Paul Johnson: What Follows Saddam in Iraq?

Forbes ^ | August 12, 2002 | Paul Johnson

[SBprone]

My calculation is that President George Bush will not delay the operation to replace Iraq's Saddam Hussein until next year but will launch it in November, or even late October. It will be a swift and terrible onslaught, coming from Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and from the new complex of bases built up by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Britain will make the biggest contribution of forces (unofficial figure: 30,000), but there will be special troops from many countries, including Russia.

It should all be over in weeks, possibly even days, perhaps in time for the U.S.' midterm elections, and certainly in time to give Prime Minister Tony Blair the option of a snap election next spring, in the glow of a military triumph over evil. But, assuming the Iraq campaign is swift and decisive, with what or whom do we replace the odious Saddam's family dictatorship?

Setting up a Western-style democracy in Iraq is a pipe dream, though Mr. Bush is welcome to try. In practice, we ought to back one or another of the families that claim descent from the Prophet Muhammad. He himself was a member of the line of Hashim, and the most revered line of Hashemites were descendants of the Prophet's daughter Fatimah and became emirs (rulers) of Mecca.

The senior branch of the Hashemites helped the British overthrow Turkish rule during the First World War. In the subsequent carving-up of the former Turkish dominions in Syria, Mesopotamia and Arabia, the British designated Sharif Hussein, head of the Hashemites, emir of Mecca and king of the Hejaz (western Arabia), as their strongman. But in a campaign that lasted from 1920 to 1924, during a period when Britain was war-weary and sick of the Middle East and its problems, Hussein was ousted from Mecca and the Hejaz by the Wahhabites, a fundamentalist sect whose ferocious leader, Ibn Saud, and his family had their own claims. The Wahhabites were a tribal confederation of desert bandits who charged pilgrims protection money and provided safe havens to coastal pirates preying on shipping in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. The British had been fighting them, on and off, since the early 19th century, often in conjunction with "respectable" powers like Ottoman Turkey, Muhammad Ali's Egypt, as well as the Sultan of Muscat and the emirs of Kuwait and Bahrain.

Unfortunately, the Saudi family's success in battle was reinforced by the development of the Arabian oilfield by U.S. companies. The oilfield proved to be the biggest in the world, and American support made the Saudis themselves respectable for the first time in their long and desperate history. However, the Saudis remain dubious and deceptive allies, harboring a deep-rooted hatred of the West and all it stands for--democracy, freedom of religion, the rule of law. They use their vast financial resources to back subversive Islamic movements of all kinds as one way of protecting their family empire. They are currently, for example, paying for the building of what is rumored to be 400 new mosques in Bosnia, and their attitude toward al Qaeda terrorism is, to put it mildly, ambiguous. Washington is at last beginning to realize how treacherous the Saudis can be.

When Britain's original plans for Arabia collapsed, it did the best it could by making Hussein's two sons, Abdullah and Faisal, kings of Jordan and Iraq, respectively. The Hashemites have now run Jordan--a poor country, with few natural resources--for over 80 years, on the whole with success and moderation. Their only major blunder was to join the attempt in 1967 to exterminate Israel, which cost them East Jerusalem and the West Bank. In Iraq the Hashemites used their new oil revenues with wisdom until, in 1958, they were overthrown by a military conspiracy and most of them were murdered. For 45 years now Iraq has been run by politico-military gangsters and their families.

A New Kingdom

When Saddam Hussein is overthrown, the best and safest course for the West would be to support the Hashemites in creating a constitutional monarchy to rule Jordan and Iraq. To this, Syria could be added, if and when we decide to remove the odious family tyranny that controls it and supports many terrorist groups.

Such a kingdom in the region would be large, powerful and rich enough (with income from Iraq's oil used to build infrastructure and raise living standards instead of being squandered on arms) to balance Saudi Arabia and help the West destroy fundamentalist terrorism. The Hashemites have proved sensible, moderate and constructive--when given the chance--and with American and British backing would become a stabilizing force in the Middle East.

The Palestinian problem would then become solvable. The Palestinians themselves would become citizens of a Hashemite constitutional kingdom (as they were from 1946-67), living under the rule of law rather than as helpless victims of an entity nominally a "Palestinian state" but in practice a terrorist enclave ruled by terror, as under Yasir Arafat. Israel would much prefer to deal with a proper country that has nothing to gain and everything to lose from war and perpetual terrorism. If such a Hashemite kingdom were established, I have little doubt it would, sooner rather than later, sign a workable and lasting peace treaty with Israel.

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair would be well advised to look into the possibility of a Hashemite restoration in Iraq--unless they have devised a miracle solution of their own.

[SBprone]

Hashemite vs. Wahhabi huh? Does this all come down to extended families? Is the source of all our heartburn this one huge extended family that isn't noted for anything except conspicuous consumption and treachery? Could it be that simple?

[American in Israel]

Bible says Ishmael would be a wild jackass of a man and his hand would be turned against every man. It is about the only thing that backs up the Arab claim to be decended from Ishmael.

Yeah, it seems pretty simple now that you point it out.

[SBprone]

Bump.