Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (5064)	12/16/2003 5:23:05 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 20773

Goodbye Saddam, hello ... By Ehsan Ahrari Now Washington is abuzz with two themes: Saddam Hussein's trial, or where should he be tried; and how impotent the US had been before capturing him and how much of its honor has now been regained. For the global community; however, the question of the hour is whether the United States adopts policies of inclusiveness, or remains the lone cowboy. President George W Bush spoke his mind about Saddam's fate during a press briefing on December 15 by stating that Iraqis will try him in an Iraqi court. Some US legal experts, on the contrary, prefer an international forum for his trial, for reasons of transparency and to avoid any charges of a show trial in Iraq. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said that the world body would not favor the death sentence for the former Iraqi dictator. Trying Saddam in any Iraqi court, though, means that he will be handed a death sentence. There is no question about that. Some suggest that it is for precisely that reason that the US favors that course of action. Alternatively, it is also possible that the Bush administration does not want to sound patronizing by suggesting that Saddam be tried in an international court. But we do have a precedent of trying former Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic in an international court. It can be argued that Milosevic's crimes against humanity are no less heinous than those of Saddam's. Why is he being tried in an international court, while the brunt of the argument for now is that Saddam should be tried in Iraq? While no definitive answers may be offered at this stage, indications are that the world community will get a clear idea within the next few weeks. Another topic that has become the talk of the town is that America's potency in Iraq has been regained. However, the issue that is even more important than retention of America's power as a result of capturing Saddam is what measures will Washington take to ensure that it remains intact. On this particular point, it is worth reminding that after dismantling Saddam's regime, the US went through a phase of potency, but then lost it, but not by failing to capture Saddam. Rather, it lost that potency by rubbing the faces of opponents of its military action in the dirt - through a highly touted exercise of hubris. Consequently, when things started to go sour for Washington in Iraq, no major country offered peacekeeping troops, or showed generosity by offering massive economic assistance for rebuilding of that country. Now fate (or the turn of events) seems to have given the US another phase of feeling preeminence. It will be interesting to see whether it squanders it through another exercise of hubris, or uses it with palpable humility. The proof of current support for Washington is quite apparent in Europe. It is also interesting that Muslim countries are silent about demonstrating their feelings over Saddam's capture, or, are they? European leaders demonstrated a sense of unity on December 14 by congratulating Washington on the capture of Saddam. The timing of his capture could not have been better for the Bush administration. It came when European leaders were in disarray as a result of the collapse of their talks over the European constitution. As one source noted, "American power, backed by its allies in Iraq, achieved an important milestone as European leaders were still struggling to come together as a distinct and independent continental power, one that aspires to marshal economic and military clout as effectively as Washington." However, even in congratulating Washington, Germany and France emphasized their previous well-known positions that sovereignty of Iraq should be handed over to a new Iraqi government, and quickly. The US is also hoping that the global community closes ranks behind its plans for the transformation of Iraq. The likelihood of that development is also contingent on whether the Bush administration sets out to be inclusive in its policies in Iraq. If Muslim leaders indeed congratulated Bush over the capture of the former Iraqi leader, they made certain that their enthusiasm remained quite private. Not that they had any warm spot for Saddam. It is just that they are not certain how enthusiastic their own streets really are over the news of his capture. No one heard signs of public cheering outside Iraq over the humiliating pictures of Saddam that were shown on world television. More substantially, Muslim leaders might be concerned about showing public exuberance over America's success. No one really knows in that part of the world what to make of Bush. He befuddles even European leaders; Muslim autocrats also experience that feeling, only many times more than their European counterparts. No wonder the dominant puzzle of the moment is: What's next in Iraq? Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.