Sic Semper Tyrranus

About 24 hours now since I learned Saddam was dead. Time for a retrospective.

Earlier today, after several hours of an unexpected and unpleasant "personal life experience"; feeling very tired, I took a break and took a nap. As I was calming myself, as I started to get dozy, I happened to think of that photograph of Saddam laying on his back, his cheek gently pressed to the cloth but his neck snapped, and I started to feel a fuzzy sense of wonderment, a pleasure, and a conviction that, after all, all was right with the world... and I pleasantly fell asleep.

Now, I don't care if Saddam is in hell or not. As a Christian I accept that if he at the very end recognized his sins, truly and remorsefully confessed those sins, and called upon God to save his soul, then right at this moment he is happily in God's arms, and I am happy for him too. This is the way it is if you're a Christian. God loves all His children, even Saddam, and desires not the condemnation any; those who come to him, however late they might come, are blessed... It could have happened. But I don't much care one way or the other. It's not that the disposition of Saddam's soul is unimportant, it's that I utterly don't care about Saddam the man. I care about Saddam only as the tyrant. And the tyrant is dead.

And this is my immense pleasure, that a society --not a mob, a society-- tried him, condemned him, executed him. Sic Semper Tyrannus --so may it always be with tyrants. I don't believe that a society that has once rid itself of a tyrant in this way will ever again long suffer another. Iraq the Model states the same sentiment:

Executing Saddam is an execution to a dark era in Iraq's history and it's a message to all those who followed his ways that there is no turning back; yes, the people will never kneel to a tyrant again and will never give up.

A regicide through an individual simply brings another king, but a regicide through a social movement calling on freedom brings a different government. I just don't believe that a people that has once tasted this power, as a free people, will ever forget. Tyranny in Iraq is gone forever, --at least in the classic Arab style. Oh, there may be harsh powers established, once, twice; but each time it will be an uneasy power, and will not last. The people will no longer have that habit of obedience, they will no longer see such shame as a natural order; they will chafe, they will rebel. Without that habit of quaking subservience, and with the counter example of free and prosperous peoples present to every modem and every phone, a tyranny can not succeed. You need only break the mold once, and tyranny is done. This is a transformation.

It is true that they succeeded only with American help, and it is true that their freedoms so far are short lived and difficult, but they've got the taste. I don't think they'll forget. And they've expressed the power. This is the huge thing. It's not that they simply "gave freedom a try to see what it was like"; they made it happen, and that they made it happen is established by the judicial achievement of Saddam's death.

Possibly I presume too much. Those seeking to establish tyranny are always present, and they do have the longer habit, but the free Iraqi people did execute a tyrant, and if you can do it once, you can do it twice. Some things you just never forget.

Within Hours?

This, from Reuters, seems to be the latest coverage:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein may be hanged within hours, senior Iraqi officials said on Friday, although the start of a week-long Muslim holiday might yet delay it.

This is interesting:

One senior Iraqi government official told Reuters that U.S. troops would hand Saddam over only "when he climbs the gallows".

And Pajamas Media reports (from a live broadcast, no link)

Saddam has been handed over to Iraqi authorities. All of the paperwork is done and the execution could occur “at any time.”

And:

Iraqi government gets permission from Sunni clerics to carry out the execution at the onset of the Eid festival—the celebration of the end of Ramadan. (live broadcast)

So there seems to be some confusion but no impediment and clear intent to get it done. I'll follow it latter. I really have no interest other than it occur.

....................
Looks like Saddam is going down in a few hours:

Ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was to be executed before sunrise on Saturday, officials said....
The only formality remaining, he said, was the transfer of Saddam from US military custody to Iraqi authority, but that this had been agreed and would not delay proceedings.
"The meeting with the Americans is over," the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. "They decided Saddam will be hanged before 6:00 am."

