Instant Analysis: Saddam Hussein Captured
Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Associate Editor
Sunday, December 14, 2003; Noon ET
Sunday morning U.S. troops captured former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole on a farm outside his home town of Tikrit.
Washington Post Associate Editor Robert G. Kaiser will be online Sunday, Dec. 14 at Noon ET, to discuss the capture, the ramifications for U.S. strategy in Iraq and likely effects on resistance faced by coalition forces in Iraq.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Robert G. Kaiser: Hello and welcome to a discussion on the capture of Saddam Hussein and its significance. We'll begin the discussion right after we watch President Bush's address to the nation at noon. Please join us then.
_______________________
Robert G. Kaiser: Well, President Bush is delayed, evidently, so let's begin the discussion now. When he comes on I will pause to watch him, then return.
_______________________
Buffalo, N.Y.:
Now Saddam captured by Bush, what about the weapons of mass destructions (WMD), the reason Bush told he was going after Saddam? Or the real reason will be lost and people will be misled again?
Robert G. Kaiser: U.S. officials have got to be hoping that Saddam is going to lead them to some weapons of mass destruction somehow. That of course assumes that there are weapons still to be found. You and I can't know whether that's so, or whether Saddam will now give them up. I do not plan to hold my breath waiting for their discovery.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
A few quick questions:
What happens to the $750,000 Saddam was captured with?
How is it determined who gets the $25,000,000 reward?
TV reports kept saying that the brief medical examination we kept seeing on TV, this morning, was for DNA. Where are Saddam's other DNA specimens?
Robert G. Kaiser: Up to now the U.S. has been using captured Iraqi money to help fund reconstruction of the country. I would expect that to happen with this $750K too.
Our story reports that "human intelligence" provided the key information that led to his capture. If so, it sounds like there may be someone who has a very good claim on the reward money.
I remember reading that we had a DNA sample, but I don't know where it is.
_______________________
New Haven, Conn.:
I see the Iraqis trying, convicting and executing Saddam in pretty short order without giving him the chance to mount much of a defense. I see the U.S. encouraging this because that way, its contributions to his crimes throughout the 1980s won't have a high profile forum. How can we work to prevent this?
Robert G. Kaiser: I hope you're wrong. We've had many months--too many months--to plan carefully for this moment. In my opinion, a trial that gives Saddam a chance to defend himself and shows off the benefits of a fair trial would be very much in everyone's interest.
Incidentally, I just hear it announced on TV that Bush is now expected to speak at 12:15. So we'll carry on here until he speaks.
_______________________
Emporia, Kan.:
Do you feel that the capture will have nearly as much impact on the course of events now as it would have had even as late as June or July? At this point, the occupation and resistance seem to have taken on a life of their own, apart from Saddam.
Robert G. Kaiser: This is a good question. Of course we can't today predict how the arrest will play out. Our reporting from Iraq has indicated again and again that a lot of Iraqis were holding back their support from the occupation and the various efforrts to rebuild the country out of fear that Saddam would return and exact revenge from everyone who collaborated with the occupiers. We'll now find out how significant that fear has been. I don't know what to expect myself.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Prior to war, didn't Saddam Hussein have numerous body doubles? How do we know we captured the real Saddam?
Robert G. Kaiser: I hope someday the issue of Saddam's doubles will be cleared up. If you've seen the photos this morning of him after his capture, especially the eyes and the expression of his mouth, I think you have to conclude that it would take more than a "double" to turn this guy into someone other than Saddam Hussein. A clone, maybe, but not a simple look-alike. I bet the farm this is Saddam.
P.S. I don't own a farm.
_______________________
Managua, Nicaragua:
Two questions, Sir.
First. Given the circumstances of Hussein´s capture and the way he was hidding, was he really the leader of the anti-U.S. resistance?
Second. What is the likely impact of his capture on the resistance movement and Iraq and the country´s political immediate future?
Robert G. Kaiser: OK I'm back. I thought the President did speak to one of the earlier questions about the kind of trial to expect when he promised Saddam would get the kind of justice he denied to others. I hope that's the case.
These are two good questions from Managua. Given what we have learned this morning about the circumstances of Saddam's recent existence, it strikes me as inconceivable that he was actively involved in leading the resistance. He had no way to communicate with anyone regularly, it would appear, and trying to do so would have been dangerous for him.
