War
on Iraq: Will it be Suez 1956 or June 1967?
October 6, 2002
As the prospects for an American led military operation to overthrow Saddam Hussein increase different visions are emerging as to what war will mean for the United States and the region.
Those who are most critical of a U.S.-led war, particularly one that has no UN Security Council approval, argue that such an operation could be a catastrophic miscalculation by the Bush administration equivalent to the disastrous Anglo-French Suez operation against Egypt in 1956. Bush, they argue, is as hysterical about Saddam Hussein as British Prime Minister Anthony Eden was about Egypt’s President Nasser. Although there is no doubt about the military outcome (the United States will overthrow Saddam Hussein and, if necessary, occupy Iraq) what will be the fallout? Absent UN cover there will be international condemnation of the war, which will intensify the longer its duration. Significant Iraqi civilian casualties will enrage the populations of many Muslim countries and lead to huge anti-war demonstrations throughout the Middle East, Europe and probably Asia and even the United States.
A war would cause serious problems for Bush domestically, particularly if it lasts several weeks and there is a run on the dollar, a surge in oil prices, and serious depreciation in U.S. capital markets. If such a war were accompanied by major military setbacks for the U.S. -- for instance the sinking of a U.S. warship or the use of chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces -- Bush would be under pressure either to escalate the war against world wide opposition or to ignominiously seek some political compromise solution. The latter seems impossible given Bush’s rhetoric, but anything can happen in a war. The pessimists would argue that an America bogged-down in the quagmire of a war in Iraq would be in no position to dictate the terms of an overall Middle East settlement and would surely have laid the foundations for greater terrorism and the spread of radicalism throughout the Muslim world. In other words, a highly gloomy scenario. It was, after all, the Suez Crisis that ended Anthony Eden’s political career.
A much more upbeat alternative from the American point of view, would be a military campaign analogous to Israel’s lightning victory in June 1967 when, in a matter of days, the armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were beaten and a radical restructuring of the geopolitical map in the Middle East emerged. The legacy of the 1967 War still remains the single most dominant feature of the current Arab-Israeli impasse. Using this analogy a quick and decisive American victory over Iraq would set the terms for changing the face of the Middle East. Increasing numbers of commentators, including Arab commentators, are beginning to argue that, war or no war, the Arab world is due for an upheaval in the coming years because of its own internal crises and the mismanagement of the Arab economies in the face of globalization. The removal of the Saddam Hussein regime could prove the catalyst for dramatic progress in the region. These would include political change that the United States would encourage, but not necessarily have to be responsible for. By removing the most powerful, radical Arab player it would only be a matter of time before Syria would be given an ultimatum to stop support for terrorist activities out of Lebanon into Israel and be told to shutdown various terrorist headquarters in Damascus. Likewise the Iranian regime would be put on notice that its support for radical terrorist activity against Israel will no longer be accepted. Under these circumstances one could see a more emboldened moderate Palestinian leadership emerge and the beginnings of negotiations to end the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of a two state solution. If the Arab-Israeli conflict were resolved it could set the stage for a renaissance throughout the region that would be of great benefit to ordinary Middle East citizens
.
Between these two extremes lie all sorts of compromise alternatives where neither quagmire nor radical change result. Probably the most likely outcome of a war would be a mixture of success and failure. Saddam will certainly be removed, but the price may well be more chaos and uncertainty in the region, particularly since the job of putting Iraq back together will be formidable and at this point in time the United States has not thought through the consequences and costs of the occupation of a major Arab country. Some American commentators actively promote the idea of a new Pax Americana, not just in the Middle East but globally. The trouble is Americans have been historically averse to colonialism. The long-term presence of U.S. forces in Korea, Japan, and Europe is based on consensus and cooperation with the local democratic powers. It is unlikely the Arab world will be so hospitable.
