Homepage

Back

Archives

The consequences of war
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’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 United States 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.”