To the victor go the spoils of war. With victory imminent in
Iraq, the United States and its allies must now decide on a plan
for reconstruction.
But the centerpiece of discussions will not involve what type of
government to institute in place of Hussein’s fallen regime.
The decision to take unilateral measures was made the minute the
United States broke away from the United Nations.
The institution of an American-friendly democracy is just the
final step in the United States’ war ““ another safety
precaution to protect our vested interests.
The first reaction a country has to foreign authority is a
nationalistic uprising and increased instability. This is the same
type of insurgence that cleared the way for leaders ranging from
George Washington to Hitler.
With 60 percent of the population made up of Shiite Muslims, it
is not hard to envision how Iraq would shape up without the United
States. Basic human nature dictates comfort in what is familiar,
but not what is best.
The last thing America needs is a new Saddam Hussein in charge
of Iraq. Or, even worse, a nationally supported Saddam Jr. calling
for Iraqi power. The United States ended one autocratic reign and
will not stand idle to witness another.
The only aspect of Operation Iraqi Freedom that can be seen as
anything but an overwhelming victory for America is that there are
still doubts about its strength and how far the United States will
go to ensure its security. “Iraqi Freedom,” while fancy
enough for the seven o’clock news, is only a third rate
justification for the war. U.S. motives were almost purely
self-preservation. The goals were to remove the threat of weapons
of mass destruction and to send a message to other nations, such as
Syria and North Korea.
It is hypocritical to believe in establishing a government in
post-Hussein Iraq that America will do anything but what is best
for its self-interest.
As nice as it would be for Iraqis to have their say, it’s
not going to happen. It would run against the Bush
administration’s goal of peace and stability. The issue comes
down to a matter of security.
George W. Bush is betting that we are going to be safer with an
Iraqi democracy secretly hating America, than with an openly
hateful Muslim theocracy.
And as the president has shown time and time again during his
reign as “leader of the free world” and beyond, he will
not back down. If it takes a substantial U.S. military commitment
to get Iraq under control, it is a small price to pay.
For the many Americans who died in his war, it ultimately comes
back to one reality: a democratic Iraq means a safer America.
Moon is a first-year economics student. E-mail him at jmoon
@media.ucla.edu.