We got him, but what's the big deal?

Photo: AFP

After all, didn't the coalition forces, as the tough-talking Texan and his sidekick from London keep reminding us, have the hearts and minds of the preponderance of Iraqis? Besides, weren't the good guys trying to nab the Terrible Tyrant in the Sunni Triangle, which in size and terrain didn't exactly seem to pose the challenges that Bin Laden's pursuers faced in the wilds of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Saddam should have been plucked out of a hole a long time ago, I figured. So what was the big deal?

But the mainstream US media jumped on the story as if it were akin in significance to Adolph Hitler's suicide in that Berlin bunker in the waning days of World War II. To ensure that the American public would get the message, the media kept reporting or showing those bizarre images of a dishevelled Hussein being checked for lice, suicide capsules or whatever.

A few sage media commentators warned that continually repeating those images of the former main spoke in the Axis of Evil wasn't going to win us many friends in the Muslim world. But the tabloid media didn't care. They were the best images they had to sell their rags since Elvis was spotted shopping in a Wal-Mart store in Topeka, Kansas.

Of course, the euphoria was understandable. Things were not going well for the coalition forces in Iran. Since my return from Bangladesh, it's been depressing to read and see the media reports about the continuing carnage in the occupied territory of Iraq.

But with the mainstream media trying to make profitable hay out the event, one needed to turn to the alternative media to find sobering assessments of Saddam's capture. To its credit, the alternative media continues to assault the propaganda wall the Bush administration has built around its misguided adventure in Iraq.

The alternative media reports give us a reality check. Coalition troops and Iraqis were still dying at an alarming rate. No, the electricity was still not working in Iraq, and, yes, oil pipelines were still getting blown up with unacceptable regularity. The democracy that the coalition forces were struggling to build was far from functioning, while the tensions between the Sunnis and Shiites were still simmering towards a boiling point.

Meanwhile, lost in the euphoria was the assessment of General Richardo Sanchez, the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, who repeatedly cautioned that Iraqi insurgency would continue despite Saddam's capture. Neither the mainstream nor alternative media seemed to be interested in the question that intrigued me. From whence was coming the seemingly inexhaustible supply of suicidal terrorists who are willing to check themselves out prematurely from this existence in return for a safe and rewarding passage to the afterlife? Were they the followers of those 100 Bin Ladens Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak warned us would be the product of a US invasion of Iraq?

As I pondered, many in the mainstream media were concluding that the 2004 US presidential election was all but over because with Saddam's capture, their reasoning went, Iraq was now moving in the right direction. Some of the analysis was strange indeed. One of the dimmest reports came from Knight Ridder, a major US news agency, which concluded that Bush's chances of re-election was heightened for three reasons.

To quote the report: First it (Saddam's) capture reinforces his (Bush's) image as a decisive leader, one of his core strengths. Second, it helps Bush persuade Americans that there are benefits to their sacrifice in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Third, it promises a future war crimes trial that will remind Americans that Bush stood up to a murderous tyrant.

My reaction in reading such drivel was: first, my image of George, Jr., like that of many other Americans, is one of leader who doesn't really have a viable game-plan for either the War on Terrorism or the economy. Second, what benefits are there in eliminating a tyrant who was already history anyway? What guarantee is there that we will really see some light at the end of Iraq tunnel? By the way, where is elsewhere? Iran? North Korea? Why not the tyrant in Zimbabwe? And three, boy, are voyeurs going to have fun watching the spectacle of Saddam Hussein versus Michael Jackson in the battle to be the first trial of the century!

Interestingly, the American public doesn't seem dazzled by the glitz of Saddam's capture. A poll taken by the respected Harris Poll last December 22, conducted before and after Saddam's capture, showed a slight improvement in Bush's ratings. Bush's appeal ratings still hover at their lowest level since he took office in January 2001. The American mainstream media noted that Bush wasn't trying to make political capital out of Saddam's capture. Well, he really didn't have to. The prime candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination, front-runner Howard Dean excepted, were doing that for him exceptionally well, thank you. They tripped over themselves to be the first to hail Saddam's capture and to blast Dean's foreign policy position. Senator Joseph Lieberman the erstwhile defender of Israel, right or wrong, commented, if Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be a power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place. Huh? Say it again, Joe, please.

Senator John Kerry chimed in by declaring that Dean was unfit for the White House. The reason? Dean had the audacity to be the messenger who spoiled the celebration by delivering the obvious: Saddam's capture had not made America safer.

Dean is the odds-on favourite to win the party's nomination, and it's easy to assume Bush's campaign will use those comments later to attack Dean's credibility on foreign policy. With the likes of Lieberman and Kerry working for it, Bush's campaign can save some money on speechwriters. While the Democrats have been working hard to commit political suicide, a development took place that gave truth to Dean's analysis and put Saddam's capture in perspective. On December 21, the US Homeland Security Department put our country on its highest security alert since 9-11. Al Quaeda, our real enemy in the War on Terrorism, was poised to strike again, Homeland Security warned us.

So what has really changed with Saddam's capture? To paraphrase the eloquent words of my favourite bard, William Shakespeare, Saddam's capture has created a lot of sound and fury but has yet to signify something important in the War on Terrorism.

In other words, my country has not become one bit safer since 9-11.

The Daily Star columnist and Rock Hill, South Carolina-based journalist Ron Chepesiuk is a Visiting Professor of Journalism at Chittagong University.