The second question cannot, of course, be answered with any confidence today. Until now, obviously, a great many Iraqis have not accepted the legitimacy of the U.S. occupation, or of the institutions it has created. It is certainly possible that with this arrest, that will change. But it's also possible that it will not. As Sen. Jack Reed of RI said this morning, I think wisely, we are now in a race in Iraq to determine whether we can establish a legitimate Iraqi regime accepted by the country before the country has turned against us as illegitimate occupiers.
_______________________
Minneapolis, Minn.:
I saw reference in one news story to a worry by American officials that the fact that someone provided information about Saddam's whereabouts could reflect a split in the insurgency. What would be the consequences of such a split?
Robert G. Kaiser: Personally I doubt there is an organized insurgency that could have a split. I see this as a lot of like-minded Iraqis who agree on the basic proposition that the Americans should be violently resisted.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Great news today! I have one question, though. Exactly how was Saddam directing the resistance from a hole in the ground? You know, Bremer's been having trouble running things in Iraq with all of his palaces. Maybe we should just hand him a shovel.
Robert G. Kaiser: You'll have seen above that I agree with you. Hadn't thought of giving Bremer a shovel, though...
_______________________
Flushing, N.Y.:
Do you not think that Hussein would be
willing to admit to anything, true or not
in order to improve his fate and the
administration will be looking to take
advantage of this?
Robert G. Kaiser: Don't know. I'd say the fact that he allowed himself to be captured alive indicates a certain lack of courage, or perhaps an ability to delude himself, that makes any big confessions unlikely now.
_______________________
Rochester, N.Y.:
Is it true that Saddam will not face death for his crimes?
Are you surprised that he did not commit suicide?
Bless our troops!
Robert G. Kaiser: Not sure what you are referring to. I think deciding on an appropriate punishment will be tricky.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com:
More on that DNA: Gen. Franks: U.S. Has DNA Sample to Identify Hussein, (Post, April 14)
_______________________
Madison, Va.:
What do you think the ramifications of the capture will be on domestic politics in the U.S.?
Robert G. Kaiser: I love doing these chats, but I have to admit it isn't easy to find new ways of saying, again and again, that I cannot foresee the future. Analysis is not the same as fortune telling! You know as much as I do about how this will affect domestic politics.
On the other hand, I think we can speculate on what the effect might have been if Saddam had been captured next October 15, three weeks before election day. That surely would have helped President Bush a lot. He now won't have that boost.
_______________________
Albany, N.Y.:
It was obvious that after the main thrust of the war violent opposition would continue, building a non-existing infrastructure would be slow and costly, and peace, prosperity and freedom will require time and a strong military presence. Did the Bush administration really underestimate all this, effectively entering post-war Iraq with "no plan?" Couldn't it have been worse if millions of refugees fled to the bordering nations, or if the Shiites had organized an opposition, or if the Kurds clashed with Turkey? Wasn't it impossible to anticipate the events exactly as they unfolded and haven't the U.S. forces shown competence and flexibility over the past months?
Robert G. Kaiser: As we and others have reported in detail, there really was no serious plan, and there really were officials of the government who knew there should be one, and who did foresee most if not all of the problems that have developped since we invaded Iraq.
_______________________
College Park, Md.:
Saddam's capture must come as a real letdown for the liberal left, including some of its top anti-Bush scribes like the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd and the Post's David Broder. After all, any success in Iraq will certainly not help the liberal Democratic agenda to oust President Bush, will it?
How will the likes of David Broder spin this tremendous victory for freedom-loving people all over the world into a diatribe against President Bush?
I will understand if you don’t have to courage to try and answer this question, Mr. Kaiser.
Robert G. Kaiser: answering foolish questions doesn't require any courage at all, my friend.
any fair-minded citizen who has read David Broder over the last 40 years as I have knows that he is contitutionally incapable of writing "diatribes," or of holding a tendentious prejudice against any politician.
_______________________
Armonk, N.Y.:
I'd like to hear your thoughts on Bush's speech. To
me he seemed flat and uninspiring -- did he rise to
this occasion?
Robert G. Kaiser: I thought Bush's speech made every important point, and made them all well. "Inspiring" is in the eye of the beholder, of course. A lot of Americans are now incapable of being inspired to anything but anger and anguish by Bush, while others find him constantly inspiring--you don't need me to tell you that, you can learn it in any neighborhood tavern.
_______________________
Beaverton, Ore.:
How can the capture of Saddam not help the position of the coalition in Iraq?
