Tuesday, March 11, 2003

War is round the corner.

The unprecedented wave of international protests
coupled with French and Russian warnings of vetos
against a new UN resolution clearing the way for war
against Iraq has done little to dampen American and British
governments’ enthusiasm to launch military action
against Iraq.
US President George Bush has simply shrugged off the protests as a democratic expression
of people's right to express their opion but said that
he was not to be dissuaded from what he described as
his duty to protect the people of his country.
However, the real reason for his determination to wage
war stems from a combination of political, economic
and strategic considerations that have less to do with
the security of the US than an effort to serve vested
interests and self-survival.


THE WORLD does not want a war against Iraq and it has
resoundingly said so, with millions of
people taking to the streets from Australia
and Europe to New York protesting against the
US-British plans for military action aimed at toppling
the regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and installing
a Washington-controlled occupation authority there.
However, the unprecedented protests have failed to
make any
dent on the apparently one-track mind of US President
George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Nor are they dissuaded by the French and Russian
positions, backed by China, that Paris and Moscow
would not allow a new resolution to be adopted that
would clear the way for war against Iraq.
Obviously, it is too late for Bush and Blair to have
a change of heart now since they have gone too far
into their plans and tied their political future with
a successful regime change in Baghdad.
Indeed, it could even be described as an overkill if
conventional wisdom were to be applied. However,
conventional wisdom does not come into play here since
the stakes are far too high for both the US president
and British prime minister.
If anything, neither Bush nor Blair could retrace
their steps since both are caught in their own traps.
Both have worked up their constituencies over the
"threats" that Saddam poses to them and indeed to
"world security and stability." To climb down from the
war wagon now would be political suicide for them
since a no-war situation could mean that the "monster
regime" in Baghdad would remain in power with no
guarantee that its ability to pose "threats" to
American lives have been eliminated as Bush and Blair
have promised their people.
Worse still for Bush and Blair is the possibility that
the UN inspectors now checking Iraq for its alleged
weapons of mass destruction could finish their mission
successfully and issue a clean bill for Baghdad that
would lead to the embarrassing situation where they
would face calls for the lifting of the 12-year-old
sanctions against Iraq.
Bush and Blair would have to answer many hard-hitting
questions from their people if they were to reverse
their war wagon headed for Baghdad.
Among them are:
Wasn't it you and your people who told us that Saddam
was linked with Al Qaeda and the next Sept.11-style
attackers would be armed with biological and chemical
weapons? How has the situation changed today?
Wasn't it you and your people who told us that Saddam
was the worst dictator and the ultimate despot in
violating human rights that the world had ever seen?
Has he started respecting human rights overnight?
Wasn't it you and your people who told us that the
people of Iraq needed to be "liberated" from Saddam?
Have they been "liberated"?
From our vantage point in the Middle East, it is a
foregone conclusion that Bush and Blair would go to
war, with or without UN endorsement, if only because
they have no other option if they were to hope to
salvage their political future.
In the bargain, they would undermine the very concept
of the United Nations, impose new rules of the game
in international relations and collective world action
and create a wide chasm between the US and UK on the
one side and most European countries and indeed the
Arab and Muslim worlds on the other.
Let us visualise for a moment the situation that Bush
would be facing in the hypothesis that the
international protests against his war plans and the
strong opposition put up by powerful countries like
France, Germany China and Russia have prompted him to
reconsider his plans in view of the demand for more
time -- several months -- for the UN weapons
inspectors to complete their job in Iraq.
-- He is left with some 130,000 - !50,000 American
soldiers who are either in the Gulf region or on their
way there along with hundreds of fighter jets and
advanced war machinery and equipment. It is almost
impossible for him to keep them in the region for long
without rotating. Rotations would mean an equal number
of soldiers to be trained in Middle-East-specific
warfare, and the costs would double. Then there is the
reality of American soldiers being ill-equipped to
fight a war in the scorching heat of the Arabian
desert for any prolonged period against Iraqi troops
who have had eight years of experience of such
fighting against Iran in the 80s.
-- He is saddled with a massive bill for the
mobilisation and build-up so far and to recall the
forces without a war would be politically disastrous,
particularly that he intends to seek re-election next
year. He has also to consider that he would be taking
down his closest ally, Blair, with him. To go to the
voters with Saddam remaining in power in Baghdad is
the perfect recipe for disaster for both.
-- Neither Bush nor Blair would have satisfying
answers to their people how and why they had not
accomplished the task of eliminating the "greatest
threat" they ever faced in the form of Saddam Hussein,
and this would reflect when the Americans go to the
polls in 2004 and when Britons follow them.
-- Bush faces the possibility of a veto of a second UN
Security Council resolution to follow up Resolution
1441 and authorise war against Iraq and lend
international legitimacy to his plans. The eventuality
of presenting a draft resolution and then having it
shot down in the council would only further
delegitimise a war against Iraq that would boost
anti-US sentiments around the world and expose
Americans to the same very threats that he had been
expounding.
-- A US decision to go to war without UN endorsement
could lead to the collapse of the world body whose
"supreme authority in international affairs" has been
repeatedly affirmed by his people and himself in
recent weeks. By circumventing the Security Council,
the Bush administration would only be exposing its
selectivity in involving the world body in matters
that involve American and, indeed, Israeli, interests.

