Saddam dead or alive? Doesn’t really matter

Regardless of the manner of his death — suicide, a wartime casualty through bunker-busting bombing, assassination through poison, shooting or stabbing, or even a natural medical demise — the Iraqi regime has been changed. A freer, democratic Iraq that can better meet the needs of the Iraqi people is finally beginning to appear — or so the talking heads of the Bush administration say. And if Saddam is alive? His power is gone. There is no place to reconstitute a next act, because there is no stage that could accommodate him in a starring role. In some ways, Saddam could be said to suffer even more being relatively powerless than when he was dodging American bombs before the fall of Baghdad. This could especially be the case if he can now contemplate all he has lost and all that he has felt entitled to — as might be expected from someone as malignantly narcissistic as he.

But whether Saddam is dead or alive, the Bush administration would be able to broadcast a pet mantra for the benefit of all terrorists, terrorist supporters and the audience of the general global public: ‘‘You can run, but you can’t hide.’’

The same win-win situation applies not only to the Bush administration but also to virtually all political actors who may be wondering how Saddam’s fate affects their own interests. As with the Bush administration, these others — as diverse as terrorist groups, non-governmental humanitarian organisations and national governments — can use Saddam’s life and death interchangeably so that either works in their favour. Terrorist groups can exploit either fate as a rationale for recruiting, planning and carrying out further acts of terrorism. Either a live or a dead Saddam will not impede humanitarian organisations from going about their business of physically or even spiritually saving people throughout the world.

Saddam — whether alive or dead — can motivate the realpolitik of one government, the humanitarian-laden foreign policy of another, and the totalitarianism or state-sponsored terrorism of yet another government that is a part of some axis of evil. (It is true, of course, that even as everyone wins, all wins will not be equal.)

But before we conclude that a win-win situation is the coin of the realm after the demise of a leader with blood on his hands, let’s look at the case of bin Laden. Here the Bush administration is faced with a lose-lose situation. If bin Laden is still alive, he may well have contact with and provide guidance to those he controls and to those he inspires. Even the possibility of his existence may serve to rub salt in a festering wound of the world’s only superpower from which he is still running and hiding and against which he may still be planning to attack.

And if bin Laden is dead? Unlike the publicised death of Saddam, the publicity attendant to bin Laden’s death could well reinforce his image of the terrorist leader as martyr. This could not only energise current terrorists, but help create new ones. Unlike Saddam, bin Laden has already demonstrated that he’s not interested in building palaces or statues to himself. Bin Laden has advanced a sacred program, not a secular one involving a cult of personality. And Saddam has killed ‘‘true believers,’’ while bin Laden has made a point of defending them. So bin Laden as dead or alive does matter to the Bush administration. His fate presents real problems. But not much can be done about them.

Of course, some people are worth more dead than alive. Others are worth more alive than dead. Saddam is truly in the dustbin of history. Alive or dead, bin Laden is not. (LAT-WP)