Choreographing the war
As the US military build-up continues in advance of a possible war against Iraq, Washington's strategists are performing a precarious balancing act, writes Ahmed Abdel-Halim*
As the US-Iraqi crisis continues to simmer, the US military build-up is relentlessly continuing, and this is only a part of the ongoing preparations for war. Before moving into action, the US also needs political backing from the international community, which is why it worked so hard to convince the UN Security Council to pass Resolution 1441, accepted by Iraq despite the Resolution's stringent content in an attempt to avert an American military strike. The US has also been working on its NATO allies to make them shift their focus from Cold War objectives to a confrontation with so-called international terror. This, the US hopes, will cause NATO to cooperate in its prospective war against Iraq.
US policy in the run-up to war against Iraq has three aspects: first, the US will continue its military build-up and deployment; second, it will cultivate any political and strategic backing it can get; third, it will seek an escalation in the political situation in order to justify its assault.
Regarding its military build-up, the US is continuing to send troops and material to the region at a breathtaking pace. Despite speculation that a military strike is not inevitable, the US has not slowed down its military build-up. The impression one gets is of a country that has already decided to go to war, regardless of what Iraq does or does not do. The US has a naval base in Bahrain, and it has an army and air-force base in Qatar, in addition to the massive Al-Udeid base.
Additional troops have been deployed in Oman, the tactical command of US infantry battalions is on alert in Kuwait, and the US is closely coordinating with Turkey and the Gulf states, as well as with some other non-Arab states, in order to enhance logistical support. The US has aircraft carriers ready in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, with four additional aircraft carriers expected in the region in late December.
The matter of securing political backing has proved more complex. The US's European allies are having second thoughts about the change in NATO objectives, and many have been reluctant to allow the US to use their military bases in its planned actions against Iraq. While the US has strategic cooperation agreements with its European allies, these hinge on case-by-case political endorsement.
Washington has also engaged in a host of political and strategic manoeuvres to gain time until its deployment is complete. It is in this light that one should assess the conflicting statements that have recently been coming form US President George W Bush, who is tough one day and accommodating the next. This vacillation might be intentional, designed to give the impression that military action is avoidable, but Washington continues to play its cards close to its chest.
NATO leaders in late November approved a plan to invite seven Central and Eastern European countries to join NATO by 2004. The move was partially inspired by NATO's desire to shift US focus from Iraq to other matters, and Bush has declared that NATO countries are free to decide whether they want to take part in the US-led strike against Iraq or not. This is evidence that NATO does not see eye to eye with Washington on Iraq.
Prior to any action, the US will need immediate justification, and Washington is working on that, with Bush having declared that the regime in Baghdad will have to change, regardless of whether or not Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. The US president has also asked Congress to give the administration a mandate to use military force against Iraq, and he has intimated that the US will decide unilaterally on the matter of Iraq, whether or not the UN sanctions military action.
A certain cadence is perceptible here: the United States wants tension to build in tandem with its military deployment, desiring the crisis to reach the point of no return at the right moment for military action.
Different scenarios exist for the conflict, and all are alarming. For instance, the US president might escalate the situation by invoking UN Resolution 1441, claiming that the UN inspectors' reports have been unsatisfactory. For its part, Iraq might get nervous and itself initiate hostilities, claiming self- defence. In the latter case, Iraq might attack other states in the region, provoking unpredictable responses.
A further unusual aspect of the current crisis is that its scope is particularly, perhaps intentionally, vague. Iraq may be the obvious target, but it is not the only one. It has been suggested, for example, that the region as a whole is in need of some American "housekeeping", involving perhaps a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel's terms and a remapping of regional politics on US terms. Israel wants to seize most, or all, or historic Palestine and expel most, or all, of the Palestinians. It also wants Jerusalem to become its capital. Israel has hardened its approach to the Palestinians since Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa mosque and the start of the Palestinian Intifada in September 2000, and Washington has so far backed Israel's stringent measures against the Palestinians.
How would the region look if the US and Israel were to succeed in shaping it to suit their purposes? Turkey and Iran are fast emerging as key countries in the region, but Israel would use US backing to become the region's leading power. Iraq would turn into a tool of US foreign policy, allowing the US full control over the region's oil. In a sense, the situation would turn into an approximation of what the United States had envisioned for the region after World War II, and again after the Gulf War. Will it be lucky third time round?
President Bush wants to force the region to accept the US formula for change through political and military means. The question is whether the region will comply with US designs, or whether it will be coerced into temporary, but volatile, acceptance? While it is still too early to tell what the future may hold, the US seems determined to take military action. Given the current pace of US military and political build-up, a strike against Iraq may well occur in late February or early March 2003.
* * The writer is an expert in military strategy and deputy director of the Centre for Middle East Studies.
