by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 15, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

rawling out of a dirt crypt with his hands up, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was reduced to a disheveled vagabond, living nine months on the lam after the fall of Baghdad. Stunning the world, the 66-year-old dictator surrendered Dec. 13, 8:30 p.m. [Iraq Time] to a 600-man division of the U.S Army 4th Infantry without incident, appearing disoriented, despite possessing a pistol, two AK-47s and $750,000 in U.S. cash. Shortly after his capture, the Pentagon released telling footage of a medic inspecting the compliant tyrant's matted hair for lice and examining his throat with a flashlight and tongue depressor, sending unmistakable images to the Arab world that Saddam was utterly broken. He's “a tired man, a man resigned to his fate,” said U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, revealing a shell of the blustery propagandist that ruled Iraq for 35 years.

      Reverberating around the globe, Saddam's capture was euphoric news at the White House, hit in recent months by mounting casualties and growing doubt about its Iraq policy. Heading into an election year, getting Saddam was a welcomed early Christmas gift for the White House, fending off criticism—especially from Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean—that Iraq was in a Vietnam-type quagmire. Capturing Saddam holds enormous symbolic value to detractors both home and abroad. To Europeans, especially France, Germany and Russia, they can no longer fantasize about the past, or, for that matter, getting repaid on outstanding debt. They must now shift gears—and foreign policies—to accept Iraq's new fledgling Democracy under U.S. control. With Saddam gone, the future of Iraq is in the hands of the White House busy crafting a government friendly to the U.S.

      Hoping for an intelligence bonanza, Saddam was whisked away to an undisclosed location for lengthy interrogation. Pulled from a hole, the military found no evidence that Saddam was running the resistance from his dugout. No sophisticated communication evidence was found at the scene. Judging by his condition, it appears he was long betrayed and abandoned by his “loyal following,” suggesting he has little real intelligence to offer. Future trials create great expectations but don't add to his current value in captivity. “We've already gleaned intelligence value from his capture,” said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, speaking optimistically about newly found documents and seizing another unnamed former regime official. “At this point I wouldn't characterize it . . . either way, cooperative or uncooperative,” said U.S. Commander in Iraq Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

      Capturing Saddam lands a punishing blow to regime dead-enders, hoping organized resistance would return the former tyrant to power. Ending Saddam's reign of terror, including his pernicious propaganda with Palestinians, gives hope to Islamic radicals fueling the current insurgency. With Saddam out of the picture, Iraq is left with foreign and homegrown Islamists or jihadists armed, funded and inspired by radical Sunni Mullahs and Shiite Ayatollas, personified by renegade Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden. Unlike Saddam, Bin Laden has successfully waged war against the U.S. over the past 10 years, culminating in Sept. 11. America's ongoing threat from radical Islam stems not from Saddam's past regime but from millionaire extremists like Bin Laden hell-bent on creating a worldwide Islamic state. Capturing Saddam and crushing his Baathist regime won't stop Bin Laden or his radical followers.

      When the President Bush fingered Iraq in the “axis of evil,” he signaled his intention of “regime change.” After toppling the Taliban and chasing Bin Laden after 9/11, the White House fixed its sights on Saddam Hussein. With unfinished business from the 1991 Gulf War, the administration pressed an unrelenting case for ousting the Iraqi dictator, culminating in Sec. of State Colin L. Powell's Feb. 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Hans Blix and his team of U.N. weapons inspectors couldn't corroborate Powell's claims that Iraq threatened U.S. national security. With no evidence of WMD, the White House frequently shifts its justifications for war. “America is more secure as the result of his capture,” said President Bush, again insisting that Saddam represented a gathering threat to national security.

      Capturing Saddam changes the political landscape heading into next year's elections. “There will be plenty of time for politics,” said Bush, sticking to his guns that Saddam was an implacable threat to national security. Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean already finds himself in hot water, attacked by Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) for his stance on Iraq. Out on a limb opposing the war, Dean must now reconcile his antiwar fervor against the reality of a great military and political victory. Capturing Saddam carries huge symbolic value for the U.S. mission in Iraq. “A free Iraq will transform the entire Middle East,” Bush told a much-anticipated news conference after Saddam's capture, giving a bigger context to his overall strategy. With radical Islam threatening U.S. interests and Iran secretly enriching uranium, the White House is finally making its case.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.