What happens after Saddam?

One of the most appealing arguments for ousting Saddam Hussein is that it would change the course of Mideast politics.

A post-Saddam Iraq, so the argument goes, would be pro-Western and focus on modernizing an oil-rich country. (This in addition to eliminating Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.)

Instead of obsessing about Israel and subsidizing families of Palestinian suicide bombers, new Iraqi leaders would be busy building the first Arab democracy. Iraq would set a vital example for a region with a severe democracy deficit.

The ouster of Saddam would create “a chance to rethink the nature of politics in the Arab world,” says the noted Mideast expert and author Fuad Ajami, a strong supporter of “regime change.” His argument is echoed by top U.S. officials who call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Their argument is certainly appealing, and some variant of their vision is not out of the question. But, until now, the Bush administration has shown no interest in the kind of political and financial commitments necessary to make such a near-miracle happen.

Remaking Iraq right would require a massive investment in nation-building of a kind the Bush team disdains.

“Iraqis are eager for change but have had no experience of democracy, only of a totalitarian state,” testified top Iraq expert Phebe Marr on Thursday at important Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings being headed by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. “Building blocks will have to be created, and this will take time.”

Marr says that on the Day After, the biggest risk will be a collapse into bloodletting and competing regional interests. Unless someone quickly takes charge, the country could revert to a military dictatorship or collapse into dangerous chaos.

If the United States dumps Saddam, it inherits responsibility for the aftermath. But judging from recent history, the United States is far better at sending in the troops than in dealing with the messy political situations that result.

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican foreign-policy expert, expressed his concerns at the hearings about U.S. unwillingness to engage in nation-building. “Our experience in Somalia was to get out,” he recalled. “There was tremendous debate on this in Bosnia and Kosovo.”

And then came Afghanistan, where both Sens. Biden and Lugar have fruitlessly urged the administration to back expansion of an international security force to curb growing lawlessness outside Kabul. The administration has declined, insisting others should do the nation-building. But without leadership from the sole superpower, the job is not getting done.

Lugar expressed doubts that the White House would even support the “fairly modest sum” of $2.5 billion that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had just authorized to aid Afghanistan over the next four years. The U.S.-backed government in Kabul is struggling because promised international aid has not been forthcoming.

Lugar also expressed concern that the administration’s reluctance to help Kabul may be a precedent for future policy on Iraq. And rebuilding Iraq, he noted, will be far more complex than rebuilding Afghanistan.

But the United States can’t afford to let Iraq collapse. The country is too pivotal to the region. Left to chaos, a new regime might even decide to keep weapons of mass destruction.

What must the administration do to establish a stable Iraq?

A major part of the problem is the dearth of potential new leaders inside Iraq who are untainted by association with Saddam’s regime. There is also uncertainty about whether exiled opposition leaders will find acceptance back home.

Rend Rahim Francke, an Iraqi-American and executive director of the Iraq Foundation in Washington, suggested the United States hold a conference to set up a transitional government, similar to the Bonn meeting on Afghanistan. A key requirement: Seats would be left open for leaders who emerge inside Iraq after Saddam falls.

But such a government would need intense U.S. support to restart a broken country, and set up a new constitution and institutions. This would require a lot of U.S. attention, money, and risk.

Is Bush willing? “I would not like to see Afghanistan as a model,” says Francke. “We should not have a hit-and-run approach” to Iraq.

Indeed, if the Bush administration isn’t ready to help Iraqis, it should abandon the whole idea of “regime change.”


Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.