A FEW IMPERTINENT QUESTIONS…

Even though Iraq has stated that they’ll allow the return of weapons inspectors "without conditions", it still looks like war is inevitable. I know this because the networks have already picked out their logos for the conflict. CNN’s calling their war coverage "Showdown With Saddam", MSNBC has "America at War" and Univision is using…well, I can’t tell because it’s in Spanish. It’s either "War With Iraq" or "Jennifer Lopez Plastic Surgery Scandal!" "

Since war seems inevitable at this point, I suppose it would be impertinent of me to be asking a lot of questions. But hey, impertinent is what I do.

I want my readers to understand something up front. These are not rhetorical questions. I’m not one of those people who reflexively says "no" to any American military action. I’m willing to get behind a strike on Iraq, but first I’d like some answers.

The first question is: why? Why Iraq and why now? Okay, Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator . He oppresses his people. So does Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Why aren’t we marching on Harare?

Ah, but Saddam Hussein, so they say, is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Well, so is Kim Jong-Il of North Korea. Why aren’t the Marines headed to Pyongyang?

Iraq, we’re told, supports terrorism. They may even have supplied weapons and material to Al-Qaeda itself, although it’s hard to tell, since the Administration has claimed Iraqi involvement in the events of 9/11 at least twice, then backed off. I do know, however, that an awful lot of the ammunition that our soldiers are capturing in Afghanistan seems to be made in China. Further, the hijackers themselves were mostly Saudi Arabian. So where’s the enthusiasm for an armored attack on Beijing or Riyadh?

Second question: what’s the plan? I’m not asking for a list of dates and times for the attacks. That’s the kind of bonehead question I’ll leave for the TV networks. But I at least want some reassurance that we’re not going to play into Saddam’s reported strategy of trying to sucker us into urban warfare, a street-to-street battle in Baghdad itself. Fighting in the streets of a city is the bloodiest kind of warfare there is. Ask any German who fought in Stalingrad, any U.S. Marine who fought in Hue, or any Russian who fought in Grozny.

We’ve succeeded in the past by not playing the enemy’s game. I’d like some reassurance that will continue, especially since so many other time-honored principles of international affairs seem to have been discarded by this Administration like so much old newspaper.

Suppose we do win the war. Suppose we march on Baghdad and oust Hussein. Then comes the Mother of All Questions: What do we do then?

George Bush the Elder insists that he doesn’t give advice to his son, the current Commander in Chief. This may be a rule that needs to be bent, if not outright broken. Maybe Bush Senior could remind young Dubbya of the quandary that faced him and his commanders in 1991: now that we’ve stomped them, what do we do with them?

One choice was to remain there indefinitely, an occupying army. The only problem with this idea is that, then as now, the American people won’t support it for long. It’s easy for us to cheer on our troops when they’re rolling over everything in their path. But a long-term presence of American troops in a hostile country with no definite time limit—well, we’ve seen how politically popular our presence in the Balkans is, and that’s a miniscule force compared to what it’d take to hold Baghdad.

The second choice would have been to just pull out, leave the beaten Iraqis to their own fate. Unfortunately, that fate would have been almost immediate conquest by Iran, thus making the mad mullahs of Tehran the pre-eminent power in the region. Also no bargain, then or now.

Third option: put a less insane and less terrorist-friendly regime into power. It wasn’t really a viable option in 1991, due to the lack of an opposition party that was still credible or, for that matter, still breathing. However, in 2002, "regime change" seems to be our current goal, in hopes of repeating what we accomplished in Afghanistan.

So, once we’ve won, what do we do? Who goes into power? There are multiple factions who want to share power in Iraq, ranging from the U.S.-backed but unpopular Iraqi National Congress to ultra-orthodox Muslims backed by Tehran. Will the Devil we don’t know be worse than the Devil we do?

I’m reassured by one thing. President Bush has announced that he will seek Congressional support for action against Iraq (while continuing to deny that he is legally required to do so). He should go the extra step and answer the big questions the American people have. If Vietnam taught us anything, it’s that it’s nearly impossible to sustain a war effort without not only overwhelming military force, but overwhelming public support behind it. Even after 9/11, "Trust me, I’m the President, I know best" doesn’t cut it in America.

COPYRIGHT 2002 BY JERRY D. RHOADES, JR.