2
   

"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

 
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 05:11 pm
Thanks for the clarification, revel. I couldn't imagine anyone here saying such a unsupportable thing.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 09:12 am
I'm going to throw an idea in on this thread, simply because it is somewhere to throw it.

The arraignment of Sadaam yesterday is theatre for an American audience (which is what Sadaam said, actually). The trial will not be held for many months, and in fact the exact charges and presentation of evidence won't be ready until then.

So why do the arraignment now? Or we can ask, why not?

The 'not' answer is that showing Sadaam locally seems a dangerous thing to do. It certainly could cause as much renewed support from those who support him (or who hate America) as it does relieve folks. It seems quite arguable that continuing to keep Sadaam out of view has clear advantages (why not continue to show pictures of him being captured and looking really bad, but not providing any new forum for his words or to show him looking better?)

On the other hand, why not try to get a bump in Bush's approval ratings by doing just what was done?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 09:20 am
blatham wrote:
So why do the arraignment now? Or we can ask, why not?

The 'not' answer is that showing Sadaam locally seems a dangerous thing to do. It certainly could cause as much renewed support from those who support him (or who hate America) as it does relieve folks. It seems quite arguable that continuing to keep Sadaam out of view has clear advantages (why not continue to show pictures of him being captured and looking really bad, but not providing any new forum for his words or to show him looking better?)

On the other hand, why not try to get a bump in Bush's approval ratings by doing just what was done?

The Red Cross had warned that the US needed to hand over Saddam to the Iraqi authorities before 30 June, since otherwise the US would be in breach of I forget which conventions. They just about or almost met that deadline, perhaps to avoid yet another acrimonous round of reproaches and legal challenges.

By handing him over to the Iraqis, however, they necessitated the Iraqis to actually do something with him, too. In fact, that was a win-win situation, since it afforded the Iraqis with a high-profile opportunity to show itself in an image of control - hey, a symbolic submission of the former dictator himself to their authority! Considering Saddam's continued impopularity in Iraq (perhaps the one single remaining comfort left for the Americans in the latest round of Iraqi polls), it was also a way for them to score points with their population.

Anyway, thats just my superficial reading of it.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 09:25 am
could it also be a demonstration of the "power" of the new but (so far) temporary Iraqi government?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 09:34 am
What is interesting about this event of showing Saddam in court is how many Iraqis still strongly favor Saddam. Emotions run high even if looking from the outside seems wrong. Interesting dynamics to see when we compare the support for GWBush.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 10:03 am
nimh

Good points. It could well be strategized as a win/win for the Iraqi government and for Bush (back home) as well, and that makes sense. Such decisions are of the 'god knows what exactly will happen, but I think this probable' sort.

I suspect we are agreed though that something so high profile as this will not have occured without OK from the US.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 03:32:58