(Talk
Delivered on November 11, 2005 at the United Service
Institute of India, New Delhi).
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
There is a tendency to look at Iraq
simply as an extension of 9/11 and its aftermath, whereas
the US establishment had
its eyes on Iraq and the Middle East well before that.
The Iraq intervention must be situated in the larger global
geopolitical
and geo-economic matrix ab initio and not post facto.
There
is now increasing evidence that 9/11, in some ways, might
have been an ‘orchestrated event’ that facilitated
the US interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia
and Iraq. What exactly is meant by an orchestrated event? The
book Dealing with Global Terrorism: The Way Forward (ISBN 1-
932705 –00 7 Sterling Publishers, New Delhi 2003)
mentions that had the 11 September 2001 event taken
place just three
years later the Pakistan-Al Qaeda-Taliban triumvirate
would have been in an unassailable position, i.e.,
the US intervention
would have become a non-starter. Looking back, it would
be seen that after the assassination of Ahmed Shah
Masood, the
unholy combine was all set to capture the remaining
ten per cent of Afghanistan still held by the decapitated
and shaken
Northern Alliance. Radical forces with bases in Afghanistan
were very active in the Ferghana Valley. Inroads had
been made in Tajikistan, Kyrgyztan and Uzbekistan.
Juma Namangani was
seemingly unstoppable. In the following years the Taliban-Pak
ISI supported elements would either have captured power
in one or more of the Central Asian Republics, or would
have become
an influence to be reckoned with. Additionally, Pakistani
nuclear scientists were well on the way to providing
Al Qaeda and other
Islamic countries with nuclear know how. Therefore,
when everything seemed to be going their way it made
no sense to prematurely
attack the USA on a scale that would invite massive
retaliation; for which they were not fully prepared
at the time. Hence,
unless some rogue elements jumped the gun to put paid
to the well laid out strategy for the complete control
of Afghanistan
and for radical Islam becoming the dominant influence
in Central Asia, the only other explanation is that
it was an orchestrated
exercise to enable early US intervention in the region. Apparently
the orchestration did not go according to plan. It
went out of control. By way of elaboration attention is invited
to other
books of the writer as well as to talks delivered from
this very forum in 2004-05. (Published in USI Journals of
the relevant
quarters).
At this late stage
it would be pointless to keep harping on the spurious justification
for the invasion of Iraq.
The whole
world is aware of the misinformation that preceded
the decision. The ground reality has changed to such
an extent that a paradigm
shift in the way this imbroglio is looked at is required
to find a solution, which could take years, if not
decades. Although
America seems, on the face of it, to be hopelessly
mired in Iraq this paper focuses on some of the more
unsettling issues
that might not have received requisite attention.
‘Nearing the End Game in Iraq’ is
the title of the presentation. It relates to the stage where
the US, by its own reckoning, would have brought
in a democratically elected Iraqi government after the elections
in December, barely a month away. No matter the outcome or
how fractured the mandate it would
allow for an exit strategy. Regional coordination with some or all
of the neighbours would be part of the exercise. It might
not be the preferred option of the Anglo-American
combine that initiated the invasion. Nevertheless, it offers a way
out of the predicament for elements opposed to the Bush policies
in Washington, and possibly
in the UK as well. To that extent it can be deemed to be a turning
point, albeit in a manner of speaking only, because the vivisection
of Iraq could lead to permanent
regional realignments.
There is another
type of End Game playing itself out in Washington, related
to the Valerie Plame affair. Although the pressures on the
Bush administration
are becoming greater by the day, it would be premature to conclude
that the Bush-Cheney duopoly have no more arrows left in their
quiver.
There could still
be some nasty surprises in store.
INTERVENTION PREDICAMENTS
By
now it is generally conceded that the war in Iraq went wrong.
It brought destruction to Baghdad, Fallujah and other cities
of Iraq and killed nearly
100,000 people according to some estimates, about 30,000
as per the official US figures and nearly a quarter of a
million according to the estimates of
this presenter. So far over 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed
and more than ten times that number wounded. This level of
destruction has neither brought
about the rule of law nor democracy.
