July 22, 2003
This is Just too Good to Sit in the Comments
In commenting to this post Dean writes:
IF this story is correct (big if), it will have enormous implications for the war in Iraq, the post-war situation and, yes, the political situation here.Posted by Steve at July 22, 2003 10:43 AMThe deaths of Uday and Qusay means:
1. Saddam has no immediate heirs.
2. There is no one to rally around if Saddam buys it.
3. The Americans are very, very serious about regime-change.I believe that many of the attackers are folks who believe that, if the price is high enough, the US will leave---and Saddam will be able to return. Short of killing off Saddam and his sons (the true power in the Ba'ath party), they will continue to fight.
Not because they are necessarily true believers (they may or may not be), but b/c the alternative of surrender is so much worse than the possibility of watching Saddam return (and they would be rewarded).
Conversely, many scientists, etc., will be hesitant to cooperate for the same fear. Why risk cooperating, if the Americans might leave and Saddam might return (and extract a few genitalia in the process)?
But killing off the kids AND SADDAM means that there's no clear line of succession. Which means Ba'ath party survivors will have to deal w/ each other, as well as the Americans. And the scientists and others in the WMD program will be more likely to deal w/ us. The deaths of the Hussein al-Tikriti will be the tipping point of when it is better to work towards a new Iraq than pine (or insure against) the old one.
And for our politics? The obvious boost, of course, is that it's a short-term gain, a sign of efficacy. But if scientists provide more insight into WMD, if attacks decline, then the war no longer looks like a meaningless quagmire.
What then, for the Dems?
Even if we don't get Saddam (and hey, it was years before we were sure Hitler was dead), the death of his heirs is BIG. If this is true, hopefully our people will be airing footage and handing out photos of their bodies. Not to gloat, but to prove to the people that the two are dead.
And now (1555 Eastern), the US Government is now reporting that it was, indeed, the sons and they are, indeed, dead.
Keep in mind, if it turns out that they're mistaken, this is NOT necessarily the government lying to you.
But when the government goes to make a definitive statement like this, the chances of it being true are actually pretty high.
Ding-dong, the SOBs are dead!
Posted by: Dean on July 22, 2003 12:56 PMMy rule of thumb is to wait for a statement with a government official's name attached. So, when the story first broke, and it was "officials are saying", it was still just a rumor. But once General Sanchez said it in public and his name was attached to it, the chances it's true are pretty high.
Posted by: Robert Crawford on July 22, 2003 01:48 PMI agree. From what I recall the military has always been real cautious about saying something with such certainty.
Of course, this didn't stop the media from assigning high levels of certainty to various statements only to have them turn out to be false later.
Posted by: Steve on July 22, 2003 02:27 PMI found this post interesting until "What then, for the Dems?"
Old Politics and unworthy of this level of analysis. Move on from that.
Posted by: Roger L. Simon on July 22, 2003 03:01 PMI don't know if I'd agree with you, Roger. Democrats have been taking advantage of the disarray seen in Iraq the past few weeks. This is very powerful evidence that, at the very least, things aren't as bad as Gephardt and company would hope for.
Posted by: Psion on July 22, 2003 05:00 PM