DESPITE conflicting signals from Washington in recent days, Iraq is not letting its guard down. In the last week of October, President George W. Bush said that the Pentagon had started deploying troops for an attack on Iraq. But by the end of October the Bush administration changed tack and agreed to consult with the United Nations before taking any precipitate action. Washington's new posturing was meant to cajole France into adopting a more accommodative stance on the tough U.N. Security Council resolution. Paris, supported by Moscow and Beijing, has so far refused to give the Bush administration a blank cheque for unilateral military action. France wants the "rapid and unconditional return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq".
With international opinion being against it, there may be some rethinking going on in Washington. Even in the Security Council, the U.S. finds itself in a minority — three of the five permanent members are against the Bush administration's plans for Iraq. Most of the non-permanent members of the 15-strong Security Council have also indicated that they are against the tough resolution drafted by the U.S. Despite intense diplomatic lobbying, even countries such as Mexico (currently in the Security Council) have said that they are not in favour of the American proposals.
If implemented, the resolution will make a mockery of Iraqi sovereignty. Among the draconian conditions envisaged by the U.S. is "unimpeded, unrestricted and unconditional" access to the U.N. weapons inspectors along with the right to establish "no fly" and "no drive" zones around suspected sites. U.N. inspectors were to be given the authority to "invite'' Iraqi scientists and their families out of the country "for interviews''. In other words, this was an open invitation to Iraqi officials to defect in lieu of U.S. "green cards'' and other allurements. The Bush administration wanted the U.N. resolution to include a clause that would allow U.N. security personnel to "guard'' suspected sites in Iraq. This would mean the stationing of American and British troops under the guise of peacekeepers.
No self-respecting country would accept "mafia diplomacy'' of this kind. A similar ploy was tried against Yugoslavia by the Clinton administration in 1999 — Yugoslavia had refused to accept the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATO) conditions that would have allowed foreign troops "free and unimpeded passage'' through its territory. This was the pretext that NATO used to start the three-month-long war in the Balkans.
Washington wants to use the proposed Security Council resolution as a "trigger'' for yet another war against Iraq. The U.S. wants the resolution to state that Iraq was in "material breach'' of its obligations under previous resolutions. Any refusal to allow Security Council forces inside Iraq would be a pretext for military action. The Bush administration has warned the U.N. that if it does not come forward with a resolution to its liking, the U.S. would go ahead with its preparations to strike at Iraq.
President Bush said in late October that if the U.N. does not "disarm'' Saddam Hussein then the U.S. "will lead a coalition and disarm Saddam Hussein''. In the third week of October, Bush said in all seriousness that Iraq had a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States''. A month earlier he made an even more preposterous statement that the Iraqis were only six months away from developing a weapon of mass destruction. He cited a non-existent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to bolster his argument. In fact, the IAEA had certified in 1998 that "Iraq had satisfactorily completed...its full final and complete declaration of its clandestine nuclear programme''.
Iraqi officials in Baghdad say that no amount of international pressure will dissuade the Bush administration from carrying out its aggressive plans for the region. They note that the U.S. has been sending out explicit threats and also offering incentives to France and Russia: "Iraq is being treated like an economic cake. France and Russia are being offered slices.'' Before 1991, the administration of George Bush Sr. had achieved remarkable success in bribing and cajoling Security Council members into supporting the American project in Iraq. The Pentagon, through the media circus it controls, let it be known in the last week of October that military action against Iraq could take place in two months' time.
IRAQIS are not exactly quaking in their boots. In fact, they seem to be looking forward to a decisive battle. "We are determined to teach them a lesson this time," said a senior official in the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. He discounted the possibility of a full-scale ground attack by U.S. forces, saying that the Bush administration had not mobilised the numbers of troops needed for such an action. He pointed out that during the Gulf war there were half a million American troops in the region along with 2,00,000 troops from other countries that were part of the coalition against Iraq. They also had enormous air power; 3,500 planes were used to bomb Iraq for more than 40 days.
According to the official, currently the U.S. has around 200 land-based jet fighters and 400 planes based on aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Iraq estimates the U.S. troop strength to be around 30,000. "How will they invade [Iraq] with such numbers?" asked the official. He estimates that at least half a million troops would be needed if the Americans are seriously contemplating an invasion of his country. "The Americans may have technological superiority but they lack the morale necessary to fight a decisive battle. They can only indulge in carpet bombing using cruise missiles and planes,'' he said.
