Asymmetrical Information

Getting the "mushroom treatment" is one of the great risks of senior management. However, it is a lousy defense, especially in US courts. I've watched the "treatment" attempted many times. I've also watched really good executives test to see if their subordinates are willing to participate in giving them the treatment. That is really fun to watch!

Far be it from me to suggest that Saddam is/was a really good manager. He appears, by all accounts, to have been a really good sadist. We know that he had poisonous gases and use them to great effect. We may one day find out why he had them and used them in the past and didn't have them more recently. It certainly is possible that he was the victim of the "mushroom treatment" on possibly the grandest scale in the history of the world, though I doubt it is very likely. It is also possible that he cheated when paying the "shell game", by not putting the pea under any of the shells.

Hopefully, in the immortal words of Sherlock Holmes: "All will be revealed."

Megan, very interesting theory, and it might well be true. It's pretty clear from accounts of Nazi Germany that Hitler would have been totally disconnected from reality for at least the last six months except for a few top generals who stuck to the old Prussian ideas of honor no matter how hazardous making honest reports became.

Ed, this isn't to do with Saddam's defense - his prosecutors will hardly have to bring up unsuccessful or hard-to-prove attempts at making WMD, when we've got the readily provable use of it on civilian populations at Saddam's direct orders. Unless you've got some way to execute him more than 10,000 times???

I don't care how much Saddam could help us, giving Saddam his quick drop and sudden sudden stop in the town square in Baghdad will (a) demoralize the resistance, as they'll no longer have the hope of restoring him to power (b) remove the fear of the normal Iraqi citizen that Saddam would again return and torture them if they helped the allies. This will result in enough new information that we'll find all the WMD stockpiles we ever needed, besides, we don't really need to find WMD's anymore. There is enough proof of Saddam supporting Al Quaida as to justify his demise, and enough mass graves have been dug up to make a hypocrite of anyone who supported the war against Milosevic but oppose this one. Every reasonable person is already convinced that deposing Saddam is a good thing, and the few that aren't are too blinded by partisan or anti-American reasons to ever be convinced. And even if it would make things easier to make a deal for what Saddam knows, I'd never do it, because making a deal with his kind, no matter what it "gains" would be a betrayal of all we stand for.

"What profit a man if he gains the entire world, but loses his soul"

The fact that he was captured alive makes all the difference in the world. Now there is accountability both from him for his actions, and from our officials for his handling. Now that the whole world is watching, it could get messy. I have read read several comments this morning alluding to the possibility that something went wrong with the plan to apprehend him.

It is possible that his capture will not matter much and could even give the go-ahead for more factional conflict now that he is really out of the picture.

I have a feeling he will provide a WEALTH of info.
Mike
....Support Operation Give by buying my CD!

Maybe he knows who kiilled JFK, where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, or whether Muhammed Atta visited Iraq in the summer of 2001.

As for punishment, I think he should be confined to a room in a straightjacket with this playing continuously full screen and pumped to at least 110 dB until he asphyxiates himself:

The Real Hussein

-Brad

I remember seeing an interview with one of his chief weapons scientists saying that they basically lied to him after '94 or so, and that's why Saddam didn't have any weapons. Can't find it at the moment, though.

I doubt if he has much useful information to offer and I kind of doubt if it will really have much affect on the resistance. He was hardly the only one to profit from the Baathist regime and much of the non-Baathist resistance doesn't care what Iraqis think in the first place.

Of course his capture is an amazingly good thing. It's more important than just bringing a bloodthirsty maniac to justice, it's a tremendous psychological boost for Iraqis who want to move on.
Some dictators can't be put out of mind until they're executed (like Ceaucescu) or publicly humiliated. It will be hard for Iraqis to be too afraid of this pathetic empty hulk anymore, though I'm sure there are plenty more ex-Baathists hanging around that they have to watch out for.

As for WMD: I think he didn't have much and knew it and I thought he was saying so pretty clearly during the invasion build-up. But once it was clear the US would invade no matter what, what could he do but talk tough?