Many
people around the world are wondering whether the Bush
era is nearing its
end. A steadily growing number of Americans
have started feeling that President
Bush's government doesn't work. According to one commentator: “His
policies are failing, his approach to leadership is detached
and self-indulgent, his
way of politics has produced a divided, angry and dysfunctional
public square. We dare not go on like this.”
To win wars in foreign countries, where prolonged deployment
of military force is necessitated, the difficulty lies
in maintaining the support for the intervention
at home as well as in the country where it has taken place.
In the present case, both the Iraqi and the U.S. populations
have become alienated. Something
similar could happen in Afghanistan. In the latter case,
the negative result would largely have been due to the
Iraq fallout. For had the US not taken its
eye off the ball and kept its options limited to Afghanistan,
it might well have emerged stronger in its global hegemonic
drive. The Iraq misadventure
has made the summit slope slippery for the USA.
CHINA TESTS THE WATER
The
US over-extension in Iraq has allowed China to make inroads
in Latin America that could potentially undermine the American
dominance that had prevailed
since the enunciation of the Munro Doctrine well over
a century ago. Over a
period of time it could embolden several other countries
in the American hemisphere to buck US hegemony in the manner
of the Venezuelan strongman. The decline
in US influence as a consequence thereof will increase
Chinese leverage. On the face of it China is securing its
energy and resources needs. In 2004, nearly
half of China's direct investment overseas, almost
$20 billion, went to Latin America. To date China has invested
US $ 100 billion in Latin American infrastructure.
What could China be up to in the Western Hemisphere?
At some stage USA, less pre-occupied with its current embroilment
in Iraq, is bound to take note – and
retaliate.
The Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy
is creating major changes in the world's geostrategic
reorientation. Growing ties between Moscow and
Beijing in the past 18 months is an important geopolitical
event. China's premier, Wen Jiabao, visited Russia in
September 2004. In October 2004, President Vladimir
Putin visited China. During the October meeting, both
China and Russia declared that Sino-Russian relations
had reached "unparalleled heights".
Moscow and Beijing held joint military exercises in
2005. This marks the first large-scale
military exercises between Russia and China since 1958.
Apparently the joint
military exercises by activating combat ready forces could
be a bold assertion to counter the United States
presence
in the Caspian region. On July 5, 2005 at the summit
of the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), held at the Kazakh capital Astana, a joint
declaration called on the
US-led, anti-terror coalition to set a timetable
for withdrawal of troops and the temporary use of infrastructure
in Central Asian countries. The declaration
pointed out that since the Afghan situation was now
under control, the US had no reason to maintain bases
in the region. In addition to the facilities in
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, the US has military over
flight rights with Tajikistan.
The notice came days
after US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld returned from
a visit to Uzbekistan's neighbors
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Officially, Kyrgyzstan
told Rumsfeld that US forces could continue to
use Manas air base for as long
as the Afghan war required. Observers claim that
President Kurmanbek Bakiyev was forced to reconsider
because of an attractive offer that he couldn't
refuse. Information was leaked to the press of the alleged
promise of a $200 million
interest-free loan, which happens to be more than
60 percent of Kyrgyzstan's state budget. The loan
could be an incentive for the president, who needs
the
funds to fulfill his numerous election promises
SIGNS OF UNEASE IN WASHINGTON – AND LONDON
Belatedly,
Americans have started concerning themselves with the war
in Iraq. It appears that the fatalities had started
affecting the voting behavior in
the 2004 presidential election, reducing the
votes for George W. Bush in the home counties of the soldiers
killed. If the U.S. casualties continue to rise
in the build up to the 2006 and 2008 elections,
they could impose a serious electoral cost upon the Republican
Party.
Aware
that this could be the case, the Bush administration has
suggested that substantial
reductions in
the 140,000-strong U.S. troop presence would
be possible by spring 2006. It is apparently political
expediency.
Republicans, their minds
increasingly focused on November 2006, are
a worried
lot. Tell tale signs that the ground may
be slipping from under the President’s feet include:
A Travis County,
Texas grand jury handed down a second criminal indictment
against House
Majority Leader
DeLay, charging him with conspiracy to
launder money. He was forced to resign his post.
