Has the capture of Saddam Hussein made Americans safer?

Howard Dean’s claim to the contrary set off a political firestorm last week as other Democrats flayed him and Republicans watched with satisfaction.

But Dean’s question is more complex than either party admits.

It’s easy to bask in emotional satisfaction over Saddam’s downfall. Who (save blinded Arab nationalists) wouldn’t cheer the capture of this sadistic monster? I saw what he did to his own people after they rose up against him in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, and it was obscene.

But emotions aren’t adequate to weigh Dean’s contentious claim.

I think the only way to do so is to apply the convoluted wisdom of Donald Rumsfeld. In February 2002, the defense secretary uttered some now-famous words when asked about reports that there were no known links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me,” he said, “because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” In other words – if I can be so bold as to translate Rumspeak – we had to act to avoid the risk of what we did not know.

So what are the known knowns about Saddam’s capture? Who is definitely safer?

Iraqis and Iraq’s neighbors are. A neutered Saddam can no longer threaten them with tanks or weapons of mass destruction – such as the poison gas he used to slaughter Kurds and Iranians in the 1980s. And a safer Middle East is good for the United States, ensuring the uninterrupted flow of oil.

But are you, the residents of Peoria, Ill., or Pottsville, Pa., safer?

The answer may surprise you: We don’t know enough to know.

Before the war, the administration claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and might pass them off to terrorists. More than 50 percent of Americans, according to polls, still believe that Hussein was connected to Sept. 11. Not so.

The administration has still not put forward proof that Saddam had any serious links to al-Qaeda. If Bush officials had any such evidence, they would certainly advertise it.

As for weapons of mass destruction, none have been found, and Bush’s chief weapons inspector is on the verge of quitting. The president said recently that Saddam’s threat was “the possibility that he could acquire weapons,” not that he already had them. That is a big shift in position.

“If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you,” he told Diane Sawyer, as she kept asking whether the weapons of mass destruction threat had been imminent or hypothetical.

“What’s the difference?” the president asked.

The difference, of course, is that the administration based the war on the claim that Saddam “had the weapons already. In reality, the White House rallied Americans to fight an unknown unknown.

Yes, Saddam presented a “future threat – he might have resurrected his weapons program had he stayed in power, though we have no proof he would have cooperated with terrorists. The only danger we can be sure he posed was to the region, not to our shores. Now Hussein is toast, and we Americans are freed from that indirect threat.

Ironically, however, the invasion of Iraq and Hussein’s fall have unleashed their own “future dangers – more unknown unknowns.

Iraq is unstable, its political direction unclear. U.S. officials and Iraqi exiles have floundered so far in efforts to resurrect a broken country. The insurgency continues, and external terrorists hope Iraq will provide them with a new base of operations. The president says that the failure of democracy in Iraq “would … embolden terrorists and their allies around the world.”

Democracy? Iraqis have no civil society, no democratic institutions – and it will take decades to build them. The strongest political forces in today’s Iraq are Islamists and ex-Baathists. When I visited Baghdad’s famous Mutanabi Street in October, where booksellers can now peddle once-forbidden tomes, the most popular titles were Shiite religious tracts, including the speeches of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, or products of an Iraqi communist publishing house.

Things may get better. Hussein’s demise offers a new chance to revamp a faltering postwar occupation. It will liberate political forces that no longer fear his resurrection. It may undercut the insurgency and help Iraq’s political process move forward.

Or it may prove a lost opportunity, and terrorism may worsen. We just don’t know yet. That’s why Dean’s question is relevant.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Copy the Story Link