|
New Page 5
News analysis: Saddma a coward
SIMON IBE
THE capture,
alive, of former maximum ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, by American forces, has
raised questions as to what manner of man this native of Tikrit, in central
Iraq, is.
The dramatic arrest of the man of many
wars will also have implications for his beleaguered country and for the two
leading coalition countries, United States (U.S.) and Britain – and their
resolute but much criticised leaders, President George W. Bush and Prime
Minister Tony Blair, respectively.
From the days when he participated in a
failed attempt to assassinate the then military ruler of Iraq General Kassem and
fled into exile in Cairo, Egypt in 1959 through the times when his Baath Party
seized power in 1968 and he became second in command, till he took over in 1979
and presided over one of the most brutal regimes in that part of the world, the
image Saddam Hussein has cut for himself is one of a blood thirsty and brave
man, who would be willing to look death straight in the eyes and refuse to
blink.
He took on Iran in a major war that lasted
eight years and lost close to a million lives without a twinge of conscience; he
over-ran Kuwait and before he was flushed out by allied forces, set the oil
wells of the country ablaze and did not worry that a significant proportion of
his military was either wiped out or crippled by the allies.
The same man, who is accused of genocide
against the Kurds, of eliminating opponents, including close relatives at will,
looked at the massive military build up of the American-led coalition code named
"Operation Freedom" and scornfully promised to roundly defeat them.
Even after the allies had declared the war
over and two of his sons, Uday and Qusay, had been killed, the man continued to
spit fire from his hide-out, urging his people to continue to resist the
occupation forces till they leave.
He reportedly vowed that he would never be
captured alive, an indication that rather than be taken alive to face trial and
the humiliation of being confronted by those he had ridiculed this long, he
would, instead, die fighting. Other great generals in history have taken this
path of honour but Saddam Hussein allowed himself to be taken alive, a situation
that some analysts have said points to the fact that behind the facade of
courage may actually hide a big coward who is afraid to die fighting.
How will this big break for the coalition
forces affect his country that has been under the barrage of aircraft fire and
the jackboots of allied soldiers?
Some believe that many of the Iraqis who
had continued to terrorise the allied forces, engaging in suicide bombings that
have left many coalition soldiers and civilians, including the United nations
representative in Iraq, dead, may have continued the attacks out of ear of
Saddam, who many Iraqis had come to see as invincible and a mystic figure.
Those in this school of thought say that
once it is clear to these Iraqis that Saddam, indeed, has been captured, the
fire to fight will go off and the pacification of the oil rich country will be
completed faster than it would have been with Saddam still free and broadcasting
messages of hope and resistance to them.
Other headline analysts point to the bomb
blast that still rocked Baghdad to stress that the battle may only just have
begun, because according to them, new power centres are likely to emerge to pick
up the gauntlet while fanatical followers of Saddam would intensify their
attacks to keep his flag flying as well as in the vain hope that their leader
may be let go or that the coalition forces would be frightened off the country.
Among the troops and in American and
British cities, there would be jubilation, not necessarily in solidarity with
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, but out of the joy that the major
threat to the lives of their young men and women military personnel has been
removed.
Stories of growing casualty figures was
beginning to bring back pictures of Vietnam and Sudan to people who were also
increasingly questioning the rationale behind the declaration of the war. In the
British parliament and the American congress as well as in the media and on the
streets, Bush and Blair were beginning to be seriously accused of misleading
their nations and legislators into endorsing their war plans on the premise that
there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that Saddam was poised to use
against their interests. Thus far, none of such weapons has been discovered.
There are suggestions that if
investigations prove that these leaders lied to their legislators and countrymen
and women and dragged them into war on the basis of such falsehood, even the
euphoria of the capture of Saddam would not save them from serious political
reverses, which might include impeachment.
Bush might be more adversely affected
especially in view of the elections of next year in which he would seek to
return to power.
Americans, who, the polls show are not
particularly in favour of him, may altogether turn their backs on him and the
result might be the return to power of the Democratic Party. If that happens,
the former Governor would, at least, take solace in the fact that he has been
able to complete the war against Saddam that his father, George Bush Snr started
as President.
|
