TRADING PLACES LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES AREN'T AS FAR APART ON IRAQ AS THEY MAY THINK.

Byline: JONATHAN DOBRER

I teach a course at the University of Judaism called "Understanding the Middle East." I promise my students that by the end of the course they will not understand, but they will have a pretty good grasp of all the moving parts -- the religions, the sects, the tribes and ethnicities that roil the oily waters of the region. My aim is to attack our oversimplified certainties and to appreciate a sense of just how politically complex, tactically difficult and strategically unpredictable our actions and inactions are.

Most people believe that their positions are pretty fixed regarding the Iraq war. Most people also believe that their own positions are both moral and immutable. We cannot imagine feeling differently from how we already feel. We cannot imagine trading places with those whom we now, often passionately, oppose. I am not going to argue for a course of action -- other than to promote a sense of curiosity, an attitude of understanding and a bit of humility.

Generally, liberals think we should get out of Iraq -- sooner rather than later. They advocate leaving because the mission is impossible and the suffering incalculable. We are stuck in the middle of a domestic dispute we don't understand. By being there, we have become a part of the problem. While chaos will surely ensue when we leave, whether tomorrow or in 20 years, chaos is inevitable.

It is also inarguable, they argue, that there is already plenty of chaos, anarchy and destruction now. Our leaving can hardly be worse for Iraqis than our staying, but it will certainly be better for our overextended, nearly broken military -- not to mention the moral and economic welfare of our country.

All of this is true.

Conservatives, mostly, believe in either "staying the course" or altering it to give our occupation a chance of success. They insist our staying is a moral imperative, and that leaving is akin to cowardice and irresponsibility. Should we leave, our Iraqi supporters would be seen as collaborators and surely be slaughtered. The internecine violence would grow far worse. A power vacuum would be formed in which Iran will be fighting for hegemony its Shia brothers, the Saudis will come charging in to aid the Sunni minority, and the Sunni will be slaughtered in wholesale numbers.

Meanwhile, the Kurds would be fighting for independence, and the Turks would be trying to grab the oil fields in the Kurdish north, while stifling their own domestic Kurds' aspirations for independence. Suffice it to say, it would be a mess -- a dangerous mess whose instability would threaten the entire region.

All of this is also true.

These two truths, instead of promoting humility and understanding, lead us to taunting and name-calling. We question the patriotism of the liberals and the realism of the conservatives. But imagine a different scenario, a slightly different set of facts, that could make liberals demonstrate for the moral necessity of being in Iraq, while conservatives did everything they could to stop the war.

Impossible, you think? Then think again.

Many argue that we should view Iraq and the whole Middle East, in terms of the Vietnam model. Liberals argue that the dominos did not fall, and today we are at peace with Vietnam, enjoying mutual trade and tourism. The Cassandraesque predictions of the hawks failed to come true. Conservatives argue that it was a tragedy that led to slaughter in the region, the deaths of many of our former allies, the horror of "re-education camps" and the killing fields of Cambodia and Pol Pot.

A still more useful model would be Pak-India. When Pak-India fought for its freedom from British colonial rule, ethnic violence, even chaos and tragedy, were predictable. Indeed, all the worst fantasies of horror came true. As the English left, Pakistan and India fractured along ethnic lines, with Pakistan becoming a Muslim state and India a majority Hindu nation with a large Muslim minority. The region was awash with blood, and the fighting has continued for half a century. Now, with both India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons, the region is poised for nuclear war.

Looking back, should the Crown have extended the Raj indefinitely? Is it possible, even with the clarity of hindsight, to say absolutely what could have been done to prevent the vicious ethnic, religious and political conflicts that killed hundreds of thousands and that now threaten hundreds of millions?

If we consider the history of Pak-India as a model, we realize that we cannot predict very much with a high degree of confidence, save that ethnic strife will somehow ultimately play itself out.

This brings me to the question of changing viewpoints.

Inarguably, Saddam Hussein, being mortal, would some day have died -- by natural causes or assassination. As with the death of Marshal Tito, of the former Yugoslavia, chaos would have been the likely result -- if not immediately, then soon. The hand-off of authority to Saddam's sons, Qusay and Uday, would likely have failed. All the schisms and fractures we see today would have come to pass without us as catalyst.

Had Saddam died -- but not at our hand -- and the Kurds moved for independence, the Shia for revenge and the Sunni to stay in power, the civil war would have been, as it is now, a humanitarian horror. All the arguments we now make regarding staying the course or not, would certainly come into play.

But consider this: liberals and conservatives would likely reverse positions.

Liberals would argue that we couldn't stand on the sidelines observing ethnic and religious genocide. Liberals feel guilty about missing the opportunity to save Rwandans and supported an early intervention in the Balkans. Today, liberals believe we should stop the slaughter and genocide in Darfur. They would likely make the same argument for going into a post-Saddam Iraq.

Conservatives would, just as likely, argue that we cannot solve the civil wars of other nations and should not spend our blood and treasury unless doing so is vital to our national interests, and the fight is clearly winnable. They would be quoting as Gospel the Powell doctrine: Have clear objectives. Employ overwhelming force. Plan an exit strategy.

This little exercise of mine is not meant to be an answer or even a guide, but only a reminder. Deeply held beliefs and wars of terrible consequences are often rationalized, attacked and defended on the slender reed of the happenstance of first causes. We kill Saddam and one series of events ensues. He dies without our help and everything changes -- not in Iraq but in our domestic political argument.

Just a thought.

CAPTION(S):

photo

Photo:

(color) MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR

George W.