-- An option that experts see as possible to be taken
up by the US is the use of a paragraph at the end of
Resolution 1441, which was unanimously adopted. It
says: "The (Security) Council has repeatedly warned
Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a
result of its continued violation of its obligations."
-- Even if the US president wanted to spare the world
a war, his hawkish aides -- who have been plotting the
elimination of Iraq as a military power since 1996 to
serve Israeli interests -- would not allow him to step
off the war tracks. The pressure that a disappointed
Israel would apply on him would be too enormous for
him to bear.
On the other hand, the rewards of launching and
successfully waging a war are not only too tempting
and perhaps even irresistible but also his political
salvation. He could establish US supremacy of the
world if he could get rid of Saddam and eliminate his
people from power in Baghdad; secure absolute control
of Iraq's oil wealth and address all US concerns of
its role in the international energy market (and, in
the bargain, reap massive benefits for the oil
companies in which and he and his aides hold high
stakes); remove a threat to the US's staunchest ally
Israel and ensure the Jewish state's domination of the
Middle East (and, in the bargain, force an Israeli
version of peace down the Palestinian and Arab
throat); browbeat all those who opposed his plans for
war against Iraq and redraw the Middle Eastern map to
suit American interests. And finally, he could pat
himself in the back as having become the US president
to have waged a successful long-distance military
campaign ostensibly aimed at protecting American
lives.
In realistic terms, the situation speaks for itself:
Bush could not be persuaded to give the UN inspectors
more time in Iraq since an extension would work
against his
interests. He could not afford to leave room for the
possibility that the UN inspectors successfully
complete the process and formally close the Iraq file
on weapons of mass destruction since it would
automatically lead to demands for lifting the UN
sanctions against that country.
US officials' characterisation of the American
approach to the issue through the UN has at best been
deceptive.
They now describe Bush's decision to get a resolution
passed by the Security Council on Iraq and disarmament
(resolution 1441) in November as reflecting the
president's authority to uphold the supremacy of the
Security Council in international affairs.
In reality, Bush had no choice and was forced into
taking his Iraq case to the council in September when
he faced mounting international rejection of a
unilateral US war against that country.
At the same time, he also placed a card up his sleeve
when he declared that he reserved the right to take
unilateral action against Iraq if he felt that the UN
had not handled the case properly.
Obviously, he intends to exercise that option now.
Further strengthening his hand, in his view, is the
"Bush Doctrine" he presented to the US Congress in
September asserting that he, as president of his
country, was determined to take any action necessary
against any individual, group, government or country
that he deems as posing a threat to the safety and
security of the US and its people.
And then of course is the US Congressional
authorisation that he secured to "disarm" Iraq
through, if necessary, the use of American military.
Bush declared that "the game is over" even after the
generally positive report
submitted by the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix
of Sweden, dealt a severe blow to the build-up of the
US case against Iraq,
Washington accepted a delay last month for a vote on a
new UN resolution, but it was no climbdown since that
time frame suited
the US military build-up in the Middle East for war.
US armed forces reached peak readiness by March 8 for
a
successful war against Iraq, including the vital land
assault that the US hopes would take its forces all
the way to Baghdad in a matter of days.
That the world has become wise to the US-British
deception aimed at talking the international community
into war against Iraq was evident in the massive
demonstrations across almost all major cities this
week.
Described by commentators as the most diverse diverse
peace protest since the Vietnam War, the demonstration
was unique since almost every colour of the political
spectrum across the world was represented.
Particularly noted was that while the demonstrators
condemned Bush for his "obsession" with Iraq, they did
not voice any support for Saddam.
Their thrust was clear: America's interest in Iraq had
more to do with oil than with disarming a country that
allegedly poses a threat to world security.
They argued that Iraq should not be allowed to possess
weapons of mass destruction, but a war to achieve that
goal was a morally bankrupt action that would benefit
no one but would harm the global economy, widen
American-Arab differences and undermine US allies in
Asia.
Close to a million people demonstrated in London's
Hyde Park, while nearly a quarter million gathered in
Berlin and hundreds of thousands more protested in 350
cities across Europe, the Middle East and Asia as well
as the US.
Coming under fire at the protests were also US
Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defene Donald
Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condaleesa Rice
and other hawks who are deemed to have goaded Bush
into an irreversible course for war. Also drawing fire
was Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has hitherto
been seen as a relative moderate in the Bush
administration.
But those voices of protest, which would definitely
grow into a world-deafening roar in the days ahead,
seem ordained not to reach the ears of those in
Washington who are determined to take charge of
international destiny and shape it to suit American
and Israeli interests.
Bush simply shrugged off the protests and repeated his
clichés to defend himself with indifference, saying
"democracy is a beautiful thing and people are allowed
to express their opinion" and insisting that Saddam
Hussein is a risk to peace.
"Evidently some in the world don't view Saddam as a
risk to peace. I respectfully disagree," Bush said.
He added: "War is my last choice, but the risk of
doing nothing is even a worse option, as far as I'm
concerned. I owe it to the American people to secure
this country. I will do so."
Few outside the US might buy his words, but no one
seems to be able to check him.