The Impending War

The budget for fiscal 2004 sent to the US Congress by President Bush in the last week of January, 2003,does not contain any allocation for assisting the anti-Saddam Hussein opposition in Iraq, as againstallocations amounting to US $ 25 million per annum provided for in the budgets for fiscal 2002 and 2003. This has been interpreted to mean that Washington DC is confident that Saddam Hussein would be dislodged frompower and a pro-US Government installed in his place shortly, thereby obviating any further need for spendingon this account.

There is a qualitative difference in the US planning for the operation in Iraq as compared to that inAfghanistan, which preceded OP Enduring Freedom in October, 2001. While both the operational plans were basedon the assumption that the US might have to stay engaged for long ( for about three years) before pro-USnormalcy could be restored in the two countries, the plan for Afghanistan envisaged continued expenditure bythe US during this period.

In contrast, in Iraq, the US envisages that once its ground troops occupy the country, all its past as wellas future expenditure would be met from Iraq's oil revenue. The new regime to be installed in Baghdadwould be required by the US to re-imburse to it the expenditure incurred by it on the forthcoming militaryoperations as well as on restoring normalcy after the occupation. The Iraqi people will be made to payfor the US war against them. Reliable reports from sources close to the Iraqi surrogates of the US saythat they have already signed a secret agreement with the US undertaking this commitment.

The present assessment is that the US-UK operations to occupy Iraq would start in the beginning of March,2003, unless, in the meanwhile, good sense prevails over Washington DC and London, of which there are littlesigns presently. The US would not like to start the military strike till most, if not all, of themillions of Muslim pilgrims from all over the world, who have congregated in Saudi Arabia for the Haj, havedispersed.

Now that Saddam must be knowing that the US-UK invasion of his country is just a fortnight away, would hewait till they launch the invasion or would he exercise his right of pre-emption in the face of the openlyheld-out threats to occupy his country and overthrow him and launch a pre-emptive strike either in Kuwait oron the pro-US Kurds in Northern Iraq or on Israel in the hope of thereby forcing the US ground troops to fightprematurely and adding to the Muslim anger against the US by creating difficulties in the return of the Hajpilgrims to their respective countries?

Well-informed sources say that while the dangers of such a pre-emptive strike by Saddam have beenfactored into US planning, its possibility is rated low due to the following reasons:

With the Iraqi territory, air space and communications network under continuous surveillance by theUS, it would be very difficult for Saddam to launch such a strike.

Despite this, if he manages to do so, whatever opposition is there to the US-UK invasion plans fromFrance, Germany, China, Russia and the Arab countries might melt away and his isolation would be complete. Bylaunching a pre-emptive strike, he would lose the aura of martyr and play into US hands.

The American and British intelligence agencies are playing it safe -- as all intelligence agenciesincluding those of India often do on such occasions -- by over-assessing the threat perception even inthe absence of precise intelligence so that they are not later accused of intelligence failure if pre-emptiveterrorist strikes materialise. The extensive security precautions undertaken in the US and the UK duringthe last few days reflect such over-assessments by the intelligence agencies. Deliberate over-assessments mayalso have a psychological value in influencing the waverers to come out in support of the war.

The message, supposedly of bin Laden, broadcast by Al Jazeera on February 11,2003, is more defensive thanoffensive. It does not read like a call for action to his followers all over the world to prevent a USinvasion of Iraq. It is more a call for action after the US troops have invaded Iraq in order to defeatthem. While he has called upon true Muslims to tactically support the Saddam regime despite its apostatecharacter in order to defeat the US, it is apparent from a careful reading of the message and of the kind ofsermons being given in Pakistani madrasas, particularly in the Binori madrasa of Karachi headed by MuftiShamzai, widely seen as bin Laden's religious mentor, that the anti-US Muslim elements would be happy to seethe US troops invade Iraq. They are calculating that this would further aggravate the Muslim angeragainst the US and Israel all over the world, thereby facilitating the ultimate defeat of the"crusaders" and the Jewish people.

A similar calculation is evident in the thinking of the Shias of the region and of the Government ofIran--but for a different reason. There is genuine fear in Teheran that if the US operations in Iraq aresuccessful, Iran might be the USA's next target for a similar operation. The Iranians would, therefore,want the US to get bogged down in a war without end in Iraq, in the hope that this would discourage US "adventurists"from undertaking similar operations against Iran. Teheran's advice to the Shias of Iraq is likely toreflect this calculation.

It is interesting to note that almost the entire anger and propaganda in the Islamic world are directedagainst the US and Israel and that very little is said against the UK, despite Prime Minister Tony Blair'svociferous support of the US. The Islamic world is ignoring the UK with contempt.

Of the leaders of the Islamic world, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan havereasons to be concerned over the sequel to the US invasion of Iraq, if and when it materialises. In boththe countries, there is a strong anti-US fundamentalist influence at the lower and middle levels of theArmy. More in Egypt than in Pakistan. How would these fundamentalist elements react to the US invasion?That is the fear that would be uppermost in their minds.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently,Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and Convenor, Advisory Committee, Observer ResearchFoundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter.