A couple of questions popped into my head as I got my coffee this morning and listened to the news coverage on the capture of Saddam Hussein. While I agree wholeheartedly that this is good news for Iraq, for the soldiers, and eventually for peace, I don’t think this brings this misadventure to a close. (And neither does Gen. Sanchez or Amb. Bremer.) So:
Who’s going to prosecute Saddam Hussein? Will he be represented by counsel, or will it be a military tribunal?
If Saddam Hussein is “cooperating fully” with his captors, will he tell them where the WMD’s are? (“Ha! Made you look.”)
Will he detail out his acquistions of materials and weapons from previous US administrations? Will he name names to try and work out a plea bargain? (Rumors that tapes of old episodes of Law & Order were found in the spider-hole have yet to be confirmed.)
Will his loyalists lay down their arms, or can we expect continued attacks? (News reports since the capture indicate that the insurgents are not giving up. And remember, there were Japanese soldiers holed up on islands in the Pacific until the 1970’s.)
How long will it take before Karl Rove exploits this for Bush/Cheney ’04? (You can bet they’ve had a series of spots in the can for any eventaulity.)
Red Dawn? “Wolverine 1” and “Wolverine 2”? You had to go back to a cheesey and jingoistic Patrick Swayze movie from 1984? Well, I suppose it was better than “Dirty Dancing.”
I tend to think Saddam’s capture is more symbolic than tactical. A very big symbol, granted, but these insurgencies tend to go off on their own. To answer my own question in the previous post: No, we can’t go home quite yet.