There seems to be some belief he will sing like a bloody canary. There are probably a rather large number of people just waiting and fearing what he will say about those who helped him retain power.

Besides Dean, I think the biggest loser in all of this has to be good ole' Chirac.

Besides Dean, I think the biggest loser in all of this has to be good ole' Chirac.

Which should give us all two more reasons for celebration on this day.

Even if your theory turns out to be incorrect, IMHO it still demonstrates why you're one of the most brilliant bloggers out there, Megan.

Brad, that Real Hussein link is the funniest thing I have ever seen.

"It's simply lunatic that he could have thought he would defeat us, and if he didn't have WMD, why not let the inspectors in?"

"The most interesting explanation" is: he is indeed a lunatic. Can there be any doubt of it ?

MarkD wrote "There is enough proof of Saddam supporting Al Quaida as to justify his demise"

Links please.

The last time I checked Osama was an islami fundamentalist opposing all secular arabic leaders and Saddam was opposing the dominance of religion, so they would have really had to put MAJOR differences aside to cooperate.

Did someone ask for links? o_O

http://www.hereticalideas.com/archives/000106.html

http://www.intelmessages.org/Hack/ZAp%20Iraqi%20Involvement%20in%20Sept%2011%20Attacks%2003.htm

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/2395416

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20021004-30441705.htm

Milosz, have you been in a coma the last several months? Do try to keep up.

Although he might not have good information about WMD, etc, for the reasons Megan mentions...he may well have information about relationships with other states, including some of America's putative allies.

It may be that Osama is fundamentalist and Saddam is secular, but that doesn't mean that they cannot cooperate. The differences between Stalin and Roosevelt were greater than between Osama and Saddam, but in WW2 the US supplied massive aid to the USSR. 40 convoys were sent to Murmansk in USSR, with many ships lost.

Through the Murmansk Run, the United States supplied the Soviet Union with 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives, and 15,000,000 pairs of boots.

Also how about the differences between Stalin and Hitler, who managed to cooperate for long enough to destroy Poland and France?

Re Stalin and Hitler: Surely it is obvious that in practice there was little difference between the two of them. They were both mass murderers intent on Eureopean conquest.

Re Stalin and Hitler: Surely it is obvious that in practice there was little difference between the two of them. They were both mass murderers intent on European conquest.

While I suspect Saddam's WMDs weren't as sophisicated as he wanted I have no doubts that he had gas. Nerve gas can be cooked up in any insecticide plant and Mustard Gas is very simple.
In Gulf War One Saddam sent most of his Air Force to Iran, right? Is it not to be expected that he'd do more or less the same thing in this fight?
Of equal value is the political intel. Saddam knows where the French, German and Russian bodies are buried.
Still I'm not sure that his intel value outweighs the potential problems that Saddam could bring. To the best of my knowlege no terrorists have ever taken hostages in an attempt to liberate a corpse. I hope we don't end up regretting that our guys didn't just drop a frag in that rathole.

While I suspect Saddam's WMDs weren't as sophisicated as he wanted I have no doubts that he had gas. Nerve gas can be cooked up in any insecticide plant and Mustard Gas is very simple.
In Gulf War One Saddam sent most of his Air Force to Iran, right? Is it not to be expected that he'd do more or less the same thing in this fight?
Of equal value is the political intel. Saddam knows where the French, German and Russian bodies are buried.
Still I'm not sure that his intel value outweighs the potential problems that Saddam could bring. To the best of my knowlege no terrorists have ever taken hostages in an attempt to liberate a corpse. I hope we don't end up regretting that our guys didn't just drop a frag in that rathole.

One more twist on Megan's theory. If there was no WMD program, but Saddam thought there was, what happened to all the money he was pouring into it?

I think some people may have been diverting it into Swiss (or French) bank accounts, which gives one more reason to lie and pretend the weapons really existed.

Less than 24 hours and we already have the capture of several more of Saddam's henchmen due to intelligence obtained from Saddam's capture.

All of Clinton's policy advisors who were trotted out yesterday to opine that Saddam would have no intelligence value have proven once again that anyone who listens to their opinions is a fool.

hi all,
"There seems to be some belief he will sing like a bloody canary. There are probably a rather large number of people just waiting and fearing what he will say about those who helped him retain power.