I have an odd sense of this being gutsy. To my mind this just indicates how powerfully fear of Saddam had entered the individual Iraqi personality. It had become part of the way they thought and perceived, a paralyzing incubus on their spirit. His death will finally free them from what in a subterranean way is actually a crippling structure of mind. It will free their spirit. Executing him will not be to execute a man, it will be to exorcise a corruption weighting each individual heart.
(7:44 PM)

.................
Occurs to me that if there is violence after the execution --I mean killings, not protests--the reprisal should be severe. The positives in this execution I've already stated, but I haven't considered yet the negatives to those Sunnis who yet desire a restoration. These people have their "subterranean psychic structure" as well, and that' structure is an expectation, simply because it's in the natural order of things, that they will again gain power... How? That's not significant, because it's certain, it's in the natural order of things. But Suddam successfully executed means that that natural order is broke. Good. To gain power again they can't just flounder and wait, they have to plan and win. A nice powerful response to any tantrum they might throw might begin the healing process; a number might begin to consider just which side it is that's winning.

........................

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Three years after he was hauled from a hole in the ground by pursuing U.S. forces, Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday under a sentence imposed by an Iraqi court, an Iraqi official told NBC News....
Asked if Saddam were dead, the official in the Iraqi prime minister's office said, “Yes, the body of Saddam Hussein is in front of me.”

This from MSNBC, probably as of about 9:30PM CST. (If that's not the right abbreviation I mean Daylight Savings Time)

Still find it a bit remarkable that the Iraqis achieved this. To shoot him in war would be no big thing, but to create a government a judiciary, have the trial, and hang him... Remarkable.

I'll browse a little more and see what's said. There are certainly no confusions in my feelings, nor complexity either. This was a job well done. Since I care that we succeed in Iraq this is a satisfaction, it's a good step forward. --In moral terms it's a satisfaction as well, and in these terms there are no anxieties for the future, it's simply a matter completed, and in that sense the emotion is one of calm, calm and satisfaction... It may be still that my strongest emotion is that of wonderment and admiration for the Iraqis that through three years effort they were able to pull this off: Government, Judiciary, Execution.
(10:16PM)

.......................
Everybody's got to take credit. This from Drudge:

CNN Broke at 10:06...
NBC first broadcast net to report execution of Hussein at 10:14 pm, ET --
CBS went up at 10:18 --
ABC up at 10:25...

I didn't hear about it until 9:43 Central Time.

Iraqi TV said the execution took place just before 0600 local time (0300GMT).

So they got it done just exactly when they said they would, just before 9:00, our zone. The trains run on time.
(10:46PM)

Countdown!

This sure is fun: Saddam to die by Sunday. 'Course I won't see it, and really don't want to see it, but I sure do want to note the time. I'll just feel a great, comfortable pleasure. Maybe have a glass of warm milk. Celebrate.

I first saw the Drudge headline --it must have been just a little after 6:00-- Saddam to be hanged in 36 hours. But there was no text (and I may not remember the words exactly). Then at 7:40, CST, I clicked on a headline about the same as that beginning this post, referencing Sunday, and found that it was first reported by NBC (undoubtedly this link will be useless because the story will be so often updated). But anyway NBC got the story first and it runs like this:

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, sentenced to death for his role in 148 killings in 1982, will have his sentence carried out by Sunday, NBC News reported Thursday. According to a U.S. military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity, Saddam will be hanged before the start of the Eid religious holiday, which begins this Sunday.
The hanging could take place as early as Friday, NBC’s Richard Engel reported.

The U.S. military received a formal request from the Iraqi government to transfer Saddam to Iraqi authorities, NBC reported on Thursday, which is one of the final steps required before his execution.

An official close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that Saddam would remain in a U.S. military prison until he is handed over to Iraqi authorities on the day of his execution.

Promises, promises. I sure hope it works out. As I've said, it will be calming and pleasing.

I suppose it's very much a "wheels of justice" thing, but most explicitly it's the "inevitability" thing. It's good politics. Everything the Americans have wanted to do, step-by-step, they've done: Regime overthrow, elections, constitution; Uday and Qusay dead, and now Saddam, and dead by a very western sort of court. Nothing stops the American intent. Things keep grinding on. This should encourage those who support those things a good American should support, and it should give some discouragement to those who do not. Some problems yet of course, but all-in-all, encouraging.