Robert G. Kaiser: I can't thinkof a way. But the important question probably is, how MUCH can it help? And I don't know the answer to that one.
_______________________
Santa Fe, N.M.:
It seems unlikely that Saddam was "directing" the
resistance from such foxholes; further, at least
some segments of the resistance may be pleased
to have him out of the way, since a success
against the coalition would lead these elements
to power rather than Saddam again. In other
words, whoever it is now who can push the
coalition out of Iraq will control Iraq...
It seems to me that the arrest of Saddam will not
end the resistance, but rather shift it to a new
footing -- giving new fuel to those who are
determined to drive the coalition from Iraq and
take over the reins. How do you see this?
Thanks
Robert G. Kaiser: I think we can be confident that the resistance will not now cease. Are there Iraqis who really think they can force us out of their country? Perhaps, but I doubt that's the principal motivation of those attacking us. Rather, I suspect they are banking on creating a chaotic situation, and denying any new regime both legitimacy and the opportunity to build a new democratic system there. And in this they could succeed, obviously.
_______________________
Portland, Maine :
Given your observations of the Bush administration's tactics in highlighting American victories in Iraq for domestic politcal gain, can you give an outline as to what we Americans can expect from this news?
Robert G. Kaiser: Hey, presidents are allowed to brag about their successes, or things they think are successes! That's the American way. I don't remember a president of either party who hid his accomplishments under a bushel basket.
I thought Bush was wise to caution his countrymen today not to expect Saddam's arrest to be followed by the end of violence in Iraq. Violence, confusion and resistance will continue, we can count on that. Bush could never have claimed success in Iraq WITHOUT capturing Saddam, it seems to me, but capturing Saddam does not remotely guarantee success in Iraq.
_______________________
Newport News, Va.:
What course of action do you feel will be played out in regard to timeline of debriefings for Hussein in relation to turning him over to an appropriate court for trial, and what forum should that trial be held in?
Robert G. Kaiser: I have no idea how the interrogation will be handled. You've probably heard the NBC report this morning that he has already been taken out of Iraq; I can't confirm that either. This is another thing we have now had months to prepare for. Who interrogates Saddam, how they do it, etc., are all delicate questions, and I haven't seen anything yet on these details.
_______________________
St. Mary's City, Md.:
Is the U.S. prepared to deal with the ramifications this capture will have in terms of Saddam loyalists worldwide?
The Iraqi governemnt has expressed its desire to try Saddam for war crimes -- what is the U.S. planning to do regarding this issue?
Do you think the braod coverage of this historic event will spark further action from Saddam loyalists as well as other dissidents (possibly bin Laden, etc.)?
Robert G. Kaiser: "Saddam loyalists worldwide"? Who do you have in mind? I don't think there are many such people. And I don't think bin Laden or his followers can be called Saddam supporters. I see no evidence of that.
But they shared a common enemy, and still do--us. Al Qaeda will, I'm sure, try again and again to strike American and allied targets. That's the war we are now in. Iraq was always something of a sideshow to that war in my opinion.
_______________________
Charlottesville, Va.:
It seems to me that the Iraq situation moved beyond Saddam's major influence several months ago, with the emergence of Sistani and his fellow Shi'a clerics as tribunes (holders of the veto) of the Iraqi people. Quotes even from anti-American Ba'athists describe Saddam as despicable. All in all, it seems that the CPA and IGC and the U.S. lost any significant control over the ultimate outcome of the occupation, and that Saddam's capture might mask this loss to the American public, for a while, but that's about it.
Robert G. Kaiser: thanks for your comment. I agree with you that we got beyond Saddam some time ago. I also think the most important question for the future of Iraq now may well be whether or not the three major groups in the society, the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities, can coalesce in one unified, democratic state or not. And I haven't a clue whether they can. I don't think they have one yet either.
_______________________
Bozeman, Mont.:
To the extent that Saddam Hussein’s megalomaniacal bent had become more liability than asset to the Ba’ath project of a strong, nationalistic, secular state, might not the capture of Saddam Hussein actually be a boon to Ba’athists still resisting American occupation?
Robert G. Kaiser: Perhaps, but I don't see traditional Ba'athists playing much of a role now. They were so thoroughly co-opted by Saddam that it would now be difficult to convince many Iraqis that there is a ba'athist position that is independent of him, don't you think?
_______________________
Annapolis, Md.:
Will the Post be looking into the story reported by the Telegraph about connections between Abu Nidal, Mohammad Atta and Saddam Hussein?
