There’s No Telling Where a War With Iraq May Take Us

Forget what you’ve heard.

National polls, some of which suggest 70% of Americans support a war against Iraq, are not to be trusted. Roughly 75% of the readers of this column are opposed, and that many people can’t be wrong.

Twice now I’ve raised questions about the wisdom of such an undertaking, and several hundred people have backed me up.

So who’s out of step? Us, or Washington?

I was going to suggest that we reinstate the draft, and see if the thought of sending their own children and grandchildren into battle makes lawmakers slow the drumbeat.

But a growing number of people in Congress have come out of hibernation and are finally asking why President Bush is in such a hurry. They’re also wondering if we have any idea what we’re getting into.

Good question, and for an answer, I checked with USC professor Richard Dekmejian. He’s an authority on international terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism and Middle East politics.

Dekmejian, for the record, is no fan of Saddam Hussein, who has never been shy about slaughtering anyone who doesn’t bow before him. In a 1985 book called “Islam in Revolution,” Dekmejian wrote about the murder of a Shiite holy man by Saddam’s forces, and he was invited by Hussein’s emissaries to visit Iraq and hear Saddam’s version of history, an offer he declined.

The best-case outcome of U.S. intervention, Dekmejian would agree, is the one put forth by President Bush. Saddam Hussein is destroyed, his weapons program dismantled, and democracy takes root in Iraq and beyond, spreading love and happiness throughout the Middle East.

There is, unfortunately, a better chance that a blind pig will snort a truffle in Baghdad and open a chocolate shop.

Things could go terribly wrong very quickly, says Dekmejian. He thinks it would be much smarter to continue containing Iraq and limiting Hussein’s access to atomic weapons than to stir more madness.

“If Saddam sees that this is his end, he might just as well use whatever he has, not only against Israel, but American troops,” Dekmejian says.

“When that happens, do the Israelis attack back, and do they use atomic weapons? I don’t know, but one has to remember that the man in charge of Israel can be dangerous too. Not as dangerous as Saddam, of course. And this could escalate the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.”

If chaos reigns, he says, it’s not a stretch to imagine India and Pakistan following America’s lead on preemptive strikes and going to war over Kashmir. A war that could well go nuclear.

But let’s, for the moment, push aside the specter of the United States pulling the trigger that starts World War III. Let’s assume we accomplish the first objective and blow Saddam Hussein into the next century.

What then?

No telling, says Dekmejian. But one distinct possibility is chaos.

“And the human cost will be enormous.”

Imagine Los Angeles if you were to get rid of all official authority and turn the city over to the Crips and Bloods. That’s what we’d be looking at in Iraq, only worse, and American troops would be caught in the middle of it.

The Crips in this case are the Shiites, and the Bloods are the Sunnis, who currently rule the country. They don’t much like each other, and it’ll be a race to see who gets to the Sunnis first--the Shiites or the equally vengeful Kurds, who have been gassed, and persecuted for years, by Saddam’s people.

I happen to have spent some time in Iraq’s Kurdish reaches, and I can tell you firsthand that they don’t even get along with each other. And one faction has been particularly close to Iran, which arguably is more dangerous than Iraq, and could conceivably get drawn into this mess. If so, Dekmejian says, Russia could follow.

Given the long, complex histories of these conflicts, and the depth of hatred that exists, Dekmejian has a neat summary of any expectation for democracy to triumph in Iraq.

“It’s completely insane.”

“First of all,” Dekmejian explains, “you need some precedent for democracy, some cultural inclination and homogeneity, and the fellows opposing Saddam don’t even run their own organizations democratically.

“We’ll need a massive military force to occupy the place and keep people from killing each other, so it will mean a long-term commitment financially and militarily.”

And that, believe it or not, could be the least of our concerns. Bombing Iraq could work wonders for the recruiting efforts of the world’s anti-American terrorist organizations, says Dekmejian, who fears the radicalization of untold thousands of Muslims.

“For a variety of reasons that have to do with U.S. foreign policy and our support of authoritarian regimes in that part of the world, the countries of Islam are at a mass level of anger and fury,” he says.

“Attacking another Arab country in this atmosphere of hostility is the wrong thing to do, and it’s going to contribute to terrorism rather than detract from it. I expect the blowback to occur across the world.”

Blowback, of course, is another word for Sept. 11.

Shall we take another poll now?

*

Steve Lopez writes Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at steve.lopez@latimes.com.