Besides Dean, I think the biggest loser in all of this has to be good ole' Chirac."

i don't think that the last statement necessarily follows. after all, saddam was a good and loyal ally of ... the usa, until he made the mistake of misreading us intentions. the french and russians might have some issues with a talking saddam, but i suspect that there are a number of people in this country (and not just democratic presidential nominees) that are feeling a bit of anxiety right now...

...saddam was a good and loyal ally of ... the usa...

Cas, I know that's the received wisdom on the left, but don't you find it a bit of a stretch? We gave the guy some assistance 20 years ago, and suddenly he's a good and loyal ally?

Let's see, the French sold him a nuclear power plant, and the Russians sold him fighter jets and other weapon systems. If our contact with him made him a good and loyal ally, I guess he was actually sleeping with the French and Russians, then.

...until he made the mistake of misreading us intentions.

Uh, yeah, he invaded a country (Kuwait) that we actually had a security arrangement with, who we had actually sold modern weapons to. And he apparently thought we wouldn't react militarily. Oops. The kind of "misreading" that results in lots of dead people.

'I have read read several comments this morning alluding to the possibility that something went wrong with the plan to apprehend him.' ??? Whatever may or may not have gone wrong with the plan, the goal was achieved.

Following the corporate model our host began, it seems safe to assume that violence will increase as Saddam's VPs fight for turf now that the big man is gone.

I found my way here yesterday via InstaPundit and found this to be an interesting discussion, and came back again to see how it had progressed.

Please forgive me for sounding somewhat conspiracy-minded. It is my personal belief that for many highly influential people, it would be more to their liking to see hime quickly dispatched.

The social and political goals for Iraq and the region would be substantially advanced if there were no trial with all that it involves. William Kristol, for one, just yesterday evening stated that Saddam was a coward and did not even have the courage to put a bullet through his head. Kristol is only one of many who seem to have only a passing concern for the concept of due process--one of the highest constitutional principles we hope to impart to that part of the world. And it should be scrupulously granted to even those who deserve it the least.

Note, too , that our involvement with Saddam goes back a long way, and through several administrations. Who knows what records and documentation could have been sequestered somewhere to be revealed if the need ever arose. His trial should bring new life to Court TV.

I doubt Saddam has much useful info. But a lot of people who've been silent out of fear of him might suddenly start talking.

I have to wonder if a trial is really the best thing? If it can be shown that the US knew what he was doing back when we gave him aid, he could potentially be the star witness in some massive RICO lawsuits. The US military-executive axis does *not* need that.

hi pj,
"If our contact with him made him a good and loyal ally, I guess he was actually sleeping with the French and Russians, then."

i would grant that, but that does not invalidate what i said. it appears to me that you minimize the contacts that we had with saddam, those 20 years ago-- actually less than that-- and the help we gave him during the 80s. many of the folks who are currently in power were active in that issue back in the time of the first bush and before that-reagan admins. these things can come back to haunt one. i think it was quite courageous of the admin to get saddam alive. it would have been safer for many (including the french & russians) if he had turned up dead.

"he invaded a country (Kuwait) that we actually had a security arrangement with, who we had actually sold modern weapons to. "

again, i do not diasagree with you. but why is it that you contend that this precludes what i have argued. as i remember it, there was quite a bit of a foo-far over the ambiguous language used by an american representative (s?) on the eve of the kuwaiti invasion, which saddam interpreted as a green light. the fact that he still thought it shows either that he was completely clueless, or that he had reason to believe that he had "a special relationship" with the usa, that he didn't have to care about the usa because it lacked the resolve to stop him, etc, or all of the above.

am i saying that saddam was overly bright about this, thinking the usa would stand aside? no. that is one of the risks one runs when one is a dictator--no checks and balances to one's thinking & actions...

"If it can be shown that the US knew what he was doing back when we gave him aid, he could potentially be the star witness in some massive RICO lawsuits."

