Wednesday, April 02, 2003

'Battle for Baghdad'

Yahoo!   My Yahoo!   Mail  |  Donate to Hurricane Relief


Welcome, pvvivekanand
[Sign Out, My Account]

Mail Home - Mail Tutorials - Help





Mail Addresses Calendar Notepad What's New - Upgrades - Options




Check Mail Compose



Search Mail Search the Web












  Get VONAGE
  and get up to 720
  free hours










Folders[Add - Edit]

Inbox (1)

Draft

Sent

Bulk[Empty]

Trash[Empty]



My Folders[Hide]

Hani Baghdad

MIsc







Following are the English versions of my writings in
Manorama. Very unfortunately, the translators have not
done justice to the central themes. It is being
explained to me as lack of knowledge of Mideastern
issues on the part of the translators.

pv vivekanand
The US-British war on Iraq has marked two weeks. A
massacre of civilians is in the offing when the
invaders come closer to Baghdad. Defenders of the
Iraqi capital are prepared. The US is sending massive
reinforcements for the decisive battle. In the
meantime, the stakes have gone up with US and Israeli
threats against Syria. To cap it all, strong signs
have emerged of how Israel is seeking to turn the
situation into its favour.
However, the danger lurks that US intelligence, with
help from Iraqi exiles, has already bribed senior
Iraqi generals and officers to desert at the most decisive moment.
PV Vivekanand writes


AS THE FRONTLINE SITUATION in the US-British war stood
on Thursday, the "battle for Baghdad" could begin in a
few days in the most crucial phase of the military
action aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein.
Both sides have affirmed that the military
confrontation for control of Baghdad is going to be
tough.
While the American and British forces were careful in
their assessment of the expected battle, the Iraqi
leadership appeared to be confident that their forces
would be able to inflict enough casualties on the
invading force in street battles in Baghdad to
persuade US President George W. Bush to call off the
war.
The Iraqi calculation seems to be rather simple:
Saddam could afford to absorb high casulaty rates
among Iraqi defenders of the capital while Bush and
his ally British Prime Minister Tony Blair would be
held accountable for every American and British life
lost in the war that does not have international
legitimacy.
At the very outset of the war, the war suffered a
setback. Turkey refused to allow the US to use Turkish
territory as a springboard for a "northern front"
against Baghdad.
The US-British expectations that the "oppressed
people" Iraq would welcome the invading forces with
open arms have been shattered, and along them one of
the central pillars of their strategy.
Another major setback is the mounting civilian
casualty. Again, that is going to figure prominently
in the battle for Baghdad.
Obviously, the Iraq's strategy is to inflict the
maximum casualties among the invading American and
British forces. The only hope, as seen from
Saddam's vantage point, is that massive American
casualties could, at some point, dissuade Bush.
However, Bush is as determined as Saddam and it is
highly unlikely that he would step back and put an end
to the war with his goal of regime change unachieved.
A withdrawal from Iraq is not at all in the cards.
The war would soon reach a point where Bush and his
military commanders would have to either open up
their big guns indiscriminately in the battle for
baghdad. They would be left with no option but to do
with because
they would not be able to trust anyone not to be a
suicide bomber.
Civilian casualties would be high, raising the tempo
in the international rejection of the war, and this is
one of the key cards that Saddam believes he has up
his sleeve.
The time element, according to the iraqi thinking, is
in its favour. as every day passes, pressure would
mount on Bush to finish the war or call it off, but
the US president would not be in a position to do call
the shots on the ground.
With natonalist fervour at its height in Iraq whipped
up by official rhetorics and pledges to turn Baghdad a
cemetery for the invaders, thousands are ready to
strap explosives around them or rig vehicles with
bombs and explode themselves and take as many American
and British soldiers with them.
Iraqi officials say that up to 6,000 people, both
Iraqis and other arabs, are waiting for orders to turn
themselves "martyr" for Iraq by staging suicide
attacks.
Waves of such attacks would come when the allied
forces get closer to their strategic prize - Baghdad
-- and would hit their peak when the siege of the
Iraqi capital is launched.
Under Saddam's strategy, every nook and corncer and
every building in the capital would be turned into a
trap for the American and British soldiers; Republican
Guard soldiers, regular army soldiers, Baathist party
militiamen, "suicide bombers" and Iraqis and Arab
volunteers would be posted in every building.
The challenge that the invaders would face is: how to
"take out" the military elements without causing
civilian casualties? Any hesitation would indeed be
exploited by the defending fighters and thus result in
American and British casualties. That is the core of
the Iraqi strategy. .
Saddam could not but be counting on the haste with
which the US withdrew from the UN peace-keeping force
in Somalia when 18 American soldiers were killed in
1993. Somalis downed the US helicopter soldiers were
flying on a mission and attacked other soldiers who
sent to rescue their comrades.
On the other end, Bush and his commanders seem to
hoping that they would not have to actually take
Baghdad in a conventional military sense because
theywould have to confront at least 50,000 Republican
Guards and an unknown number of Baathist Party
militiamen to contend with once they try to enter the
capital.
Hopes that Iraqis would rise up in revolt against the
regime and make it easy for the invaders to make a
beeline for Saddam and his inner circle are no longer
entertained.
The US is now adding more strength to the campaign.
Bush has ordered another 120,000 soldiers to join the
225,000 already in and around Iraq; and, if need be,
it would appear, Bush is ready to pour in more.
The US strategy at this point to move towards Baghdad
and stay put on the
ground and continue air assaults until the units are
reinforced for a direct confrontation.
In the meantime, US military commanders are hoping
that the "northern push" would reach the capital. As
of this week, there was not enough American soldiers
in the north, and there the US strategists seem to be
hoping to use the 80,000 plus Kurdish fighters to lead
the advance and use them as the US did with the
Northern Alliance in Afghanistan,
The Iraqi retreat from northern lines seems to be
aimed at luring the Kurdish forces into a military
trap, some reports say.
That strategy, if true, would prove out this week.

