War with Iraq would be costly -- in any number of ways, two historians say.
John A. Lynn, a professor of French and military history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and former Oppenheimer Chair of Warfighting Strategy at the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Va., says the United States probably wouldn't attack Baghdad, but rather surround it.
"This would save U.S. casualties, but impose hardship and suffering on Iraqis within that city," Lynn said. However, Lynn suspects that "the callousness that Saddam Hussein has shown toward his own people -- a callousness we continually remind the world of -- might well manifest itself in disregard of suffering in Baghdad, meaning that a siege might not lead to capitulation but to mass starvation."
And while quick victory and proof of an Iraqi weapons program that truly threatened Saddam's neighbors and the world "could reduce or eliminate resentment of our unilateralism," a long war "could bring down a great deal of deep-seated rancor against the United States," Lynn said, adding that the United States should only undertake a campaign if it has convincing and compelling evidence that the Iraqis are close to having weapons of mass destruction, "and then we should present it to the world."
"Moreover, we should form and dispatch teams of international verifiers on the very heels of our troops to attest to the validity of our claims with on-site proofs. The world will not believe us without hard facts." What does Lynn, author of the forthcoming book "Battle: A History of Combat and Culture," think victory would look like? "If our goal is a regime change, simply killing Saddam will not do it. We must have a true alternative, and at present, we haven't put forward a viable proposal."
Kenneth Cuno, also at Illinois and a specialist on the social, economic and legal history of the modern Middle East, thinks the United States would be making a mistake if it went in to "topple" Saddam.
"According to the normal rules, you don't invade another country unless there is a good and convincing reason, and so far the Bush administration hasn't offered us one. I'm waiting, but skeptical."
Saddam's replacement would be contingent on many things, including U.S. political strategy, Cuno said, adding: "We don't have a good record in supporting democracy, that's for sure. And we may not be able to control the outcome.
"We also have zero support in the Arab world, Iran or Turkey for attacking Iraq. However, like the Europeans, the Turks and our Arab allies will move out of the way if the United States is determined to attack, and some might well provide some quiet support," their logic being that "even if the Americans are crazy, they have to be placated or at least not antagonized, since we could be next."
"These governments also will have their hands full containing popular protests over an attack on Iraq," Cuno said, noting that "Up to now, no one seems to have realized that Iran will have a strategic response to being 'surrounded' by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq."
RSS