Washington has become
the scene of powerful interventions by top serving and retired
military figures,
suggesting that it might be necessary
to
force the
White House to order withdrawal from
Iraq. Polls showed George W. Bush's Iraq War
policy approval
rating down to 33 percent.
An increasing number
of Republican members of the Congress and the Senate are
breaking
with
the White
House on the war policy. In the House
of Representatives, the number of Republican
co-sponsors of legislation
to force Bush to draw up
a withdrawal policy is now five, out
of
a total of 60 co-sponsors.
On October 5, 2005
the US Senate voted 90 to 9 to ban the abuse and torture
of detainees.
On Oct. 3, 2005 General
Odom wrote an article titled, ``What's Wrong
With Cutting
and
Running?'' (www.Antiwar.com.)
``If I were a journalist,'' he
wrote, ``I
would list all the arguments that
you hear against pulling U.S. troops
out
of Iraq,
the horrible
things that people say would happen,
and then ask: Aren't
they happening already? Would a
pullout really make things worse? Maybe it
would make things better.''
On Sept. 15, at an
informal hearing called by Rep. Lynne Woolsey, Gen.
Joseph Hoar
(USMC-ret.), and
former Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated
Vietnam War veteran,
testified that not only is the
situation in Iraq
getting worse, but the Army itself
is ``broken,'' and the United
States is
going bankrupt,
paying for the
no-win war. After the four-hour
hearing, in which about 30 members
of Congress
were present, Hoar,
Cleland, and other expert witnesses
opined that the Administration
could be likened to Hitler in
the bunker in the early part of 1945,
when World
War II was lost
for the
Nazis, but Hitler dreamed up
ever wilder expansions of the war.
On Sept. 28,
at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, all
hell (supposedly) broke loose, when U.S. Army Gen. George
Casey, Commander of
the
U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, said that there is only one battalion
of ``fully capable'' Iraqi troops. After months of hearing
reports from Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and speeches by President Bush that there are
150,000 to 170,000 ``trained'' Iraqi security forces, the
Senators reportedly went
ballistic.
A move to strip
the British Prime Minister of his powers to declare war without
the prior approval of Parliament gathered momentum with the
tabling of
a bill
in the Commons by Clare Short, a senior Labour MP and former Cabinet Minister
who resigned over the Iraq invasion.
The
outrage at President Bush’s proposal to nominate
Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was such that she had
to withdraw her name.
Pressed
by Sen. Ted Kennedy about reports that insurgents are joining up
for the Iraq police to get training, equipment, and
weapons, Rumsfeld admitted
it was true, making the rather lame excuse, ``It's a problem faced
by police forces in every major city in our country, that criminals
infiltrate and
sign up to join the police force.''
STAND OFF WITH IRAN
In
March 2004, China's state-owned oil trading company, Zhuhai
Zhenrong Corporation, signed a 25-year deal to import 110
million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG)
from Iran. This was followed by a much larger deal between another
of China's state-owned oil companies, Sinopec, and Iran,
signed in October 2004. This
deal allows China to import a further 250 million tons of LNG from
Iran's Yadavaran oilfield over a 25-year period. In addition
to LNG, the Yadavaran deal provides
China with 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil over the same period.
The huge deal also enlists substantial Chinese investment
in Iranian energy exploration,
drilling and production as well as in petrochemical and natural
gas infrastructure. Total Chinese investment targeted toward
Iran's energy sector could exceed
a further $100 billion over 25 years. At the end of 2004, China
became Iran's top oil export market. Apart from the oil and
natural gas delivery contracts,
the massive investment being undertaken by China's state-owned
oil companies in Iran's energy sector contravenes the US
Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, a law
that penalizes foreign companies for investing more than $20 million
in either Libya or Iran.
Both Beijing and Moscow have supplied Tehran with advanced missiles
and missile technology since the mid-1980s. In addition to anti-ship
missiles like the
Silkworm, China has sold Iran surface-to-surface cruise missiles
and, along with Russia, assisted in the development of Iran's long-range
ballistic missiles.
