"How Saddam was captured: ‘Caught like a rat,’" reads msn.com’s headline regarding the capture of the ex-Iraqi dictator. How has the U.S. media and government dealt with the situation? Immaturely, in my opinion.

So that my opinion is not discarded as that of some anti-war fanatic, I think that it is necessary to emphasize that I was never against war in Iraq. The fact that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., and to the rest of the world for that matter, was always clear in my mind. Therefore, I supported the idea of disarming Iraq so as to rid the world of a potential threat. While I believe that Saddam Hussein needed to be captured in order to achieve security, I believe that such a task was beyond the duties of the U.S. alone. However, the U.S. went ahead and took full control over finding Saddam, and in my opinion, doing so was an egregious blunder, not only because it distracted the nation from other issues that deserve concern, but also because the manner in which it was executed was simply embarrassing.

Personally, I cannot help but decry the manner in which Saddam’s capture has been made. It appears that people are completely oblivious as to any consequences it might have, and have just let their selves be swept up in the moment. U.S. administrator for Iraq L. Paul Bremer was responsible for announcing the capture, and did so in a fairly childish manner. Beginning his speech with, "We got him," is crude enough as it is, but providing a pause afterwards for the audience to get rowdy and start whistling and rejoicing is by no means professional. In my mind, it only makes the whole operation seem to be more of a joke than it originally appeared to be, and reinforces that the American government does not have a strong sense of direction leading its efforts against terrorism. While soldiers are dispatched to Iraq, bin Laden could be just about anywhere, but apparently his capture can wait. I can understand that Saddam?s capture is of great significance for Iraqi Kurds and Shiite Muslims, Iranians, and Kuwaitis because Saddam conspicuously harmed such people. However, he who has notably hurt the U.S., bin Laden, remains at large. I find it ironic that when I went to yahoo.com, a headline regarding Saddam was subtly placed next to one reading, "Al Qaida’s finances ample, say probers." Although I recognize that the Iraqi people are in dire need of help, the U.S. government must not forget just who its people really are. Are we, those who have mainly bin Laden to fear, not the people? Shouldn?t our safety, therefore, be the first priority. I think that my point is self-evident. However, since Bin Laden proved difficult to find, it seems that the U.S. simply decided to follow Saddam because his capture was more feasible. Although the capture has provided a boost of morale, I dare say that it has not dealt with the main underlying issue: terrorism.

In short, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the U.S. government to rebuild Iraq, or pursue members of the Baath party for that matter. Such issues belong to the U.N. and to NATO. The U.S. have other matters which in my opinion are of much greater importance as far as the nation is concerned, and therefore I feel that it is inappropriate that our army should be participating in the likes of the hunt for Saddam that we have witnessed.