Reports from Baghdad so far indicate a systematic
destruction of every symbol of government and
suspected premises that help the Saddam Hussein
regime run the state and military apparata.
A major tragedy is in the waiting, local residents
say, when the allied bombs and missiles might miss
their target and crash into heavily populated areas.
In one attack, at least 55 people were killed last
week when two missiles crashed into a market area.
A death toll of 55 is just a scratch on the surface
when compared with the five million or more of the
population of Baghdad, where massive complexes house
thousands of families.
The fear is indeed true that a missile or a bomb
hitting any of the state-built housing complexes where
damage would not be limited to a single building.
Officials are putting up a brave face, as reports from
Baghdad indicate. "Historically Baghdad is known to
resilient and it has sprung back to its
feet everytime after it everyone thought it had become
part of history," said an official. That is a history
that dates back to the 7th century when an invading
force obliterated the city, which sprang back into
life in less than 20 to 30 years, according to history
books.
Hit so far in the war that began on March 20 are
presidential palaces, key government buildings
including those which used to host parliament and
cabinet meetings, offices used by senior figures like
the vice-president and deputy prime minister, several
ministries, and complexes used for military purposes
by Saddam's son Uday and Qussai as well as
headquarters of the elite Republican Guard have been
wrecked.
Sprawling compounds on the banks of the River Tigris
have been on the main targets of the attacks.
Several missiles and bombs have crashed into civilian
areas, resulting in the death of at least 80 people
and causing injuries to more than 300 in what the
allied forces had promised to be a "clean war with
minimum collateral damage."