If you are refering to Iraq's use of chemical weapons then it is already well established via declasified US State Department documents that the Reagan administration knew about it when they began giving Iraq assistence.

How does RICO come into play in this scenario?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,561472,00.html:

Saddam was also asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. “No, of course not,” he replied, according to the official, “the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us.” The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: “if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?” Saddam’s reply: “We didn’t want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy.”

Saddam was also asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. “No, of course not,” he replied, according to the official, “the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us.” The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: “if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?” Saddam’s reply: “We didn’t want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy.”

And all of the above was to be expected, though it doesn't lend support for your interesting theory, Megan. But the best parts of the article:

“He looked like a homeless man at the bus station.”

“Have we actually cut the head of the snake or is he just an idiot hiding in a hole?”

As head of stateSaddam could sign the official surrender of Ba'ath party members still at large.There would still be the foreign fighters but the symbolism would be significant for the Iraqi people.
As for the Us wanting him dead it wold not have been hard to make sure that only enough of him for DNA fingerprinting came out of that hole.
Saddam is a gangster he will try to cut a deal,surprisingly he will be safer with the coalition than the Iraqis or the "International community" He will be guarded, not to keep him in, but to keep out the thousands that want him dead.At this very moment secret briefings will be going on on how to get him to a place where an assassination would be easier.The US is all he's got

As head of stateSaddam could sign the official surrender of Ba'ath party members still at large.There would still be the foreign fighters but the symbolism would be significant for the Iraqi people.
As for the Us wanting him dead it wold not have been hard to make sure that only enough of him for DNA fingerprinting came out of that hole.
Saddam is a gangster he will try to cut a deal,surprisingly he will be safer with the coalition than the Iraqis or the "International community" He will be guarded, not to keep him in, but to keep out the thousands that want him dead.At this very moment secret briefings will be going on on how to get him to a place where an assassination would be easier.The US is all he's got

As head of stateSaddam could sign the official surrender of Ba'ath party members still at large.There would still be the foreign fighters but the symbolism would be significant for the Iraqi people.
As for the Us wanting him dead it wold not have been hard to make sure that only enough of him for DNA fingerprinting came out of that hole.
Saddam is a gangster he will try to cut a deal,surprisingly he will be safer with the coalition than the Iraqis or the "International community" He will be guarded, not to keep him in, but to keep out the thousands that want him dead.At this very moment secret briefings will be going on on how to get him to a place where an assassination would be easier.The US is all he's got

I really don't see how this hurts Dean. Yes, Bush will get a temporary boost from the rah-rah we did it euphoria that will ensue, but you have to believe that we definitely would eventually have gotten him - better for Dean now than in nine months for the fake boost.

If the insurgency continues, which it may, it will indicate to the electorate that the last remaining peg of support for this war, the 'liberation' of the Iraqi people, will not mean as much as the administration hopes to convey.

There are no WMDs, no affiliation between Al-Qaeda and Hussein has been uncovered, and over 400 troops have died. From any objective viewpoint, this war has been a mistake - the capturing of Hussein has been arguably the brightest point of the war, and it is over.

Good luck to the Iraqi people, they'll hopefully be better off now that the tyrant is gone, but from an American perspective - knowing what we know now - I just don't see how we can characterize Operation Iraqi Freedom as anything but a waste.

Sorry, I'm basically way off topic above and was just responding to someone else's comment that had nothing to do with Jane's original post. My bad.

"How does RICO come into play in this scenario?"

By making the administration accessories to extortion affecting interstate commerce, and thus creating a cause for civil action against the members of the administration. As far as I know, nobody has ever tried RICO for this sort of thing, but it's plausible enough that a court wouldn't throw it out right away, which would be a spectacular distraction for US efforts. (I haven't bothered to look up whether there's a statute of limitation, so it may be a non-issue.)

Regarding Jane's original question: in regimes of Saddam's type, every single subordinate is willing to doublecross the leader the instant he's convinced there's advantage in it for him. Many of them are scheming to kill and replace the leader if the right moment comes. Saddam knew this -- that's why he killed so many of his own high officials. Saddam's control depended entirely on his control of multiple competing internal security organizations, his ability to kill anyone at any time, and his control of the Iraqi treasury.