According to the official, in any decisive military battle, there has to be face-to-face confrontation between the adversaries. ''This is a nightmare scenario for the American generals. There will be tens of thousands of casualties. The Vietnam scenario will be repeated as the Iraqi people will fight to the death. Urban warfare will be to our advantage as it will be a friendly environment for the Iraqis. It will be a killing field for the Americans," he pointed out. According to him, even if a thousand Iraqis are killed for every 300 American casualties, it will be a victory. "In an urban war, we are the masters of the battlefield."
The official ruled out the "inside out" scenario that was initially propagated by the Bush administration to effect a regime change in Iraq. This scenario envisaged American troops capturing Baghdad and eliminating the top leadership of the country. Iraqis are confident about their ability to keep Baghdad and other major cities out of the hands of any invading troops.
"Each city is protected by an umbrella of fire," said an Iraqi official, referring to the mobile anti-aircraft batteries guarding the cities. "There will be no chance of any American paratroopers being able to land alive. We are waiting for them in Baghdad. We have millions of guns in Baghdad,'' he said. Iraqi Vice-President, Tariq Aziz described President Bush and his top officials as "stupid'' for even thinking that the U.S. could launch a ground invasion of Iraq.
According to Iraqi officials, the U.S. was waging psychological warfare in order to effect a split in the ranks of the Iraqi military and in the vain hope that the Iraqi people will revolt. Despite their privations, in the face of a serious external threat the Iraqi people seem to be more united than ever. The government too has gone all out to solidify national unity. Almost all prisoners, including political prisoners, have been freed. There were unprecedented scenes as thousands of civilians gathered outside the Abu Ghraib in Baghdad in the third week of October.
Tariq Aziz said that a leader like Saddam Hussein, who was on top of the U.S. hit list, would not have released tens of thousands of people if he was not confident of their support in the eventuality of a war. The olive branch has been extended to Iraqi exile groups too. Iraqi officials maintain that no political party or group in his country supports the U.S. "If you support America, you are considered a traitor,'' he said.
Izzat Ibrahim, vice-Chairman of Iraq's top decision-making body, the Revolutionary Command Council, said that the Kurdish people in the northern "autonomous zone" are also not thinking in a "fragmented way" and are with the Iraqi mainstream. However, Iraqi officials warn that the Kurds in the north, currently under the U.S. military umbrella, will be liberated if war breaks out. Such a development, they say, will be welcomed by neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Iran and Syria, which have sizable Kurdish populations. These countries fear that the long-term American strategy is to create an independent Kurdish republic and break up the existing states into smaller and more manageable states. There are only three million Kurds in Iraq while Turkey has around 10 million and Iran 8 million.
There are signs that Iraqi opposition groups under Washington's tutelage are getting restive. Washington's favourite Iraqi opposition leader is Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Most of the $90 million that the Americans have set aside to train and equip the Iraqi opposition has gone to the Chalabi faction, angering other opposition leaders and factions. Chalabi is a failed businessman and is on the wanted list in Jordan. He fled from Amman after being accused of fraudulent business dealings by the Jordanian authorities. The Bush administration wants Chalabi to be the Hamid Karzai of Iraq.
Iraqi officials say that the Americans had tried to implement their military goals in 1998 during the "Desert Fox'' campaign, which was carried out in three stages. The first stage involved massive carpet bombing. The second stage involved attempts to smuggle in mercenaries.
The third stage of the game plan was to prop up a puppet government in Basra, Iraq's second largest city. The bombing during "Desert Fox'' was even more intense than that during the Gulf War. According to Iraqi officials, 450 cruise missiles were fired in the much shorter "Desert Fox'' campaign as compared to the 183 cruise missiles fired during the 43-day-long Gulf war.
"They did not succeed in hitting our military bases as the location of our bases is constantly changing," an official said. The bombing stopped only after an international outcry. The official pointed out that the U.S. forces dared to enter Afghanistan only after the fall of Kabul. In Iraq, unlike in Afghanistan, there is no Northern Alliance to do the bidding of the Americans. "We are ready for any situation and to take any number of casualties. In any military campaign, it is the first shock that is usually decisive. But we are used to carpet bombing. Anyway there has been a low-intensity military campaign going on against us for the last 11 years," an Iraqi official observed.
"They can use nuclear bombs against Iraq but they will never invade Iraq," was the confident prediction of the official. He said that there was a simple logic to his assertion. America will have to sacrifice a minimum of 10,000 soldiers if it is really serious about effecting a regime change in Baghdad. American soldiers will have to face at least a million armed Iraqis in the urban battlefields. "They want to win the war by propaganda. They want Iraqis to surrender without a fight. They're playing mind games with us," the official said.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE