Deadly Khoei factor

by pv vivekanand

A BITTER feud is brewing behind the scenes between
allied forces on the one hand and Iran and
Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiites on the other over what is
emerging as a secret American plan to install
Washington's man in charges of religious affairs at
Shiite shrines in the occupied Iraqi towns of Najaf
and Karbala.
The feud adds to the rift in American-Iranian
relations and to apprehension in Tehran that the US is
seeking to marginalise Iran's strategic religious
interests in the area.
The US could not afford to make a false step with the
Shiites in the south and US commanders are obviously
been coached well. That explains why American officers
and soldiers went out of their way to point their gun
downwards and appeal to Iraqi Shiite crowds that they
were not hostile when they took over Najaf last week.
The crowds were so worked up believing that the
invaders would enter the holy mosque in Najaf that
they challenged the American soldiers and preventef
them from going near the mosque.
Another lesson for the Americans: The Shiites are a
different breed and would not be intimidated even by
military power when it comes to religious affairs and
this is a point they might remember if and when they
try to take on Iran -- the next in President George
Bush's "exis of evil."
The first sign of a secret American plan in southern
Iraq came when Sayyed Abdul Majid Al Khoei, son of
the late Ayatullah Al Uzma Sayyid Abul-Qasim Al Khoei,
appeared in Najaf last week.
Abdul Majid Al Khoei, who fled Iraq in 1991, was based
in London and runnng the affairs of the Khoei
Foundation. His return to Najaf amidst the war gave
immediate rise to suspicion that the US wanted him as
the supreme Shiite leader in Iraq.
Najaf, which lies about 150 kilometres south of
Baghdad and Karbala, which is located about 70
kilometres southwest of the Iraqi capital, have been
the scene of intense fighting between coalition troops
and Iraqi forces, are the holiest in Shiite Islam
after Mecca and Medina.
The Ali Bin Abu Talib Mosque in Najaf is deemed by the
Shiites as the ultimate seat of Shiite authority and
it is a dream of Shiites around the world to see a
grand ayatollah reign supreme there away from the
influence of all non-Shiite elements.
It was this desire that prompted Iran to take
advantage of the war chaos in 1991 to send up to
55,000 Iran-based Iraqi Shiites and elements from the
Iranian military across the border to Najaf with a
view to wrenching control of the holy city from the
Saddam regime. That attempt failed from Saddam struck
back, resulting in fierce clashes in Najaf and the
invaders expelled from the city.
As such, the sudden emergence of Abdul Majid Al Khoei,
who is known to be friendly with the US, has upset the
Iranians as well as the main Iraqi Shiite opposition
group, the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in
Iraq (SCIRI), which is backed by Iran.
The underlying fear is that the US, in view of the
SCIRI's close ties with Iran, is seeking to
marginalise the group and install its own man -- Khoei
-- in Najaf.
It was to SCIRI's fighting force, Badr Brigade, that
US Defence Secretary Donald Rusmsfled referred to when
he accused Iran of allowing Iraqi Shiite rebels to to
penetrate across the border into Iraq and create
troubles for the US-British force waging war to oust
Saddam Hussein.
SCIRI has little interest in what is happening in the
north of the country. It maintains a token presence of
some 1,000 fighters near the border in
Kurdish-controlled territory. That force is staying
put and is not part of the Kurdish-American advance
towards Baghdad from the north.
It is no accident that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani,
former Iranian president and still an influential
figure in Iran, warned the US against causing any
damages to the Shiite shrines in southern Iraq.
"I am warning the White House and Britain: let not
your vanity or your fervor harm Shiite Islam's holy
sites because Shiites will never forgive you and
they, as well as God, will avenge it in due time," he
said on Friday.
The late Ayatullah Al Uzma Sayyid Abul-Qasim Al Khoei
was one of the most respected Shiite leaders. Known to
be one of the most benevolent and visionaries of
Shiite Islam, he established many welfare centres and
charity organisations whose services were not limited
to Shiites.
Abul-Qasim Al Khoei had been under constant pressure
from the Sunni-led Saddam regime to issue fatwas
favouring the government. In March 1991, following the
quelling of the Shiite revolt in south linked to the
failed attempt to seize Najaf, Abul Qasim Al Khoei was
forced to appear on television with Saddam and pay
tribute to the Iraqi strongman.
The Khoei Foundation says that he was being held under
house arrest -- for having resisted Saddam's demands
following the 1991 chaos -- when he died of a heart
attack in August 1992.
When Khoei died, some of his followers in Iran and
elsewhere accused the Saddam regime of having
engineered his death. They pointed out that the
government had cut telephone lines to his residence in
Kufa on the morning of his death. Later, it became
clear that the lines were cut after the ayalollah died
and the regime had wanted to pick its own time to
announce his demise.
At present, the Shiite religious leader in Najaf is
Grand Ayatollah Mirza Ali Sistani, whose official
title is "religious scientist at Scientific Haoza
(Religious Society) in Holy Najaf Province."
Sistani has denied a US military report that he had
issued a fatwa calling on the Shiites of the town
not to impede coalition military forces.
In fact, on April 1, Mirza Ali Sistani issued a fatwa
calling on "Muslims all over the world" to help Iraqis
in "a fierce battle against infidel followers who have
invaded our homeland".
As the only grand ayatollah of Iraq, Sistani, one of
the give grand ayatollahs alive today, is the most
senior cleric for Iraqi Shi'ites, who form 70 per cent
of ethnic Arabs in Iraq and about 55 per cent of
Iraq's population.
There is not much love lost between the Sunni regime
in Baghdad and the southern Shiites, but the Shiites,
taking a cue from Iranian stands, loathe the Americans
more than they do Saddam.
Contrary to the widespread belief that the Shiites
would opt to embrace Iran at the first given
opportunity, their track record shows that Saddam
managed to retain the loyalty of the Iraqi army, where
Shi'ite conscripts formed a majority during the
1980-88 war with Iran.
Saddam has offered much-publicised prayers at the
Shi'ite shrines in Najaf, Karbala and elsewhere. He
has even published his family tree, which supposedly
showed him to be a descendant of Imam Ali, a cousin
and a son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed, entitling
him to the honorific of sayyid (lord or prince)
accorded to the male descendants of the Prophet
Mohammed. The authorities distributed millions of
copies of Sayyid Saddam Hussein's family tree to
emphasise his religious credentials.
Ali is revered by both Shi'ites and Sunnis. Shi'ites
regard him as the only legitimate caliph after the
Prophet Mohammed and Sunnis address him by the
honorific of caliph.
The Iran-backed Shiite opposition group has vowed that
Shiites of Iraq would stay out of the ongoing war to
topple Saddam "until they are certain that the Iraqi
regime's repressive machine has been annihilated."
From the very outset of the war, SCIRI leader Mohammed
Baqer Hakim urged Shiites to remain neutral, blaming
both the Americans and Saddam for the war.
Baghdad countered that call by putting on Iraq
Television Sistani and four other top Shiite clerics
at Najaf calling on Iraqis of all beliefs and ethnic
groups to unite in the defence of their country
against "the enemies of God and humanity."
Against tug-of-war comes the apparent American designs
to control Shiite power in southern Iraq.
According to a SCIRI official, if Washington "tries
to exclude us, we will see what our position will
be."However, "so far this is not the case," said the
official.
That might indeed be the case at this point in time.
But the US would soon find out it has opened not only
a Panadora's box which it won't be able to close but
also stirred a deadly hornest's nest if it tries to
tamper with the sentiments of the Shiites of southern
Iraq.





