Editorial: Care needed in disposing of Saddam

This time there was no repeat of the victory declaration delivered aboard an American aircraft carrier. President George W. Bush's short speech from the White House cabinet room after American troops seized Saddam Hussein was far more circumspect - and far more appropriate. "The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean an end to the violence in Iraq," he said. Nor, indeed, will it. As much as some American officials had contended that Saddam was orchestrating Iraqi resistance, the circumstance of his capture confirmed this was not the case. Survival had been his sole ambition since American troops took Baghdad.

In the short term, therefore, there is no reason to suggest that the bloodshed in Iraq will diminish. Guerrillas, whether Baathist loyalists or foreign jihadists - the US is still unsure who is the prime mover in the terror campaign - may even feel the need to make their point still more strongly. Certainly, this happened after the death of Saddam's sons. Yet such an escalation would, in some way, underscore the importance of the capture of Saddam, and the manner in which it was achieved.

Without question, Saddam retained a symbolic importance, especially to the Sunni minority that dominated Iraq during his three decades of savage rule. The ignominious circumstances of his capture, and the fact that he was taken alive, has stripped away much of his mana. In the end, he was grubby, dishevelled and compliant. He had the chance to die a martyr; he chose not to. This is not a legacy that will fortify Iraqi resistance in the long term.

For much of their time in Iraq, American forces have blundered about, struggling to get to grips with an increasingly vicious form of warfare. The capture of Saddam appears, however, to have been achieved with clinical efficiency. Now the Americans have to reap the maximum reward. This must involve Saddam being put on trial in Baghdad under the tribunal set up last week by the US-appointed Governing Council to prosecute crimes against humanity by members of his regime.

The chief victims of Saddam's rule of terror and his prosecution of three disastrous wars were the Iraqi people. They must have the responsibility for trying him under Iraqi criminal law. Given Saddam's reputation for cruelty and killing on a vast scale, and the disunity in Iraq, there is a danger the trial could descend into an exercise in vengeance. It is helpful that judges from the United Nations or foreign countries can sit on the tribunal as observers.

For the process of reconciliation in Iraq, an attempt at even-handed justice must be pursued. If self-government is to succeed, there must be an end to the divisions between Shia and Sunni Muslims, Arab and Kurd. The extent of the disunity has been reflected in the conflicting attitudes to Saddam's capture. The trial must not become the occasion for heightening those differences. Handled well, it can accelerate the handover of power to the Iraqi people. Handled poorly, it will nourish the resistance and delay the restoration of order.

A stable Iraq would be achieved most proficiently by the Americans offering a bigger role for the UN and the international community. Regrettably, the capture of Saddam may not encourage that process. American spirits have been fortified; they no longer feel near their wits' end in a country they barely understand. And President Bush's pledge that the US will not quit Iraq will now find a greater resonance, especially within what had been an increasingly querulous American electorate.

Mr Bush's cautious response to Saddam's capture indicates that the Americans have acquired some measure of wisdom. They recognise it is no panacea for their many problems in Iraq. It is to be hoped they also understand the huge benefits if the curtain is brought down appropriately on this most brutal of tyrants.


Herald Feature: Iraq