He seems to have taken steps to maintain control from hiding after the invasion, but nonetheless, every single underling started reevaluating his options once the situation changed, and the kind of control Saddam had earlier maintained became much more difficult. So Saddam controlled only part of the resistance when they got him.

Some people living under despotism are hoping for freedom and democracy. Others are hoping to be the next despot.

One thing I don't know -- are there still hundreds of millions of American cash floating around Iraq? If so, the resistance will have staying power.

Putting myself on record -- if Iraq becomes significantly more peaceful with Saddam's capture (i.e. if I've read things wrong) I think Bush will be very hard to beat. Unfortunately.

Zizka:

Your opening statement is both right and wrong.

Many dictators of Saddam's ilk, from Stalin to Mao to Enver Hoxha to Castro, have stayed in power for decades on end. It is only WHEN THEY HAVE COLLAPSED that the underlings figure there's more to be gained by stabbing them in the back.

Until then, there's often more to be gained by betraying others who are hoping to stab the leader in the back (thereby currying favor, retaining/gaining power, and adding to a fearsome reputation).

Of course, redundant, competing internal security systems, competition among top subordinates, family ties, etc., all help. But I think the idea that such dictators are always on a knife's edge belies the historical record.

no-one: your legal theory sounds a little farfetched. Interstate commerce? Extortion? How? I think the statutes of limitation will likely have run, and you might want to think through some sovereign immunity issues.

"Cas, I know that's the received wisdom on the left, but don't you find it a bit of a stretch? We gave the guy some assistance 20 years ago, and suddenly he's a good and loyal ally?"

He was until 1989, which was 14 years ago.

"Cas, I know that's the received wisdom on the left, but don't you find it a bit of a stretch? We gave the guy some assistance 20 years ago, and suddenly he's a good and loyal ally?"

He was until 1989, which was 14 years ago.

And it's not "some assistance"; the CIA helped him target gas attacks on Iranians, large loan guarentees, your normal client state stuff.

C'mon Jason.

We provided intel--I think his folks could do targeting well enough on their own.

We provided AGRICULTURE loan guarantees. Yes, money's fungible. I'll remember that, the next time we provide food aid to a country like, oh, North Korea.

And one wonders about where one draws the line between ally, client state, and proxy. I'd venture that the USSR was more of an "ally," for whom we shed quite a few lives, than the Iraqis ever were.

After all, one ought to at least provide good stuff from your arsenal to your allies, don't you think? Stuff like Roland SAMs and Mirage fighters (France), Type 69-I tanks (China), and MiG-25s, MiG-29s and T-72s (USSR). I'd venture that, on the "ally" scale, all three were far closer than the US ever was.

hi dean,
to playfully paraphrase pj, "i know this is the received wisdom on the right..." whatever that means... but this is my bottom line for those folks seeking to minimize the linkages:

you cannot have it both ways. either we live in a world of moral ambiguity, a world in which the international relations model of morgenthau is the standard, or we live in a world where the us works like the 7th cavalry. sorry, that sounds so binary, doesn't it? so i will take it back, i guess you can have your middle distinction, as muddy as it is. because that is what i think you have: a muddy distinction. and it does not sit well with the "moral clarity" that this admin professes to show and proudly boasts itself to have.

and that is a key issue. the admin prides itself on that; and we apparently realize there is some slippage, as there always is in the real world, but that is politically unpalateable image to project at the moment. i would feel much more comfortable if the powers that be would just own up to all the help they offered these guys, and then said: "sorry- we fucked up, we helped to create this monster and sustain it, but we then saw the errors of our ways, ..." well you get the drift. but we won't see that. the powers that be saw what they did during the eighties as "morgenthau international politics 101" and i am sure that they see it as "we did what we had to do..."

in any case dean, what jason has pointed out is in no way invalidated by you saying: "but the french and russians were awful too!even more awful than us!" the answer: "so what. that doesn't let us off the hook for our behaviour..."

No, cas, it's YOU who can't have it both ways.

