Bush Playing Iraqi Roulette

Bush Playing Iraqi Roulette
Boris Kagarlitsky
The Moscow Times, 18 March 2003

The Bush administration is betting on war. The issue is no longer Saddam Hussein or even Iraqi oil. If the United States doesn't go to war now, it will in effect be admitting that its foreign policy over the past year was utterly pointless.

President George W. Bush could apply some spin, of course, by declaring that only the pressure brought to bear by the US military buildup forced Hussein to disarm. This is the hope of European and Arab leaders. But they view the Iraq crisis in the context of international politics, whereas for Bush the war in Iraq is a domestic issue. The majority of his supporters are counting on a small, victorious war. Afghanistan wasn't enough. If the war that everyone is expecting doesn't happen, American patriots will be deeply disappointed. Like all nationalists, they will only be fully satisfied when the blood starts to flow. Somehow it just wouldn't seem right if the administration's stated goals were achieved without a shot being fired. National pride demands human sacrifice.

The pacifists can argue until they're blue in the face that America's prestige would be better served by avoiding war. Even if they were right, it wouldn't change anything. Bush doesn't need the pacifist vote. War has become a riveting made-for-TV extravaganza. The average American is used to watching CNN footage of wars in obscure countries where the good guys crush the bad guys with high-tech weapons. Bush has promised to serve up the same kind of entertainment, only on a bigger scale. Now he has to stand and deliver.

But the war will serve its purpose only if it is brief and victorious, like all the other US wars of the past 20 years. The same scenario has been played out time and again since the invasions of Grenada and Panama. Military operations are concluded in a matter of days. The rest of the "war" is spent moving air and ground forces into position and waging a propaganda offensive. This kind of war only works when the enemy is infinitely weaker and capitulates without a fight to the death. After all, even a huge advantage in men and materiel can prove insufficient to subdue a foe who is prepared to fight to the last man.

The Americans have done very well in selecting their enemies up until now. Major military operations have ended in compromise - with Saddam Hussein in 1991, with the Serbs in the 1990s, with the Afghan field commanders in 2001. The situation is a little more complicated this time around, however. Not only has the United States backed Hussein into a corner, over the past 10 years, it has also earned the hatred of the Iraqi people. The residents of Baghdad were ready to greet the Americans with flowers after the first war, but the they never showed up, preferring to cut a deal with Hussein rather than liberate Iraq. A hideous, senseless blockade followed, which only stengthened the position of Hussein's regime within Iraq. No wonder Washington is now running into problems as it plans the future of Iraq after the occupation. Finding supporters of the United States in Baghdad these days is more difficult than buying off a couple hundred Afghan field commanders.

Bush is taking a huge risk. If the war lasts no more than a month and ends with the successful occupation of Iraq, Bush will come out smelling like a rose. European leaders who have spoken out against Bush will be discredited and pacifists in America will be isolated. The public, seized by a wave of patriotic jubilation, would ensure the Republicans victory in the next election despite the country's economic woes. Bush has all the aces up his sleeve for now. Protest as European leaders might, they voted for UN resolution 1441, and thereby paved the way to war. If the United States achieves the officially sanctioned goal using "improper" methods, Europe will just have to lump it.

But what if Washington has miscalculated? What if the war drags on, the occupation encounters a Chechen-style guerrilla resistance, anti-war demonstrations continue in the United States and abroad, and European leaders take every opportunity to remind the world that they were right when they predicted this mess? American society might finally begin to realize the significance and scale of the anti-American mood around the world, and Bush would come under fire not just from the Democrats, but also from within his own party. In this scenario, the administration, not the pacifists, would find itself isolated. The war would not compensate for economic hardships - it would exacerbate them.

Bush could well emerge a winner. But if he has backed the wrong horse, he's in for a major catastrophe.

Copyright 2003 The Moscow Times