James Robbins opines today in NR on the capture, trial and reckoning of Saddam Hussein. His last paragraph examines the psyche of a psycho, anticipating how a very careful madman will behave:

Of course, Saddam himself is another point of leverage. He holds many secrets of his dealings with the countries comprising the Axis of Weasels. They do not know how he will try to use this information to bargain with the United States, or what will emerge from his trial. It will be interesting to see which world leaders begin uncharacteristically talking about the righteousness of the death penalty, and allowing the Iraqis to take care of trying Saddam without the bother of international tribunals (which could muddy up the whole capital-punishment issue). I think the trial will be explosive. Saddam won't take the contrition route; he will use every angle, invoke every justification, appeal to every form of sentiment, and reveal every unpleasant secret he has to try to save his skin. If Saddam's personal history tells us anything, it is that he is a survivor. This is why he did not choose resistance or suicide when the 4th ID came calling. He thinks he has a chance to come out of this alive.

Saddam the survivor. I spent two phone conversations on Sunday talking about this.

Aflaqian socialism - Ba'athism - was never Saddam's calling, nor was his flirtation with Osama bin Laden's (or Abu Nidal's, or anyone's) brand of Islamofascism. Arabism, too, would have been discarded if it no longer suited the regional aspect of his quest for power. Least of all to the former dictator's interest is martyrdom for any of these ideologies. Saddam's greatest asset, his compass, is himself - it is a bond forged through the deprivation of a childhood in Tikrit, solidified in the unpredictable, dangerous and seductive path to worldly power.

He talks of gods of war; don't believe him, even on that point. Instead, remember the self-deifying, autobiographical novels at least commissioned, if not actually written, by Saddam. There is no Heaven, no Valhalla he looks forward to in death - otherwise the pistol picked up by the 4th Infantry Division wouldn't someday be found on the auction block, labeled "Never fired, dropped once." To Saddam, existence began with him, and it ends with his death. Surely, for all his philosophical ramblings he probably doesn't think much about figurative theories and guiding principles; his thoughts stay centered just on his preservation and gain.

He is the most genuine contemporary incarnation of a legendary conquerer; the most legendary of them all, of course, being the devil. Saddam's work, to consume and dominate all that he can, is for no higher authority than his own self. ("Stalinism" could be, then, a historical euphemism for the near-absolute narcissism that is pure evil.) All scales are set to the Saddam standard: truth is him, as is morality, conscience and vision - for everything is relative when you occupy the center of the universe and believe to have inherited it for your own command.

If Saddam could escape at any time from today until his almost inevitable execution, he would try; if he could physically change himself to avoid recognition, he would do it. Anything to return to the familiar style of compulsion. He's an Iraqi man, with a faint appreciation for memories, and the faces and fashions ingrained his childhood and youth; and he will most likely cling to those throughout his judgment. But to live forever - in whatever corner of the world - assuming whatever social and cultural role required to assemble another foundation for personal power, is the only wish he really wants to keep.

Hitler was a monster born from his own self-loathing, and self-deluded into believing that he was instructed by anything more than his own witless brutality. When his twisted dream fell apart, thank God, he killed himself. Saddam's goals, ultimately, are unattached to specifics, thus he is his own dream; only when he ends, does it end.

So, as Robbins says, Saddam will do everything he can to wriggle out of this alive. His performance may be embarrassing and self-destructive, it may be fiercely challenged at every turn by his victims, and it may offer us a look right into the face of evil. We can only hope that the outcome will put an end to Saddam and his dream.

There's a warning, here, in our experience with a captured Saddam Hussein: Now that we can truly see what he is, we must remember that he is not alone. The world is still partly controlled by men who are as dangerously evil as he is; some, like Osama bin Laden, believing themselves to be more than simply mass murderers from the benefit of kooky philosophy and mythology. Others, like Saddam, are driven simply by the desire to consume. But the point is this: they will all try to divide, kill and dominate. Despite inherent selfishness, they will collaborate with one another as they need to - as, looking at our immediate conflict, most state leaders in the Near East have done with terrorists and each other. Most importantly, an authoritarian culture allows other men of this type to rise easily to positions of power. Saddam (and Osama) are symptoms, not causes. It is exactly the breeding ground for all sorts of awful, homicidal movements that the free world has been warned about - often through sporadic terrorism - for years. As the world shrinks from technology's advance, the danger grows.

