In the volatile Middle East are there any nations that prefer Iraq becoming a real democracy? To their east Iran with its Islamic fundamentalist government certainly doesn't. To the south Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are both ruled by kings wielding absolute power and, of concern, containing vast oil resources. Both are frightened of having a democracy in Iraq. They are equally frightened of having an Islamic fundamentalist nation next door. Saudi Arabia was, I'm sure, perfectly content to have Saddam's secular (if brutal) rule located between them and Iran. Saddam's Iraq was the only "terrorist-free" nation in the Middle East. To the west of Iraq lies Jordan also ruled by a king but that has no oil, therefore is beholden to the USA for dollars. Then there is Syria ruled by a dictator who seems to get along rather well with the insurgents. Perhaps one can't blame him as it looks as if the Iraqi insurgents might win and who doesn't want to be on the winning side. That leaves, to the north, Turkey, the only secular state with little oil and a borderline democracy. Probably neutral on this issue.

The "fear of democracy" and "fear of Fundamentalist Islamic power" is a nightmare for the oil rich kingdoms. How those kings wish that Bush had left Saddam alone as I'm sure Bush himself wishes he had.

But what about the Iraqis themselves? Do they want a democracy? The answer to this question for us Americans is academic. Of course we would say. But many an Iraqi now would prefer the peace and quiet of a Saddam even with its brutal dictatorship to the years of utter chaos that have ensued since we invaded. Peace (and food for the children) always precedes any thought of democracy anywhere.

There are still a few weeks before the Iraqi Referendum, the purpose of which is to accept or reject the proposed Constitution. Among other items the equality of women as proposed in this Constitution falls way short on the equality of women that a reasonable democracy would require. Dictatorship notwithstanding, Saddam did run a secular (non-religious) government. In fact the proposed Iraqi Constitution represents a giant step backward from the equality of women under Saddam. An irony indeed. But Bush has been silent on this issue and I don't blame him. He now just wants out of this mess. He is desperately hoping for some way out. He is caught in a classic Catch 22 of his own making.

A short historical review is informative. There was a brutal eight-year war between Iraq and Iran, 1980 to 1988. It was initiated by Saddam. It cost between one and two million lives, a horrendous war. Also at that time Saddam killed more than 100,000 ethnic Kurds (in the north) with poison gas. We were on Saddam's side! We supplied him with all kinds of materials including biological and nuclear components. Rumsfeld met with Saddam as Reagan's personal emissary knowing full well that Saddam had used poison gas. Saddam was a bastard even then and we knew that. We chose him anyway as a partner in the Iraq-Iran war. How times have changed.

The question is what happens when the pressure to pull out of Iraq becomes irresistible? As the time approaches will our government try to forestall a pullout by pressing into play the old drumbeat of Vietnam that if we lose, the Communists will take over the world? Will the Islamic fundamentalists overwhelm the Middle East oil kingdoms when we pull out? We have opened the door wide for them by creating an impressive rallying cry for the US hating fundamentalists. Osama has got to be pleased.

Theodore Theodorsen