The
New Debate Among Washington’s Hawks
December 8, 2002
A low-keyed but noticeable debate has emerged within the most hawkish circles in Washington. How far the United States should go to ensure that a successor regime to Saddam Hussein is a genuine force for democratic change? Or will a new strong man, who will hold the country together, abide by all UN Security Council Resolutions and treat his people more humanely, be good enough for Bush to declare a great victory?
The argument has become more intense as the deadlines facing Iraq to meet new reporting requirements set out under UN Security Council Resolution 1441 approach and, in parallel, the pace of the military buildup intensifies. For the first time in many months, the possibility is being raised that some sort of coup d’etat against Saddam Hussein could happen. The odds are not great but Saddam’s key military officers must know that in event of a full scale war against the United States, they are finished. This prospect becomes more realistic now that Bush has the backing of the UN Security Council to engage in highly intensive inspections and the daily new deployments of U.S. ground forces in Kuwait and other countries near Iraq point to a determined U.S. willing to use ground force, if necessary, to remove Saddam and occupy the country. Under these circumstances, even the elite Iraqi troops might consider abandoning their leader provided they could be assured that there would be no war and that if they removed Saddam Hussein and his immediate entourage from power, their lives would be spared.
Thus the prospects for another Iraqi strong man emerging is not out of the question. If that new leader were able to maintain the stability of Iraq, cooperate fully with the inspections program and remove some of the more odious entrapments of terror imposed by Saddam Hussein, many who advocate getting rid of Saddam would breathe a huge sigh of relief. Bush would be regarded, at least domestically, as a victor and his reputation in Europe and much of the Arab world would be enhanced. Furthermore, he would have won without massive bloodshed and at a fraction of the cost of a full scale invasion and occupation of the country. The dire economic costs associated with a long war would have been avoided which would be another great plus to Bush as he contemplates reelection in 2004. So what is the problem?
For some of the most ideological hawks and for many of the Iraqi exile groups, replacement of Saddam Hussein by another strongman is an anathema. They want Saddam Hussein to be replaced with a modern democracy. They want the country de-Ba’athized and the country organized as a federation. A new democratic regime would have cordial relations with its neighbors including, hopefully, Israel. A democratic Baghdad would put Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt on notice that the days of corrupt, authoritarian, Muslim regimes maybe numbered.
The problem is that to achieve this level of stability and modernization, post-Saddam Hussein Iraq will require a strong initial U.S. presence and this is what the pragmatic hawks worry about. They don’t want to see tens of thousands of U.S. troops occupying a major Arab country which much of the world will label as imperialism. Better to live with a friendly strong man than to engage in costly and dangerous nation-building. This will be a tough call for some of Bush’s most avid supporters. There are suggestions that the President himself and even Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld lean on the pragmatic side when the chips are down. The United States has much unfinished business in Afghanistan and the war on terror and there is a looming crisis in Korea to deal with. Under these circumstances, prospects of a large, open-ended American military commitment to Iraq looks very formidable and may be a deterrent to all out invasion and occupation, provided that Saddam Hussein can be removed by his own people.
