Being sick, I missed out on the crest of the Saddam’s Boys Get Nailed story. I still haven’t caught up with the details (and quite possibly won’t), but it sounds like someone dropped a dime on them, the troops moved in, much shooting and exploding ensued, and when the dust settled, Uday and Qusay (or however they’re being spelled these days) were dead.
A few thoughts.
- Good riddance. No need for any nil nisi bonum here. The boys were murderous thugs. Killing them was probably a mercy, compared to what the mob would have done to them. Or not, given what their Final Reward is likely to be.
- I find it amusing that some folks who seemed to be shouting, “See, the US is a bunch of blundering idiots because they haven’t managed to take out Saddam and his sons!” are now shouting, “See, the US is a bunch of murderous brutes because they killed Saddam’s sons!”
- Again, I haven’t read the details of the story, just skimmed a quick AP report on it early on (Katherine was playing with my keyboard — “Katherine, don’t touch — hey!” — while we were going out the door), but it doesn’t sound like the boys were tapped at long distance by a black ops sniper, or even were caught in a hail of bullets as the stormtroopers kicked open the door and riddled their sitting-in-front-of-the-TV-in-their-boxers bodies. There was a firefight involved, and a lengthy one. So the whole “They were assassinated!” meme I keep hearing seems to be off-base.
Even if, though, I really have to say that I don’t have a problem with it. It’s not like we’re talking about an a local campesino protesting against Exxon’s depredations in the Amazon being snuffed by hired goons — we’re talking about fugitive leadership of a regime that we were at war with. I’d rather that they were brought before some sort of trial or tribunal or the like, but we are enough still in the middle of conflict that taking these folks out (yes, “killing them”) seems to be a reasonable action if necessary.
And when they find Saddam, I’ll feel the same way. I’m less concerned about due process than effective process. The best reason to capture Saddam, rather than killing him, is, to my mind, to avoid the sort of “No, it isn’t him!” rumors that persist.
- Should photos of the bodies be circulated, widely? Ideally, no. But this is hardly an ideal situation. I do think that there is a substantive difference between showing the bodies of U&Q and showing the bodies of nameless grunts (on either side). (Were displaying the hanging bodies of Nazis at Nuremburg war crimes?) And if it helps convince a few folks that the Old Regime is dead and buried (or rapidly lurching that way), or if convinces one ex-Baathist to hang up their RPG as a lost cause, the net effect is more than worth it.
Of course, there will always be some folks who refuse to believe in the deaths, even if we’d captured U&Q and paraded them in the streets, alive and kicking. Heck, we’ve plenty of conspiracy theorists here in the US who are willing to raise doubts about it (Is it them? Are they really dead? Isn’t the timing just too convenient?), let along those folks in Iraq used to a regime of lies and betrayal and body doubles. Still, that militates more for letting anyone who wants to see the bodies see them than not.
Anyhow, that’s my (relatively uninformed) take on it.
Considering Qusay was in charge of the WMD programs, wouldn’t it have made sense to capture him?
Unless you know he knows that there’s nothing there? Imminent threat, my behind.
Right. Qusay had to be killed because he knew too much. Or too little.
Whatever.
From CNN.
After a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, Bremer was asked if U.S. troops had attempted first to capture the two men, who presumably would have had valuable information.
Bremer, who was in Washington at the time of the raid, said, “We went to the door of the house, were refused entry and were fired upon, but with increasingly heavier weapons. And we had to respond and these people were found inside of a very heavily armored room.
“There was no way they were going to be taken alive.”
Farting in the wind, Dave. Oh, and get better soon.
Feeling better, thanks. At least enough to tip between staying home and burning vacation hours.
It seems that the people who use the term assasination to describe what happened are the same folks who fall back on the tired mantra He stole the election.
Interesting point that Scott brings up though concerning the dreaded 16 words. What did you make of Bill Clintons take on the mistake?
I haven’t found Clinton’s take on the mistake. Here‘s an article from a few days ago about Clinton’s repeated and unequivocal assertion of Iraq’s nuclear program when he announced military attacks on Iraq in December 1998. No calls for impeachment then (and, in fact, Carl Levin echoed Clinton’s arguments).
Has Clinton commented on the current issue?
On wednesday he made a statement on the mistake in the speech. Here’s the link to CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html
He basically said, “Hey, it happens.”
Personally, I think he said it because the 9/11 report (whitewashed that it was) came out the next day, and didn’t reflect well on him, either, even though he did more than ShrubCo did from the get-go.
Why couldn’t they have done a Noriega? 200 troops sent in for a report of four men? They knew who was likely there.
One difference from the Noriega situation is that, as has been pointed out before, the situation on the ground in Iraq is very different. If, for example, they simply besieged them … was there a back way out? How soon before the various guerilla elements converged on the area, too, trying to rescue the boys? It would have been a significantly greater risk than how it turned out — and, as it turned out, it still took six hours of fighting.
And of course they thought they knew who was there. They haven’t been presenting it as a random raid or census visit. On the other hand, they’ve been pursuing lots of other leads that have dead-ended previously. So?