| |
The consequences of war
By Kevin Maher ’04
 The
Center for Arab and Islamic Studies sponsored a forum titled “Iraq
and Beyond: The Domestic and Regional Consequences of War” on Feb.
20 in Bartley hall. Featured at the event was Villanova University’s
own, Dr. Ann Lesch, professor of political science, as well as Dr. Bahman
Baktiari, director of the International Affairs Program at the University
of Maine and specialist on Iranian politics.
Opening the forum, Lesch considered the regional implications of a possible
U.S. attempt at rebuilding Iraq through a technique known as nation building.
As the U.S. debates the issue, she explained, it seems to want to accommodate
the existing borders of the area however, she added the caveat that nothing
is for certain and that border changes for Turkey and Iran are a possibility.
Offering the example of Britain, who attempted nation building in the
same area in the early twentieth century, she pointed out the long term
British occupation that came as a result.
Laying out U.S. options for Iraqi political systems, Lesch presented several
considerations. General Tommy Franks could become the military governor
advised by a military cabinet. Rule by United Nations administrators or
through a selected Iraqi military leader is possible as well. Though less
likely, the monarchy could be re-established. Also, a representative political
system might be formed that would allow for both an internal and external
voice however, she added, uncertainty exists as to who might represent
what.
Looking at things from more of a regional perspective, Lesch insisted,
“It’s quite clear that we really don’t know what the
repercussions will be, although we know that there will be significant
repercussions.” Looking back at the results of past American involvement
in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, she illustrated scenarios for some
neighboring states. Though large numbers are opposed to the war and the
U.S. troop’s presence in the country, she explained, Turkey could
be strategically dominant in Northern Iraq while Israel possibly stands
to gain in the short run, as far as eco-strategic planning is concerned.
In closing, Lesch assured the crowd that a U.S. seizure of Iraq would
involve more than just removing Saddam Hussein, but instead an entire
reconstruction of the government would be needed. She questioned whether
the U.S. is prepared for such a colonizing role.
Baktiari further expounded on the effect U.S. intervention in Iraq will
have on the outlying region. Pointing out the similarities between the
current situation and that with Iran over 20 years ago, he highlighted
how little most Americans actually know about Iraq, considering the potential
conflict in which we could be involved.
Elaborating on the Iranian perspective, Baktiari explained that while
Iran would not mind Saddam being removed, it views the U.S. moving in
as an even worse problem. Not a very stable regime to begin with, he described
the Iranian situation as “nervous” concerning what will happen
in Iraq.
As for what is to come from this regional battle for power, Baktiari outlined
several scenarios. Similar to Lesch, he too mentioned the possibility
of an appointed U.S. military commander. However, he cited the discord
such a move would bring about among the many significant groups in Europe
making it more difficult for the U.S. to stabilize the area. He also spoke
of a possible “tacit agreement of don’t ask, don’t tell
approach,” where Americans and Iranians would come to a strategic
agreement over Iraq in which Iran would help the U.S. stabilize the area
by controlling opposition groups. For Baktiari, the most logical scenario,
though, has the U.S. and Iran having no luck in stabilizing the area.
Through a lacking of influence, capital, and power, he refers to what
will emerge in the area as “organized chaos.”
Baktiari asserted that “What will happen for Iran
is just as bad as what will happen for Iraq,” and that “the
potential situation coming up is going to very, very drastic.”
|
|