Very likely to be untrue, but would be immensely significant if true. And there's no mention on the Post's Web site about it yet.
Robert G. Kaiser: If we put every rumor and story in the British press (not to mention many others around the world) on the website, you'd be dizzy--and no wiser. The Post does not print other papers' uncheckable "exclusive" stories. And I can tell you that there have been dozens of bad--that is, wrong--ones over recent months. The Telegraph, Daily and Sunday, has not earned our respect for accuracy or careful reporting.
_______________________
Catonsville, Md.:
Considering the hubris surround the Bush admininstration's approach to this war and the Middle East do you think they may ignore the lessons learned and stage more pre-emptive strikes against other countries?
I know you don't own a farm and can't predict the future, but a little learned speculation wouldn't hurt.
Robert G. Kaiser: I'd put this question in a slightly different way, and then I'd be more comfortable trying to answer it. Let me try:
Q. What is the status today of the "Bush doctrine" which declared that the U.S. would engage in pre-emptive strikes against regimes and groups that we had reason to believe planned attacks against us or our interests?
A. A mystery. Could the administration, before the election or, if Bush is re-elected, afterward, rely again on that doctrine to invade, say, Iran or Syria or North Korea? Personally I find that hard to believe, given the many heavy costs of our ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Taking on another of these without the most flagrant and grave provocation would seem to be the height of folly now. But I remain unable to see into the future.
_______________________
Reston, Va.:
Well, for eight months the question was "where is Saddam?" Then he was captured by U.S. forces, videotaped and photograhed. Now there's an unconfirmed report that he's been transported out of Iraq, so we're back to square one, sort of. Where is Saddam now?
Robert G. Kaiser: Do you think Saddam feels "back at square one." Nope. Your premise is weak, I'd say. Where he is today is a helluva lot less important than where he was yesterday.
_______________________
Bear, Del.:
Is/was Saddam a sacrificial lamb who no longer served any useful purpose for the Iraqi resistance? Will this be a hollow victory for President Bush?
Robert G. Kaiser: No.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.:
Why will Hussein not be tried in an
international tribunal similar to what we're
seeing for Milosevic?
Robert G. Kaiser: Because the Bush administration doesn't believe in usch tribunals, as a rule, and is eager to put Saddam on trial in front of Iraqi judges.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
Bush started the war in Iraq because of the terrorism Saddam may bring to the U.S. Now when Bush speaks, it sounds that the benefit of capturing Saddam is all about freedom for Iraqi people. Why am I a little confused here?
Robert G. Kaiser: Not sure if this was a sincere question, but it's actually a good one. Shifting the rationale for the war has been going on for months, since we failed to find any of the WMD we were so confident would turn up in Iraq. Whether Americans can support a war whose main purpose is to bring democracy to Iraq (not to mention whether or not it is possible for foreigners to bring democracy to Iraq) remains an open question.
_______________________
philadelphia, pa:
what role did the reporters play in saddam's capture?
rachel m.
Robert G. Kaiser: none
_______________________
Pasadena, Calif.:
Not that it wasn't widely known already, but last year, your newspaper reported that Americans were complicit in many of Saddam's crimes during the 1980s. See: U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup, (Post, Dec. 29, 2002).
It is also known that together the British, French, Germans, along with the Americans made possible the flow of munitions, intelligence reports, banking services, germs, and dual-use chemicals to Saddam's regime during the 1980s.
What efforts do you foresee these Western countries taking to block Saddam from using these facts in his defense?
We certainly would never tolerate a defense from Saddam like "that was a long time ago," or "we now know it was a mistake to do such things," or "it was imperative for geostrategic reasons." Should we tolerate it from our own leaders?
Robert G. Kaiser: There are many good ground for criticizing American policy toward Iraq in the years before 1991, but I don't think any of them absolve Saddam of responsibility for the dreadful things that happened under his leadership.
_______________________
Berlin, Germany:
Do you think it will be possible for Saddam to receive
what might accepted in most of the world as a "fair
trial" in an Iraq dominated by the U.S. military?
What are the chances Saddam might be turned over
to another court?
Robert G. Kaiser: I certainly think it's possible to give him a fair trial. He won't be turned over to a court outside Iraq, I don't think.
_______________________
Newport News, Va.:
Trying not to be a conspiracy theorist, the biggest prize of the capture of Saddam Hussein is obviously the reassurance to the Iraqi people that he will never be coming back and will be held accontable for his actions.
