have to exploit this case too for anti-death-penalty campaigning? I'm not keen on capital punishment myself but there is still a huge difference in execution after a full trial and fascist-like execution. Weren't Amnesty the same who refused to acknowledge the US prisoners of war captured in Iraq had been executed? Wern't they even refusing to grant Geneva convention rules since presumably "the Americans had violated them first"? Absurd they'd care about prisoner of war status for a dictator, really.

IF the Iraqi tribunal will decide on execution, that'll be their choice. Funny that, there's either too little or too much Iraqi involvement, but it's always blamed on the US...

I too am generally against the death penalty, but in the case of a tyrant who may escape and return to power (Napoleon Bonaparte), death is necessary.

LGF had this:

Here’s a short, rather cryptic, but potentially enormously important bulletin at the Jerusalem Post, in which an Iraqi council member says that Saddam had a team of scientists working on a nuclear weapons program.

Saddam Hussein had a team of scientists working on a nuclear weapons program, according to Yonadam Kanna, the Assyrian Chaldean (Christian) representative of the temporary Iraqi government.

“One nuclear engineer out of the team of 14 on this project is now on our side,” he said Monday. “We know they were working on an nuclear weapon.”

Kanna met with President Jacques Chirac in an effort to secure French support for the rebuilding of Iraq.
---

If true, "the world" will really hate the US. Because we were right once again.

I can't even imagine a punishment that would provide suitable vengeance for Saddam's crimes, but I think it's important to keep in mind the objectives of our future dealings with this piece of scum:

- He has to be put out of commission. I don't agree that executing Saddam after a proper trial and sentencing puts "us" at his level, but I do think that capital punishment demeans the society that practices it. Having said that, there is a very practical reason for killing him - he can't be allowed to return, ever. We can look to examples like Ayatollah Khomeini, Vladimir Lenin, and yes, Napoleon to see what happens when despots return, and there should be no hope that Saddam ever will.

- The truth must out. Saddam's trial should be a way to publicize all his atrocities, whether against political opponents, Shi'a Moslems, Kurds, Assyrians, Christians, etc. It should result in irrefutable documentation of his regime and ideally embarrass other despotic regimes (e.g., the PLO, Syria) into cleaning up.

-----

As far as Stanghelle's column is concerned, he has become a mouthpiece for the most banal conventional wisdom in Norwegian politics.

Opponents of the war initially claimed that Saddam was an Iraqi problem that the Iraqi people should handle. Now that an Iraqi court will try Saddam those same people are now claiming that the international community should try Saddam. The hypocrisy is stunning!

Looks like it had much more than symbolic value now, doesn't it?

I told you. ;)

"Opponents of the war initially claimed that Saddam was an Iraqi problem that the Iraqi people should handle. Now that an Iraqi court will try Saddam those same people are now claiming that the international community should try Saddam. The hypocrisy is stunning!"

The reason's are very simple. If Saddam is trialed in Iraq, the focus will justifiably be on his crimes against the Iraqi people, whereas if he is subject to an international court, perhaps in Europe, he will be held up and used as political leverage against the US. With the emphasis on how much funds and weapons he recieved from the US, rather than on punishment. Thus making it important for them to prolong Saddam's trial, just look at the case of Milosevic, who has spent quite a while in prison without any justice in sight, and in that situation there wasn't even anything to gain from the delay.

The United States of Amnesia bears the responsibility for Saddam's rise to power in the first place. During the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations, when Saddam gassed his own people, both Dick Cheney and Colin Powell rallied in Saddam Hussein's defense when the Senate wanted to impose sanctions on Iraq.

Mr. Powell recently had the unmitigated gall to visit Halabja. He had knowledge of mass murder that took place there and defended the perpetrator. Now, because time has simply passed, he was able stand on the very spot and deplore the action as a media opportunity.

The U.S. government creates, supports, funds, and deposes dictators in countries with large amounts of resources when the timing is right. Both Republican and Democratic administrations do this. Zbigniew Breszinski, the Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter was the first to propose defending Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.
Afghanistan is a key link for a huge oil pipeline from Kyrgyzstan to the Indian Ocean.

The current U.S. installed Afghani leader, Hamid Karzai, is an ex Unocal (Union Oil of California) executive.

Look for the current leader in Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to become an "evildoer" in the eyes of George W. Bush. Remember, Musharraf was our friend when we were "smoking the terrorists out their holes" in his neighboring country. Now he has come under scrutiny for his handling of nuclear weapons supplies.

For geographic and economic reasons, the Indian Ocean terminal for the aforementioned pipeline will be in Pakistani territory.

Who is our friend? Who is a terrorist? The American people prefer to be told this by our government. How does the government get away with this?

This is the United States of Amnesia. It is time for the People to take back our country.

Keith: "The United States of Amnesia bears the responsibility for Saddam's rise to power in the first place."

Nonsense. Saddam rose to power in the early 70's, at which time the Soviet Union and France were Iraq's main foreign backers. The Soviet Union abandoned Iraq, but France stuck on, and built them their first atomic reactor, which if it hadn't been bombed by Israel in 1981 would have given Saddam nuclear weapons during the war with Iran. West German companies built Iraq's chemical gas factories. The Americans were late players in Iraq, and thought of it - in the wake of the anti-American Iranian revolution - as a reliable ally against Iran. So did most Western countries, which led to international silence on Halabja. Appalling, yes, as was the American betrayal of the Shiah's in 1991, and the 12 year delay in finishing the Gulf War. There's no excuse for that, but neither is there any excuse for excusing Iraq's other and more important allies by placing all responsibility on the US.

"The current U.S. installed Afghani leader, Hamid Karzai, is an ex Unocal (Union Oil of California) executive."

A consultant, not an executive. And before that he was a central player in the Afghan-Soviet war, one of the moderates the US foolishly allowed Pakistan to snub in favor of religious extremists. This made him relevant both to Unocal and to the current interrim government. But perhaps you know of another Afghan leader with war hero status who would have been better qualified?

"This is the United States of Amnesia. It is time for the People to take back our country."

You may want to start by curing your amnesia with a bit of history. All I see here is conspiracy, which is to real history what drugs is to food.

America was the reason for Saddam's rise. Don't you know now, after living in that country, that they are the most powerful country in the world?
By the way, i am not just saying this out of the blue. I have done extensive research and spent a portion of my life in third world countries.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/571