A Guardian leader a couple of days ago ended on this ominous note:
The true, inflated price for the Iraq distraction is still to be paid.The leader writer is alluding to a future al-Qaida terrorist strike, for which George Bush - remarkably, given that we can't yet know the chain of cause and effect involved - is already to be held responsible. But, anyway, that isn't my object here. My object is the word 'distraction'. In the context, it is clear that the intended meaning is distraction from the war on terror, though the writer puts this expression in scare-quotes. However it is intended, I believe that to describe thus what has happened, and is happening, in Iraq is to exhibit a lack of sensitivity to the evil that was lately ended there. The Guardian may not think that this sufficed to justify the war. It shouldn't speak in a way which belittles the extent of the evil, all the same.
Here's a report about the reaction of some people, who plainly don't share the Guardian's view, to the capture of Saddam. It's from a local Manchester paper (but there's no online version of the item itself):
The city's Iraqi community took to the streets to celebrate the capture of Saddam.Impromptu parties were held as thousands of exiles celebrated the news that their country's former despot had been caught.
Hundreds of Iraqis s[a]ng and danced at the end of the famous Curry Mile in Rusholme, waving their flag as passing motorists honked their horns in approval.
.....
"We had been waiting for 35 years," [a spokesman] said. "A lot of British, Asian and Arab people came up to us, as it is a joy for everybody."