The next battle: transforming Iraqi tyranny to democracy

To an important core of American policymakers, creating a democratic Iraq would be a kind of nation-building Holy Grail. President Bush leads the crusade, arguing that a liberated Iraq would transform the Middle East by "bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions."

Now that military confrontation is underway, that Holy Grail is being tested by troubling questions. US-led military forces seem to be well on their way to toppling Saddam Hussein's regime. But can they promote democracy in a Muslim country numbed by decades of tyranny?

Former Iraqi Gen. Fawzi Al-Shammari says yes. In the 1980s, Gen. Shammari commanded nine divisions of Iraqi troops against Iran. Today, he's leading a much-smaller movement with a much-bigger aim: transforming Iraqi tyranny to democracy.

For Shammari, regime change is a must. "Saddam is just a criminal worse than Hitler and Stalin," he says. The Soviet-trained strategist defected to the US after the Persian Gulf War, and he now manages a Washington-area restaurant. He also heads the Iraqi Officers Movement, a coalition of Iraqi exiles dedicated to new leadership in Iraq.

Efforts to initiate the "start game" of democracy are on hold until the "end game" of war unfolds. That end game, in turn, largely depends on Mr. Hussein's strategy.

Hussein's decision-making, observers say, reflects a combustible mix of tenacity and risky judgment. "His estimate of the situation has on several occasions proved to be badly flawed," says St. Louis University political science professor J.R. Leguey-Filleux. "He is a gambler and he is vindictive."

Both men speculate that Hussein will lash out on the cusp of defeat.

Shammari is confident Hussein will use chemical weapons. "[He] can't use them in the beginning, but he will use them at last resort," he says. The most likely target for Saddam Hussein, he says, is Israel.

"He is likely to strike Israel again in case of war," Filleux says, "and this time, Israel will undoubtedly retaliate, which will complicate US rapport with those Arab states which may be helping in the campaign."

If Hussein's jabs at Israel incite a regional holy war, then the prospect for peace, let alone democracy, fades. But if US-led forces can force Hussein's ouster without sparking a Mideast conflagration, then democratic proponents may have a small window of opportunity.

First and foremost, however, they must contend with Hussein's most-loyal followers: the Republican Guard. For its superior loyalty and fierceness, Hussein's private army may present a more-formidable challenge than the regular public army. And as guardians for the entrenched Baathist party, they present a major obstacle to democratic progress.

The Baathist-Republican Guard grip on power bears heavily on a post-Hussein Iraq. "Many in the upper echelons have their careers tied to the current regime," Filleux says. With Hussein gone, political infighting and revenge killings could be rampant.

Baathist monopoly could also lead to an awkward political future. "The Baath is so controlled by Saddam that his demise would have a drastic effect on the nature of the party monopoly," Filleux says. "Some [Baathists] " probably many " will have to stay in office to keep the state functioning."

US planners, then, must balance their desire to de-Saddamize Iraq with the realistic need to co-opt the expertise of his entrenched supporters into a friendly regime.

Page: 1 | 2 | 3