The United States may have trouble converting Iraq to an ideal democratic state following Operation Iraqi Freedom, said UT political science professor Bob Cunningham.
“We don’t have anybody in Iraq,” Cunningham said. “Saddam (Hussein) has systematically killed anybody that has gotten important, so there is no leadership to go to. So if someone is going to take charge, who is left?”
Cunningham said the United States would have problems when deciding what section of the Iraqi population takes over the leadership role once the fighting concludes.
“(President George W.) Bush wants Iraq to become the model democratic state for the rest of the Middle East since there are not very many democratic states in (the area),” Cunningham said.
Israel, Turkey, Iran, Jordan and Lebanon are the only Middle East nations that currently have some form of a democratic government.
“The goal is for other Arab nations to look to Iraq as a beacon, but the United States really doesn’t have any means or anyone to help them begin setting up the government,” he said.
Cunningham said Iraq consisted of approximately 60 percent Shiite Muslims and about 35 percent Sunni Muslims, with a sparse Kurdish population. He said each division of the Iraqi population would have different goals for the new Iraqi government.
Hussein’s family has ruled the country for the past 30 years and was largely Sunni in influence, Cunningham said. He said the Shiite population would likely take control if a democracy were put in place.
“Saddam favored the Sunni population, but the Shiites have always held a majority, especially in southern Iraq,” he said. “If the Shiites get their opportunity in democratic elections, they could possible form a dominate ticket and elect a Shiite leader.”
Cunningham recently visited the Middle East and said governments and citizens in the area had split feelings about the United States’ activity in the area. He said most of the local governments in danger of “predator nations” such as Hussein’s, favored the U.S. protection, but Americans were seen differently through the eyes of the public.
“If you start talking to people on the street, they are going to be less supportive of the United States,” he said. “They see it as the U.S. butting in or wanting more control.”
He said American activity wasn’t a surprise to Middle Eastern residents, but the United States’ logic for an attack was confusing.
“They say you’ve got 17 resolutions in the United Nations Security Council against Iraq, but you’ve got 50-something resolutions to the council saying the Israelis should withdraw from the West Bank,” Cunningham said. “They would say, ‘Why are you pushing one agenda and not the other?'”
Cunningham also said many don’t understand why America would push war with a country without proven nuclear capabilities, when North Korea had already demonstrated intention to create a nuclear arsenal.
“Certainly no one wants Saddam to get nuclear weapons, (but) North Korea already has nuclear weapons and possibly weapons that could reach the West Coast of the United States,” he said. “They don’t really understand how the U.S. can push one issue and not the other.”
