KWR Viewpoints

What the Bush Administration is NOT talking about......

By David Fuhrmann

LBy now there should be no question in anyone’s mind that the U.S. will attack Iraq with the intent of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. In truth, I don't have a problem with the idea of removing Saddam Hussein and doing it sooner rather than later. I’m not bothered by what the administration has been proposing, but I am concerned over what they aren't talking about. What isn’t the administration talking about? They aren’t talking about what happens after the military assault on Baghdad.

U.S. forces will undoubtedly occupy Baghdad in short order. Then what? They aren’t talking about it. In fact, the silence from the White House regarding the next step has been conspicuous. The administration has focused exclusively on the need to attack Iraq while studiously avoiding public discussion of what happens when the shooting is over. That’s because they themselves don’t have a clear idea of what happens next. The subtle but implicit impression being fostered in the public mind is that it's a cake-walk into Baghdad, knock over Saddam, the Iraqis hold elections, we leave, the entire Arab world rallies to our cause, and everyone is happy. In reality, there are any number of unanswered concerns that ought to be considered before the White House has its war, and they aren’t talking about those issues.

The same geo-strategic concerns that restrained the first Bush administration from toppling Saddam still apply. The danger of Iraq breaking into pieces, and the potential for civil war and strife among Iraq’s disparate ethnic groups remains significant. Why isn’t the break-up of Iraq still a concern, how will it be prevented, and who will be preventing it? They aren’t talking about it.

What will the cost of war against Iraq be? The number $100 billion has been floated by the administration, but that’s just the cost of immediate military operations to topple Saddam. What will be the cost of a protracted American occupation in Iraq, especially one that continues for years? They aren’t talking about it.

Might a difficult or protracted engagement in Iraq impact negatively on the willingness and ability of other governments to cooperate with us in the war on terrorism? Will a war in Iraq divert attention and resources from the threat posed by Al Qaeda? They aren’t talking about it.

This administration has a visceral antipathy toward "peace-keeping" and "nation-building." There’s no hint from the White House that "nation-building" or "peace-keeping" might be needed to return Iraq to the family of "civilized," pro-American, nations. But if it is necessary, the unspoken assumption seems to be that others will step forward to take on that task and help pay for it. Who? They aren’t talking about it.

How does one bring "democracy" to a country with neither the social institutions, political experience, or legal systems necessary for such a system to survive and flourish? They aren’t talking about it.

Does the existing situation in Afghanistan offer any warnings? We quickly toppled the Taliban and routed Al Qaeda. But Afghanistan today is hardly a model of democracy or a stable and secure country. The regime put in power by force of American arms exists mostly in the minds of Washington policy makers and wishful thinkers. It’s authority and control do not extend beyond the city limits of Kabul, and Hamid Karsai, nominal "leader" of Afghanistan, requires American bodyguards. Recent reports indicate the Taliban and Al Qaeda are re-grouping in Afghanistan, and that their ability to launch attacks there, as well as elsewhere in the world, remains undiminished. Why would it be easier to accomplish successful regime change in Iraq than it’s been in Afghanistan? They aren’t talking about it.

Think about it. We've had a presence in Bosnia for nearly seven years. We’ve been in Kosovo for four years. We've been in Afghanistan for almost a year. In none of those places has a truly stable, secure government and environment been created, and no one would argue that western forces could be withdrawn any time soon without risking renewed warfare in every instance. Why will Iraq be different? They aren’t talking about it.

Indeed, the very notion we can bring "democracy" to Iraq simply by removing Saddam Hussein ignores the socio-political realities of the Arab world. Anyone who assumes that creating a stable post-war environment in Iraq, much less a democratic system, will be easy or quick is guilty of wishful thinking at best and self-delusion at worst. And the administration isn’t talking about it.

The political risk for President Bush is substantial. If the administration fails to prepare the public for a long, possibly dangerous, occupation of Iraq, and such a situation comes to pass, as it likely will, then George Bush will find himself entering the 2004 election cycle saddled with a messy, open-ended commitment in a region intensely antipathetic toward the United States. That could easily spell electoral trouble here at home. Given how closely divided the nation was in the last presidential election, his re-election under such conditions would hardly be assured. The domestic political backlash will be far worse if the administration has failed to prepare the public for the potential problems in advance.

The White House should be honest and up-front about the dangers, the difficulty, and the reality that even a protracted US occupation is not likely to lead to a modern, democratic, "westernized" Iraq any time soon. Of course, that could make going to war in the first place a more difficult sell. And, as White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card might say, one wouldn’t want to market the product (i.e. war in Iraq) in a bad light. But if the Bush administration fears it can only obtain public support for a pre-emptive war against Iraq by avoiding discussion of hard truths and potential pitfalls, then their real worry should be over how an unprepared public is going to react when some of those things become reality.