Editorial»
Saddam’s capture
DEC 16 - The man who had vowed to fight against the US till his last breath finally gave in quietly to the American soldiers last Saturday.
Saddam Hussein’s capture without firing a single shot was indeed an ironic end of the dictator who fought two wars with the United States and many others with his neighbours and against his own people. Dragging him out from a grimy bolt-hole near his hometown in northern Iraq, the American army has effectively put an end to an important chapter in its war against terror.
However, to assume that the war in Iraq is over is a delirium. It is clear that the present high-pitched insurgency in Iraq is not solely financed by Saddam’s money. Nor is it solely Saddam loyalists who orchestrate it. In fact, the attack against the American soldiers and its interest may intensify in the days ahead. The absence of Iraqi dictator, who many feared might come back some day, may leave the Iraqis with only one “enemy”— the occupying forces. The United States should, therefore, take this opportunity to reschedule its plan, if it has such a plan at all, to withdraw its soldiers. At the same time it is important that the US tells the Iraqi people that they are packing off sooner rather than later.
Similarly, it would also be wrong to project Saddam’s capture as a justification of the US decision to attack Iraq. The Bush administration blew the trumpet of war on one argument: The Iraqi dictator had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was a threat to American national security. Despite occupying Iraq for the last eight months and trying every possible way to prove that it had weapons of mass destruction, the United States seems nowhere close to proving itself right. In the first interrogation by his captors, Saddam once again denied that he had WMD. “The U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us,” Saddam told his interrogators. Thus, US intention of going to war in Iraq will always remain dubious.
Now that the doomed man is a war captive, key questions remain about his future. Though some US officials have said that he would probably face trial in Iraq, the US is yet to come out with an explicit and unambiguous statement. This man – or any other dictator for that matter — deserves a fair trial. Saddam is a cruel dictator, no doubt, and his hands are drenched in blood, mostly of his own people. Yet, the punishment, however harsh it may be, should follow a fair trial in Iraq. The US treatment of Afghan foot soldiers in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has already raised concerned voices from many human right activists around the world. Any impression of unfair trial against Saddam would raise the rage of the Arabs. The United States, hopefully, understands that.Posted on: 2003-12-16 03:30
Headlines
Advertisements