___________________________

'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.

Saddam strategy and US deceit

by pv vivekanand


IT HAS BECOME clear that Saddam Hussein's strategy is
to inflict the maximum casualties among the invading
American and British forces in the war that they
launched to topple him. The only hope, as seen from
Saddam's vantage point, is that massive American
casualties could, at some point, dissuade US President
George W 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.
Saddam's formula is simple: He can afford to have
thousands of Iraqis killed since he does not have to
account to his people, whereas Bush would be held
accountable for the life of every American who dies in
the war against Iraq.
Sooner or later, according to Saddam's calculations,
it would 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 he
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.
according to sources, "several hundred" 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
strategy.
in the run-up to the siege of baghdad, iraqis would
also be engaged in guerrilla warfare, with
hit-and-run attacks as well as suicide blasts like the
one outside Najaf on Saturday when a military officer
disguised as a taxi driver blew himself up and took at
least four American soldiers with him.
An iraqi spokesman insisted on Sunday that 11 American
soldiers were killed in the blast.
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.
As of Sunday, the total casualties among US-led
forces since the start of war on March 20 stood at
59 killed and 15 missing.
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 they
would 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 very numerical strength of the
military force gathered inside the capital would
discourage any organised revolt; those planning it
would know that they could be shot dead at the
slighest sign of dissent.
The "pause" reported in the allied push towards
baghdad on Sunday seemed to be aimed at adding more
strength to the campaign. the us 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 is stay put on the
ground and continue air assaults until the units are
reinforced for a direct confrontation.
In the meantime, it is believed that the US has made some deals with
Saddam's top generals, and this could have a major impact on the shape of the war.

Hiking the stakes

y pv vivekanand

THE US has dramatically increased the stakes in the
ongoing war against Iraq by issuing an implied threat
of military action against Syria if it helped its Arab
neighbour to resist the American-British invading
force.
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 George W. Bush and
his aides like Defence Secretary Donald Rumseld - who
made the charge against Syria on Friday - 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. There are even doomsday
political prophets who predict a "third world war" --
a prospect that is ruled out by all but a handful of
observers of the Middle East.
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 Husein 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.
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. It is also accusing
Syria 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, but Washington did not seem to be ready to
oblige Israel until now.
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.
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 (in
view of the Arab rejection of Israel's occupation of
Arab lands and its refusal to accept Palestinian
rights as the basis for peace).
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. Israel has one of the best-equipped
military might in the world -- in fact it is counted
as the fifth or sixth strongest military power armed
with hi-tech conventional and unconventional weapons.
As such, it is conceivable that the US might simply
assign Israel to "take care of Syria" while it
concentrates on Iraq. The ground for such Israeli
action could be easily "manufactured" -- staged
anti-Israeli attacks blamed on Syrian-backed elements
are the means to pave the way for an Israeli-Syrian
confrontation.
Another option is for the US to fire a few rockets at
Syria if the situation gets worse and thus send a
strong "physical" warning to Damascus to stay out. If
that happens, then Damascus would have to deal with an
unprecedented wave of Arab nationalism which would
only turn the situation worse and restrict its
diplomatic options.
The wild card in the game will be Iran, which would
step in if Syria is targeted. The two countries are
bound by close relations, and Syria has always
described non-Arab Iran as its "sole strategic ally"
in the region. Syria was the only Arab country which
supported Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Iran is
generous with aid for Syria.
The Syrians export their finer quality crude and
refine Iran-supplied free oil for its own purposes.
Rusmfeld on Friday 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 would sooner
or later be used against the Israelis and would gladly
welcome a chance to have a go at Iran
However, from Rumsfeld has taken softer tone towards
Iran than Syria.


---------------------------------------


Following is a piece that I wrote in August
2002, predicting that the US will be targeting Syria
and Iran.

