6 - 12 December 2001
Issue No.563
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 6 - 12 December 2001 Issue No.563 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Not if but when
With the Palestinian situation rapidly degenerating, Mohamed Sid-Ahmed questions where the Iraqi problem stands
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has recently stated that America is not planning at this juncture to expand its war against terror to include Iraq, but did not rule out the possibility of opening the Iraqi front at some point down the road. In other words, the decision to attack Iraq has not been cancelled but merely postponed to a more appropriate moment.
In an editorial last week, the New York Times revealed some of the reasons why now is the wrong time to attack Iraq. To begin with, the paper notes, America's mission in Afghanistan is far from accomplished. Bin Laden and many of his top aides remain at large, Taliban fighters are still holding out in the countryside as well as in a few urban strongholds, and efforts to establish a stable post- Taliban government have yet to bear fruit. Unless these basic objectives are achieved, Afghanistan will remain a potential base for international terrorism. Then too there is the fact that waging war on Iraq at this juncture would almost certainly shatter the international alliance that America has so painstakingly built up and that must be held together if the war in Afghanistan is to achieve its objectives. While it may be true that Arab leaders regard Saddam Hussein as a liability and would secretly like to see him ousted, it is also true that public opinion in the Arab world would not allow them to back an American military strike against him, especially that there is no clear evidence linking Baghdad to the events of 11 September or the subsequent anthrax attacks.
War in Iraq would also undermine any attempt to diffuse the escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians and make any prospect of resuming the peace process more remote than ever. It is hard to see how Washington can reconcile a commitment to the new peace initiative announced by Colin Powell last week with embarking on a new war in the region that could expose it to yet further destabilisation. But again we are talking of timing here, not the principle of attacking Iraq. Turning the irreconciliability argument on its head, the New York Times editorial actually suggests that "progress in the new peace initiative might make it easier to ratchet up the pressure on Baghdad at a later date," while admitting that "moving militarily against Iraq now would hobble America's power as a Mideast peacemaker."
Quite apart from considerations of timing and diplomacy, the military challenges of a war in Iraq are far more daunting than those faced in Afghanistan. A military incursion into Iraq would face strong resistance from a large army loyal to Saddam Hussein and equipped with more modern and lethal weapons than the Taliban ever had. Moreover, the United States would be operating without any effective local allies like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. It can count only on the Iraqi National Congress, the umbrella opposition group made up of a motley collection of exiled politicians who command no combat forces.
Without ground forces, American air power cannot prevail. The only military option with any realistic chance of success would be to send in an overwhelmingly superior ground force, which would take months to transport. And, unlike the situation during the Gulf War, Washington cannot count on the use of bases in Saudi Arabia.
Even if the military obstacles can somehow be overcome, Washington would still be faced with the problem of putting together a new government in a country that is sharply divided between Sunni and Shiite Muslims and between Arabs and Kurds. Indeed, there is a risk of total disintegration in the absence of Saddam's iron fist.
Whatever the relevance of all these considerations, some analysts have questioned the soundness of the decision to put the issue of Iraq on the back burner for the time being, arguing that there is no need to wait for conclusive evidence of Iraqi participation in the September 11 terrorist attacks or the subsequent bioterrorism before targetting Saddam Hussein. They believe there is already enough evidence to indict him before an international criminal tribunal. Once indicted, he would be permanently ostracised. That would be a good first step to his downfall.
Others are opposed to the implicit premise of the New York Times' editorial, which is an acceptance in advance of a presumed decision by the Bush administration to launch a war against Iraq. They believe the paper's "not now" arguments are so persuasive that they make a good case against pursuing the war option at all. This view is far from unanimous, however. There are those who believe that if the question "Should we go to war with Iraq?" is rephrased as "Should we go to war now or wait a few years to allow Iraq to build up its chemical and nuclear capabilities?", the answer is clear.
But many of America's allies are now openly expressing reservations about extending the war to Iraq and calling on America to exercise restraint. In an address to the Bundestad, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that "we cannot intervene that simply in the affairs of others. We must be cautious in defining our objectives in the Middle East. We are treading a minefield here that could explode in our faces and bring about chain reactions far beyond anything we can foresee". The German chancellor's reservations are very similar to those expressed by French Defence Minister Alain Richard, who said that no other state but Afghanistan has supported terrorist activities.
Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who admitted in Parliament that plans for a second round after Afghanistan already exist, warned that it "must not be launched before thoroughly studying the pros and cons", indicating a certain reluctance to push ahead without clear evidence implicating Iraq in the 11 September attacks. This leaves America out on a limb, with its three closest Western allies either opposed to extending military operations beyond Afghanistan or unwilling to participate without a clear casus belli. As to America's Arab allies, they are categorically opposed to the Iraqi option. Egypt and Jordan have warned that the consequences could be disastrous. Ahmed Maher declared that attacking Iraq militarily will solve nothing, and will only contribute to dismantling the alliance, while Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Sharaa has described any such move as a "deadly mistake."
Bush himself has accepted Powell's argument that engaging in one war at a time is enough and that, whatever the pressures of the American far-right, anything related to the Iraqi problem should be deferred until the war in Afghanistan is over, even though White House spokesmen continue their ominous warnings about "keeping a vigilant eye on Iraq."
This line of conduct has been consolidated thanks to a compromise reached last week between the United States and Russia over Iraq. Moscow has agreed that, before 1 June 2002, a list will be drawn up of the products that will need UN approval before being delivered to Iraq, and in exchange Washington has agreed to limit the sanctions against Iraq provided the latter cooperates with the weapons inspectors. This means that 1 June will be critical in deciding the future of Iraq. The US and Russia had for a long time disagreed on how to proceed over Iraq. But the Afghan crisis changed the nature of the relationship between them. Russia has become part of the international alliance against terrorism. As Britain's UN ambassador put it, "thank to the recent agreement between Moscow and Washington, a crisis over Iraq seems to have been averted, at least until next June". But with the rapid deterioration of the situation in Palestine, can restraint towards Iraq spare the Middle East still greater upheavals?
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page