Ned Flanders
Banned
Think about it. For most of the early period surrounding the fall of Iraq and the more formative months of the Governing Council, everyone considered at best an early '05 establishment of sovereignty with elections to follow later that year or in '06. It was last fall, as the security situation was in starting it's gradual decline in the post-Saddam-capture days, that the Bush administration pressed for a moved up June 30th date for the governmental handover. Many thought this move to be politicized in the GOP's interest as a washing of the hands of the Irag situation before the critical election months in Sept/Oct/Nov.
But as I'm seeing the trial coverage regarding Saddam and listening to the debate regarding it's appropriateness, it has occurred to me that if the Bush administration's intentions were in fact political in moving up the date, it's because they wanted Saddam on trial in the months leading into a likely very divisive election.
Think about it. If you were trying to depoliticize the Irag situation by rushing sovereignty and opening the doors to a more multinational (read NATO) overseer, you'd have to realize that it still wouldn't be in the White House's favor from an image standpoint. If American troop deployments remain large (and they will thanks to the 13 military bases we're establishing in the nation) in the face of increasing violence and in spite of further foreign assistance, talk of a "quagmire" and doubts regarding the validity of the original intentions of the invasion would still loom large on the public front and in the international media.
But by getting the courts established and the magistrates appointed first (well before much of the rest of the government is even functioning, even after the handover) you immediately open the doors to trying Saddam, and in effect creating and endless media parade regarding the many crimes and attrocities he committed over his 23 years in power. By dragging all of Saddam's evil deeds into the limelight, you take the focus off the pre-war justifications and the post-war consequences and give the talking heads (*cough*SeanHannity*cough*) plenty of easy retorts like:
"But looking at the trial and what this man commited..isn't it clear we did a good thing by ousting him? Isn't Iraq better off being self goverened and able to try the man who oppressed and tortured them so many years?"
Essentially it's a move to soften the swing voters whose major condemnation against Bush has been the scale of debacle in Iraq, both in the invasion buildup and the post-conflict handlings. You could call it a "wag the dog" kind of maneuver in the sense that the administration's influence on the governing council and the establishment of an "agreeable" timetable manipulated the times at which these various inevitabilities of post-Saddam Iraq (official sovereignty, first elections, Saddam's trial etc) occured, in order to benefit the president.
I'm not insisting this as an inflammatory accusation of conspiracy, but I'm saying that in retrospect it seems clearly beneficial to the president in the stretch run of these crucial months when the divided portion of the electorate makes up their minds. Part of me would call it good politics and part of me would call it reckless in the face of the continuing instability of the country.
It would be worth mentioning however, that many of those in support of the hand-over being accellerated would argue that, with as much chaos and violence as has been occuring in Iraq, another 6-months of the occupation governing council calling shots may have deteriorated the situation beyond repair. Certainly the quicker the Iragi government is legitimized and the American visibility (if not presence) is minimized, the better. But the question is whether those factors, or the American election, influenced these decisions. Not to mention the fact that a hastily assembled crew of men in suits and robes can be considered just as illegitimate a government to the Iraqi citizens as an occupying American oversight council.
It will be interesting to watch how the visibility of the trial plays out as the election gets closer, and how (if?) Bush leans on it's happenings as a force in legitimizing the toppling of Saddam. I think it could be a far bigger influence than Fahrenheit 911 come November. We'll see..
But as I'm seeing the trial coverage regarding Saddam and listening to the debate regarding it's appropriateness, it has occurred to me that if the Bush administration's intentions were in fact political in moving up the date, it's because they wanted Saddam on trial in the months leading into a likely very divisive election.
Think about it. If you were trying to depoliticize the Irag situation by rushing sovereignty and opening the doors to a more multinational (read NATO) overseer, you'd have to realize that it still wouldn't be in the White House's favor from an image standpoint. If American troop deployments remain large (and they will thanks to the 13 military bases we're establishing in the nation) in the face of increasing violence and in spite of further foreign assistance, talk of a "quagmire" and doubts regarding the validity of the original intentions of the invasion would still loom large on the public front and in the international media.
But by getting the courts established and the magistrates appointed first (well before much of the rest of the government is even functioning, even after the handover) you immediately open the doors to trying Saddam, and in effect creating and endless media parade regarding the many crimes and attrocities he committed over his 23 years in power. By dragging all of Saddam's evil deeds into the limelight, you take the focus off the pre-war justifications and the post-war consequences and give the talking heads (*cough*SeanHannity*cough*) plenty of easy retorts like:
"But looking at the trial and what this man commited..isn't it clear we did a good thing by ousting him? Isn't Iraq better off being self goverened and able to try the man who oppressed and tortured them so many years?"
Essentially it's a move to soften the swing voters whose major condemnation against Bush has been the scale of debacle in Iraq, both in the invasion buildup and the post-conflict handlings. You could call it a "wag the dog" kind of maneuver in the sense that the administration's influence on the governing council and the establishment of an "agreeable" timetable manipulated the times at which these various inevitabilities of post-Saddam Iraq (official sovereignty, first elections, Saddam's trial etc) occured, in order to benefit the president.
I'm not insisting this as an inflammatory accusation of conspiracy, but I'm saying that in retrospect it seems clearly beneficial to the president in the stretch run of these crucial months when the divided portion of the electorate makes up their minds. Part of me would call it good politics and part of me would call it reckless in the face of the continuing instability of the country.
It would be worth mentioning however, that many of those in support of the hand-over being accellerated would argue that, with as much chaos and violence as has been occuring in Iraq, another 6-months of the occupation governing council calling shots may have deteriorated the situation beyond repair. Certainly the quicker the Iragi government is legitimized and the American visibility (if not presence) is minimized, the better. But the question is whether those factors, or the American election, influenced these decisions. Not to mention the fact that a hastily assembled crew of men in suits and robes can be considered just as illegitimate a government to the Iraqi citizens as an occupying American oversight council.
It will be interesting to watch how the visibility of the trial plays out as the election gets closer, and how (if?) Bush leans on it's happenings as a force in legitimizing the toppling of Saddam. I think it could be a far bigger influence than Fahrenheit 911 come November. We'll see..
