Iraq After War: The Fifty-First State?

The Atlantic Monthly ^ | November 2002 | James Fallows

[Publius]

Over the past few months I interviewed several dozen people about what could be expected in Iraq after the United States dislodged Saddam Hussein. An assumption behind the question was that sooner or later the United States would go to war—and would go with at best a fraction of the support it enjoyed eleven years ago when fighting Iraq during the Gulf War. Most nations in the region and traditional U.S. allies would be neutral or hostile unless the Bush Administration could present new evidence of imminent danger from Iraq.

A further assumption was that even alone, U.S. forces would win this war. The victory might be slower than in the last war against Iraq, and it would certainly cost more American lives. But in the end U.S. tanks, attack airplanes, precision-guided bombs, special-operations forces, and other assets would crush the Iraqi military. The combat phase of the war would be over when the United States destroyed Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq's government, armed forces, and stockpile of weapons.

What then?

[Publius]

Even though this was written six months ago, it was amazingly prescient as to the challenges awaiting us after liberating Iraq. It's thought-provoking.

[smokinleroy]

Call it "New Texas".

[RightWhale]

the challenges awaiting us after liberating Iraq

Not the least of which is wading through the Augean stables of the press.

[Publius]

For a slightly more angular view of this opportunity, read A Post-Saddam Scenario by Richard Kaplan from the same issue.