[A-List] US imperialism: post-Saddam musings

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

When the dust settles, what will post-war Iraq look like
ANALYSIS

SEAN BOYNE
The Herald, 13 September 2002

Life without the "beast of Baghdad" is not easy to imagine. But that is
exactly what the strategists in the Pentagon are being forced to do.

In the short term, a successful invasion of Iraq could lead to an
interim administration run by anti-Saddam military officers pending
elections. There are a number of senior military defectors in the West
who would be eager to serve. As in Afghanistan, US forces could provide
extra "muscle" to the new regime while it is bedded down.

However, Dick Cheney, the vice president, is on record as saying
replacing one military dictator with another despot is not an option.
The most likely result of a regime change would be a new government
based on democracy and federalism.

The Kurds presently have their own breakaway enclave in northern Iraq.
They are in a rather prosperous, no-fly zone patrolled by coalition
aircraft and insist they don't want to break up the country after Saddam
bows out. They will be seeking to continue their own "home rule" enclave
in a kind of federal system.

The leaders of the two major Kurdish opposition groups, the Kurdistan
Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, have finally
agreed to put their divisions behind them and co-operate in setting up a
Kurdish area within Iraq.

Good news, you might think. However, the US may find it difficult to
guarantee the Kurdish enclave. The Americans' great ally, Turkey, whose
territory would be vital in any campaign against Saddam, is virulently
against the Kurdish self-rule concept because of difficulties with its
own Kurdish rebels.

The US would also have to cosy up to a complex array of other interest
groups. They include the minority Sunni Muslim community in the central
region whose members have dominated the administration and military
under Saddam.

They are also suspicious of the West which failed to back their rising
after Saddam's defeat in the Gulf war. There are also the traditional
tribal leaders who exercise great influence in their own communities.

Then there are the Shia Muslims in the south, many of whom have been
virulently anti-Saddam. They, too, could expect their own federal area.
The downside is that some of these would also be strongly Islamic,
inclined towards Iran and suspicious of America. Melding all these
disparate elements into a modern, democratic government won't be easy.

The nightmare is that an invasion of Iraq could provoke an Islamic
backlash. There is always the danger that a radical, Islamic
fundamentalist faction could seek to grab power in Baghdad. Washington
seems confident that religious hardmen will not take over.

Sources point to the fact that the population is highly-educated and
long used to a relatively secular system.

They can also point to the durability of current non-fundamentalist
regimes around Iraq. Jordan, which is supposedly one of Iraq's most
vulnerable neighbours, has had the same Hashemite monarchs since they
were installed by Churchill in the 1920s.

There will be no shortage of economic "help" in rebuilding an economy
undermined by sanctions. Iraq has one huge advantage over Afghanistan,
it has some of the largest oil reserves in the world. In theory at
least, economic recovery should be swift, as oil flows on to world
markets, untramelled by embargoes.

Undoubtedly, an Iraqi regime change is a major risk. However, for a
whole list of reasons, George W Bush sees it as one worth taking.

* Sean Boyne is a correspondent for Jane's Intelligence Review