Currently Iran is reportedly developing missiles with ranges approaching
3,000 kilometers. China was also believed to be producing several
new types of guided
anti-ship missiles for Iran in 2004. In the past several years
a number of Chinese and Russian companies have faced US sanctions
for selling missiles
and missile technology to Iran. Rather than slowing or stopping
such sales, the pace of missile acquisition and development in
Iran has accelerated. The
endorsement of Tehran's nuclear energy program by Moscow and Beijing
reveals the primary impetus behind the China-Iran-Russia axis -
to counter US unilateralism.
The crucial support from Beijing and Moscow is an important factor
in the bold stand that Tehran appears to be taking.
Simultaneously, covert
terrorist operatives are already conducting sabotage in Iran,
and an arrangement has apparently been worked
out with the Kurds by
which Kurdish separatist fighters will be concentrating their
operations in Iran, with American financial support. America's
new forward
bases in Iraq
provide a convenient launching platform for an aerial assault.
Preparations for invasion seem to be well advanced. Bush's declining
popularity and the
situation in Iraq could become reasons for undertaking the invasion
sooner rather than later, thus shifting attention to other matters.
The
statement by Iran's new hard line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
that "Israel
should be wiped off the map” could be used against Iran
for a pre-emptive attack, using the public exhortation as an
excuse for the pre-emption. The
nuclear stand off, which requires a separate, more detailed
analysis is not being dealt with.
IRAQ - INTERNAL
The
leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani had
urged Shiites to focus single-mindedly on the US-sponsored
electoral process,
which brought
Shiite parties victory at the beginning of the year and would
do so again in December (2005). Now the Ayatollah has changed
tack, demanding that the transitional
government, which is led by Shiites, “defend the country against mass
annihilation.” There have been persistent reports, mostly in Baghdad,
of Shiite death squads in police uniforms abducting, torturing and killing
Sunni Arab clerics, community leaders and others. The new Iraqi forces seem
as likely to provoke a civil war as to prevent one. The 170,000 men trained
to date are dominated by Shiites and Kurds, some recruited from militias deeply
hostile to Sunnis. The failure to win Sunni support weakens the prospects for
bringing stability to Iraq in the near term, laying the groundwork for civil
war. The constitution's embrace of federalism seems to destroy any illusions
of a strong, centralized government emerging in Baghdad. The U.S. military
has admitted that the Iraqi rebellion cannot be defeated by force of arms.
The question uppermost in the minds of many people around the world, as someone
put it, is whether the US realizes that “it is time
to cut its losses and get out before the civil war starts,
the violence becomes too great, and
the window to withdraw with dignity closes and is replaced
by 'fleeing under fire.'"
Pointers
that the US might be forced to upstick include:
Col. Tim Collins,
a decorated retired British officer, told the Sunday Telegraph
(October 2, 2005) that Britain has suffered its most stunning
military
defeat
in memory in southern Iraq, where British troops can no
longer operate in the main Shi'ite city of Basra.
Other sources
indicate that there is already a full-scale civil war under
way in many parts of Iraq, with Kurdish forces conducting
ethnic cleansing of Arabs
in the Kirkuk area; Shiite forces carrying out revenge
killings in the Sunni western provinces; and car bombings claiming more lives
than at any point since
the U.S. invasion in March 2003.
“The
only question remaining is whether the United States can
walk out of Iraq, or whether it has to fight its way out.''
- retired
Special Forces officer.
U.S. Marines
who recently returned from Anbar province in Western Iraq,
say that the U.S. is facing a ``widespread, hard-core,
nationalist insurgency,'' which should be understood as analogous
to the French resistance
to the Nazi
occupation.
The hatred of the
U.S. occupation is also fueled by revenge killings being
carried out by Shiite troops
accompanying
the U.S. forces. These Shiite forces
are not under U.S. military ``fire control,'' and
have
been killing Sunnis in their villages, as revenge
for the Sunni massacres of Shiites during the
failed, U.S.-backed Shiite uprising under the former
President George H.W. Bush. But the report in TomPaine.com
notes an additional element: The Shiite
forces involved in targeting of Sunnis are officially
working for, and trained and equipped by the United
States, in the name of stability.
