|
(reposted from a duplicate thread)
I was utterly shocked by the number of threads this morning that said things like:
"Is this the deathblow to Dean's insurgent anti-war campaign?"
"Is Saddam's capture a deathblow to Clarks anti-war campaign?"
"Lieberman: If Howard Dean got his way, Saddam would still be in power!"
"Kerry is now proud of his IWR vote"
and my personal favorite... "Bush will win Big in 2004 - There Is No Longer Any Hope For Us."
It's clear that Saddam, in his cubby hole, was in no position to command the insurgency, lacking very basic communications like a radio, cell phone or internet access. If he were able to communicate via courier, it was probably inneffective to his command due to the inability to issue orders in "real-time." Because he was on the lam, his authority and leadership was neutralized...
His capture doesn't change a thing in regards to the insugency and, arguably, could actually make the few loyalists he has left more determined to undermine the US occupation. I expect the attacks on coalition forces to increase over the coming months as they continue to become better organized and hone their tactics.
Unfortunately, it didn't take long for the insurgency to shrug off Saddam's capture and strike back. It's becoming obvious that Saddam's capture didn't change a thing, including the political fortunes of the Dems or for Bush. The war is still wrong, Iraq is no more secure and the world still turns, with or without Saddam's capture.
|