THE US has dramatically increased the stakes in the
war by issuing an implied threat of military action
against Syria if it helped its Arab neighbour to
resist the American-British invading force.
Syria countered by declaring that it has chosen to
align itself with the people or Iraq.
Syrian President Bashar Al Assad also made scathing
comments against the US.
As far as these statements remain as a war of words,
the risk is minimal of Syria being targeted for
attack.
However, danger signals have started flashing after
Israel pitched in and warned Syria by reminding it of
Israel's military might.
Israeli Defence Minister Ahahul Mofaz has ratcheted
the tension by saying that Washington and Tel Aviv
viewed as very grave the wartime aid Damascus was
allegedly supplying to Baghdad.
Israel has has claimed that Iraq may be hiding
surface-to-surface missiles and chemical or biological
weapons in Syria.
Mofaz said Israel was monitoring statements made by
Syrian officials includingAssad that suggested that
peace with Israel was impossible.
"Bashar Assad has recently engaged in and expressed
himself in two spheres that in the view of the
Americans and in our view are very grave, " said
Mofaz.
"Israel's first concern is the very fact of their
(Syria's) granting physical aid to the Iraqis," he
said. "The second is his (Assad's) remark about
Israel, in which he says in essence that no peace
agreement can be reached with Israel," mofaz said.
"We must follow both his remarks and his actions in a
very, very thorough manner, " he added.
The writing was indeed on the wall that Syria could be
targeted when the US said last week that Russian
companies were supplying night goggles and
communication jamming gear to Iraq.
The implication was then clear that Russian firms
could have supplied such equipment to Syria while the
Moscow government kept a blind eye and Damascus could
have sent the gear to Iraq.
Given the rising unilateralism in American actions and
words as represented by President Bush and his aides
like Defence Secretary Donald Rumseld, it would
appear that Washington might be willing to take on
Syria -- and probably Iran at a later stage -- in what
many Arab commentators see as a grandoise plan to
reshape the entire Middle East to suit American and
Israeli interests, and not necessarily in that order
either.
While it does not appear that the US has any
intentions to widen the war, the natural course of the
bellicose approach would inevitably trigger
unexpected developments.
However, it is widely expected that the US would
switch its gunsights to Syria and Syrian-backed
Lebanese hardline groups like Hizbollah as well as
Palestinian factions based in Damascus after it "takes
care" of the Saddam regime in Baghdad.
Syria has rejected Rumsfeld's charges and described
them as prompted by America's "failures" in the ground
offensive in Iraq and the "blunders" it made in view
of the high civilian casualties in the war. However,
Damascus has very good reasons to remain on guard,
given the implicit Israeli threats.
Israel does indeed have a vested interest in military
action against Syria.
The Damascus-backed Palestinian groups -- Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, the Democratic Front for the Liberation
of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, Fateh Uprising -- a breakaway group from
Yasser Arafat's mainstream Fateh - the Arab Liberation
Front, and the Palestine Liberation Front among others
-- are a constant source of problems for Israel.
Israel has accused Syria of extending logistic and
tactical support for these groups to stage armed
attacks against Israeli targets and of encouraging
Hizbollah and other groups in Lebanon to keep the
tempo high across the Lebanese-Israeli border even
after Israel left southern Lebanese territory after a
disasterous 17-year occupation in 1999.
The Israeli argument is that Syria wants to keep a
front alive with the Jewish state so that the
outstanding dispute over Israel's occupation of
Syria's Golan Heights does not get pushed back in
regional priorities.
It has for long pressured the US to act against
Damascus.
With the tempo of war high in the region, the US
might be goaded into taking action against Syria in
order to serve Israeli interests.
And that is the danger to be see in Mofaz's comments.