THE BIG PICTURE
TAKING STOCK OF AMERICAN GAINS AND LOSSES IN IRAQ UP TO END 2005
Coming to US gains, these can be listed as:
The strongest
Arab country has been shattered. Iraq was the only Arab country
that had all three parameters of regional greatness, namely,
size, natural
resources and demography. None of the other
Arab countries meet these criteria. Egypt has the size and
demography, but hardly any resources. Saudi Arabia has
the size and vast energy resources, but not the demographic mass
to match.
The dream
of a grand Arab coalition of the type that Nasser had envisioned
lies shattered. Saddam Hussein had the vision
and the drive to attempt it. With his downfall there is nobody
on the horizon who could aspire to it;
The strongest country in the Arab world, Iraq, lies prostrated;
Whatever they
may profess from time to time about the unity of Iraq, the
Anglo-Americans would have succeeded in partitioning it by
the time they
have finished with
it; was it their aim to begin with?
Iraq,
the big oil producing country would have been broken up
into two separate oil producing zones – one in the
north and the other in the south;
The Baath
party, which had influence in more than one Arab country,
has been critically weakened.
The American
military-industrial complex is generally quite pleased at
the prolongation of the conflict on the ground, as this increases
their production
and profits.
It is also
excited at being the only set of people in its class who
can continue live testing of their latest weapon systems.
Chalking up the losses
or setbacks, quite a few of these might not
be of enduring
value in the
long run. For example:
A large portion
of the casualties suffered by American soldiers - the rank
and file are non-middle class whites, i.e. they do not come
from families
that
are the traditional support
base of the US establishment;
A fair amount
of the new enrolment is from non-white aspirants, i.e. people
coming to America who opt for the fast channel to US citizenship
by volunteering
for military service. It
means that the US administration need not go in for draft,
which could cut across its support base.
A good portion
of military duties, especially guarding of assets, communication
lines etc. is being outsourced
to private military groups.
Even the
rise in oil prices, while it may hurt the developing world
and the average American
citizen has brought windfall profits to the oil lobbies that
are amongst the forefront
of establishment backers.
High oil
prices lead to higher payments in dollar denomination, which
underpin US budget
deficits.
Another
way of looking at the success or
failure of
the Iraq
intervention
would be to follow
the fortunes of the
prime initiators
of the US intervention
policy
in Iraq and the
Middle East. The world, of
course,
knows
them as neocons.
Whatever
may
be happening on the
ground in Iraq the
neocons and
their backers have
not done too badly.
A few
examples will suffice.
Starting at
the top George
W. Bush won
his second term as
president of USA
despite global
condemnation
and
mounting criticism
of his policies at
home. Bush
managed
to get
a relatively young
Chief Justice nominated
to
the Supreme Court.
By next
year he would
have succeeded in
ensuring a solid
majority for the
far Right in the US Supreme
Court. Based
on the nominations
made earlier by his
father,
this was the
institution that
made him
the US president
in
the
first instance. For
the foreseeable future
the Right wing agenda
will prevail in
USA. The significance
of these nominations
for George W. Bush
and the interests
he represents
can
hardly be overestimated.
Moving
on to the other architects
of the US
Middle East policy,
Dick Cheney
and
Donald Rumsfeld,
the vice president
and
the defense
secretary, continue
to pursue the
neocon agenda with unabated
vigor. John
Negroponte
is the new security
czar. The
oil interests
whom Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld represent
have
never had it
so good.
Tens of
billions of
dollars were pocketed
through contracts
given to Cheney’s
old firm Haliburton.
Despite the severe
criticism that
the firm came under,
further contracts
running into tens
of billions of
dollars
for rebuilding
New Orleans will
most probably go
to Haliburton.
The rise in oil
prices may have
hurt the ordinary
American; it has
swelled the coffers
of the oil majors.
Exxon Mobil recorded
an unprecedented bonanza of US $ 25 billion. In fact, the
windfall for the neocon backers has been colossal enough
to virtually
guarantee their dominance over the US - and possibly the
global economy - for a long time to come. The profits of
these entities have skyrocketed
in inverse
proportion to the decline in the US economy. Are they inter-related?
