The Capture of Saddam Hussein
By Joseph P. Diaferia
December 14, 2003



In the seven months since the fall of Baghdad, U.S. troops have clumsily and fruitlessly searched for the dictator believed to pose the greatest threat to the world peace and security. A military that could not stop terrorist attacks carried out by suicidal hijackers armed only with box cutters on 9/11 should have surprised no one with their abject incompetence in finding and apprehending Saddam Hussein. However, suddenly yesterday, a US military contingent six hundred strong, came upon a hole in the ground in Saddam’s hometown of Tikrit, and voila! There he was!

Both the timing and the circumstances of Hussein’s capture are highly suspect. In recent days, the Bush administration has faced intense international condemnation over its candid policy of excluding “uncooperative” nations from sharing in the spoils of the war with Iraq. In addition, an oil company, of which the current vice-president is former CEO, now faces a congressional investigation for its skullduggery in the sale of Iraqi oil. Furthermore, there have been recent signs that the president’s re-election prospects have begun to erode, owing primarily to his administration’s atrocious and indeed criminal foreign policy and his appalling inattention to domestic matters.

The appearance of a bearded Saddam Hussein on international television, with several hundred thousand dollars in U.S. currency in his possession should immediately instill doubt. Why would he be so well endowed financially, and yet appear so unkempt? If he were trying to elude U.S. occupation forces, why would he not make himself completely incognizable? In fact, Saddam’s face is unmistakable despite the uncharacteristic beard. Could it be that the former Iraqi dictator has actually been in U.S. custody (or under house arrest) for some time, and that the administration waited until it needed this public relations boost to announce Hussein’s capture to the world? Such a suggestion may at first seem preposterous, but it would not be the first such psychological tactic ever employed. Other examples include the spectacular lies and distortions relating to 9/11, the fraud of “The War on Terrorism” and the Jessica Lynch hoax.

Moreover, is it not a compelling coincidence that the formation of an Iraqi war crimes tribunal preceded his capture by only a week? And, why an Iraqi war crimes tribunal (comprised of U.S. puppets) and not an international one? Perhaps the Bush administration knows that the United Nations and other world bodies will not be duped by U.S. propaganda.

Finally, that Saddam Hussein will be charged with war crimes and genocide is staggeringly disingenuous. While Hussein is undeniably a criminal, it is the United States that has destroyed Iraq and killed two million of its people with genocidal sanctions. It is the United States that has flagrantly violated international law in pursuit of regime change in Iraq, and it is the United States that bears full responsibility for bringing Hussein to power.

Since the United States brought Saddam Hussein to power after the assassination of Abdul Karem Kasim, any charge of war crimes or genocide should be brought not only against the former Iraqi leadership, but also against every U.S president since and including John F. Kennedy (obviously deceased presidents would be tried in absentia).

The U.S. boasts a long history of deposing and installing leaders as Washington’s and Wall Street’s “interests” have required. In addition to the American CIA’s installation of Saddam Hussein, examples include: The Somozas in Nicaragua, Battista in Cuba, the Shah of Iran, Salazar in Portugal, Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, Stroessner in Paraguay, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Mobutu in The Congo, Suharto in Indonesia, the government of South Africa during apartheid, and even Pol Pot in Cambodia.

Seldom if ever, did any of the aforementioned dictators elicit a word of censure from their benefactors in the Oval Office.

Saddam Hussein is likely to face some form of justice, whether in a legitimate international tribunal, or in some U.S. orchestrated kangaroo farce. To the extent that he has dealt with his political adversaries violently and that he has long been a willing accomplice in U.S. atrocities, he should be brought to decisive and conclusive justice.

But, will the real war criminals and authors of genocide ever be brought to justice? The final chapters of that book have yet to be written.