"The wheels of the god's move slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine"

That's always been more powerful to me than comprehensible. I suppose its appeal is in the promise it seems to give of a final, inevitable justice in all things. It's possible to be patient and absorb a lot as long as there's a sense that at some point all things will be balanced and nothing over-looked. This is my sense towards the execution of Saddam. It's a final, proper ordering of things by a well ordered even if inexperienced court. It bodes well for future Iraqi civil society.

That violence will erupt? This is the "Arab Street". This is a concept. It doesn't exist. Like the unicorn... Oh, I guess it does exist --as long as they can get a lot of press and be sure nobody shoots them-- but as an existent anger thing it isn't. It is a scare tactic, sort of Global Warming from the Arab Street.

--I should say something sometime about the Catholic Church's immoral position regarding capital punishment. They don't seem to realize that by saying it's wrong to execute Saddam thay're saying it's perfectly fine to kill kids. They say that because they violate justice by ignoring its very sense, something every human understands. They're saying that there is no guilt worthy of death and therefore there is no innocence worthy of life and therefore there is no reason not to kill because there can be no moral judgment because no moral courage by which to make it. Some sick puppies now days, there in the Church.

ISG?

Spent some time reading last night. Just informing myself. I just clicked on whatever was up and read what they had to say. I was not selecting material, just browsing. As it turns out I did get articles containing a lot of quotes, so that became my acquaintance with the study. There was some analysis attached. I will say most of it was negative.

After perhaps an hour of such reading I had to take a break to do this duty and that and as I was puttering here to there I was wondering to myself: Is this a case of pure stupidity?

Now, it is common to respond to those who disagree with you with the sense that they are stupid. This is a feeling. Recognizing that it is a feeling and not an argument you then reread the offending disagreement and try to construct a counter. This document is stupid.

The core of the argument, if I understand it correctly, is that to "succeed" in Iraq, we have to "talk" to Iran and Syria. There is an acknowledgment (not explicitly stated in any of the quotes I read) that the destabilization is largely being caused or abetted by those two, therefore we must "talk" to them and they will help out and there will be stability because after all it is not in their interest that there be chaos in Iraq, it is in their interest that there be stability.

Again, if I understand correctly, this is the core of the document, that we can achieve stability if Iran and Syria help out, and of course they will because a stable Iraq is in their interest...?

How many times would it be necessary to repeat that argument to the point that it would not sound as a stupidity bordering on insanity? I don't think so many repetitions are possible within all the remaining days of the earth... because it is nuts! Iran and Syria have no interest in any stability which is not one controlled by their interests, and it decidedly is not in their interest that Iraq be a stable democracy. Thus what Baker and Hamilton et al. are saying --if they have any idea what they're saying-- is that the Iraq Study Group does not want a democracy in Iraq they want dictatorship. The Iraq study Group has just kissed off the deaths of all the men and women who have died there as a waste, not because we've failed, but it's because it's not something they want. These men and women have died attempting to form a democracy, Baker and Hamilton despise those deaths because they despise the mission. They do not want democracy in Iraq.

I do not consider Baker and Hamilton the kind of people fit for democracy anywhere. Certainly not to fight. They don't have the spirit. They're the profiteers of courage, having none themselves. These are contemptible people but such people exist. And this is America, we really can't shoot them. We can ignore them.

ISG

I'm thinking we have two wars going on now, one is against Islam, one is against Bush. This isn't a new thought but it's becoming more easily visible.

The Democrats won the latest battle against Bush, they took over both houses. There's no further battle immediately to be fought.

There is Iraq, and we have the Iraq Study Group. The Iraq Study Group has produced words...

But back to the war on Islam. There are hot spots and cold spots. Hot spots we call Iraq. It has nothing to do with Islam. Cold spots --everywhere else-- we call "people just like us", people who just want a better life for their children, "Moderate Muslims". They of course have nothing to do with terrorism, or with Iraq.

But then... they are Muslim... they are in fact very scary.

There you have it. Two wars.