August 16, 2002

BY PV VIVEKANAND

SYRIA and Iran should have enough reasons to be
worried. It is emerging that the planned US action
against Iraq for "regime change" in Baghdad could be
part of a grand plan to remove all those who challenge
US strategic interests in the Middle East, and Syria
could be the next US target after Iraq to be followed
by Iran.
There are indeed signs of a wider American campaign to
consolidate the US' standing as the unchallenged sole
superpower of the world, and the Middle East is a very
important test case for Washington.
Reports from Washington indicate that the driving
force behind the campaign is a small group of
"neoconservatives" with powerful political allies and
which seeks to serve Israeli interests more than those
of the US.
Indeed, it is no coincidence that the three US targets
in the Middle East, Iraq, Syria and Iran, are also
among the most vocal against Israel. It is not simply
a matter of convenience for the US that fundamental
changes are made in these countries to remove the
challenge to Israel if not to better suit the
interests of Washington's sole "strategic ally" in the
Middle East; it is indeed a policy objective just as
the ouster of Saddam Hussein is.
Washington flirted with Syria in the early 90s because
it suited US interests to do so but now Damascus has
become more of a liability than an asset only because
it insists on its rights and represents the toughest
of all Arab parties on whom Israel wants to impose its
version of peace.
Similarly, the US hoped it could do business with Iran
when "moderate" Mohammed Khatami was elected president
in 1997. However, those hopes failed to materialise in
view of the "hardline" religious establishment's grip
on power on a parallel track with that of the
government but with overriding authority.
Now that Khatami would soon step down after serving
two terms, the US has little hopes that another
"moderate" might take his place, and hence the recent
posture that Washington had "given up" on Khatami.
On the Syrian front, George Bush Senior broke new
ground in Washington's ties with Damascus by holding a
meeting with the late president Hafez Al Assad in late
1990 and secured his endorsement for the US-led
military action that evicted Iraq from Kuwait in early
1991.
In the bargain, Bush promised Assad at least two
things: The US would ensure that an Arab-Israeli peace
process is launched soon after the war over Kuwait and
Washington would not question Syria's role in Lebanon.
The peace process, Assad was assured, would aim at
implementing United Nations resolutions based on
international legitimacy. In the end, apart from a
solution to the Palestinian problem, Syria would have
its Golan Heights back from Israeli occupation.
But when Arab-Israeli negotiations got under way in
earnest after launched in Madrid in late 1991, it
became clear that Israel had no intention of returning
the Golan Heights, and the Arab camp became weak, as
the late Assad saw it, because of the
Palestinian-Israeli Oslo accords of 1993 and the peace
treaty that Jordan signed with Israel in 1994 -- both
under American auspices.
Assad, a political realist, was ready to accept peace
with Israel and normal relations with the Jewish state
in exchange for the return of the Golan in its
entirety.
From the Israeli perspective, there is no way it could
return the Golan to Syria since the Heights represents
its main source of water. Giving it up would mean
surrendering Israel's control over its source of water
and that is not a chance it would take no matter what
cost. As such Assad's insistence on a return to the
lines of June 4, 1967 offered a perfect cover for
Israel to stall the process.
Despite flirting with Syria, it would seem that the US
never actually "trusted" it. It did not remove Syria
from the list of "countries sponsoring terrorism" and
demanded a series of reforms before it would think of
doing so. Assad tried to comply with some of the
demands by expelling some of the groups named as
"terrorist" by the US, but it was not enough for
Washington.
The US also found it was difficult to keep its pledge
to stay away from intervening in Lebanon as calls
mounted from Lebanese right-wing groups backed by
France for an end to the Syrian domination of Lebanese
affairs. Furthermore, Damascus failed to heed American
demands to rein in Lebanese resistance against
Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon, and it soon
became apparent that Washington could not do business
with Syria.
Indeed, the US hoped that Bashar Al Assad, who
succeeded his father in 2000, would be more amenable
to its demands. But the hope was short-lived since
Bashar remained firm on his father's lines in the
peace process.
The US is now convinced that it would be wasting time
to persuade Damascus to accept anything less than its
demands in the peace process and to dilute the Syrian
role in Lebanon. And so, a "regime change" in Damascus
is the only way out, as far as the US sees it under
the givens today.
On the Iranian front, "liberal" Khatami has been
unable to weaken the hardline theologians' grip on
power. In the American view, the religious
establishment's constitutional authority is too
deep-rooted to be pried away through conventional
political means adopted by political forces within the
country. Again, in the US eyes, a "regime change"
aiming at destroying the religious leaders' power is
the order of the day in Iran.
The hostility of the theologians towards the US
stemmed from the American backing for the ousted Shah
dynasty. The hostility was further strengthened and
turned into a way of life for the religious
establishment of Iran when the US implicitly backed
Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
Iran's support for Lebanon's Hizbollah and Palestinian
groups is a constant source of concern for Israel,
and, by extension, the US. Further compounding the
concern are the advances that Iran has reportedly made
in developing long-range missiles which could hit
Israel, its acquisition of two Russian submarines and
the ongoing construction of a nuclear power plant on
the Gulf coast.
Now it is almost foregone conclusion short of divine
intervention or a miracle that US President George W.
Bush would not be dissuaded from his plans to launch
military strikes against Iraq and topple Saddam
Hussein. It is also clear that the US action would
lead to a reshaping of Iraq, including a
disintegration of that country as we know it today.
It is not a new discovery. It was always known that
toppling Saddam could not been seen as a surgical
operation conducted in isolation from all other
realities in Iraq, and Arab leaders have repeatedly
warned the US against such action that would
definitely have wide-ranging regional implications.
It was also clear these fears plus the immense
difficulty in toppling Saddam had forced the then
administration of George Bush Senior to stop short of
ordering American forces into Baghdad after the 1991
Gulf war.
As such, and given that the ground realities today
make it much more predictable that military action
against Iraq would destabilise the region, it appears
that Washington has accepted the inevitability of such
a course of events and, if anything, it suits the
post-Sept. 11 American thinking.
That would definitely mean that the "regime change" in
Iraq that Bush is seeking is the first step in the
grand American plan to change the shape of the region
and would be followed by similar action in Syria and
Iran.
However, there could be more than meets the eye in the
equation.
There is a growing school of thought that believes
that purely Zionist -- read Israeli or vice versa --
interests aimed controlling the world's destiny are
the guiding force behind the US administration's
actions that ultimately would serve Israel rather than
the US itself.
A recent report indicated that the main force driving
Bush into undertaking such actions is the group of
"neoconservatives" in Washington.
Some might even argue that it sounds more like a
Zionist-led circle which had planned in the first half
of the last century that the best means to serve the
goal of Zionist domination of the world was to control
the superpower which dominates the world.
The report, carried by Reuters, said that the group
known was "neocons" first emerged in the 1960s when a
group of thinkers, many of them Jewish and all
passionately anti-Communist, became disillusioned
with what they saw as a dangerous radical drift within
the Democratic Party to which they then belonged.
Some researchers argue that the group was actually
formed in the 30s, with Prescott Bush, grandfather of
the present president, taking a leading role as an
American Christian supporter of Israel but manipulated
by Zionist leaders.
That group is now aligned with the Republicans, and
might find Bush Junior a willing tool in its hands to
serve Israeli interests if only because of his
relative inexperience in international affairs,
critics say.
It was under this group's influence that the then
president Ronald Reagan took the unprecedented step of
bombing a foreign country in peace time arguing that
it was involved in attacks against Americans.
Under Reagan's orders, American warplanes bombed the
Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1985
after intelligence reports said that Libya was behind
a grenade attack at a Berlin disco frequented by
American soldiers. One woman was killed in the grenade
attack while the American bombing killed five people,
including Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi's adopted
daughter.
In concept, it fitted in with the Israeli policy of
military retaliation for attacks targeting Israeli
interests, and Reagan appeared to have been prompted
to taking an Israeli leaf by the Zionist group.
(It is even argued by some critics that the all-too
powerful "neocons" were behind "framing" Libya in the
1988 Lockerbie affair despite evidence that pointed
the finger at Syria and Lebanon as well as "rogue"
agents of the Central Intelligence Agency. The
argument goes on to say that the group thought Libya
posed an immediate challenge to US interests and
Washington was not ready yet to take on Syria or
Iran).
Today, according to Stephen Walt, a dean of the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
the group, which he described as "small but
well-placed" and including "neoconservative officials
and commentators, is primarily interested in
eliminating what they regard as a threat to Israel."
"Absent their activities, the United States would be
focusing on containing Iraq, which we have done
successfully since the Gulf War, but we would not be
trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We would also be
pursuing a more evenhanded policy in the Middle East
in general," Walt told Reuters.
Among the "allies" of the group are Vice-President
Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his
deputy Paul Wolfowitz.
Another ally of the group is said to be Richard Perle,
another former Reagan Defence Department hawk who
serves as chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy
Board, "a formerly sleepy committee of foreign policy
old timers that Perle has refashioned into an
important advisory group."
Incidentally, it was Perle who organised a briefing by
RAND Corporation analyst Laurent Murawiec, who has no
firsthand experience whatsoever with the Middle East.
In his briefing -- which was very conveniently
"leaked" to the Washington Post -- Murawiec portrayed
Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the US, an assertion that
prompted the Pentagon to issue a denial that it is not
official policy.
The "neocon" circle is backed by conservative
magazines like Commentary, and the Weekly Standard,
and think-tanks such as the Hudson Institute, the
American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the
New American Century, says Reuters.
James Zogby, chairman of the Arab American institute,
appeared to have put, perhaps unwittingly, his finger
on the Zionist pulse of the group when he commented
that the circle's "attitude towards an Iraq invasion
is, if you have the ability and the desire to do it,
that's justification enough."
That is precisely a part the Zionist ideology, and
this seen at work today in the brutal military
approach adopted and practised by Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon against the Palestinians and his
attitude towards the Arabs at large.

