Saddam's capture, Bush's victory?

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bush appeared to be unusually cautious in his victory televison
broadcast, which seemed to be crafted towards Iraqis rather than US
electors. That is at least one achievement of Saddam's resistance and
that of the wider Iraqi people.

But if the allied invasion of Iraq was illegal, so was the capture of
its leader.

Behind the repeated degrading images of the prisoner with his mouth
being examined and his hair in disarray - worse than images that
caused indignation when it was US military who had been captured and
paraded in front of the cameras - was the question of whether this
means total victory.

Bush was wise to say ``The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the
end of violence in Iraq", presumably excluding allied troops from ever
being the perpetrators or provokers of violence themselves.

The trial will have to be on the grounds of crimes against humanity
rather than being on the wrong side in geopolitics. Saddam would have
much to reveal.

And the worse crimes were in the context of conflict and instability -
as so often happens in history - in which the US and the west had a
major part  -
the war against Iran, where Iraq was the ally of the US, and the
events after Iraq's defeat in which the Saddam regime brutally
supressed an uprising.

Yes according to the prevailing conventions of international law for
Iraq to invade Kuwait was a breach of sovereignty, but in the context
of the history of Mesopotamia over thousands of years it was hardly
illogical. For Britain and the US to invade in the 21st century
required them to show, that unlike the majority of the Security
Council they turned out to be right about WMD if you accept the
questionable logic on which Blair persuaded Bush to debate with the
UN.

Presumably in preparation for an authoritative trial the Bush
administration will have to hope that second level commanders will
reveal many details of WMD more shocking than battlefield chemical
weapons.

At his news conference Maj Gen Odierno revealed that he thought that
it unlikely that Saddam had been personally directing the
(increasingly effective) resistance to the allied occupation. That
presumably reflects the prevailing view among the top levels of the US
military in Iraq and may be very significant.

After the inital psychological blow of Saddam's capture to those
personally loyal to him, it is even possible that his capture
will lead to a more sustained  campaign of military resistance against
the occupying forces and the imposition of a US led finance capitalist
economy. For some Saddam will be a martyr and hero, but his capture
may make it in fact easier for all Iraqi nationalists to network on
the basis of anti-Americanism rather than support for the old regime.

An American rout in Iraq is still possible, however much it will be
smoothed over in the polite language of diplomatic exchanges between
the leading imperialist powers, who are all positioning themselves
carefully today in the way they phrase their enthusiasm for the
capture of Saddam.

There are no ideal standards of justice that stand above material
history, whether identified by Kant or not.

Concepts of justice are shaped by the balance of forces and are only
partially independent of material interest. But from the point of view
of the democratic material interests of the working people of the
world although basic bourgeois legal rights are an important defence
against naked class oppression, what is even more important in this
context is that the US administration aided by its loyal allies such
as Britain should not be able to impose their will on a population
through shock and awe.

 Ironically and hopefully the most important result of the capture of
Saddam might be that the working people of Iraq can find a basis for
uniting their diverse interests in favour of genuine independence and
sovereignty.

The assassination of Iraqis cooperating with the allied occupation
will be a test of whether such a unity can emerge, and unfortunately
suggests that even if the invasion ends in a rout for the occupying
forces, it will be Iraqis who will pay the biggest price.

If we see some equivalent of "black on black violence" developing, as
in the last days of the apartheid regime, we should ask what forces
are behind that, and why did it come about in the first place, when
the people of the two historic rivers need to be able to live in peace
together, and engage in economic activity and rule their own lives
without being dominated by superpowers or global finance capitalist
corporations.

Initial thoughts.

Chris Burford
London