Fed: Saddam's capture - a Q and A for Australia

AAP General News (Australia)
12-15-2003
Fed: Saddam's capture - a Q and A for Australia

Questions raised by the arrest of Iraq's former strongman.

By Doug Conway, Senior Correspondent



Q: Does Saddam Hussein's historic capture justify John Howard's decision to help invade Iraq?

A: Not in the slightest. Mr Howard's prime motivation was always to rid Iraq of weapons
of mass destruction. No such weapons have been found. This point may be lost in the immediate
euphoria of Saddam's capitulation. But until WMDs are found, Mr Howard's support for the
war will be called into question.

Q: What will Mr Howard be hoping for now?

A: Apart from the restoration of order in Iraq, justice for Saddam and the safe return
of Australian troops, he (and many others) will hope the former dictator can be convinced
to reveal his arsenal of secrets, and that it includes the whereabouts of WMDs.

Q: What if weapons are found?

A: The coalition's vindication will be complete. The US, Britain and Australia will
be able to say they removed an evil and dangerously armed tyrant from office while the
UN backed off. But even then, opponents will argue Washington's new policy of pre-emptive
strikes itself makes the world a more dangerous place. And Australia supported that policy.

Q: How much of a boost is this for Mr Howard?

A: A huge one. He can now take his place among a trio of world leaders who prevailed
over a tyrant whose regime maimed, tortured, imprisoned, gassed and killed hundreds of
thousands, his own people among them. Mr Howard gets personal phone calls from the most
powerful politician on earth. And unlike his coalition partners he has not had to bring
any of his brave troops home in body bags.

Q: What about those partners?

A: George W Bush and Tony Blair have even more reason to celebrate. Mr Bush was desperate
for good news. More US soldiers have been killed since he proclaimed victory than before,
and his bid for re-election next year was starting to look troubled. Mr Blair has endured
heavy pressure, too, along with defectors from his own government.

Q: How big a winner is Australia?

A: In terms of kudos per soldier, a huge one. Australia has contributed a mere 2,000
personnel among a coalition force of several hundred thousand. That help was never going
to be crucial in practical terms, but has been highly valued in the wider political sense.

Australians played no direct part in Saddam's capture but are likely to reap immense credit
by association.

Q: Where does all this leave Mark Latham?

A: The new Labor leader is as relieved as the next man to see the end of a brutal dictator.

But Saddam's capture does him no political favours, if only because it paints Mr Howard
in more golden light. Mr Latham, like his predecessor Simon Crean, may find it difficult
to fight his way clear of the shadow cast by a prime minister now associated even more
closely with the upside of Australian military deployments.

Q: Should Saddam get the death penalty?

A: Both Mr Howard and Mr Latham have said they would have no objections, indicating
either that this view is for popular consumption or that they do not view all men equally.

Mr Howard's foreign minister Alexander Downer, interestingly, is against the death penalty.

That's Britain's stance, too.

Q: Are images important?

A: Extremely. Saddam the despot had implored his acolytes to fight to the death. Yet
Saddam the cornered "rat" (to quote one US official) gave himself up without a whimper.

He looked humiliated and haggard. The world saw footage of a dishevelled wreck being inspected
for head lice and having a pen torch shone in his mouth. One official memorably noted
that he looked like "a homeless man in a bus station". That is the image that will remain.

Q: And the winners?

A: They write history, don't they?

AAP dc/jc/jv/jlw

KEYWORD: IRAQ AUST (AAP NEWS ANALYSIS)

2003 AAP Information Services Pty Limited (AAP) or its Licensors.