The war against Bush is a war for power. Democrat power. That's it. There are no values, only power. Any argument will do, any argument if it works. It works if it gets votes. But there are no votes immediately at issue, so manipulative arguments needn't be made.

But there is that other war... and all those scary people. For this war, there is no argument, no argument will work, because there is no ballot box, there is no vote that is going to establish a victor. Instead, you have bombs... and so many scary people. Everybody knows that, everybody feels that; nobody says what they both know and feel; so in that case, what do you say?

The Iraq Study Group: "We have here 500 firm, insightful, bipartisan recommendations that if fully implemented will assure world peace forever" And then they say, sotto voce "Let Bush do it".

And Bush will do it. He has about a year. After that the war for 2008 will become more important than the war that might destroy America.

The Gates of Defeat

Not a clever pun but apparently true. I just heard most of the testimony. A Defense Secretary designate open-minded as to the various avenues of appeasement. He'll listen to everyone, explore every possible means to defeat, and make his suggestions to the Commander In Chief. The buck stops there.

That's what I heard anyway. It was so extreme I have to conclude it was a performance: "These Democrats will believe anything they hear as long as it's what they want to hear. I'll get confirmed, then ignore what I said." That's got to be it. Or Bush nominated him because he intends to ignore everything Gates says...? He just doesn't want a public battle at this point...? I have to say this is politically "clever" beyond anything I can understand.

...Guess I will start posting again. It has been a month.

............................
I've read a little bit now. I have to say that Gates guy seems pretty dangerous. Take a look at what he said:

--"I will warn the president to consult with Democrats before changing Iraq policy."
--"I will be fearless --I repeat-- fearless, in giving advice to the president."
--"I face the monumental challenge of picking up the pieces from broken policies and mistaken priorities in the past few years."

Actually... that isn't what he said. Those were admonitions given to him by Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I just placed those quotes in his voice. What he did say, apropos of these matters, was this:

--"It is the president who will decide what, if any, changes are made in our approach."
--Bipartisanship is crucial so terrorists and insurgents "don't think we're going to walk away from this war on terrorism and so that they don't think it's going to be easy to start attacking us here at home because we're not willing to take them on abroad."
--And said: he would consult military commanders in the field and politicians back home... but would give "most serious consideration to the views of those who lead our men and women in uniform." And:
--"Our military forces win the battles that they fight. Our soldiers have done an incredible job in Iraq, and I'm not aware of a single battle that they have lost,"

And so forth. There was this extension of his remark after saying "No Sir" to the question: "Are we winning in Iraq?"
--"The situation is clearly much more complex than just the military action. The areas we are having our challenges, frankly, are principally in the areas of stabilization and political development and so on." Which is completely true.


In responding to questions by Senator Byrd: Do you support and attack or Iran? Do you support an attack on Syria? He answered in this manner, respectively:
--"I think that their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror both in, ah, in the Middle East and in Europe, and even here in this country is very real."
--"I think that it would give rise to significantly greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date."

So, who says he's wrong?

I've only managed to read a limited amount of transcript, but if I ignore his milque toast manner, his refusal to say anything aggressive in terms of pursuing war, his absolute avoidance of any phrase that might tie a Democrat's underwear in knots; if I simply focus on the sense of his analysis, then I actually can't see anything he said that was wrong. As an example. When he said that to attack Syria would create anti American feeling in the region, that's true, but he didn't say "therefore we won't attack"; and he didn't say "But it would stabilize Lebanon, eliminate jihadist infiltration through Anbar Province, and embarrass Iran and suggest to them that they might be next." That would be to speak as a Hawk, and that absolutely was what he did not want to do. That doesn't mean he's not a hawk. It does mean that in terms of getting confirmed he's a diplomat.

My initial response in listening to his spoken presentation was that he had either to be lying or putting on a performance. From what I've read in text now I'm pretty certain it was a performance and that there was nothing in it of a lie but merely a refusal to broach any phrase that was "warlike". But nothing stated precluded war. Nothing stated necessitated surrender, appeasement, or even pull-back. He will be confirmed as bland but it's possible yet that he's bold. I suspect I'm more correct on this than I was on the election.
(11:52 PM)