Saddam replacement(s) in the making

v vivekanand

US-engineered moves are under way to establish a new
group of Iraqis opposed to Saddam Hussein as a
possible alternative to the known factions that are
deemed by American intelligence agencies as unsuitable
to serve US interests in post-war Iraq.
Iraqi exile sources said talks were being held in
Washington, Europe and in the Middle East on the shape
of the new group that is expected to be favoured by
the US to take over power in Baghdad under an American
umbrella.
Washington launched the moves after facing stiff
opposition to its plans to have a military
administration in post-war Iraq and a second-layer
civilian set-up backed by elements of the present
regime to run the bureaucracy.
Iraqi exile groups such as the Iraqi National
Congress, the Iraqi National Accord, the Constituional
Monarchy Movement and the dominant Kurdish groups in
northern Iraq as well as the main Shiite opposition
faction opposed the US plan.
As a result, the US agreed that Iraqi exile groups
would be given power in post-war Iraq although the
details of the arrangement have yet to be worked out.

The American "change of mind" was reported last week
by one of the Kurdish group, the Kurdistan Democratic
Party (KDP), and the Shiite faction, the Supreme
Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Washington has not commented on the reported
agreement. US President George Bush's special envoy,
Zalmay Zhalilzad, is in Turkey for talks with the
Iraqi exile groups.
Zhalizad rushed to Ankara after Turkey said it wanted
to send its military into northern Iraqi in order to
check Iraqi Kurds from seizing control of oil-rich
regions there to boost their moves towards
independence that could spell trouble for Ankara among
Turkish Kurds.
Zhalilzad has managed to secure a Turkish undertaking
that any Turkish deployment in northern Iraq would be
co-ordinated with the Americans.
And now he faces the task of working out the post-war
arrangements with the Iraqi exile groups.
The Iraqi exile sources said Zhalilzad was expected to
work with a "leadership council" established at the
conclusion of a January meeting which grouped almost
all Iraqi exile groups. That meeting was held in
northern Iraq..
Meanwhile, another meeting is being planned to be held
in London by Iraqi exiles who prefera United Nations
administration in Iraq when Saddam Hussein is toppled
rather than a United States administration.
The gathering is expected to name itself the Iraqi
Democracy Group and seeks a civil administration
.until the situation will be right for a general
election to elect the new government of Iraq.
organiser Saad Abdel Razek says the "group of Iraqi
liberals from all countries" would choose retired
Iraqi dissident Adnan Pachachi, a former foreign
minister, to lead the new group.
Pachachi, who lives in Abu Dhabi, has rejected the
idea of a US military administration for his country.
He also rejected a seat on a leadership council
formed by the other Iraqi opposition groups meeting in
Iraqi Kurdistan last month.
Ahmed Chalabi, who heads the umbrella group Iraqi
National Congress (INC) of iraqi dissiddents, opposes
major role for the United Nations in a post-war Iraq.
Chalabi argues that UN is too weak to deal with the
political intrigues of Iraq, the destruction of
weapons of mass destruction and the dismantling of
Saddam's security services.
Chalabi, who wants to succeed Saddam as president,
says he wants allied troops to remain after the war
until a referendum and then elections were held to
establish democracy and independence.
"The only ones who can mobilise the Iraqi people are
the opposition, and so far there is little role for us
in this war," says Chalabi, who claims his grop has
"tens of thousands of fighters throughout the
country."
"The leadership of the opposition are in a position to
declare a provisional government, which could play a
very important role in dealing with the security
situation," Chalabi said.
While the US has not made its position clear on
whether it favours Chalabi, reports indciate that
Washington has little respect for any of the existing
groups and that is why it favours setting up an
alternative leadership for Iraqi exiles.
The american moves are kept cloaked in secrecy and it
is not even known who the people the us is dealing
with. but, as a highly informed source put it, "soon
enough the world would know who the US favours."
One thing is sure: The US would not allow the UN to
have any major say in running post-war Iraq; nor would
the major powers in the world body would permit the US
to take control either






Opinion...