Is there a
grand design behind it? Mr. Wolfowitz, who was one of the
strongest administration votaries for the Iraq invasion is
now the president of the World
Bank. In a
subtle manner, the neocon agenda will be pursued through
World Bank policies. Even John Bolton, reviled by the US
press and Senate, has landed
up in the coveted post of head of the US delegation at the
UN in New York.
The
fact that he was never confirmed did not prevent president
Bush from using a stratagem to assign him to the UN. One
can go on in this vein to show that
appearances
and public perceptions can be deceptive. To the world at
large the US policies in Iraq have been an abject failure.
Perhaps it is too early
to be so definitive.
Throughout history nations that have aspired to global
dominance or even regional hegemony have long-term goals.
Temporary setbacks
do not necessarily
lead to the abandonment of the pursuit for global power.
That which
much of the world thinks to be US failure in Iraq might
not turn out to be so down the line from a ten or twenty-year
perspective. Why talk
only of USA.
Even Tony Blair has walked into his third term as prime
minister. Like Bush’s
Democrat opponents
in USA, the
Conservatives in Britain are
in disarray.
Moving
across the English
Channel two of the
stalwarts who
were
the bitterest
critics
of
the Anglo-American
invasion of
Iraq, Schroeder of
Germany and
Chirac
of France stand
humbled - the
former has
been replaced
as the Chancellor
by Angela
Merkl,
a strong Bush
supporter.
In France,
the decline in
the
health
- political
as well as physical – of Jacques Chirac is palpable. Going
a step further, the Anglo-American combine, against strong European opposition,
has been able to push through the commencement of the talks for Turkey’s
accession to
the European
Union. Taking
all this into
consideration,
if these results
constitute
failure for
the neocons,
it would be
difficult to
imagine
what success
would have
brought in
its wake.
Difficulties
in Iraq and
Afghanistan
do
not seem
to have dampened
the global
hegemonic
urge of USA.
In
the latest
development,
agreement
has been
reached with Romania
for hosting
not one,
but several
US bases
near the Black
Sea.
George
W. Bush's
elite base
includes
the wealthy
and
the powerful.
They are
the
hidden
people he really
represents.
The special
interest
benefactors
he
described
so accurately
in
a speech
at
one of
his private,
campaign
fund raising
dinners: "You're my base: the haves and the have mores." (Emphasis
added)
THE WAY FORWARD
For
the exit strategy to work, it would have to be coordinated
through a security agreement with Iraq
's neighbors. The
deteriorating situation is not only a threat to Iraq itself,
but also to its neighbors, who will face similar sectarian
and ethnic struggles if Iraq ends up being divided. Saudi
Arabia is deeply concePrned that the sectarian struggle in
Iraq would spill into their oil-rich eastern region where
there is a majority of Shi’a Muslims living in the
Sunni dominated country. This could prompt Saudi Arabia and
other Arab states to make certain political moves to intervene
in the Iraqi situation. If sectarian identity is to come
to the fore in Arab politics, Syria could be the most vulnerable
to the convulsions thus unleashed. The small Alawite minority
has run the country for more than 40 years in a predominantly
Sunni society. A Sunni majority restoration could become
unstoppable if the Iraq Sunnis, with their back to the wall
turn to Syria. In the Gulf the persecuted Shi’a minorities
(majority in Bahrain) could create fresh troubles that the
Sheikdoms might not be in a position to handle on their own.
Here it would be
pertinent to get some enduring myths out of the way. The
first
one, which is a make believe really, is that it is possible to create battle-worthy
armies overnight. The exercise is on in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In the
latter case, although Iraq has 113 paid up battalions only
one is considered reliable
in a firefight according to knowledgeable sources. It hardly needs recalling
that standing national armies mature and develop an esprit de corps over
generations. There might have been a few exceptions, but
in all those cases the circumstances
were entirely different.
The second myth deals
with the plea that Saddam Hussein was toppled to open the
floodgates of democracy in the Middle East - and hopefully,
other Islamic
countries. It is a canard even bigger than the supposed existence of WMD.
