The Quagmire Awaiting America : Be careful about getting involved in Iraq

The United States controls the skies over Iraq, but it doesn’t control the political situation on the ground and it would be wise not even to try. The insurrections by Shiites in the southeastern part of the country and Kurds in the north may yet help bring about Saddam Hussein’s fall. But any open interference by the United States, however effective it might seem to be in the short run, would in the end only be counterproductive, as all such Western political interventions in Arab states have been. Iraqis, in what unhappily has become their traditionally brutal way, are working out their own political destiny. Outsiders who meddle can only end up losers.

The civil war, apparently being waged without quarter on all sides, is not what President Bush had in mind when he called for Saddam’s ouster. What he hoped was that some frustrated general would bring Baghdad new leadership through the relatively quick mechanism of a coup d’etat. Instead, two long-oppressed ethnic groups have risen against a central authority that, because of the humiliating military defeat it invited, is weaker than any Iraqi government has been for decades.

Some would argue that it is not the method by which Saddam is driven from power that’s important, only the outcome. But of course there won’t be just a single outcome if the revolts succeed; there will be many. Foremost is the strong chance that Iraq might fragment.

The Shiites, who comprise a majority of Iraqis, would almost certainly seek to establish an Islamic republic like that in neighboring Iran. Failing that, they would try for autonomy in as much of the country as possible. The Kurds, nursing their ancient dream of an independent Kurdistan to bring together the tribes now spread across Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey and the Soviet Union, would similarly aim for autonomy. What’s wrong with that? The creation of autonomous regions would probably produce a state so weakened as to leave it easy prey to its covetous and mutually mistrusting neighbors, of whom there is no shortage. That would produce the antithesis of the stability the United States wants for the Persian Gulf.

What then should the United States be doing as Iraqis battle over their future?

Certainly it should be ready to enforce its warning to Saddam Hussein not to use chemical weapons against his domestic enemies. Certainly, since American forces and their allies continue to hold more than 15% of Iraqi territory, it should be prepared to render humanitarian assistance to the nearby victims of the fighting. Beyond that it’s easier to say what Washington shouldn’t do. It should not ally itself with the rebellious Shiites or Kurds, because what they want is in conflict with the goal of preserving a unitary Iraq. Nor should Washington become the champion of one or another of the many exiled anti-Saddam factions, none of which can plausibly claim to be commitedly anti-authoritarian. History’s clear lesson is that Westerners can’t decide the politics of Arab countries. Especially in Iraq, that is a quagmire to be avoided.