Has anything changed in Iraq since Saddam's capture?

[dplax]

Interesting article from BBC

On 14 December last year a triumphant Paul Bremer, then the American governor of Iraq, announced before a crowded news conference: "Ladies and gentlemen, we've got him."

US forces had captured Saddam Hussein the day before - the Ace of Spades in its infamous deck of cards.

The former dictator was hauled out of a hole in the ground near his home town of Tikrit, grubby, unshaven and dishevelled, without a shot being fired.

He was the man the Americans believed was guiding and directing the insurgency, and officials confidently predicted that without its figurehead, the resistance would crack and crumble.

In a television address, President Bush declared: "In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over."

General John Abizaid, head of the US Central Command, said the capture had dealt the insurgency "a huge psychological blow" that would "pay great benefits over time".

And the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, Major General Jay Odierno, whose troops were credited with seizing Saddam, declared the insurgency to be "on its knees".

"Within six months I think you're going to see some normalcy," he added.

More troops

One year on, Iraq remains anything but normal.

More American soldiers have died since Saddam's capture than before.

Insurgent attacks across the country last month averaged almost 100 a day - almost double July's figure when they were supposed to be disappearing.

The threat of kidnapping is now so rife that no Westerner dares walk the streets of any town, and the Pentagon is increasing troop numbers in Iraq to a record high of 150,000 to provide security for next month's elections.

Also one year on, Saddam is still awaiting trial. He has been held in an undisclosed prison somewhere in Iraq.

The American forces are responsible for his detention; a special tribunal of 40 Iraqi judges is preparing for his prosecution under Iraqi law.

'Poetry and gardening'

His jailers are being tight-lipped about the conditions in which he is being held.

All they will confirm is that he is still inside the country and being granted the rights due to any prisoner.

But in August this year, Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amin told The Guardian newspaper that the ex-president whiles away his time writing poetry, tending his garden, and reading the Koran.

He is being held with 11 other political associates, including his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, also known as "Chemical Ali", although they are being isolated from other detainees.

The original plan had been to bring Saddam and his henchmen to a relatively quick trial - possibly within six months.

That date has repeatedly slipped, due in part to the lack of experience amongst the Iraqi investigators who have to sift through tonnes of documents, and due also to deteriorating security, which is severely hampering their work.

The latest advice from the interim government is that the trials will take place in the first half of next year, but not before elections on 30 January.

The justice ministry said it expects that Chemical Ali and Saddam's half brother Watban Ibrahim Al Hassan would face the courts first, followed by the ex-dictator.

It has already been described as "the trial of the century".

But it is unlikely to be the wrapping up of affairs in Iraq that Washington might have hoped for one year ago.

According to GWB in his State of the Union Address things in IRAQ were going to take years to be worked out, that it would be a long haul and that we had to be patient and understand that real life is not like a television show...over in one hour with everything resolved.....The Bush Administration NEVER hinted that Iraq would be a quick fix...yes the war against Saddam would be quick...and it was. But the larger Iraqi picture was always envisioned as a longer lasting effort.

[johnny]

I'd say the landscape changed a bit.

[dplax]

Magik: the article mostly referred to the comments made by different ranking military officials after Saddam got captured. They said the insurgency would wind down. But in reality it has only increased. My point with posting this article was that although the US claimed capturing Saddam was a great victory it did not change anything in Iraq. Its as if you cut off one head and fifteen grow in its place. Saddam's capture was made to look much bigger than it was.

In the same way capturing Bin Laden would not stop Al Qaeda. Someone else would just replace him. As I see it it is the whole mentality of the war on terror which is wrong. It is not the leaders who need to be captured, it is the whole organizations which need to be taken care of, and if this is impossible then the tactics need to be changed.

[Barry the Sprout]

I think it is quite consistent to say that things have changed but that occupation will not bring peace and democracy. To say that things are still as bad as when the country was run by the closest thing we've seen to a fascist dictator for years is just plain stupid. But on the other hand that doesn't mean that the occupying forces are exactly behaving either.