Iraq has seen a week of fierce fight. But the end to
the conflict is not in sight. But another war has
begun, the diplomatic war. It is to decide who is
going to control Baghdad once President Saddam Hussein
is ousted. Although the US-British war plans have gone
awry despite the "shock and awe" blitzkrieg, the war
planners are plotting the next move.
The only planning that is on course is the
pulverisation of Iraq with precision-guided bombs and
rockets. There is massive destruction of
infrastructures. It is assumed that in the first week
of military action there have been more than 4,000
civilians casualties. The number of dead could be as
much as 350.
Iraq, a country crippled by 10 years of backbreaking
United Nations sanctions, is putting up resistance.
The massive high-tech weaponry of the US could not
subdue the Iraqis which American military leaders
initially thought could be accomplished in a matter of
days. Now even the most optimistic scenario speaks of
months of military engagement.
The fears that the US forces are getting mired in the
Iraqi rubble and desert have dampened confidence of
the market worldwide. It is thought the war might last
for months. US President George W.
Bush said on Thursday the war would last "however long
it takes to win." This negative sentiment has resulted
in loss of consumer and business confidence. And that
is going to hit corporate earnings, the economy and
the market. The result is already there: Oil is up,
the dollar is down and safe haven gold is soaring
There is growing anger at the US for farming out
lucrative contracts for reconstruction work. However,
it is a message meant for France, Germany, Russia and
China for refusing to be part of the “coalition of the
willing.” They are denied participation. French
Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has therefore
demanded the UN must be at the heart of Iraq
reconstruction. The European Union insists the world
body must be "in the driving seat" in post-war Iraq.
This is an issue before Bush and British Prime
Minister Tony Blair at the Camp David summit. The
only way Blair could tackle his critics at home for
joining America’s war on Iraq is to find a formula to
allow UN participation in post-Saddam Iraq. He could
hope to help mend ties with the European allies if
Britain is able to persuade the US to allow others
some role in post-war Iraq. But Bush does not appear
too keen on giving the UN a role. He has a grudge
against it for impeding his war plans through what he
considers the diplomacy farce aimed at delaying
decisions.
The Bush thinking is revealed by Secretary of State
Colin Powell who said Washington is not keen to cede
control of Iraq to the UN. The US does not take on
“this huge burden with our coalition partners not to
be able to have a significant dominating control over
how it unfolds in the future." The former US military
chief, who conducted the first Gulf War on behalf of
Bush’s father, is precise in explaining US objective:
Take control of Iraq and establish American political
and economic control.
Powell has rejected UN oversight of the transitional
authority it is planning for Iraq. It would be
initially led by a US military commander. He would be
at Iraq’s “centre of gravity.” After the
consolidation of the interim authority, which would
have Iraqis on board, the US might consider a role for
the UN. The Iraqi interim administration would be the
nucleus of new government and exert authority over
every aspect of emerging Iraqi government. Powell
promises the US would take care of Iraq with the full
understanding of the international community with a UN
special co-ordinator joining at a later date.

Apparently what Washington is expecting is a neat
surgical operation to remove Saddam and transplant a
government to America’s liking. Alas, in a war such
carefully planned operation can go wrong as is
happening now. The US war planners were expecting a
quick and decisive win in three or four days.
It would be wise if the US listens to Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak. He has warned that post-war
Iraq would be even more dangerous than the war itself.
Although he did not elaborate, his officials have
cautioned that instability may spread across the
region. The “democracy domino” that Bush hopes for
with US friendly regimes in place across the Middle
East is a myth for neo-conservative intellectuals to
mull over. Such a presumption is based on a lack of
understanding of the socio- political culture of the
region. Bush should have understood this when the
first shot was fired at Iraq.
Many independent analysts have warned that the ouster
of Saddam is likely to trigger radical nationalism.
Its impact would be hostility towards Washington.
Nobody can ignore the anger and sadness of the Muslim
and Arab nations that have been getting a raw deal for
over five decades. The epitome is the Palestinian
struggle that could not be resolved because of
involvement of the US as a biased peacebroker. The
inability of the US-led forces in restoring normalcy
in Afghanistan after the ouster of the Taliban regime,
the pathetic conditions of Afghans in the Guantanamo
Bay detention centre and denial of justice to them
have incensed right-thinking people.
The US attempts to sugarcoat the planned military
occupation of Iraq as liberation are bound to fail.
The rising wave of Iraqi pride and anger cannot be
stymied. The military crusade against Iraq would go
bust as in the colonial past. Let the Iraqis decide
their future. Leave them alone for the sake of peace
in the region.

US duplicity again...

by pv vivekanand


IT IS IRONIC THAT the US is insisting that Iraqi respect the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war in relevance to the American soldiers who were captured by the Iraqi army while it is oblivious to the decades-old demand that Israel apply the same in the case of the Palestinians.
Israel has steadfastly refused to apply any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, whether related to prisoners of war or civilians under occupation.
Under the principles of the Geneva Convention, the Palestinians are entitled to adopt any means available to them to resist the Israeli occupation of their land as long as their actions do not go beyond the occupied territory.
Attacks against civilian targets of the occupying force does not apply here since the occupying force is not supposed to have such targets in the occupied territory in the first place.
The Arab countries have for long sought to force Israel into accepting that the Geneva Conventions as applicable to the Palestinian territory and its people under is occupation.
But Israel refuses to accept them by citing the paradox that it seized the territory from Jordan in the 1967 war and since Jordan was not entitled to the land -- its annexation of the West Bank in 1951 was not internationally recognised -- the issue concerns a stateless people. Its interpretation is that the Geneva Convention could be applied only between two states (the occupier and occupied) and that since the Palestinians do not have a state the convention has no relevance to the dispute.
Calls for forcing Israel into changing its rejectionist stand are a regular feature at every review conference of the Geneva Conventions, but the US has always supported the Israelis and warded off international pressure on the Jewish state.
The last such conference was to take place in 2000 but any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian issue was scuttled because the United States warned all others to stay off.
In the US-Iraq context, the issue of Geneva Conventions came up after Iraqi Television as well as Qatar's Al Jazeera Television on Sunday broadcast images of several dead bodies, apparently US soldiers killed in Iraq, along with five prisoners, including two wounded, one of them a woman.
This was interpreted by the US as violation of Article 13 and 14 of the Geneva Convention.
The relevant paragraphs in Article 13 say: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention."
"....Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
Article 14 says:
"Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture."
Article 129 of the convention says: "Each party to the convention has an
obligation to search for those suspected of having committed such
breaches and bring them to justice before its own courts or hand
them over for trial to another party."
US President George W. Bush warned on Sunday that he expected the Iraqis to treat the PoWs in a "humane" manner and those who do not would be tried as "war criminals."
Even before Bush spoke, Iraq said it would apply the Geneva Conventions in the case of PoWs.
For those who might argue that the US has no right to demand the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the war with Iraq since the war itself was not authorised by the United Nations and thus has no legitimacy, the convention has the answer in Article Two which says:
"The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognised by one of them."
Indeed, the "embedded" US televison crews travelling with the American-British invading force into Iraq have broadcast footage of Iraqi captives, including civilians as well as soldiers. Wouldn't that constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be splitting hairs to note that the American captives were forced to speak on camera while captive Iraqis were also shown speaking to American television crew?
One might argue that the US government has no control over the private-run television channels while the Iraqi government controls the state-run channel and thus could be held responsible for what the channel broadcasts. However, the counterpoint is that the American television cameras would not have been able to see the Iraqi civilian and military prisoners had it not been for Washington's permission to have them along as "embedded" in the invading force.

