I've read too many things on this, details are all mixed up in my head.

Timing is interesting, but the rapid scheduling of the execution may have been a demand by Sadrist factions in return for cooperation with the gov't. I recall an article (perhaps NYT) where the execution followed some last-minute desperate negotiations between the Iraqi gov't and US officials (who weren't happy at all).

It does of course underscore the sectarian/ethnic bent of the current government, and the ability of extremist groups to dominate the agenda.

Dear M,

Yes, that's pretty much it. Nir's account jives with what others - in the Arab/Muslim world and the West - are arriving at.

There are all sorts of rumors/stories floating about as well: From Muqtada's Sadrists having demanded to get to execute Saddam to the U.S. officials in Baghdad having tried (in vain) to delay the execution for another week or two.

As for the video transcripts, I'd suggest Zeyad's account and this NYT article.

--MSK

PS: Götterdämmerung.

PS - Didn't I give you a personal journal to cut down on the number of egregious pun titles appearing on the main site?

MSK, that was one of Matt's trademark puns, Göttersaddamerung. He is hard to keep up with.

In any case, the execution can't be anything but a finger in the eye of the Sunnis. Cole reports the Jordanian MB is calling for the closure of the Iranian embassy in Amman, that's a major sign. So the Saddam execution did change things...

Judgements are not executed against Muslims, Christians and Jews on, respectively, Fridays, Sundays and Saturdays or their respective holidays in traditional Muslim law. That law is still applied in most Arab countries, Iraq included, AFAIK.

So there are many possible interpretations, pick your favorite:
1) Iraq doesn't apply that law anymore.
2) Some or all in the Iraqi government/administration consider that the only valid Muslim sect is the Shia and that Sunni holidays are not Muslim holidays (or are not holidays reckognized by the state).
3) This was a lynching and those who wanted to lynch Saddam didn't give a hoot about this law.
4) They did it on purpose to stick a finger in the eyes of Sunnis.

(my personal favorite are 2 and 3).

you don't suppose they did 2 to better do 4?

From the Independent: ...But an execution which vied in barbarity with a sectarian lynching in the backstreets of Belfast 30 years ago.

Anyone knows what he's talking about?

I still have a hard time swallowing the idea that the US didn't have the power to stop this execution if they really wanted to... I mean come on.. really? Are we to believe they have no influence at all in the area? None? Not even a little?

Would it follow that if the PM of Iraq said he didn't want a surge of troops that the US would HAVE to comply?

Define "if they really wanted to."

Certainly the US could have stopped the execution. Send in troops, obviously, in the extreme.

Was it worth expending the political capital, possible blood shed, and clearly upping confrontation with the dwindling "partners" or not-yet-enemies the US has?

Perhaps in retrospect, but given the unstable situation it is not clear that the US could have changed the decision of the Shia parties at an acceptable price (leaving aside what the cost-benefit would be with the retrospective on the bungling by the Shia of the execution).

In short, your last question is idiotic. It's an utterly different issue.

I would say there certainly is legitimacy there. The U.S. specifically asked them to wait ,the executioners wore masks and screamed Pro shia chants, they damned him to hell and drop the floor out from under him before he could complete the profession of faith. I would say it was low and sectarian without any question. Despite the fact that he deserved to die of course.

Dear all,

the Saddam trial wasn't quite the "U.S. puppet show" that many portray it to have been.

The main role that the U.S. played was to guard Saddam and his co-defendants. The rest was quite an Iraqi affair. And it was seen by the current Iraqi government as such.

So ... as L pointed out, since the Iraqi gov't (i.e. Al-Maliki and colleagues) pushed for a speedy execution of Saddam, the U.S. officials in Baghdad and D.C. would've had to risk a big spat with their allies (who the U.S. admin believes to really, desparately need) in order to postpone the execution.

Now, I do not know if anyone among those U.S. officials who dealt with this issue had any idea about Islamic holidays, i.e. the significance of Eid al-Adha and the traditions associated with it. I would like to think that, had I been there, I would've said "Letting you execute Saddam on the first day of Sunni Eid al-Adha? I don't think so." ... but then, we don't know if there were any U.S. officials who DID try to stall the process and whether or not they were overruled by their superiors.

In the end, I find it entirely plausible that the Americans, faced with Al-Maliki's signature and his "It's none of your business" attitude, just gave up. Also, please keep in mind that pretty much none of the U.S. officials have any personal stake in Iraq and many will have by now become quite cynical about the whole situation.

I'd be very curious about the percentage of "I don't give a s***" among the embassy staff in Baghdad. And ditto for the U.S. forces.

--MSK