That culture must be overthrown. Securing the world and the future for all people begins here: if you know even a little about geopolitics, you'll recognize parts of the globe with just as much potential for worldwide horror as the Near East. That is why Iraq and Afghanistan move towards democracy, and why Saddam will be tried for his crimes. These are just the first steps in a challenge that will likely span the century, a challenge that can (and must) be met. We shouldn't find the Iraqi people's response to freedom after decades of misery - unsure, yet undeniably eager and hopeful - to be ironic. We should find it to be instructive.

OX called me up about twenty minutes ago: "We got Saddam." Thank God. Saddam's overarching defense of Iraq was so strategically poor that, back in the spring, I truly thought he was dead. He was if fact very much alive, though as I just heard General Ricardo Sanchez describe to reporters in a press conference, Saddam was "a man resigned to his fate." Many questions remained to be answered. Was he directing attacks, or simply trying to evade capture? Will this infuse the already-defiant Iraqis with a will to crush what's left of their former oppressors? With this great prize, how will the Democratic Party react?

The press conference just ended - in thunderous applause. Sky News reporter Simon Marks reports celebratory gunfire. Another mission accomplished.

A THOUGHT: Saddam's circumstances do much to destroy the idea of his planning an insurgency all along. Somehow I doubt his master strategy read as such:

PLAN A: Repel mongrel, infidel, Western imperialists.

PLAN B: Confuse and frustrate mongrel, infidel, Western imperialists.

1. Disperse Iraqi military units in disorderly fashion.

2. Cede authority for hard- and soft-target attacks to Fedeyeen gangs, Ba'athists, criminals and jihadists.

3. Congregate heirs and respective entourages into single conspicuous target for American forces.

4. Wait for successful results of terror campaign, sitting in own refuse, down six-foot hole in the ground.

a. Electric fan recommended.

b. Personal hygiene optional.

Unlikely.

"DON'T SHOOT": If MSNBC's quotation is accurate, Saddam's capture should be considered the "Mother of All Surrenders."

On the topic of punishing appeasers and rewarding liberation's allies, I'm in good company. Andrew Sullivan:

What a relief to hear the president forthrightly defend his decision to bar Germany, France and Russia from competing on Iraq reconstruction contracts. There is a difference between being magnanimous and being a patsy. Germany, France and Russia are completely free to donate money and troops to help Iraq's transition away from a dictatorship they defended and bankrolled. (They have, of course, delivered nothing.) But, after doing everything they could to undermine the U.S. at the U.N. and elsewhere in order to protect their own favored dictator, they have absolutely no claim on the tax-payers of the United States...They didn't just object; they opposed, plotted and lied to our faces. Forgetting this is absurd. Rewarding it is obscene.

We should never forget the laughable, transparent, almost-so-foolish-it-must-have-been-improvised suggestion from Dominique de Villepin that Saddam Hussein, Jacques Chirac's "dear friend," should declare weapons of mass destruction illegal in Iraq. That was the substance of their appeal. No offense to Bill Kristol, who suggested acquiesence, but his connection to the first Bush administration could not be more apparent than in this instance.

Throughout the day, I'll list and critique news reporting on the December 10, 2003 Baghdad rally against terrorism.

First off is a brief description from the England-based KurdishMedia:

Iraqis of all ethnic backgrounds and religions marched peacefully yesterday against terrorism in the capital of Baghdad.

The protestors condemned terrorism, the Arab media’s role in promoting terrorism, and interference in Iraqi affairs by Iraq’s neighbours. By all reports, thousands of people marched in this popular demonstration.

The Iraqi Propect Organization (IPO), an organization of young Iraqi activists based primarily in Baghdad, estimated that half a million Iraqis took part in yesterday’s rally. This estimate, according to IPO Chairman Ahmed Shames, was based on reports from IPO members in Baghdad.

Half a million? Forgive me, but that's reminiscent of Classical accounting of armies and mass crowds (read: wildly inaccurate). I understand the exuberance, believe me - but remaining clear-headed about the strength of these rallies is important not only for the gauging of their popularity but also for their legitimacy. More than a few journalists, politicians and fronts are looking to minimize these rallies' significance. Well-meaning or not, KM should not have quoted IPO. In turn, pro-democracy Iraqi political parties need to shake off their wonderment, buckle down and get down to business.

News24 in South African is carrying the AFP story with its own title of "Iraqis Rally for Human Rights." Well said. The South Africans ought to know.