US hypocrisy over Geneva Conventions

by pv vivekanand


IT IS IRONIC THAT the US is insisting that Iraqi respect the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war in relevance to the American soldiers who were captured by the Iraqi army while it is oblivious to the decades-old demand that Israel apply the same in the case of the Palestinians.
Israel has steadfastly refused to apply any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, whether related to prisoners of war or civilians under occupation.
Under the principles of the Geneva Convention, the Palestinians are entitled to adopt any means available to them to resist the Israeli occupation of their land as long as their actions do not go beyond the occupied territory.
Attacks against civilian targets of the occupying force does not apply here since the occupying force is not supposed to have such targets in the occupied territory in the first place.
The Arab countries have for long sought to force Israel into accepting that the Geneva Conventions as applicable to the Palestinian territory and its people under is occupation.
But Israel refuses to accept them by citing the paradox that it seized the territory from Jordan in the 1967 war and since Jordan was not entitled to the land -- its annexation of the West Bank in 1951 was not internationally recognised -- the issue concerns a stateless people. Its interpretation is that the Geneva Convention could be applied only between two states (the occupier and occupied) and that since the Palestinians do not have a state the convention has no relevance to the dispute.
Calls for forcing Israel into changing its rejectionist stand are a regular feature at every review conference of the Geneva Conventions, but the US has always supported the Israelis and warded off international pressure on the Jewish state.
The last such conference was to take place in 2000 but any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian issue was scuttled because the United States warned all others to stay off.
In the US-Iraq context, the issue of Geneva Conventions came up after Iraqi Television as well as Qatar's Al Jazeera Television on Sunday broadcast images of several dead bodies, apparently US soldiers killed in Iraq, along with five prisoners, including two wounded, one of them a woman.
This was interpreted by the US as violation of Article 13 and 14 of the Geneva Convention.
The relevant paragraphs in Article 13 say: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention."
"....Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
Article 14 says:
"Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture."
Article 129 of the convention says: "Each party to the convention has an
obligation to search for those suspected of having committed such
breaches and bring them to justice before its own courts or hand
them over for trial to another party."
US President George W. Bush warned on Sunday that he expected the Iraqis to treat the PoWs in a "humane" manner and those who do not would be tried as "war criminals."
Even before Bush spoke, Iraq said it would apply the Geneva Conventions in the case of PoWs.
For those who might argue that the US has no right to demand the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the war with Iraq since the war itself was not authorised by the United Nations and thus has no legitimacy, the convention has the answer in Article Two which says:
"The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognised by one of them."
Indeed, the "embedded" US televison crews travelling with the American-British invading force into Iraq have broadcast footage of Iraqi captives, including civilians as well as soldiers. Wouldn't that constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Wouldn't it be splitting hairs to note that the American captives were forced to speak on camera while captive Iraqis were also shown speaking to American television crew?
One might argue that the US government has no control over the private-run television channels while the Iraqi government controls the state-run channel and thus could be held responsible for what the channel broadcasts. However, the counterpoint is that the American television cameras would not have been able to see the Iraqi civilian and military prisoners had it not been for Washington's permission to have them along as "embedded" in the invading force.

