Juan Cole on why Saddam's capture may
not be so great for Bush after all:
The commentators on cable news shows on Sunday seemed to think that Saddam's capture guarantees Bush's reelection in November of 2004. Well, incumbents have great advantages, and most often do get reelected. But Saddam won't do it for Bush. In a way, the capture came too early for those purposes. It will be a very dim memory in October, 2004.
The Sunni Arab insurgency will continue at least for a while (see below), and the possibility that the Shiites will make more and more trouble cannot be ruled out. The US military is stuck in the country for the foreseeable future at something approaching current troop levels. The move to give civil authority to a transitional Iraqi government may not go smoothly. The administration will have to ask Congress for another big appropriation for Iraq sometime before the '04 election, and that won't help Bush's popularity. The Iraqi economy is still a basket case, the oil pipelines are still being sabotaged or looted, and a whole host of everyday problems remain that having Saddam in custody will not resolve. If Iraq is still going this badly in October of 2004, it would be a real drag on the Bush campaign. Yes, I said "this badly." One arrest doesn't turn it around, except in the fantasy world of political theater in which pundits seem to live.
Juan Cole on why Saddam's capture may actually
intensify opposition to the US occupation:
My wife, Shahin Cole, suggested to me an ironic possibility with regard to the Shiites. She said that many Shiites in East Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere may have been timid about opposing the US presence, because they feared the return of Saddam. Saddam was in their nightmares, and the reprisals of the Fedayee Saddam are still a factor in Iraqi politics. Now that it is perfectly clear that he is finished, she suggested, the Shiites may be emboldened. Those who dislike US policies or who are opposed to the idea of occupation no longer need be apprehensive that the US will suddenly leave and allow Saddam to come back to power. They may therefore now gradually throw off their political timidity, and come out more forcefully into the streets when they disagree with the US. As with many of her insights, this one seems to me likely correct.
I was struck last night by teaser ads for the nightly news. They went along the lines of, "Saddam captured. Will our troops soon come home? Is Bush's reelection guaranteed?"
There is a real expectation that Saddam's capture -- the boogeyman himself! -- marks the end of the war. He has been blamed for all of the occupation's ills, thus his capture should put an end to the occupation, right?
I'm rather fond of this media line. Let them think the war is over. Let them think that Bush's Iraq policy is vindicated (despite the absence of WMDs). Let them think that all is well in Iraq.
Because all is not well. Coalition forces, most of them American, will keep on dying. The war will continue to suck up massive outlays from our treasury. Our occupation administrators will continue to flounder as various factions jockey for power -- each quietly threatening hostilities if it doesn't get its way (in other words, power).
And come the Fall of 2004, when we have over 1,000 dead, with no WMDs, and at a cost of over $300 billion (a third of a trillion dollars), the capture of Saddam will seem as puny and insignificant as the captures of Uday and Qusay -- worthy of short-term propaganda exploitation, but insignificant to the prosecution of the war.