DECENT EXPOSURE: Even though it's competing with a handful of reports on grumpy Iraqis, the Knight-Ridder story is printed somewhere inside small newspapers across the nation [the news feed has since changed, so I doubt if it's applicable). So, what about the big ones? The broadcast triplets? Even Fox could stand to give the march a little bit more priority.

If the story remains on the lower tier, Iraqis have only one solution: bigger and bigger rallies.

KEEPING WATCH: Jeff Jarvis is sifting through press reports, too.

OTHERS WEIGH IN ON THE WORLD AROUND THE RALLIES: Hardly a puff-piece for the administration, Bill Johnson has nevertheless written about as hopeful a column as any jaded international reporter could muster. Take it for what it's worth; remember how cynical the press boys were about Germany. And how Japan's economy was practically more black market than legitimate for over two years. Read between the lines and you can see hope. Hope, not surprisingly, carries the most power in trying times.

FREEDOM AND THE BIG THREE: Chris Muir says it bluntly.

Iraqi democracy: promise, heart and spirit from the start. Go and see what Zeyad was a part of.

(PART OF) THE WORLD WATCHES: IP has begun a roundup of observations and coverage. An AFP report counted 3,000 Iraqis. [I've omitted the UPI story, as that was for the march about two weeks ago. But that means in less than a month, thousands of Iraqis have shown their defiance against terrorism.]

[SOME DID PAY ATTENTION]: [The last march was covered] on what [looked] to be a DIY Turkish outlet and Australia's Age. The Age quoted a pretty prescient Iraqi [from the last march]:

In a speech, Aziz al-Yasser, the coordinator of the rally organisers, the Alliance of Iraqi Democratic Forces, called on ordinary people to help the US-led coalition in the fight against insurgents.

"We have to help the coalition - the call issued by some for the withdrawal of occupation forces is suspect, Iraq will drown in a lake of blood if they withdraw," he said.

"We need them to help Iraqi forces to restore security first."

Al-Yasser said the attacks were actually delaying the end of the US-led occupation.

Even a story from the Middle East Online [from a smaller protest in between the late November one and this one]. Not bad. Keep it coming, people.

ANOTHER: The Daily Star in Bangladesh is carrying the AFP story. Here's another on Turks.US. No word from the Washington Post, though it's probably only a matter of time before Mike Allen runs a story on how the protesters were bused in by the White House or made out of plastic.

IF BLOGGERS MAKE LIKE ARGUS, IS IT "BLARGUS"?: Jeff Jarvis is locked on, Colin MacLeod rolls out the code-990000-red carpet for Iraqi bloggers. Speaking of our Iraqi colleagues, Omar gives a rundown on slogans and the organizations expressing them. As they say, "I love free speech."

A COUPLE MIX-UPS ABOUT DATES: On one hand, in my excitement I lost track of dates (see brackets above). But on the other, can you blame me for losing track? Iraqis are protesting fairly regularly. They're taking to this like fish to water.

HERE'S ANOTHER ONE: From today, for sure. It has a different, and decidedly greyer, view of the whole thing, interspersing qualifying statements between descriptions of the protest. There's also a curious focus on banners and slogans that didn't confront conventional wisdom about the Near East. No space in the report for signs that Omar saw, like "Al-Jazeera+al-Arabiya = terrorism" and "Stop using religion and nationalism to justify terrorism"? This may be typical, I fear, of many press reports to come. Let's hope the truth - the truth seen and blogged by Iraqis like Omar and Zeyad - gets out.

THATTAGIRL, GULF: You know it's a party when the Gulf Daily News steps in. A broad story on Iraq devotes one paragraph each to anti-terrorism protests in Baghdad and southern locales Najaf and Karbala. It notes another striking slogan, "Killing children is not resistance." Can't find the paragraphs? They're there - at the very bottom. Thanks for playing, Gulf.

ACHTUNG, BABY: From Zeyad's camera to you, don't ever forget these images. This is what life is all about.

CONTINUED: More here.

Despite the terror, despite the attacks, despite the doubt sewn by desperate leftists, a free Iraq is rebuilt:

Business is picking up again at Umm Qasr, Iraq's primary portal to the Persian Gulf. At the refurbished docks, traditional Arabian wooden sailing vessels called dhows and modern steel-hulled freighters as well deliver cars, cigarettes, even sheep, side by side.

