Where’s Saddam?

From Day 1 of the war, when a “decapitation” strike was launched to try to take out Saddam Hussein from where inside intel had him hunkered down, there have been rumors that he’s dead.

Various videos of him have popped up since then, but most of the analysis I’ve seen about them indicate that it’s canned footage, not live — and how old, nobody can say.

Hussein was supposed to show up on live TV yesterday. He didn’t. The message was instead read by the Information Minister.

So, is he actually dead? Is he fled? Or is he just gravely wounded?

And why haven’t we heard anything about his sons, the ever-popular Qusay and Uday?

On NPR yesterday, someone noted that the Official Iraqi Proclamations, not to mention answers to press questions, have spent a lot less time on Saddam than they used to. There have been exhortations to the defense of Iraq, etc., etc., etc., but the constant cult-of-personality references have dropped way, way off.

If he were merely wounded, or healthy, I cannot imagine he wouldn’t be out there, rallying the cause, getting more hordes of folks to chant their eternal, self-sacrificing love of Saddam.

Except … he’s gotta be scared out of his wits as to (a) our inside information, and (b) our penetration of his telecommunications system. If he goes live before a camera, is he putting his skin at risk? Quite possibly — and, in his mind, quite probably.

But even so, if he were able to, I think he’d at least be issuing video tapes that clearly showed he was alive. It’s got to be a bit worrisome to folks over the short wave that there’s so much serious speculation outside of the Information Ministry as to Saddam’s whereabouts. Unless he’s saving it for a last-second rally when the Battle for Baghdad begins, I have to think he’s unable to go before the camera.

If it were a matter just of his being badly injured, I think either he would still go on-screen (the brave warrior, escaping death, bloodied but unbowed), or a double would be put on (if it were seen as important that he not be considered vulnerable).

He might even be incapacitated or out of touch in some other way (I wouldn’t put it past him to have ducked out into hiding somewhere else. Maybe.). Those comments about the reduced references to Saddam really sound like folks in the regime are trying to lay the groundwork for weaning the people away from Hussein and into general support for Iraq (i.e., the Baathist regime). Saddam would never go for that.

What that means, though, is that they plan on going on fighting, at least for a while longer. If Saddam were really fully out of the picture — even just incapacitated — then if it were just about him, the government would have surrendered, or at least changed their tone. Yeah, there’s face, and machismo, and all that stuff, but if there were real interest in ending things, you’d be hearing a different, still resolute but less aggressive, message.

Which makes me think that the regime realizes it can’t surrender. Too many folks are going down — thrown out of power, if they’re lucky, hauled before tribunals if they’re not, tossed to the people if they’re really unlucky. They have to keep fighting, hoping for a miracle. They either can’t conjure up Saddam for a speech, or they’ve decided to try to ease him out of the limelight (including his doubles) in the hope that they can dodge the war crimes bullet if things go as badly as it looks.

I think. Who knows? Another mystery that will hopefully be cleared up when the dust settles.