July, 2002. The US has launched an invasion of Iraq and is attacking Saddam's air defense network and major ground targets. In the absence of UN inspections (which were never that effective in the first place), Saddam has had several years to build up his stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. Feeling he has nothing to lose, he launches these weapons against Israel - a sort of suicide bombing on a grand scale.
As a consequence, Israel retaliates with a major offensive against Iraq. This inspires other Arab countries to attack Israel, resulting in a major war in the Middle East. The US, unable to obtain the support of any of its allies, faces a huge regional conflict alone.
However, none of this will happen if you believe the hawks who are whispering in Mr. Bush's ear. According to them, the Iraqi people, seeing the security of their leader threatened, will rise up and overthrow him, embracing the Americans as liberators. Recently, this view has come more and more into the mainstream.
This strategy is fraught with extreme risk. Most of the invasion plans are predicated on the assumption that the Iraqi people, along with other Arab nations, will rise up against Saddam Hussein when a credible threat to his regime is presented. What happens if this assumption is wrong?
First, though ousting Saddam is desirable, it would not be easy. The Iraqi ruling regime is criminal, brutal and dangerous - that has been well documented. Most, if not all, of Iraq's neighbors would be overjoyed if Saddam keeled over, but cannot express this publicly for fear of appearing to kowtow to America. Even if Israel was somehow persuaded not to retaliate against an almost inevitable Scud attack, the Arab nations would be incensed against further US activity in the region. Supporting the US without clear and overwhelming justification for an invasion would be political suicide for the Arab leaders.
Iraq has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and presents an increasing threat both regionally and globally: regionally to Israel and US forces, globally in the form of terrorism. However, overthrowing Saddam is easier said than done. He is a dictator accustomed to staying in power and ruthlessly suppressing his opponents.
The Iraqi National Congress, which is neither national nor a congress nor an effective fighting force, is not a viable regime to install in Saddam's place. They are far from the popular "freedom fighters" that many hawks seem to believe. Their leader, Ahmad Chalabi, is by no means universally respected. The Kurds in the North, though more than happy to help oust Saddam, are grossly outgunned and have proven ineffective as a military counter to Baghdad.
Second, an invasion would be extremely costly in every way. The example of Afghanistan could lure us into the fool's paradise of believing a sustained and careful air strike can effectively overthrow any regime. Do not be fooled - attacking Iraq would likely involve a major ground operation. If Saddam feels his life is at stake, he will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction. He has a history of such brazen calculations.
The US is already hated in the region and it is unlikely that the Arab people would view America as a liberator so much as an imperialist if Iraq were invaded. So far, the Bush administration has been unable to line up support for an Iraqi invasion - even the UK will not back us on this one. Before a real calming of tensions in Israel, it is likely neighboring Arab nations would actively oppose an invasion. That would make a full-scale operation very difficult.
Third, once we overthrow Saddam, then what? There has been remarkably little discussion about this. Who do we install? Chalabi? The Iraqi people, who have suffered under sanctions for over a decade, will not be exceedingly happy to see us. The pressures to use a broken Iraq for cheap oil will be immense, and political support for rebuilding will fade rapidly once the direct threat is nullified.
Put simply, an invasion of Iraq is extremely risky and could very well have disastrous consequences. Once military force is used, a line is crossed that cannot be easily regained. The US is already massing troops in the region and a growing number of voices both inside and out of the administration are calling for action.
What is most frightening about these plans is how closely they echo the debacles of the Cold War. The enemy then was communism and the enemy today is terrorism. Yet just as our track-record was so abominable then, do we really expect it to be better now? In Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Latin America and Iraq itself, the US tried to fight the specter of communism by installing friendly but brutal regimes or engaging in costly and ineffective military operations.
In short, invading Iraq is extremely dangerous: the risks are huge and the payoffs far from certain. The US would have to act alone, it would be forced into yet another indefinite deployment and it would face further destabilization of this already tumultuous region. But it would be so easy, the hawks say, just start a carefully coordinated air strike and the Iraqi people will overthrow Saddam. Everything seems so deterministic and simple. Unfortunately, the world of international relations is a dangerous, unpredictable business and is never simple. Those who succeed are those who are prudent.