Either y'all get the facts accurate before you claim "the US kept Saddam in power," or y'all condemn all the states and stop leaving out the little fact that the USSR/Russia and France (and China and others) were the primary supporters for Saddam.

When you and your side makes the argument "The US propped up Saddam," w/ nary a word of other states, I don't hear "gee, there's ambiguity out there," I hear "Look! This is purely American hypocrisy."

Conversely, if you accept the muddy middle, then perhaps YOU might recognize that there were all sorts of reasons for going to war:

WMD
Human rights
US interests
Removing the need for US forces in Saudi Arabia (arguably the single greatest irritant to the Islamic world and the greatest source of al-Qaeda recruitment)

Different folks enunciated different parts of the argument, yet, it is the Left that appears to ignore the human rights dimension (incl. w/ the "The US created/propped up Saddam!"). And, of course, claiming US interests merely opens one up to the charge of "Blood for oil!" as effective a means of ending debate as any.

Of course, Morgenthau the realist would have fewer problems, one suspects, w/ invading because we felt it necessary---is this something you'd endorse?

And attempting to argue that, somehow, invading Iraq requires either a commitment to go into every hell-hole and sinkhole, or launch an invasion of North Korea tomorrow, never mind the real differences between the two, well, I'll leave it to your imagination as to which side makes what arguments based on Morgenthau and which side hides behind it in order to snipe better.

hi dean,

"Either y'all get the facts accurate before you claim "the US kept Saddam in power," or y'all condemn all the states and stop leaving out the little fact that the USSR/Russia and France (and China and others) were the primary supporters for Saddam."

i have never said or implied that russia and france are sweethearts in all of what happened. you bet they helped support saddam. they had lots of eco interests in iraq. so did we; and for these and geo-political reasons we were quite happy to support saddam, in all sorts of ways.

also, i live in the usa, and i am interested primarily in what happens here, and in my government's actions. the point i made at the end of my last post still stands: what the russians and french did does not validate us behaviour, and still calls on us to examine it and its consequences.

for what it is worth, i think morgenthau would have some sympathy with the american administrations of the 80s, and what they did. i found this a helpful and short read, an excerpt from morgenthau's text:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

though in hindsight, he might have thought it counter-productive because of the long-run consequences of us actions.

if i read him correctly, he would think it an unhelpful thing to take out saddam for "human rights" or other moral causes (except in so far as it raises our stock and makes further desirable realist political action possible). what of the other causes you mentioned? the fact that they keep changing (either in emphasis or in substance), in light of the changing picture in iraq, leaves me bewildered as to what this administration really believes.

i agree with you about what morgenthau would say about equating/conflating north korea and iraq (though i will note that the us admin has done exactly that in the past, in their rhetoric at least). as for invading because it is necessary, rationally necessary? yes, morgenthau would support your contention if it were rationally necessary to invade iraq (and that is an issue: was it rationally necessary to invade iraq? i don't think that we had a society wide discussion about that before we invaded).

still, here is a quote from the site i mentioned above concerning the need for political rationality which, i think is pretty interesting:

"The experience of the Indochina War suggests five factors such a theory [of political rationality & deviations from it] might encompass: the imposition upon the empirical world of a simplistic and a priori picture of the world derived from folklore and ideological assumption, that is, the replacement of experience with superstition; the refusal to correct this picture of the world in the light of experience; the persistence in a foreign policy derived from the misperception of reality and the use of intelligence for the purpose not of adapting policy to reality but of reinterpreting reality to fit policy; the egotism of the policy makers widening the gap between perception and policy, on the one hand, and reality, on the other; finally, the urge to close the gap at least subjectively by action, any kind of action, that creates the illusion of mastery over a recalcitrant reality. According to the Wall Street Journal of April 3, 1970, "the desire to 'do something' pervades top levels of Government and may overpower other 'common sense' advice that insists the U.S. ability to shape events is negligible. The yen for action could lead to bold policy as therapy.""

to the extent that we had or have these five factors, we did or do not have a politically rational discourse on this issue.

Comments are Closed.