Ansar Al Islam

s ongoing war against Iraq. The group was in
American gunsights since July last year when it
emerged that it was present in a corner of northern
Iraq near the border with Iran and had links with
Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
However, American intelligence could not find any
links between Ansar and the Baghdad government. Had
such a link been established, it would have given new
life to Washington's fumbling effort to assert that
the Saddam Hussein regime was connected with Al Qaeda
through Ansar.
That did not prevent US Secretary of State Colin
Powell to assert in February that Ansar enjoyed
Saddam's patronage and that the group had a
sophisticated "chemical weapons testing facility" in
northern Iraq.
But Powell was caught redfaced when American and
Western reporters rushed to the area and found no such
facility and reported their finding.
The reporters found that armed Ansar fighters were
present at the site and living like any Iraqi villager
and engaged in a running conflict with other Kurdish
groups in the area. There was no evidence, either on
the ground or otherwise, that they had any relations
with the Saddam regime.
However, the reporters who visited the site found the
walls covered with poems and graffiti praising Bin
Laden and the Sept. 11 attacks on the US.."
In one, ther was a picture of the New York twin towers
with a drawing of Bin Laden standing on the top
holding a Kalashnikov rifle in one hand and a knife in
the other, according to one report.
In any event, Powell's claim was contradictory in
itself because the area where Ansar is present is
beyond the control of the Saddam government and the
region comes under the "no-fly" zone that the US had
declared in northern Iraq, preventing the Iraqi army
from entering the area.
As such, Iraq immediately countered Powell, pointing
out that it was illogical, baseless and unreasonable
to expect the Iraqi government to crack down on a
group which was present and operating in an area under
US protection. It also asked why American officials
have not publicly raised the Al Qaeda matter with the
Kurdish groups Washington supports in northern Iraq.
On Saturday and again on Sunday, Americans bombed the
group's base near Halabja in northern Iraq, killing at
least 60 of its fighters. No doubt further attacks
were planned along with a ground offensive against the
group be launched by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
(PUK), one of the two dominant Kurdish factions in the
area.
US intelligence reports said that Ansar had more than
2,500 fighters grouped in the area ahead of the March
19 launch of the American war against Iraq. The
reports could not be confirmed independently since
earlier estimates said the group did not have more
than 800 members.
The PUK and Ansar have been locked in a bitter battle
for more than two years and it was backing from
Iranian sympathisers -- not necessarily the Tehran
regime itself -- that helped Ansar substain itself
against PUK assaults and also to make daring forays
into PUK-held territories.
Ansar's name hit headlines in early August when Cable
News Network (CNN) screened testing of chemical
weapons in Afghanistan by Al Qaeda members and the
group was present in northern Iraq.
Immediately after the CNN screening of the purported
tapes of Qaeda testing of chemical weapons, US
"experts" said it looked like a method followed by
Ansar Al Islam.
According to US intelligence reports, Ansar fighters
trained with Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan and the
group is harbouring Al Qaeda activists in northern
Iraq after they fled overland from Afghanistan in the
wake of the American war there in late 2001. The
implication is that they might have reached northern
Iraq through Iranian territory.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said there
were Al Qaeda members in Iraq, but he had not said
where they were.
US intelligence had monitored an Ansar Al Islam site
in northern Iraq where chemical or biological weapons
experiments were allegedly conducted with farm
animals. It initially was feared this might constitute
a significant chemical-biological threat, but US
officials decided it was not serious enough to justify
a military strike, reports said at that time.
US officials initially said Arab members of Ansar Al
Islam were involved in the alleged experimentation
with chemicals, but later they said it was unclear
whether they were Arabs or Kurds.
Washington has failed to establish that Baghdad had
links with Al Qaeda although several attempts were
made: first with a report that an Iraqi diplomat had
met with Mohammed Atta, the suspected leader of the
Sept. 11 attacks, in Europe in early 2001. It could
not be confirmed that such a meeting took place, let
alone that the two discussed Al Qaeda plans to stage
the attacks in New York and Washington.
The second attempt came with reports that a defecting
Iraqi intelligence agent had seen Al Qaeda leader
Osama Bin Laden in Baghdad in early 2000. The US media
played up the report, but then it became aparent that
the defecting agent could not have been telling the
truth since he had left Iraq in early 1999 and never
went back.
In any event, British intelligence reports backed by
Central Intelligence Agency findings have showed that
Saddam could not have had any alliance with Bin Laden
if only because of the deep ideological chasm between
them. Bin Laden calls Saddam an infidel and has blamed
the Iraqi leader for giving a pretext for the US
military presence in the Gulf by invading Kuwait in
1990.
It is possible that Saddam might have tried to use
Ansar Al Islam if only to create confusion among the
dozens of Kurdish groups which challenge his control
of northern Iraq, but it is doubtful whether he had
much success with the group, which is staunchly
fundamentalist bordering on fanatic obsession with
their version of Islam against "the blasphemous
secularist, political, social, and cultural" society
there.
Ansar Al Islam, which is led by a Kurd, Najmuddin
Faraj Ahmad, who goes by the name of Mullah Syed
Kreekar, had links with Al Qaeda, says US officials.
What is known about Ansar Al Islam?
It is a tight-knit group of less than 800 followers --
Iraqis, Jordanians, Moroccans, Palestinians and
Afghans -- and enforces a Taliban-style Islamic code
in a cluster of villages in a tiny pocket of territory
between the town of Halabja and the Iranian border,
an area around 80 kilometres southeast of the PUK's
administrative centre of Sulaymaniya.
(Halabja is the site of what the US has described as a
massive chemical attack towards the end of the 1980-88
Iran-Iraq war in order to fight Kurdish dissent. The
US accused Iraq of using the chemical weapons, but
analysis of the chemical used left the question open.
The analysis found that the chemical was not of the
type used by Iraq and experts suggested that it could
have come from Iran).
Mulla Kreekar has refugee status in Norway after
landing there from Iran under a UN refugee programme.
However, the Norwegian government has moved to expel
him after the US allegation that the group had ties
with Al Qaeda.
Mullah joined Ansar Al Islam after its formation in
September 2001. He replaced Abu Abdullah Shafae - an
Iraqi Kurd who trained with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
for 10 years - and changed his name from Warya Holery.
Shafae is now Ansar Al Islam's deputy.
Ansar Al Islam activists have ransacked and razed
beauty salons, burned schools for girls, and murdered
women in the streets for refusing to wear the veil in
the areas under their control.
"Ansar Al Islam is a kind of Taliban," says PUK leader
Jalal Talibani. "They are terrorists who have declared
war against all Kurdish political parties. We gave
them a chance to change their ways ... and end their
terrorist acts. But if we can't do it through
dialogue, we are obliged to use force."
The PUK, which is engaged in a running battle with
Ansar Al Islam for domination of the villages on the
border, does not believe Ansar is backed by Iran.
"The Iranians are emphatic that this group is a threat
to their own security," according to Barham Salih, a
senior PUK official.
PUK officials have claimed that Ansar had received
hundreds of thousands of dolllars, weapons and Toyota
landcruisers from Al Qaeda and that the group has ties
to Iraqi government agents operating in northern Iraq.

The source of such information was, they ssay,
intercepted telephone conversations between Iraqis and
Ansar Al Islam.
Given that the PUK is bitterly opposed to the Iraqi
regime, such comments need a lot more than simple
assertions..
Saddam's eldest son Uday has accused Iran of backing
the group but his comment was ambiguous since he
referred to a group called "Jund Al Islam," which US
officials varying describe as either a mother group
from which Ansar Al Islam broke away or an offshoot of
Ansar Al Islam itself.
"They (Jund Al Islam) do not have any link whatsoever
with Al Qaeda, and this is purely an Iranian game
aimed at gaining influence in the area," according to
Uday Hussein.
Traditionally, Tehran has supported the PUK)of Jalal
Talabani, and its support for other groups is seen as
aimed at using them if, as and when Kurdish activities
threaten Iranian interests.
Tehran is anxious to ensure that Iranian Kurds, Iraqi
Kurds and Turkish Kurds do not gang up to set up an
independent Kurdistan in the border area.
Shortly after Saturday's US bombing, an apparent car
bomb in northern Iraq killed at least five people,
including an Australian cameraman near an Ansar camp.
The camp itself was subjected to a two-hour
bombardment by some 50 cruise missiles.
US missiles also targeted a base of the Komala Islami
Kurdistan (Islamic Society of Kurdistan), in the
small town of Khormal, killing at least 50 people.
Komala control an area between PUK and Ansar territory
It was unclear why Komala was targetted. It keeps out
of the PUK-Ansar dispute.

