The Hindu Business Line : What now, after Saddam's capture?

The manner in which Saddam Hussein was captured has given rise to the suspicion whether the Americans have struck some kind of a deal with him. What if Mr Hussein himself, after several rounds of questioning, admits that he did, indeed, have WMD but destroyed them just before the war? Or, better still, that he intended to manufacture them? Such a statement would give the entire war a legitimacy that has been missing till now, says Rasheeda Bhagat.

NOW that the former Iraq President, Mr Saddam Hussein, is in US custody, and the media has splashed images of the man who was dragged out of a hole in the ground, the next phase of the Iraq debate will be on what he has to say, and how and where his trial will be conducted.

But before that, the powerful television images of the once-proud Mr Hussein, who had defied the Americans for years, now humiliated, has sent shock waves through not only the Arab region , but the rest of the world too.

The commonest argument one hears goes something like this: Okay, the man was a tyrant and a despot who had unleashed severe torture on his own people, who opposed him in any way. He and his family looted the country and lived an incredibly luxurious life. But did he have to end up in this manner?

They themselves may like it or not, but for the entire Islamic world, Mr Hussein evoked, along with feelings of revulsion, also of admiration, albeit grudging. From Palestine to Pakistan, he had admirers who hero-worshipped him, for little else besides the fact that he had defied the Americans.

The argument was that while an oil-rich country such as Saudi Arabia toes the American line on anything and everything, here was one Arab leader who had refused to fall in line.

So there is disappointment among a section of his admirers that Mr Hussein allowed himself to be captured, like a petty criminal, without putting up a semblance of fight or trying to kill himself with the weapons available in his hide out.

Others simply feel that whatever Mr Hussein's sins vis-à-vis attacks on, and wars with, Iran or Kuwait, he had not harmed the Americans in any way to justify their ending his regime through brutal force. After all, he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other subsequent attacks on Western targets. So why should he meet such a fate?

While the Arab world grapples with such feelings on his capture, the majority of Iraqis are hugely relieved at the thought that the man who tormented them for 34 long years will not rule them ever again.

Of course, in the Sunni triangle, where his supporters still abound, there is anger and remorse at his capture. Unlike the celebrations on the day of his capture — which the occupation forces in Iraq would like to believe were spontaneous — the rallies in support of Mr Hussein have been muted, which is natural considering the country is under occupation and Mr Hussein's supporters are bound to face increasing heat for being potential attackers of the coalition forces.

The manner in which Mr Hussein was captured has also given rise to the suspicion whether the Americans have struck some kind of a deal with him. It might be argued that having gone for Mr Hussein single-mindedly, and having raised much hue and cry over the "evil man", would the US President, Mr George W. Bush, put his credibility on the line by entering into any deal with the former Iraq President?

Well, in the world of geopolitics, anything can happen. Beginning with Iraq's civil administrator, Mr Paul Bremer, and ending with Mr Bush and the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, the spin the world has been given on Mr Hussein's capture is that it is a "victory for the Iraqi people". He is, after all, "their criminal".

But the triumph in capturing the former dictator and lining him up before the world as a hardened criminal, the Bush-Blair duo's victory seems insipid compared to their original hyperbole on there being no choice but to attack Iraq and remove Mr Hussein because he had weapons of mass destruction.

Not only have the occupying forces failed to find any such WMD that could provide a fig leaf to the American and British leaders, the arrest and interrogation of key components of the Saddam Hussein regime have failed to provide any leads to the WMD, over which the two Western leaders had gone to town in the days leading up to the coalition attack on Iraq and during the actual war itself.

But what if Mr Hussein himself, after several rounds of questioning of course, turns around and says that he, indeed, had WMD that he destroyed just before the war? Or, better still, because no evidence of this would be necessary, that he intended to manufacture them, or had a big plan in the offing to go in for nuclear weapons? Such a statement would change everything for Mr Bush and Mr Blair and would give the entire war a legitimacy that has been missing till now.

Opponents of the attack against Iraq and the entire business of regime-change kept asking the one question that had no answer: How did the Saddam Hussein regime hold out a threat to the US or any of the coalition partners?

While al Qaeda links had been established to the 9/11 and other terror attacks, and Osama bin Laden was still at large, why was it necessary to go after Iraq? Well, the simple answer to these questions is Iraq's oil wealth and its strategic geographic location — bang in the centre of West Asia , and with neighbours like a recalcitrant Iran and a powerful Turkey.

Mr Hussein might have come to power in Iraq in 1979 in the first place with American blessings. But over the years he had turned increasingly defiant and there was no way he would have played along to benefit big American conglomerates' oil interests or the superpower's political interests.

With his removal and the installation of a puppet regime, there were limitless possibilities for the lone superpower in the world to grow even more powerful.

But, then, unfortunately for Messrs Bush and Blair, democracies have their nuisance value and people in a "free country" tend to ask too many questions.

Worse, they revel in taking out protest marches and, much worse, speak their mind in popularity ratings. And when an election is in the offing, a continuing stream of negative ratings tends to take its toll on the prospects of a presidential candidate.

Now, all these irritating prospects can change rapidly if Mr Hussein is to get a sudden flash of memory that he had indeed manufactured, or at least aspired to acquire, all those dangerous WMD. At the moment, of course, there is no concrete evidence that such a deal can take place, except an indicator as vague as the fact that when four members of the Iraqi Governing Council, which is regularly referred to in Iraq as a "stooge of the Americans", including Mr Ahmed Chalabi, went to interrogate Mr Hussein, he was contemptuous of them and used "foul language" to answer their questions, even using his knowledge of French, we are told, to snub and insult them.

But the same Mr Hussein, we found, was quite deferential and subdued in front of the Americans. After all Mr Chalabi and company, being mere "friends" of the US, cannot guarantee him anything.

Well, all this is still in the realm of speculation, but going by the manner in which American regimes have been forced upon other parts of the world, entities such as the Taliban, and even Mr Hussein himself, to suit their geo-political, military and economic interests, nothing should be considered beyond them.

Ultimately, if any deal does happen with Mr Hussein, the coalition forces in Iraq and American interests in the rest of the world will continue to be targeted. But caught in a vicious bind will be the people of Iraq, whose fate in the near term looks dismal. They suffered untold miseries under Saddam Hussein, and they continue to suffer.

The people are facing severe shortages of food and oil in a country blessed with both in plenty. Their sick continue to be deprived of decent health-care facilities, their number of unemployed is rising , their homes are still raided, their roads are blocked by coalition forces' armoured trucks, and their lives remain miserable.

Meanwhile, in a delightful spoof on Mr Hussein's capture, titled "Jessica Lynch Captures Saddam: Ex-dictator Demands Back Pay From Baker," Greg Palast (well-known columnist and author of the bestseller The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) has this comment to make: "While lauding the capture of Mr Hussein, experts caution that the War on Terror is far from over, noting that Osama bin Laden, James Baker (former US Secretary of State and Mr Hussein's erstwhile friend) and George W. Bush remain at large."

(Response can be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Breaking new ground

Post-reform anomaly — Parts not keeping `full' pace

What now, after Saddam's capture?

Saddam's nemesis

Water problem: Don't allow it to precipitate

Fractal space: A new dynamics of organisation

Bank mergers and acquisitions

Anti-Defection Bill