Perils Of Victory

Does all this potential chaos mean the United States should give up, turn away, and ignore the theoretical dangers that Iraq may pose? Certainly not. But seasoned Europeans are wondering: why the rush? "Why aren't we concentrating our forces on terrorism?" asks one senior official in Paris. And at the very least, the American public has to be prepared for the dangers that this war may pose. But the Game Boy-like presentation of dozens of U.S. military operations over the past 20 years--lights, gun-cameras, action--hasn't given Americans much sense of the grim realities in store.

There should be no illusions that the reconstruction of Iraq will be anything but difficult, confusing, and dangerous for everyone involved," says a recent working paper from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and the James A. Baker Institute at Rice University. "If Washington does not clearly define its goals for Iraq and build support for them domestically and with its allies and partners," the report predicts in its very first paragraph, "the United States may lose the peace, even if it wins the war." The paper offers a blend of prescriptions for a U.S. and then a U.S.-U.N. occupation leading to the creation of a sovereign Iraqi government within two years. But it is laced with dire warnings. The immediate aftermath of fighting will find American troops trying to stop "anarchy, revenge and score-settling," it notes. While the initial goal is to disarm Saddam Hussein, "there is a significant danger that some in the weapons complex will simply 'privatize' technology or systems." That could make weapons of mass destruction more available, not less, to the likes of Osama bin Laden and groups he's helped inspire.

"Refugee flows toward Turkey and especially Iran of up to 1.5 million people are likely," says the Council's paper. And "U.S. forces are ill-prepared for the possibility Saddam will employ chemical weapons against Iraqi civilian targets as a way of slowing the U.S. advance on Baghdad and other major objectives."

Then there's the question of oil and the world economy. "There has been a great deal of wishful thinking about Iraqi oil," says the Council's report. "Put simply, we do not anticipate a bonanza." If the United States tries to run the show in its own interests, "a heavy American hand will only convince [the Iraqis] and the rest of the world that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist rather than disarmament reasons." A rapid resumption of production in Iraq, say other experts, could send oil prices into the single-digit range--effectively bankrupting countries like Russia, where it costs that much just to get the stuff out of the ground.

A more immediate worry is that, just as Saddam did when he withdrew from Kuwait, he may torch the vast oilfields of southern and northern Iraq--the homes of his enemies, and the likely entry routes for U.S. troops. Unless Saudi Arabia made up the losses, the effect would be to send global oil prices soaring. Former Saudi oil minister Zaki Yamani has suggested $100 a barrel as the possible range.

All these are disturbing scenarios for anyone willing to look at them. So perhaps it's appropriate that, after long delays, Greene's novel "The Quiet American" just went into wide release as a major motion picture. Certainly if there's war in Iraq, you'll have plenty of chances to see high ideals and deadly realities on your home television screen. Let's hope it's a rerun that's not too painful to watch.

WITH MICHAEL HIRSH IN NEW YORK

© 2003