Trial and error

Has there ever been a better time than now to be a Saddam Hussein look-alike?

Ten years ago the only gig you could get impersonating the Butcher of Baghdad was in Iraq as a stunt-double for Saddam himself, a job for which I can only assume the company perks did not outweigh the daily risk of death.

But today, Hollywood beckons, baby! After all, how can every studio this side of HBO and Dreamworks not be already casting for Saddam's Trial: The Movie? A defiant, fallen dictator grappling with guards, judges and witnesses terrified to enter the courtroom, a defense lawyer murdered execution-style - even the best screenwriters couldn't make this stuff up.

But for all the theatrics we've seen since the hearings went into full swing last week, the actual trial of the very man we went to Iraq to overthrow has been getting less attention than a made-for-TV movie. In the press it's had the front pages and headlines it deserves, but it doesn't seem like the trial is resonating with the American public the way it should be.

Consider the ramifications this outcome has for Iraq, the war, and the entire Middle East: If done right, the trial has the power to legitimize the new Iraqi judiciary, give Iraqis some closure on Saddam's crimes against humanity, and lend a degree of stability to the war-torn country. Iraq is no quick fix, but it would go a long way if Iraqis were able to place faith in their own leaders again to govern the country fairly, effectively, and democratically.

But if the trial is botched, if it's even perceived to be unfair by a majority of Arabs, it could be a flat-out disaster for Iraq. Many experts point out that if the trial goes poorly, Saddam will become a martyr for Sunni rebels, strengthening their base and sparking a new wave of violence. But the greater concern needs to be on how Saddam will try to manipulate this trial to de-legitimize the entire fragile system the United States is struggling to make strong enough to stand on its own.

As Saddam tries to pull a Slobodan Milosevic - decrying the court's authority, pointing out the judges' Kurdish and Shiite backgrounds, and claiming to still be president while facing an almost certain death penalty - there is hardly a household in the Middle East that isn't glued to the TV to see what happens next.

But in America, people have greeted Saddam's trial with mild surprise that it even started. For a country like the United States, which loves its courtroom mayhem, this would be shocking if it weren't acutely American that we don't really care.

There are three reasons we've been apathetic to what should be one of the most intriguing and important trials of our time: it's international, it's political, and we all know Saddam is guilty.

Michael Jackson's trial here during the summer was the biggest spectacle since O.J., both of which were perfect trials for Americans to hungrily devour. One, they were in the United States, which made them a gold mine for 24-hour news stations. Jackson's time in court became the definition of water-cooler gossip. Two, at the heart of each trial was not really murder or child molestation, but pop culture and celebrity. What they did didn't matter as much as who they were. And three, until the moment the verdicts were read, we truly had no idea what was going to happen. For every person who thought O.J. would be found guilty, there was someone who thought he'd be innocent.

Though Saddam is certainly a big name, his trial is everything to which the American consumer of infotainment would never devote more than a moment's notice. We can't watch it live, it's international news (and therefore irrelevant), and because it's political, the whole thing is just too nuanced for Americans. It's too much to think about, not enough eye candy and "Chicago" razzle-dazzle.

Which is a shame, because outside of a Ford Bronco, I don't know what needs to happen to get Americans interested. The Arab world is on the edge of its seat, and we should be too. Right now, the trial has been adjourned until late November, partly so the defense team can better consider certain evidence against Saddam, which is a positive sign that although the former dictator might be doomed for a guilty verdict, the court isn't undermining itself by rushing to the finish line.

When the trial resumes, I doubt interest will change much in the United States, as if we needed one more sign pointing towards how out of touch we are with what is going on in Iraq.

Saddam, clearly, is no Michael Jackson. Now if only we could consider that a good thing.