LONDON, 17 December 2003 — The capture of Saddam Hussein has transformed the political landscape in a way that the swift US and British military victory alone failed to do.
In Iraq, it has furnished the ultimate proof that the tyranny of the Baath party is over.
Those Iraqis who may have been wavering or hedging their bets can now be in no doubt that there will be no restoration of Saddam.
This does not necessarily mean that the attacks on US and other occupation forces will subside.
As President Bush and the US military have soberly recognized, the guerilla resistance may even become more threatening for a while, as resentful Iraqis seek to vent their frustrations on the occupying forces and those among their fellow-citizens whom they regard as collaborators.
Time, and the balance of political advantage, however, are now on the side of those who opposed Saddam Hussein.
With his shadow lifted, the prospects for an accommodation between Iraq’s competing political forces are greatly improved.
The capture and public humiliation of Saddam Hussein may also foster some of the changes in perception in the Middle East and the Gulf region that the United States had hoped would flow from its military victory.
Here was a dramatic illustration of American power: through force of arms, intelligence, perhaps also money, the US got their man, and they took him alive.
The images of Saddam undergoing his medical will supplant, at least for a while, the impression of American impotence created by Washington’s failure to guarantee security and restore vital services as the occupying power in Iraq. It is up to the US to capitalize on this new perception of its strength.
Perhaps the sharpest and most durable change has taken place in the US itself. Just as popular discontent with the aftermath of the war seemed about to jeopardize President Bush’s re-election chances, the capture of Saddam returns the advantage to Bush — with interest.
The emerging Democratic favorite, Howard Dean, had successfully campaigned on his opposition to the war.
It may have been cynical and simplistic to say so, but bad news from the front was good news for Dean, for it justified his anti-war stance and minimized the extent to which Bush and the Republicans could brand him unpatriotic.
Dean must now find another focus for his campaign, at the very time when other issues — such as health care and the economy — are also moving Bush’s way. New and more costly attacks on US forces in Iraq could turn the tables again.
For the moment, however, as his relaxed demeanor at yesterday’s White House press conference showed, the advantage lies with President Bush, and he knows it.
Unfortunately for Tony Blair, the poll-boosting effect of Saddam Hussein’s capture is unlikely to be replicated in Britain.
Bush took the US to war with the unapologetic objective of bringing about regime change.
This mission has now been demonstratively accomplished. Blair, however, insisted that he was sending British forces to Iraq to uphold UN resolutions which Iraq had flouted and to avert the imminent danger presented by Iraq’s presumed stocks of chemical and biological weapons.
These were the arguments he offered — with scant proof — to the British Parliament and people, and these are the justifications for the war that Blair and his ministers say they still adhere to.
Saddam Hussein may have some clarity to offer about those contentious weapons — or, as the Foreign Secretary strongly hinted yesterday, he may not.
But until the vexed question of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction can be cleared up one way or the other, the capture of the Iraqi leader will remain an American coup.
It will do nothing to restore the damaged trust between Blair and British voters. Nor should it distract us from the central question, which is why Blair took this country to war.
