Not a question that I had given much thought to before. But an email from a fellow blogger whose writing I admire got me to thinking about this. Then sitting at the Bagel Shop this morning, there was a USA Today with an article with much the same theme, and as I recall a picture of Colin Powell on it. Of course it might have been Colin Powell talking about something else, since between him and Condi they seem to have become the two foremost shills for BushRoveCo these days...but I digress.
So the question is what to do about Saddam?
In the event of the war, like is that really a question anymore, should Hussein be captured, then I think he should be tried as a war criminal only if he has done things in this conflict that warrant such prosecution. As emotionally invested as some people seem to be in having his sorry ass served up an plate, he is still the sovereign leader of a Sovereign Nation and is only "answerable" to them, which means that unless he does something really stupid in a war like executing POW's out of hand, or some similar war-related insanity (first/sole use of chem/bio weapons would count too) he should not be tried for war crimes by any but other Iraqis or the Hague of they chose to exercise jurisdiction, by request of the IRAQI people.
Hussein, no war, but still there. In the less likely event that Hussein were to be overthrown or displaced by methods other than warfare (inside military coup, a little assistance from other Arab countries to his opposition), I still see this as an internal matter. However, there is a good model in some ways to follow here with what happened to the Shah of Iran. When the Islamic revolutionaries tossed him and his family out of Iran, he basically became an international Pariah. No country would take him in for more than days, even when he was terminally ill. Even though he was our "creation", we shunned him because of our fear of "terrorist" reprisals from the Islamists, and being worried how it would look to "harbor" such a man. Don't think that Hussein has forgotten this. I think it will put Saddam's back up against the wall even more, if he sees no options for getting out.
Which leaves the last question, Exile. I do not believe that Hussein would choose this option voluntarily, believing (correctly or not) that he can not be exiled and survive. As distasteful as it may be, just because he's a monster does not give us the right to execute him or even try him.
Exiling him seems on its face, like a reasonable solution, but again going back to the Shah of Iran, how viable is it really? And do we the people of the United States want to be responsible for guaranteeing his safety and security should he accept the terms of Exile?
