Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, March 23, 1991 TAG: 9103250225
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
President Bush's New World Order is not easily discernible in the chaos threatening to engulf a shattered Iraq. The possibility of civil war and fragmentation was certainly predictable before the war; yet the Bush administration seems at a loss now in dealing with the conflict's immediate aftermath.
On the one hand, the administration would like to see Saddam Hussein fall from power. On the other hand, it rightly fears that neither the Shiite rebels in the south nor the Kurdish rebels in the north would preserve Iraq intact.
A Shiite fundamentalist Iraq, tied to a dominant Iran, would hardly serve Western interests. Iraq's integrity is desirable, in any case, if further instability in the region is to be avoided, and if the expansive ambitions of Iraq's neighboring states are to be checked.
Short of sudden conversion to democracy, the best realistic outcome for now is probably continued Sunni control of the country, with someone other than Saddam in charge.
The central fact remains, however, that while the United States controls the skies over Iraq, it does not control the political situation on the ground.
By its leadership of the war, America demonstrated the strength of its military might and resolve against a Third World despot. But it would be folly to infer from such a demonstration that America enjoys equal ability to direct the political fates of peoples in this region.
Open interference might seem effective in the short run; in the long run it would prove disastrously counterproductive, as it always has in the Middle East.
Of course, with 100,000 American troops bivouacked in southern Iraq, it's impossible for the United States not to be drawn into events. Thus, the downing of Iraqi warplanes and the continuing warning to Saddam not to use chemical weapons against his domestic enemies are meant to enforce the rules of the temporary cease-fire - yet they also have the effect of nurturing the Iraqi rebellion by protecting it.
Sad to say, the West has encouraged the resisters and now must stand by as they are mercilessly punished by Saddam's forces.
What is the alternative? By allying itself with the insurrectionists, the United States might be helping to ensure Iraq's "Lebanonization." And none of the anti-Saddam forces show much indication of being committedly anti-authoritarian.
Does anyone believe American troops should take Baghdad, try to impose a friendly government and occupy the entire country for who knows how long? If that doesn't sound like a quagmire, what does?
America does have some moral obligations by virtue of its intervention and its values. The war has touched off a huge refugee problem spreading in all directions. Shiites are fleeing southward in a frantic effort to escape the civil war. Many Kuwaitis seeking to return to their country are being turned back because they lack papers.
The situation is chaotic and, for many, desperate. The United States should help feed, shelter and transport refugees who are in the most dire straits.
The United States also continues to have an interest in preventing Iran from renewing its war against Iraq in a bid for regional domination. America has an interest in assisting and pressuring Kuwaiti authorities to become more efficient and democratic in the restoration of their ravaged nation. And we have an interest in reminding Iraqis that they will continue to suffer as long as Saddam remains in power.
All these interests can be served without keeping a large U.S. expeditionary force in Iraq.
A U.N. peacekeeping force to police the region and an international group of observers to monitor enforcement of the cease-fire's conditions should be established as quickly as possible. The United States should apply pressure on Kuwait to reform as it rebuilds. Iraqis, meantime, are getting quite a lesson in suffering without further U.S. help.
Civil war is assuredly not what Bush had in mind when he called for Saddam's ouster. He would have preferred a coup d'etat, probably from within Saddam's ranks. Such a result is still possible, even likely. But for now, the bloodshed continues.
And Iraq remains a political brier patch. If American troops stay too long, they'll get hopelessly entangled.
The U.S. ground forces should be returned home as soon as possible, before they begin to resemble a permanent, occupying army; before they get too involved in the brutal fighting under way; and before they become an enduring source of instability and sitting ducks for terrorists.
Sure we're leaving a mess behind. That's often an effect of war.
by CNB