For coalition forces, the intel piece on the WMD question might finally be answered and though I don't believe the details will ever be released, the prewar actions of other countries might finally be known. What are some of the things we might see. Will countries like France, Germany and Russia change their postions on the war? Will they change their positions on reconstrcution of Iraq and forgiving Iraq's pre-war debt?
Robert G. Kaiser: You think the U.S. might, for example, find evidence of secret Russian or French collaboration with Saddam before the war and KEEP IT SECRET? Get serious. But I think we can conclude already that such evidence was not found. Had it been, I am confident we'd know about it.
Personally I think it is unfair, particularly to Germans and French, to assume that their opposition to the war, and their reluctance to join the U.S. post-war operation, are the result of emotional animus toward the United States. Have you ever spoken to a thoughtful German or Frenchman (or woman) about the war? They have what strike me as very sound anxieties about what has happened in Iraq so far.
_______________________
Eureka, Calif.:
Why do so many people seem to believe that with Saddam's capture the war is now over? Are they really so naive as to think the Iraqi resistance to U.S. occupationi is going to suddenly evaporate? Does Saddam's capture change the fact that the U.S. is engaged in an illegal occupation of a sovereign country, and that the majority of Iraqis want the U.S. forces to leave their country?
Robert G. Kaiser: thanks for your comment. I love your giant redwoods in Eureka!
"Illegal" is obviously a loaded word, but without endorsing its use, I agree with you. The U.S. still faces huge problems in Iraq and the entire Middle East, and capturing Saddam does not solve any of them.
_______________________
Chicago, Ill.:
This war was originally sold as a
necessary action to prevent a "mushroom
cloud" appearing over the U.S. -- and has
been in typical media hyperventilating
fashion, reduced today to a "we got Jesse
James" melodrama.
Do you actually think that Hussein's
capture will make a whit of difference to
Islaamists who hated him anyway, or
normal Iraqis who abhor being occupied?
Robert G. Kaiser: More of the same. And I agree with you, too.
_______________________
Des Moines, Iowa:
How do you think Saddam's capture affects the Democratic campaign for president? It seems to me that it only helps Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman if Saddam tells U.S. forces where WMD might be found. Otherwise, Dean continues to benefit because Saddam is clearly not a threat and hasn't been for months, if not years. But you might disagree...
Robert G. Kaiser: In Des Moines this is all anyone thinks about, evidently. I'd say the true answer to your question is, not one whit.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Eight months later Saddam is captured. How is this a "success?"
Does anyone think that the fighting in Iraq is to return Saddam to power? Or is the fighting for some other reason such as: to get the U.S. out of Iraq; to keep the Sunni faction from being made powerless?
We know that there is a media machine in the White House that will promote it as such, (remember, "Mission Accomplished?") but will The Post report the facts or will the headlines scream the GOP line?
Robert G. Kaiser: The Post proudly reports the facts, and will continue to do so.
_______________________
Ponte Vedra, Fla.:
How does the capture of Saddam make the U.S. mainland more secure and free from the danger of terrorist threats?
Robert G. Kaiser: I can't see that it has any effect at all.
_______________________
Southern, Calif.:
I seriously doubt this will be overlooked, but Saddam
Hussein is a very rich man, according to numerous
media sources. What is to become of his billions and
could that money be used in the rebuilding of Iraq?
Robert G. Kaiser: We don't know much about money he may have now. I'm sure officials would love to find out.
_______________________
Madison, Wis.:
Will Saddam's capture reinvigorate the search for bin Laden? With the November elections coming up it seems as if having both guys captured would unequivocally lead Bush into a second term.
Robert G. Kaiser: I'd be appalled, I have to say, if the search for Bin Laden could be further invigorated now. I sure hope our people have been looking for him as avidly as humanly possible.
Would capturing him insure Bush's relection? No. Remember the great lesson in this regard: Winston Churchill defeated Hitler and secured British security and freedom in the spring of 1945, and was simultaneously swept out of office by voters who wanted the British Labor Party to revive their economy and reform their society. The great thing about free elections is, they and produce the darnedest results.
_______________________
Robert G. Kaiser: That's enough for today. Thanks to all who gave up part of their Sunday to join us here. washingtonpost.com will feature a continuing series of discussions on the Iraq war, Saddam and related topics in the days and weeks ahead.
_______________________
| 