Were the Americans to be taken at their word, literally so to say, should
the countries
of the region that are presently dictatorships actually transform themselves
into democracies, the Americans would probably lose every single one of
their trusted allies - Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The US establishment
knows this. Even the Gulf Sheikhdoms would be toppled overnight. The successor
regimes would be more hostile to USA than the citizens of the country that
America invaded. They would not waste time in joining up with the Iraqi
opposition forces bent upon evicting the Anglo-US forces,
from the entire region, not
only Iraq.
What
the situation in Iraq would be were the Americans to leave
any time soon
is anybody’s guess. There are too many imponderables
and, what is more, too many shadowy activities taking place.
Nobody could claim to have the full
picture. Some definitive elements can however be discerned. Briefly,
these could be described as:
Kurdistan is a reality. Should it be able to incorporate the northern
oil bearing regions and Kirkuk and should the two historically opposed factions
arrive
at a modus vivendi, Kurdistan could emerge as a major player in the region.
Turkey and Iran would be dismayed by a strong Kurdistan. Neither country
would be able to intervene decisively because the Kurds would be massively backed
by Israel and USA.
Israel becomes strengthened by the development.
Iran has established extensive communications, administrative, training,
financial and other linkages in Southern Iraq. Its tentacles go all the way to
Baghdad.
It would soon become the dominant power in the Middle East, making the Arab
world uneasy. Consequently the ruling establishments in the Middle East would
not be happy to see US forces pull out from the entire region. Nor is the US
likely to do so.
At some stage, even if it were to take fifty or a hundred years, the
Iranians are likely to become the custodians of Mecca, a grand historical reversal.
The Arab world is not likely to allow the Sunni provinces of Iraq to
be taken over by radical elements once the Americans withdraw. The Iraqis themselves
would not allow such an absolute take-over.
IRAQ EFFECT ON AFGHANISTAN
The
situation in Afghanistan is far from satisfactory. The country
is heading
toward a full-scale revival of everything
the US-led
intervention had sought
to destroy. Islamist forces are regrouping, the opium
trade is burgeoning and corrupt warlords rule many regions
of
the country.
A large number
of them have
made it to parliament in the recent elections. They could
pose a big challenge to Hamid Karzai. The US is again
missing the
Big Picture.
Should
the Americans
pull out from Iraq, the insurgents are not likely to
fill the vacuum created thereby. Neither the Iraqis, nor
Iran,
nor the
Arab governments
will allow
the international radical elements to take over. It is
Afghanistan that should be a bigger worry for the Americans
and their
NATO allies. The
Taliban are
growing stronger by the day. They have refined their
tactics, are better
equipped and the supply of ‘talibanised’ manpower from Pakistan is virtually
inexhaustible. Pulling out from Iraq would be a setback. A similar debacle
in Afghanistan would be a disaster of an order of magnitude – for
the Americans, for NATO and the world.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
US
policies are being increasingly condemned in practically
every forum around the world that is not linked in some
way to the present US administration.
There is hardly any global conference where denunciation
of US policies does not take up much of the speaking and
discussion time. Such universal opprobrium,
which would have made most countries wince, does not
seem to have made the slightest difference to the make-up
of people at the helm of affairs in Washington.
If anything, their resolve seems to have strengthened;
the only change has been a change in tactics. The temporary
setbacks to US policies in the global
arena have neither dampened the enthusiasm of the proponents
of unilaterism nor its principal executors. Hence, it would
be futile for this discussion
as well to end-up as a philippic against the lone superpower,
even though it has been pushing the globe toward mutual
assured destruction by policies that
fly in the face of treaties and protocols arrived at
after decades of painful negotiations. For the foreseeable
future, possibly for several decades till
the mid-point of the new century, the USA is likely to
remain the strongest and most influential power on earth.
In the same period, i.e., about 50 years
from now, tumultuous events in the form of new weapons
of mass destruction, diseases, weather modification, global
warming and disasters brought about
by crashing the species barrier and genetic modifications
could propel humankind toward self-extinction. The race
is against time and time is not one the side
of the human race, unless it changes course within the
next few years or at the most the next few decades.
The peoples of the
leading nation of the world, USA, have to be made partners
in this quest. Solutions that exclude the great hegemon
of the 21st century have little chance of meeting with success.
|