There are just a few things in these times that we can all be certain about. Paul McCartney and Heather Mills’ divorce will get nastier. It will snow in New England by the end of the year. I will eat about 1/3 of my kids’ Halloween candy. Oh, and yes, Saddam Hussein, the once vicious ruler of Iraq, will be found guilty of genocide against his people this weekend.

Much of the anticipation, if it can be called that, about the upcoming verdict has centered around the timing. Last month, the US-back special tribunal announced that it was delaying the announcement until November 5th, just two days shy of the mid-term elections. Guess what will be on your screens this Monday? The Administration likely hopes that this event, like Hussein’s capture or the death of Zarqawi, will symbolize some closure for the Iraqis and mark a “success” for the U.S. war effort. Critics have accused the Administration of playing with the calendar, a critique not without merit given past Administration conduct, starting with the Iraq war authorization vote being held so close to Bush’s first mid-term election in 2002.

What the critics of this new timeframe miss is just how inconsequential the verdict is given the nature of Iraq today. The verdict itself will provide no closure, for either the Iraqis or the Americans. The timing is as likely to remind voters how little has been accomplished in an Iraq after Hussein.

This trial has been exceptionally unique, bordering on the bizarre. From a legal perspective, it is likely the only time that a United Nations member state, acting alone, has brought criminal charges in a domestic court under international law – in this case, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In practice, the case has teetered on crises since its inception. Marred by its ties to the United States, with a bevy of American legal advisors, the trial has often been good theatre, with a hint of justice. Hussein has bullied, judges have been replaced, Iraqi lawyers have been killed, and an entire defense team just walked away. And all this has been done with a war being waged in the background.

With this one move, assisted if not prodded by the United States, Iraq has sought to punish their leader in the midst of chaos. Other nations have chosen very different paths. South Africa chose reconciliation tribunals – tell the truth of your crimes, and you shall be forgiven – as a way to unify the country after apartheid. World War II genocidal crimes, as well as more recent cases against notables such as Milosovic, were held before international courts that brought the world’s condemnation in an objective setting, often freed from the defendant’s geographic identity.

With Hussein, Iraq had sought to punish without any reconciliation. Had the post-Hussein transition gone smoothly, perhaps that might have been a valid approach. Iraq may have been free to blame the atrocities of the last thirty years on one man and his entourage, without ever fully coming to terms with the legacy of their own past. But, that has not been the case. Whether the sectarian violence is a civil war or not, no solace will be gained for a nation suffering under an entirely different form of hatred – not from one man, but from their own people.

So while the Administration hopes that the verdict, so close to the election, will provide some closure, it is – best case scenario – likely to have no bearing on the violence in Iraq, and, worst case, lead to increased violence for Iraqis and our soldiers because his guilt will mean so little now. Americans swayed by the notion of a Hussein facing execution ought to remember that every attempt at closure in Iraq by this Administration – from the Hussein statue falling, to the Mission Accomplished, to elections – has come up short. The war continues.

Indeed, of events we can be sure of, add a future execution for Hussein to the list. Unfortunately, we might also add continuing violence and death for Iraqis and our military as well. Closure simply will not come with a conviction, however close to the voting booth. We may be convicting a man, but we lost Iraq in the process.