I think I speak in pretty universal terms when I say “hellz yeah”. As a humanitarian and as a person who, in a strictly ideological sense, supports the liberation of the Iraqi people, to hear that Saddam has been condemned to death is some damn good news. And the people seem to be happy, too:

Spontaneous celebrations broke out across Iraq in spite of an around-the-clock curfew imposed on the capital and other regions. People fired pistols and assault rifles into the air in a common gesture of jubilation. Residents of Sadr City, a Shiite bastion in northeastern Baghdad, flooded the streets in defiance of a curfew, whooping and dancing and sounding car horns. Even some Shiite police officers joined in the revelry, firing their weapons in the air.

For the most part, anyway. See, this is where the whole “Bush didn’t understand that the country isn’t one happily united people” issue comes into play.

In the Sunni Arab city of Samarra, a stronghold of support for the Sunni-led insurgency, hundreds of demonstrators marched through the streets in violation of the curfew. They carried photographs of Mr. Hussein, who was born in the same region, and fired guns in the air in anger.

“The ground will be burned,” they chanted. They were escorted by Iraqi police officers, who provided some of the demonstrators with rides through the city, witnesses said.

The Sunni areas supported Saddam, the Shiites are happy he’s gone. Sadly, the nation isn’t even united when it comes to being happy that a brutal dictator is gone.

The “understood” aspect of this story, that some have theorized is why the verdict was delayed until today, is that Saddam receiving the death penalty will help the Republicans because it’s good news in the Iraq War.

Problem being it doesn’t mean anything at this point. Saddam’s been effectively dead for a long time. This is a gesture, it’s an important symbolic event, but it’s not going to change the war in any meaningful way. Just like his arrest or Zarqawi’s death, a day later everything is going to be the same as it was.

But still, for at least a little while, forget about politics and just be happy one of the world’s 10 worst dictators is gone.

I was ready to go to sleep as soon as I got home, and then I spied this. It seems back in 1999 the government decided to “simulate” a potential invasion of Iraq.

In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

…

“The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops,” said Thomas Blanton, the archive’s director. “But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground.”

Ouch. And check out the conclusions they drew:

• “A change in regimes does not guarantee stability,” the 1999 seminar briefings said. “A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability.”
• “Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments.”
• “Iran’s anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq,” the briefings read. “The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad.”
• “The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development.”
• “Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government.”
• “A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners.”

Funny, that seems to be just about exactly what happened. That’s our Bushie, he can’t even lead us into an unnecessary war right.