In practical terms, the US, with the additional
120,000 soldiers ordered into the Middle East to store
up the war against Iraq in view of unexpected Iraqi
resistance, could be tempted to take on Syria.
The natural candidate to do the job on behalf of the
US is of course Israel, which is itching for action to
remove Syria as a military power in the equation and
thus do away with Syria's insistence that it return
the Golan Heights in its entirety.
Despite half-hearted overtures in the past that came
to nought, it is a foregone conclusion that Israel has
no intention whatsover of returning the Golan Heights
to Syria.
While the conventional argument is that the Heights
would give Syria a strategic military advantage, the
prime reason for Israel's refusal to retun it is the
very fact that it represents the main source for water
for the Jewish state. It has to be taken note here
that Israel's has an almost fanatic obsession with not
only securing its water sources but also seeking to
increase the quanity of water available to it.
In a wider context, it is not ruled out that the US
would and could call on Israel for help if the going
gets tough in the region.
There is an argument that the US might not favour
invovling Israel in a widened version of the war since
would lead to further strain in US-Arab relations,
However, such a consideration might not be key to any
decisions taken by the US, which has pulled all the
plugs in striving towards war against Iraq, including
dumping the UN Security Council and alienating many
European countries,
Waging a war on two fronts -- Iraq and Syria might
not appear feasible for the US at this point, it need
not be so. The US might simply assign Israel to "take
care of Syria" while it concentrates on Iraq.
If that happens, then the region would have to deal
with an unprecedented wave of Arab nationalism which
would only turn the situation worse and restrict all
diplomatic options.
The wild card in the game will be Iran, which would
step in if Syria is targeted. Rusmfeld accused Iran
of allowing Iraqi exiles opposed to the Saddam regime
were crossing the border into Iraq and this was
complicating the US war to topple Saddam Hussein.
What he stopped short of mentioning is the American
fear that the Iran-backed Iraqis might put up stiff
resistance to the US plans for post-war Iraq.
Both Syria and Iran appear in the American list of
countries that support "international terrorism" and
this would justify any action that Rumsfeld might
order against them. Iran has so far remained mostly
vocal in its barrage against Israel, but its backing
for the Palestinian struggle, training of Islamic
Jihad members, funding Hamas fighters, arming
Hizbollah with rockets is undeniable.
Israel fears Iranian military advances and its
nuclear programme would and would gladly welcome a
chance to have a go at Iran.
Overriding all these considerations are the emerging
signs of Israeli designs on Iraq's oil and water
wealth.
Israel has already issued a call for reopening
decades-old oil pipeline running from the northern
Iraqi city of Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa on
the Mediterranean after the US-led war on Iraq ends.
Such are the strategic prizes sought by Israel from a
post-war Iraq that the call for Iraqi oil to be pumped
to Israel will be followed by another for a pipeline
to pump Iraqi water to Israel.
Seen against the obvious "invisible" US objective of
removing Iraq as a potential military threat against
Israel, there is little doubt that there could be
pre-determined plans to address the Jewish state's
various concerns, including its oil and water needs.
With the US in absolute control of Iraq, it would be
free to use Iraqi territory to convey water Israel
through Jordan, which has signed a peace treaty with
the Jewish state and has strong economic and trade
links with the US,
According to a report in Israel's Haaretz newspaper,
Israeli Infrastructure Minister Joseph Paritzky wants
to reopen the Mosul-Haifa pipeline so that Israel
could save the cost of importing expensive crude from
Russia.
The minister also expressed confidence that the US
administration, which hopes to take control of
post-war Iraq, would support the Israeli call.
Indeed, Paritzky's confidence comes from the deals
Israel appears to have already made with the US on
how to divide the spoils of the war against Iraq. No
doubt Iraqi oil and water figure high among them.
The Mosul-Haifa pipeline was built during the British
mandate over Palestine, and Iraq stopped pumping oil
through it when the state of Israel was created in
1948 when Haifa came under Israeli control.
Since the 60s, Israel was engaged in deceptive efforts
to arrange some deal under which the oil flow from
Mosul could be resumed. But Iraq, which stood firm
against recognising the Jewish state and backed the
Arab and Palestinian struggles to regain their
occupied land from Israel, steadfastly refused. It
switched pumping to the Mediterranean through a
pipeline to the Syria port of Latakia and to a Turkish
terminal in the Mediterranean.
Syria, which backed Iran during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq
war, closed the pipeline during the 1980s in response
to a request from Tehran. Iran had blocked Iraqi oil
exports through the Gulf during the war and wanted to
choke off Iraqi oil revenues.
During that period, Israel, obviously seeking to
exploit the Iraqi dilemma, suggested through the US to
Baghdad that the Mosul-Haifa pipeline could be
reopened. But again Saddam Hussein refused.
Interestingly, the main pointman in those discussions
was none other than the current US defence secretary,
Rumsfeld, who reportedly raised the issue with Saddam
during a visit he paid to Baghdad in 1983 only to face
Iraqi rejection of the proposal.
Israel also tried in vain through various third
parties, including the Europeans, to convince Iraq to
build a pipeline to pump Iraqi oil to Jordan's Red Sea
port of Aqaba; again, the idea was to pump Iraqi oil
from Aqaba to Israel's port of Eilat, only three
kilometres away, from where it would be sent to the
refinery in Haifa on the Mediterranean.
By 1946, two pipelines were built to pump Iraqi oil to
serve the British naval and military bases in the
Eastern Mediterranean: the first a 25-centimetre line
running direct from Iraq to Palestine, and the second
a 40-centimetre line running from Iraq to Palestine
via Jordanoil needs while it is situated a few hundred
kilometres from some of the richest oil deposits in
the world; and it is only natural that Israel would
want to devise some means to get that Arab oil. What
better means than using its US connections to get
Iraqi oil through the existing pipeline?
Now comes the turn of Iraqi water.
International experts have assessed that Iraq has the
most extensive river system in the Middle East.
The country has an impressive system of dams and river
control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan
dam in the northern Kurdish area.
Israel tried in the 1990s to encourage the realisation
of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the
waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the Gulf
states, and to Israel by extending it through Jordan.
Under the proposal, Turkey was dam up the Euphrates
and sell the water to the region's countries,
including Israel.
Turkey on the one hand and downstream Syria and Iraq
had been for long locked in disputes over the
Euphrates since Turkey slowed down the flow of the
river through dams build upstream. In the 90s, it
built the Ataturk Dam, which has considerably reduced
the flow.
Israel never gave up its efforts through various means
to increase its availability of water but the
geopolitics of the region -- mainly the Arab-Israeli
dispute with the Palestinian problem and Israel's
occupation of the Golan being the central issues --
made all such efforts a non-starter.
Now, with the expectation of a US-controlled
administration taking charge in post-war Iraq, Israel
is free to have the run of the country as it always
wished.