The fact of the matter is that most of the people against the war were against it because they were humanitarians opposed to people getting killed. That kind of pitted them against Saddam as well. But just because you're in favour of getting rid of something doesn't mean you're going to be in favour of bombing all and sundry to do so... The occupation has definately changed Iraq, and in many ways it has changed it for the better (although I imagine in many ways it's changed it for the worse). But whether or not it has changed does not mean we should be in favour of the war, or in favour of the occupation. The fact that progress has been so radically and consistently opposed by the occupation should vindicate those of us who felt that it wasn't going to happen in Iraq's interests.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by dplax: Magik: the article mostly referred to the comments made by different ranking military officials after Saddam got captured. They said the insurgency would wind down. But in reality it has only increased. My point with posting this article was that although the US claimed capturing Saddam was a great victory it did not change anything in Iraq. Its as if you cut off one head and fifteen grow in its place. Saddam's capture was made to look much bigger than it was. In the same way capturing Bin Laden would not stop Al Qaeda. Someone else would just replace him. As I see it it is the whole mentality of the war on terror which is wrong. It is not the leaders who need to be captured, it is the whole organizations which need to be taken care of, and if this is impossible then the tactics need to be changed.

How would you like to see the tactics changed? With terrorist it's their way or Death. You either fight them or give into them, there is no talking with them, they had their own country, Afhganistan, in which to run things and live their life as they saw fit, but were they willing to live and let live? NO! They set out to change others way of life, through the killing of innocent people just going to work and trying to make a living, provide for their families, and raise their children. There are fates worse then death, for ME, living under their thumb or rule would be one, as would letting them get away with their actions of attacking us. I'm the nicest, kindest, most well mannered SOB Hard case you'll ever meet,(MagiK may tie me though )I'll give someone the shirt off my back, but if they try and take it only one of us will survive to wear the shirt.

[John D Harris]

Barry, how would you have gotten rid of Sodamn Insane? 12 years of sanctions didn't do a damn thing, the Oil for Food program only lined his and others *COUGH* the UN and other world leaders, both governmental and business*COUGH* pockets with money. Like it or not sometimes you got to fight or surrender, as for me I'll surrender when I'mm looking at the grass from the other side.

[Barry the Sprout]

You can't just proclaim that Hussein needed to be removed and that the US and UK had every right to do so without a serious rethink of foreign policy with regard to other dictators around the world. Its incredibly short sighted to view Hussein as just some unfortunate random occurrence, as opposed to 30 years of Western intervention and power-brokering. If you were sincere about helping the Iraqi's then you would be screaming blue murder about indicting the guys who supported Saddam for all those years when we were pissed off with the Iranians.

Having said all that I feel that the sanctions absolutely didn't help - you're quite right. They put back any possibility for revolution. What would have helped would have been less Western support for dictators and Isreali oppression for a very long period of time. That process, as far as I can tell, has not even started now after Sept 11th - when surely anyone could see what the consequences of it were.

[dplax]

Originally posted by John D Harris: How would you like to see the tactics changed?

I was saying that the current tactics were not well adapted to the current situation. I have no idea whatsoever of what the correct tactics would be, but when fighting against beliefs removing the leaders does not help.

As when christianity tried to fight new ideas from spreading they tried to remove the ones coming up with the ideas, but the ideas still spread and eventually they could not stop change. As I see it now the US is trying to stop Islamic Fundemantalism from spreading but due to several circumstances (example: Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan) there are factors which shall keep the terrorrists going even if their leaders are removed. You can't tell a people to give up not liking you if you take their territories from them and give them a government they shall never consider legitimate since it is enforced by a foreign military presence in their country.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by dplax: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: How would you like to see the tactics changed?

I was saying that the current tactics were not well adapted to the current situation. I have no idea whatsoever of what the correct tactics would be, but when fighting against beliefs removing the leaders does not help.

As when christianity tried to fight new ideas from spreading they tried to remove the ones coming up with the ideas, but the ideas still spread and eventually they could not stop change. As I see it now the US is trying to stop Islamic Fundemantalism from spreading but due to several circumstances (example: Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan) there are factors which shall keep the terrorrists going even if their leaders are removed. You can't tell a people to give up not liking you if you take their territories from them and give them a government they shall never consider legitimate since it is enforced by a foreign military presence in their country. [/QUOTE]Fair 'nuff on the tactics part.

Time will tell, if and when the governments of said countries are considered legitimate. I for one believe the people of the middle East are fully capitable of handling democracy, simular things were said about Japan after the WWII. 60 years later, look at Japan.