Uncertainty reigns After Saddam's capture

Buni Yani, Director, The Public Sphere Institute, Jakarta

Ironically, despite the capture of former dictator Saddam Hussein, the future of Iraq and its people are still up in the air.

A joyful celebration of the capture was marred by two deadly bomb blasts a day after, raising concerns that the drama has not yet ended happily ever after for either the U.S. Army or the Iraqi people. Eight people were killed in the suicide car bomb attacks, while 13 others were seriously injured.

This reaction from guerrillas was believed to be a sign that resistance against the U.S. occupation would continue, with or without Saddam. Other attacks on U.S. interests in Iraq are expected on a larger scale.

In another town, a student demonstration including local residents against the capture also showed that Saddam still has many supporters and followers, which could potentially be exploited to fuel the guerrilla movement.

The post-capture attacks are instrumental in interpreting the current security situation in Iraq. The Bush administration's rhetoric -- that the Saddam factor played a key role in continued attacks after the U.S.' victory in the war -- has been proven false.

In this line of reasoning, it was believed that Saddam was controlling and leading a resistance movement against the U.S., and Saddam's capture was deemed sine qua non to reducing and stopping the violence. But events have proved otherwise.

Now, the U.S., more specifically the Bush administration, should be clear that Saddam is not a crucial factor to security in Iraq. The Iraqi people -- be it the Fedayyin, students, common people, Sunnis, or Shiites, who are joined under the guerrilla movement -- have a more fundamental reason for resisting the presence of the U.S. Army; namely, a common feeling to defend their country against foreign forces. The Iraqi nationalism and anti-American sentiments are, of course, two things the U.S. has to face if the Bush administration doesn't have the political will to quit Iraq soon.

But what is more detrimental to the U.S. and its allies is the rise of Arab nationalism, which might unite the Arab world and use Iraq as the battleground. However unorganized such a movement may be, the U.S. must consider its possibility. For some in this solidarity group, Saddam is the symbol of Arab nationalism and dignity, and who dared challenge the U.S. The capture of this symbol will not degrade the morale of their struggle and instead, to some extent, might even strengthen the feeling of solidarity.

The American public's soliloquy, "why do they hate us", might echo into the future if a suitable Middle Eastern policy fails to materialize. An indication of this echo emerged immediately after the capture of Saddam, when Bush's popularity rose. The poll result favoring Bush indicated that the Republican has another chance to lead the country in 2004. If this happens, the Iraqi people should be prepared for another nightmare, as the U.S.' Middle East policy will not change much and, quite possibly, the current policy on Iraq will be continued. But as recent developments in Iraq have indicated, the guerrilla movement is ready to face the worst-case scenario.

Critics of the U.S. policy in Iraq are concerned with human rights and democracy, which are deteriorating day by day.

The question is, how can we explain the champion of democracy and the sole superpower on Earth, which uses ways that are undemocratic in order to democratize another country? In itself, the U.S.' democracy-based justification to invade Iraq is contradiction in terms, for no democracy practice uses force in resolving problems. Democracy only allows fight of the words, not the use of force.

The writer is also lecturer at Universitas Paramadina's Department of International Relations.