The Politics of Oil

New Resources


[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index]

Iraq Without Saddam, op ed by Tom Friedman



Look what the US may be in for if we go ahead - much worse than
Afghanistan the morning after the morning after, and Afghanistan is by
no means over --CH

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/opinion/01FRIE.html
Title: Iraq Without Saddam
The New York TimesThe New York Times OpinionSeptember 1, 2002  

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
- Columns
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia/Photos
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version

Discover New Topics in Depth


Go to Advanced Search/Archive Go to Advanced Search/Archive Symbol Lookup
Search Optionsdivide
go to Member Center Log Out
  Welcome, cmhenry
Today's News Past Week Past 30 Days Past 90 Days Past Year Since 1996

Iraq Without Saddam

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

As I think about President Bush's plans to take out Saddam Hussein and rebuild Iraq into a democracy, one question gnaws at me: Is Iraq the way it is today because Saddam Hussein is the way he is? Or is Saddam Hussein the way he is because Iraq is the way it is?

I mean, is Iraq a totalitarian dictatorship under a cruel, iron-fisted man because the country is actually an Arab Yugoslavia — a highly tribalized, artificial state, drawn up by the British, consisting of Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center — whose historical ethnic rivalries can be managed only by a Saddam-like figure?

Or, has Iraq, by now, congealed into a real nation? And once the cruel fist of Saddam is replaced by a more enlightened leadership, Iraq's talented, educated people will slowly produce a federal democracy.

The answer is critical, because any U.S. invasion of Iraq will leave the U.S. responsible for nation-building there. Invade Iraq and we own Iraq. And once we own it, we will have to rebuild it, and since that is a huge task, we need to understand what kind of raw material we'll be working with.

It is instructive in this regard to quickly review Iraq's history before Saddam. Romper Room it was not. It was a saga of intrigue, murder and endless coups involving the different ethnic and political factions that were thrown together inside Iraq's borders by the British. In July 1958, Iraq's King Faisal was gunned down in his courtyard by military plotters led by Brig. Abdel Karim Kassem and Col. Abdul Salam Arif. A few months later, Kassem ousted Arif for being too pro-Nasserite. Around the same time a young Saddam tried, but failed, to kill Kassem, who himself executed a slew of Iraqi Nasserites in Mosul in 1959.

In 1963, Arif came back from exile and killed Kassem. A short time later Arif, and the Baath Party thugs around him, savagely slaughtered and tortured thousands of left-wingers and Communists all across Iraq. Arif ruled until 1966, when he was killed in a helicopter crash and was succeeded by his brother, who was toppled in 1968 by Saddam and his clan from the village of Tikrit. That's when Saddam first began sending away his opponents to a prison called Qasr al-Nahiya — "the Palace of the End." Since 1958, every one of these Sunni-dominated military regimes in Baghdad began with a honeymoon with the Kurds in northern Iraq and ended up fighting them.

The point here is that we are talking about nation-building from scratch. Iraq has a lot of natural resources and a decently educated population, but it has none of the civil society or rule of law roots that enabled us to quickly build democracies out of the ruins of Germany and Japan after World War II. Iraq's last leader committed to the rule of law may have been Hammurabi — the King of Babylon in the 18th century B.C. So once Saddam is gone, there will be a power vacuum, revenge killings and ethnic pulling and tugging between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.

This is not a reason for not taking Saddam out. It is a reason for preparing the U.S. public for a potentially long, costly nation-building operation and for enlisting as many allies as possible to share the burden. There is no avoiding nation-building in Iraq. Because to get at Iraq's weapons of mass destruction we'll need to break the regime open, like a walnut, and then rebuild it.

What's worrying about the Bushies is that they seem much more adept at breaking things than building things. To do nation-building you need to be something of a naοve optimist. I worry that the Bushies are way too cynical for nation-building.

My most knowledgeable Iraqi friend tells me he is confident that the morning after any U.S. invasion, American troops would be welcomed by Iraqis, and the regime would fold quickly. It's the morning after the morning after that we have to be prepared for.

In the best case, a "nice" strongman will emerge from the Iraqi Army to preside over a gradual transition to democracy, with America receding into a supporting role. In the worst case, we crack Iraq open and it falls apart in our hands, with all its historical internal tensions — particularly between its long-ruling Sunni minority and its long-frustrated Shiite majority. In that case, George Bush will have to become Iraq's strongman — the iron fist that holds the country together, gradually redistributes the oil wealth and supervises a much longer transition to democracy.

My Iraqi friend tells me that anyone who tells you he knows which scenario will unfold doesn't know Iraq. 




Forum: Join a Discussion on Thomas L. Friedman's Columns (Moderated)


Iraq Is Defiant as G.O.P. Leader Opposes Attack  (August 9, 2002)  $

Cheney Doubts Weapons Inspectors Can End Baghdad's Threat  (August 8, 2002)  $

Experts Put Large Price Tag on Rebuilding of Iraq  (August 2, 2002)  $

AIR POWER ALONE CAN'T DEFEAT IRAQ, RUMSFELD ASSERTS  (July 31, 2002)  $



Doing research? Search the archive for more than 500,000 articles:
Today's News Past Week Past 30 Days Past 90 Days Past Year Since 1996




E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles

Start the day informed with home delivery of The New York Times newspaper.
Click Here for 50% off.


Home | Back to Opinion | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles


More Op-Ed Columns

Columnist Biography: Thomas L. Friedman




Topics

 Alerts
Iraq
Hussein, Saddam
War and Revolution
United States International Relations
Create Your Own | Manage Alerts
Take a Tour
Sign Up for Newsletters

















Back to:   The Politics of Oil Main Page