Treble trouble for US

PV Vivekanand

THE US is facing treble trouble in Turkey. It has all but given up hope for access to Turkish territory to wage a war against Iraq and Ankara has yet to allow the use of its airspace for American warplanes to bomb Iraq. Worse still is the possibility that Turkey might send in its own military into northern Iraq to seize key oil-producing areas of that country citing its Ottoman-era claims and fears that Iraqi Kurds would gain control of oil resources and spark nationalist fever among Turkish Kurds.
A war between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds could be in the offing unless Washington comes up with an elusive magic formula to contain both sides, and it is an effort it could ill-afford against the run-up to and execution of its war plans.
As of Saturday, it seemed highly unlikely that the US would have access in time to Turkish territory to deploy more than 62,000 soldiers in the war effort. The new Ankara government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has further delayed any vote in parliament for at least another week. The US had to make alternate arrangements and move some of its warships off the Mediterranean to the Red Sea from where missiles would not have to fly through Turkish airspace.
To express its anger at the Turkish stand, Washington has withdrawn an offer of up to $26 billion in American aid and loans. "The package was time-bound and we have moved on time wise," according to a US official quoted by the Associated Press.
Erdogan, a hard-line Islamist who is perceived to have softened his stand in the wake of his Justice and Development Party's landslide elections late last year, says that he wants his cabinet to secure a vote of confidence in parliament before bringing up the American request for use of Turkish territory for war against Iraq.
Obviously, Erdogan wants to pre-empt the repeat of a "no" vote that came early this month when about 100 of his own AKP members of parliament voted against the motion and others stayed away from the session. Opinion polls have shown that more than 80 per cent of Turks reject a war against Iraq.
Going to parliament first with a demand that his Islamist followers endorse a move to help the US fight a war against a fellow Muslim country might not be the best idea for Erdogan because a "no" vote could have a damaging effect on his political standing and might find reverberations in a subsequent confidence vote for his government.
Washington could not find fault with his logic and pressure him into rushing a vote on its request as a priority.
Then came the second jolt; Ankara has yet to approve American use of Turkish airspace for US warplanes to launch strikes on Iraq. It remained unclear over the weekend whether the Turkish airbase that the US and Britain are using to enforce the "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq would still be available for use once military action is launched, perhaps as early as this week.
The Turkish reticence in granting airspace rights is a serious strain in Ankara-Washington relationship. Both countries are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), whose charter calls for granting such rights to fellow member countries. Even France, which is in the forefront of opposition to a US-led war on Iraq, has respected that right and granted use of its airspace to the US. This point was emphasised by US President George W.Bush in a message to Erdogan after the Turkish leader's victory in a by-poll that saw him enter parliament last Sunday. He was banned from running in elections under a constitutional provision in view of an earlier court verdict against him. His party amended the constitutional provision after emerging as the dominant party in parliament and cleared the way for his election.
The US, which seems to have given up hope of using Turkish territory for its planned war, is getting impatient with the Turkish posture over airspace.. Ankara newspapers reported that US Vice President Dick Cheney told Erdogan during a phone call last week that: "We're calling for the last time."
If indeed, Erdogan fails to secure a parliament vote in favour of American military deployment -- although it might be a bit too late, given the course of present events -- and continues to deny the US use of Turkish airspace, then serious troubles could start for the Turkish Islamists. Washington would have little use for them and might even find them a hurdle in its plans in the region after the war. That is where the strong links between the US and Turkish military establishments could come into play, and that would not be in the interest of democracy in Turkey.
In what seemed to a last-ditch American effort, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition Zalmay Khalilzad met Turkish officials in Ankara on Friday and Saturday.
Surely, Khalilzad's mission would not have been limited to discussing the request for airspace.
He is burdened with the task of convincing Ankara to stay put and not to send in its military into northern Iraq when the US launches the expected military action.
That would take much of an effort to convince Turkey, which fears that Iraqi Kurds might declare an independent Kurdistan, and stir trouble among Turkish Kurds.
On the ground, Turkey has already deployed tens of thousands of soldiers on the border with Iraq.
Iraqi Kurdish groups, who control among them a fighting force of about 80,000-85,000 members -- not to mention several thousand pro-Iranian Shiite fighters deployed near the Iraqi-Iranian border -- have condemned the Turkish moves. Some of them have said publicly that they would not move to create an independent state in northern Iraq, but Ankara is not buying their promises.
The Iraqi Kurds would definitely put up a bitter fight against Turkish soldiers entering northern Iraq and this would only complicate the US war effort aimed at replacing the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad.
Erdogan has hinted that he was seeking fresh US guarantees over its concerns over the intention of the Iraqi Kurds.
"We want to get a second motion through parliament, but the United States should also make some openings to facilitate this," he said on Saturday.
However, Bush might not be able to offer such guarantees, given that the Iraqi Kurds are suspicious of American intentions in Iraq and have rejected reported Washington plans to set up a military regime headed by Americans to run the affairs of post-war Iraq.
It is definitely a tight-rope for Washington in Turkey, and a razor thin rope at that.
US hopes are now set on a meeting on Monday grouping US and Turkish officials with Iraqi opposition leaders with the focus, as a Kurdish official said, on Ankara's "military intentions in the event of war and arrangements for the interim (period) after a war."
The meeting was arranged by Khalilzad, but, given the mutual suspicions between Ankara and the Iraqi Kurds, particularly given Turkey's record of using force to suppress its own Kurds, it is unlikely that the US envoy would be able to pull off a deal.
From the Ankara vantage point, allowing the Iraqi Kurds access to the oil-rich areas is a pre-cursor for trouble since the hydro-carbon resources would allow the growth of the Iraqi Kurds into an independent state.
But the underlying fear of the Iraqi Kurds is that Ankara, which recently stepped up references to the presence of a two- million Turcomen community -- who hold Iraqi nationality -- around the oil areas of Kirkuk and Mosul, might seize and annex the areas and thus realise its grievance that post-World War I borders were drawn up by Britain at the expense of Turkey.
In either case, the US would find its plans going terribly wrong since a key pillar of its projections of post-war Iraq includes its own control of the country's oil resources -- unless of course Washington is prepared to fight off both Iraqi Kurds and Turkish soldiers from the oil-producing areas.