If Saddam Survives
The world will be a chaotic place if Bush doesn't liberate Iraq.
Monday, January 27, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
The opponents of disarming Saddam Hussein are understandably raising the dangers of war: casualties, Mideast turmoil, even "chaos." We'll never deny the law of unintended consequences, though we do think the liberation of Iraq's people has the potential to do much good. But more pointedly, what about the risks of not going to war?
Specifically, what would the world look like a year from now if Saddam remains in power in Baghdad? Would it be safer and more stable? We don't think so, which is why it's worth thinking through the speculative, but hardly far-fetched, consequences if President Bush were now to follow the advice of France, Germany and Massachusetts Presidential candidate John Kerry.
Yes, U.N. inspectors might still be searching the Iraqi countryside for a "smoking gun," but everyone will understand that Saddam stood down a U.S. President. America's armed forces couldn't stay massed in the Mideast forever, and so the mobilization of January 2003 is reversed. Far from a coup against Saddam, the dictator consolidates his power with one more purge of his officer corps. His spies assassinate key members of the Iraqi opposition in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.
Savoring their new global clout, the French begin to argue that the inspectors have found nothing and so U.N. Resolution 1441 has been fulfilled. The Russians back them up, hoping to get repaid on their loans to Baghdad. Tony--or "Toady" as he is now derided--Blair is toppled as Labor Party leader and British Prime Minister. Slowly the international "containment" of Saddam begins to erode, just as it did in the 1990s. The Iraqi dictator finds it even easier to finance his nuclear weapons project.
Meanwhile, the dominoes of Mideast liberation that might have fallen after Saddam's ouster are moving in reverse. Iran's mullahs crack down even more on domestic dissent and accelerate their nuclear project at Bushehr. They also expand their aid to Hezbollah, which finances a resumption of Arab suicide bombers in Israel and the West Bank. Our friends in the House of Saud buy off their increasingly boisterous domestic opposition by resuming the secret financing of radical Islam.
A weakened Pakistan President Musharraf also moves to appease his growing anti-American opposition; his military stops rounding up al Qaeda operatives in Karachi and on the Afghan border, and he resumes allowing terrorists to cross the Kashmiri "line of control" into India. New Delhi rejects Secretary of State Colin Powell's promise to lean on Mr. Musharraf as "lacking credibility" and vows that the next terrorist incident will prompt cross-border retaliation.
What seems to be a world-wide sprint to obtain nuclear weapons ensues. No longer trusting U.S. protection, the Turks decide they need a nuclear deterrent against Iraq and Iran. Egypt also begins a secret program, financed by Saudis. In Asia, North Korea's neighbors rebuff America's pleas and accept Kim Jong Il's nuclear program. Bill Clinton offers to negotiate with Kim, saying he is driven to acquire nukes because of the "reckless unilateralism" of Mr. Bush. A growing right-wing faction of the LDP in Tokyo argues that the U.S. nuclear umbrella is no longer reliable and so Japan also needs nuclear weapons.
Back in the U.S., the months of diplomatic uncertainty dampen both business investment and the economy. The consumer continues to save the day, at least until the next al Qaeda attack, when it falls through the floor. Mr. Bush's tax cut dies in the Senate, as "moderates" revolt using the excuse of "the deficit." Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson explains that "a President with 40% approval is a lot easier to say no to than one at 65%."
With the Democratic Presidential primaries only days away, Senator Kerry emerges as the front-runner. With a straight face, he is now attacking Mr. Bush from the right for failing to oust Saddam. If only the President's "cowboy" antics hadn't alienated the world, Mr. Kerry says, the Iraqi dictator would already be gone.
Yes, all of this is a worst-case scenario, but surely many of these setbacks would follow Saddam's survival in Iraq. Like it or not, the U.S. is today the enforcer of world order, and if its credibility and will are in doubt the forces of global anarchy will be unleashed. No one is ignoring the risks of war. But at this late stage, and having committed so much prestige to disarming Saddam, the U.S. failure to liberate Iraq will produce the very chaos that the opponents of war say they fear.
