John Quincy Adams once said, “We do not go to war
in search of monsters to destroy.” That was another America a long time ago.
We’re going to cross the Rubicon by the time this column is published. And
that’s that.
I still contend that the long-term security interests of our country are
worsened rather than improved by invading Iraq. Time is.... well, was, on our
side in neutralizing Hussein, and a policy of preemption is a poor and dangerous
precedent for the United States to establish. But all that is tilting at
windmills. Instead, an examination of the probable consequences of our invasion
of Iraq is more appropriate.
Of course, any precise predictions of what may follow is folly: there are so
many variables at work that we can only say, like the Stoics, that the only
certainty we can count on is that there are no certainties. We’re on the
precipice of…something different in world politics. The first few days of
bombing will be the only thing anyone will be able to count on.
I predicted back in late 2001 that the Afghan
campaign to be a long and brutal. I was completely wrong. In part, I
underestimated how weakened Afghanistan had been by 20 years of war, and how the
different tribal groups would defer to the Americans for the sake of a long-term
peace settlement. But more importantly, I also underestimated just how strong
the United States military has become. In two months, the U.S. was able to
accomplish what the Soviet Union could not do in more than a decade.
The general consensus is that any Iraqi conflict will end quickly, and I agree.
Many Iraqi troops will surrender even more quickly than they did in 1991.
However, do not be surprised if Hussein uses biological and chemical weapons for
no other reason than spite. The oil fields will be set ablaze, and some suicide
attacks will occur, as Hussein recognizes that such actions would strike a chord
amongst the American public. Hussein will simply have nothing to lose, and he
would not strike me as a gracious loser.
Hussein has made it difficult for opponents of the war to support their
position. (While claiming he has no chemical weapons, he threatens to use them
if there is an attack on Iraq.) So is it possible that Hussein will be
overthrown, or send himself on a long vacation when the bombing begins?
Possible, but doubtful. By definition, you cannot be courageous and survive in
Hussein’s leadership circle at the same time. Moreover, the worst thing in
Hussein’s mafia thug world is to lose face. Now, the Iraqi leadership may
balk, but this is a likely consequence of nothing less than American troops
outside of Baghdad.
Nobody knows how the Iraqi population will react to Hussein’s downfall first,
and then America’s intervention in the region. However, history is replete of
countries that do not like invaders, no matter how bad the conditions are in
their country.
I submit that the success is Afghanistan is fueling the conflict in Iraq. I can
imagine the military planners in the Pentagon exclaiming, “Look. We could do
it in Afghanistan, we could do it in Iraq!” The “Vietnam syndrome” has
been vanquished, and the lessons of Somalia have supposedly been learned. The
United States has rededicated itself to nation-building around the world. I have
no doubt that trend will continue, as the American dominion over the world
continues in the decades to come.
We’ll be in Iraq for decades. It is a nation with an entrepreneurial and
cosmopolitan culture, and most of its people will be content to live better
lives. But there will be pockets of terrorism, particularly in an aggrieved
Shiite southern Iraq still consumed with fury over the sanctions. Terrorist acts
will occur in Iraq.
But the biggest threat of terror will now come from the rest of the Islamic
world. Iraq is a secular country; its neighbors, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
are not. These nations are under the rule of authoritarian governments
increasingly ill equipped to handle the tension within their societies.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf states now must contend with
the fact that their dominance over the oil market is coming to an end. I don’t
think our primary reason for invading Iraq is oil. But that does not change the
fact that America will have control over the second largest amount of oil
reserves in the world. The automatic wealth of the oil states is at serious
risk.
The blueprint to invade Iraq has been in the works
for more than a decade. The final movement into Iraq will assert American role
in the region like never before. The hope is that the stalled peace process
between the Israelis and Palestinians will be jump-started by American
dominance. Possible, but again not likely. There can be no end to that conflict
unless the Palestinians are granted their own geographical state. There does not
seem to be any movement towards that happening within the current
administration, proclamations of a Palestinian state being created by 2005
aside.
Since the
1930’s, the United States has supplied Saudi Arabia with security in exchange
for cheap oil. That relationship is coming to an end. It is too strong to say
that the entire Saudi regime is directly implicated with Al Queda and other
terrorist networks, although certain elements have been exposed. It is correct
to say that the Saudi regime does not have the capacity to make sufficient
reforms because of the fundamentalism of the Wahibbi movement within the
country, and the fact that its complacent leadership has no interest in doing
anything difficult.
What about the rest of the world? Our alliances with
France and Germany will stand, but the relationship will never be quite the
same. Iran and North Korea, meanwhile, are scared out of their wits, which is
why they are accelerating their nuclear programs at this time. Hey, the doctrine
of mutually assured destruction still works. This means a chillier world, in
which security concerns predominate, and economic development around the world
is hampered except in, ironically, Iraq.
I hope fervently that I am wrong, and President
Bush’s military campaign is proven correct. This is a difficult position for
me: to be right of center politically and to oppose the war. I don’t have too
many fellow travelers. But Bush’s position, which does galvanize his party
base, leaves the rest of the country deeply unconvinced as of now. Even if an
immediate and short victory in Iraq is assured, and this conflict is nothing if
not a roll of the dice, his reelection in 2004 is still problematic. There is
too much likely to go wrong in ruling Iraq between now and 2004.
I believe Bush is operating out of the best of intentions. Perhaps he believes
that once all of the world’s nation-states are on our side, terrorism will be
the only major world left for the United States. But conservatives should remind
themselves that intentions are not enough, and the results will count. Roger
Morris pointed out in a NY Times op-ed that the United States and the “Central
Intelligence Agency, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime
change in Baghdad, (by overthrowing Kassam) carried out in collaboration with Saddam
Hussein.” Will the United States make the enormous sacrifices necessary to
make sure another Hussein doesn’t take over Iraq again? If history is our
guide, the answer is no.
Moreover, this war is being conducted because of the hawkish dreams of our
foreign policy establishment.People
like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and Dick Cheney are taking us into this
conflict, and all have thought so for more than a decade. We do not live in a
democracy, folks, and it becomes less so by the day. I don’t think there have
been so few people determining the fate of so many. It should be no surprise why
relatively few people vote.
Opinions
expressed do not necessarily reflect those of PoliticalUSA.com.
Copyright
Political USA, Inc., 1999-2005. Unauthorized use of materials is prohibited. If
you want something, just
ask us!