...The busy trading activity at the port, located a few miles from the Kuwaiti border, is tangible proof of U.S. contractor Bechtel’s successful $38-million renovation project, says Bob Sinnott, Bechtel senior project manager.

...[T]o make sure the Umm Qasr project ran smoothly, U.S. AID turned to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Six Corps engineers are onsite as troubleshooters. "U.S. AID got the bang for the buck," a corps engineer on the standing on the deck of the [Norwegian vessel] Banastrar says.

The port came back together under a laudable civilian-military cooperative, and will serve to keep Iraqis fed throughout these difficult, early months. This isn't a quagmire, this another triumph of liberty. (Story via King of Fools.)

The next time someone bleats to you that Iraqi liberal democracy wasn't meant to be, show 'em this. (Via none other than Iraqi patriot Zeyad.)

John Cullinan squares on the threat to Iraqi liberalism posed by Ayatollah Sistani in National Review today. On the one hand, he takes the disturbing similarities between Sistani's rhetoric and clerical rule, even if "indirect," seriously; on the other, however, he recognizes Sistani's brief opportunity to capitalize on domestic uncertainty and President Bush's statements of resistance to the kind of theocratic mischief currently brewing in Afghanistan. He summarizes:

Present circumstances in which nationalist passions and religious sentiments are mutually reinforcing will not last forever. Indeed, one Iraqi observer puts it this way: "The religious parties are afraid that in a year or two, the standard of living will increase and prosperity will increase and the people will not go for these religious parties," according to Jabber Habbib, a political scientist at Baghdad University. In fact, the clergy's indecent haste to settle Iraq's political future in advance reflects a senior State Department official's celebrated 1990 characterization of Islamic democracy as "one man, one vote, one time."

It is above all on this paramount religion-and-state issue that battle lines are being drawn. But this dispute is also a straightforward test of strength between the U.S. and its nominal allies in the IGC, on the one hand, and Ayatollah Sistani and the senior Shiite clerical establishment, on the other. "We cannot deny there is an attempt to set a precedent on Sistani's side and our side," said one IGC member, understandably on condition of anonymity. "This is more than about elections. It's about whether we will allow one man to dictate the terms of our sovereignty."

Operative word being, I think, "dicate."

Drudge made the best of his advance notice of this snark-piece by Washington Post columnist Mike Allen, wherein the bird held by the Commander-in-Chief is derided as a prop.

This morning, IP has begun a roundup of rebuttals to this attempt at a scandal, including two photos of Bush handing off turkey to American troops who, according to the Post's own snide caption, "were served from steam trays." Note the stream trays approximately ten inches below Bush's hands in the two Yahoo photos. (Blogosphere 2, Drudge 1.)

Even if the turkey was primped, the idea of using a centerpiece - especially at this level of politics - is about as culinarily innocuous as throwing away the vegetables simmering with viscera to make gravy. What about the parsley? The parsley! Was it for eating, or looking? The horror! Next we'll hear about how politicians have complexion-and-feature-enhancing makeup applied to their faces for television appearances.

Speaking of would-be scandals, as I said to OX over e-mail yesterday: "Did you hear that? It was the sound of Joe Wilson's credibility, and his little frog-march scandal, going 'poof.'" It's a poignant sight to see vanity culminate in myopia.

CULINARILY INNOCUOUS: John Cole is giving the story a good broadside. But a little below his post is a commenter with military identification who pounds this rubbish into the ground like a tent peg:

Greetings from LSA Anaconda at Balad, Iraq. I too ate in a military dining facility on Thanksgiving and surprise of surprise, we also had a fully stuffed turkey on a table that was not meant for consumption. It was simply there to grace a table that was made to look like home. As JC roughly said surely there must be better grist for the leftie scandal mill than this. Keep trying though, it is so very entertaining.

Did you hear that? Sounded like a boomerang turning on the Post.

GIVE ME A BREAK: I didn't even need to look further than the Allen column itself to read the military angle:

[Officials] said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of Bush's stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a standard feature of holiday chow lines.

This single sentence capsizes the entire premise of a scandal, and yet it's buried under paragraphs of Allen's strung-together conspiracy theory. Ridiculous.

ANOTHER HELPING?: The Corner weighs in with some more military perspective.

A NATIONAL TRADITION SHATTERED (SNICKER): I feel as though the moon and all the stars and all the planets have fallen upon me.

Melana Zyla Vickers explains why more American troops in Iraq don't necessarily translate into more success for reconstruction.