The world will be a chaotic place if Bush doesn't liberate Iraq.
Monday, January 27, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
The opponents of disarming Saddam Hussein are understandably raising the dangers of war: casualties, Mideast turmoil, even "chaos." We'll never deny the law of unintended consequences, though we do think the liberation of Iraq's people has the potential to do much good. But more pointedly, what about the risks of not going to war?
Specifically, what would the world look like a year from now if Saddam remains in power in Baghdad? Would it be safer and more stable? We don't think so, which is why it's worth thinking through the speculative, but hardly far-fetched, consequences if President Bush were now to follow the advice of France, Germany and Massachusetts Presidential candidate John Kerry.
Yes, U.N. inspectors might still be searching the Iraqi countryside for a "smoking gun," but everyone will understand that Saddam stood down a U.S. President. America's armed forces couldn't stay massed in the Mideast forever, and so the mobilization of January 2003 is reversed. Far from a coup against Saddam, the dictator consolidates his power with one more purge of his officer corps. His spies assassinate key members of the Iraqi opposition in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.
Savoring their new global clout, the French begin to argue that the inspectors have found nothing and so U.N. Resolution 1441 has been fulfilled. The Russians back them up, hoping to get repaid on their loans to Baghdad. Tony--or "Toady" as he is now derided--Blair is toppled as Labor Party leader and British Prime Minister. Slowly the international "containment" of Saddam begins to erode, just as it did in the 1990s. The Iraqi dictator finds it even easier to finance his nuclear weapons project.
Meanwhile, the dominoes of Mideast liberation that might have fallen after Saddam's ouster are moving in reverse. Iran's mullahs crack down even more on domestic dissent and accelerate their nuclear project at Bushehr. They also expand their aid to Hezbollah, which finances a resumption of Arab suicide bombers in Israel and the West Bank. Our friends in the House of Saud buy off their increasingly boisterous domestic opposition by resuming the secret financing of radical Islam.
A weakened Pakistan President Musharraf also moves to appease his growing anti-American opposition; his military stops rounding up al Qaeda operatives in Karachi and on the Afghan border, and he resumes allowing terrorists to cross the Kashmiri "line of control" into India. New Delhi rejects Secretary of State Colin Powell's promise to lean on Mr. Musharraf as "lacking credibility" and vows that the next terrorist incident will prompt cross-border retaliation.
What seems to be a world-wide sprint to obtain nuclear weapons ensues. No longer trusting U.S. protection, the Turks decide they need a nuclear deterrent against Iraq and Iran. Egypt also begins a secret program, financed by Saudis. In Asia, North Korea's neighbors rebuff America's pleas and accept Kim Jong Il's nuclear program. Bill Clinton offers to negotiate with Kim, saying he is driven to acquire nukes because of the "reckless unilateralism" of Mr. Bush. A growing right-wing faction of the LDP in Tokyo argues that the U.S. nuclear umbrella is no longer reliable and so Japan also needs nuclear weapons.
Back in the U.S., the months of diplomatic uncertainty dampen both business investment and the economy. The consumer continues to save the day, at least until the next al Qaeda attack, when it falls through the floor. Mr. Bush's tax cut dies in the Senate, as "moderates" revolt using the excuse of "the deficit." Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson explains that "a President with 40% approval is a lot easier to say no to than one at 65%."
With the Democratic Presidential primaries only days away, Senator Kerry emerges as the front-runner. With a straight face, he is now attacking Mr. Bush from the right for failing to oust Saddam. If only the President's "cowboy" antics hadn't alienated the world, Mr. Kerry says, the Iraqi dictator would already be gone.
Yes, all of this is a worst-case scenario, but surely many of these setbacks would follow Saddam's survival in Iraq. Like it or not, the U.S. is today the enforcer of world order, and if its credibility and will are in doubt the forces of global anarchy will be unleashed. No one is ignoring the risks of war. But at this late stage, and having committed so much prestige to disarming Saddam, the U.S. failure to liberate Iraq will produce the very chaos that the opponents of war say they fear.
Facebook
Twitter