When the court was in its initial sessions, Saddam and his colleagues repeatedly shouted and disrupted the proceedings with their outbursts. Two defense attorneys have been murdered. The chief presiding judge resigned and was replaced by a new Kurdish judge, Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman. The contention now is that the new chief judge, a Kurd from a town in which poison gas was used on the residents by Saddam’s military in 1988 killing about 5,000, is biased against the former despot.

Recognizing how important the trial is, not just for themselves as individuals, but for the country, Saddam and his Sunni supporters have done their best to prevent it from progressing. Barring an escape by Saddam and his colleagues, which is too horrible to imagine, the result seems foregone, namely Saddam will be convicted and he will be executed. The Kurds and Shiites who are controlling the government and the court will make certain that is the judgment of the tribunal.

For the United States, the stakes in this trial are enormous, and our government has committed significant resources to advance the trial. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to exhume mass graves and gather forensic evidence. We have refurbished court houses, trained Iraqi judges and provided most of the security for the courts. Americans have drafted the laws under which Saddam and his colleagues are being tried. We have insisted that this trial remain in Iraq despite calls that Saddam be tried by an international tribunal.

The Bush administration has done all of this because it is convinced that a trial of Saddam in Iraq, deemed to be fair and just, will have enormous benefits for Iraq as well as the United States. The administration is correct in this view.

First, the trial is intended, with the evidence presented, to demonstrate to the world, beyond question, how cruel and barbaric Saddam’s rein was. Some of that evidence has already been presented including graphic descriptions of torture and killings. The Bush administration’s most important rationale for the war is the removal from power of a truly barbaric despot. That objective is best served if substantial clear and unequivocal testimony is presented not merely of the crimes of Saddam’s regime, but also of the ruler’s involvement in those crimes either by giving orders or otherwise.

Second, Iraq as a country cannot move forward until the Saddam era is formally laid to rest. Closure requires a conclusion to Saddam’s trial and his execution, which will no doubt be ordered by the tribunal. The country cannot make a new start so long as Saddam is visible and his Sunni supporters entertain the delusion that he may one day return to power.

Finally, the United States is attempting to rebuild Iraq as a democratic society where the rule of law prevails. That is no easy task. However, we have made considerable strides with two elections and with the current negotiations between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders over the formation of a government. There are still many Sunnis and Shiites who would prefer a result other than a single unified democratic Iraq. They become the losers if the trial of Saddam is conducted in accordance with the rule of law and the presiding tribunal as well as the prosecutors are representatives of the new Iraqi country.

We must not lose site of these three objectives as the tactical issues play themselves out in the media. Whether Saddam and his codefendants are present at the trial is immaterial as long as they have been disruptive. Then they should have been barred. Likewise, that the judge may be from a town in which residents were subjected to poison gas should not be cause for recusal. Saddam and hi cronies widely terrorized Shiite and Kurdish communities throughout the country. What is important is that the trial continue at as aggressive a pace as possible. It must be resolved in the relatively near future with clear and convincing evidence in order that the nightmare of Saddam can be ended once and for all and the new Iraqi nation can emerge from the rubble.