Beyond miracles
There is no stopping the build-up to war, and its objectives are clear for all to see, writes Ahmed Abdel-Halim*
Despite differences within the Security Council and NATO, the fact is that war is imminent. Only a miracle can stop it and the age of miracles has passed. Having mobilised all the necessary military forces the US is bent on attacking Iraq, as intimated by Condolleeza Rice, the US national security advisor, on two separate occasions. On Thursday, 6 February, during a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Munich, Rice stated: "The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of war with Iraq." The second occasion came directly after the UN Security Council met on 14 February, following massive protests held all over the world, particularly in Europe. The peace demonstrations, Rice said, would not sway the US, or keep it from making appropriate decisions.
The contours of the New World Order, first put in place by Bush the elder at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, are currently being fixed. And it is important for us to grasp the dimensions of this new world to put current events in their proper perspective.
The first truth operative in the new world is that with the growth and extension of might comes the temptation to use it. At the same time the weak, by the very fact of their weakness, tempt others to use force. The US is the world's greatest power, perhaps the greatest in history; relatively speaking, everyone else is weak. It is thus natural that US power extends to every corner of the earth, remaking the world according to its own strategic and political vision of its national interests. Others can neither deflect the danger, nor sway the US from the pursuit of its objectives. This dynamic has already had an impact on the Middle East, particularly the Arab- Israeli conflict. Israel has been able to use the utmost force relying on the support of the US and the weakness of other parties and their inability to take the initiative, at least for the time being.
The second truth is predicated on the idea of a powerful, commanding nation. The US has gone from being a superpower to being the world's sole superpower. As such it brooks no opposition, nor does it accept advice from even its closest friends and allies. The US has encountered much opposition, both in NATO and the Security Council. In NATO France, Germany and Belgium balked when the US asked the alliance to protect Turkey should Washington initiate a war against Iraq. Members of the Security Council, led by France, have also opposed the US. Opposition within NATO revolved around the validity of offering NATO members direct or indirect assistance during a military offensive against Iraq. This, they claim, is essentially a political issue, requiring a definition of the role the alliance should play in providing assistance for a military intervention as opposed to common defence. If Turkey were facing an imminent threat NATO members would not hesitate to come to its aid. The opposition to the US in the Security Council also argue that now is not the time to undertake a military operation but to support and strengthen the mission of the weapons inspectors in Iraq. Holding that the use of force is not justified in the present circumstances, the opposition refused to agree to measures the sole aim of which is to pave the way for an unjustified military operation.
A third aspect of the new world order is the use of brute force to achieve one's own interests to the exclusion of others, though force may not necessarily achieve political goals or solve any existing political problem. On the other hand, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus has the US made exhaustive calculations of all the possible scenarios that might ensue during and after its attack on Iraq. The US recognises it is a superpower; it is convinced that it can achieve all its political objectives by the use of brute force and that no one is capable of opposing it. The Pentagon has spent much time planning what will take place in the aftermath of the war on Iraq, defining three phases that must be implemented if the military operation is to bring about the desired political objectives. In the first stage it will be necessary to control the chaos that arises as a result of the military operation. This will be followed by an interim period after which comes the final destination.
The first phase is the most difficult. Despite the overwhelming force of the US the possible chaos that might ensue as factions attempt to break away from Iraq represents a nightmare for which the US has taken every precaution. This stage should be relatively short.
The second period, the interim phase, is the decisive point in American strategy, as this is when it cements its control over Iraq. During this phase the US will try to bring about a measure of political stability by reorganising the Iraqi state in accordance with Washington's vision of its future. The Iraqi armed forces will be reorganised so as to become purely defensive, incapable of undertaking any military operation outside its national borders. The police and state security apparatus will be reformed with certain security authorities being abolished altogether. An Iraqi consultative assembly will be created, assuming the role of advisor to the ruling US authority. Finally, local government and state administration will be reorganised to consolidate the political, ideological, and cultural transformation of Iraq. The US and Britain believe that this phase will last approximately three years.
If the US succeeds in attaining its objectives in the second phase it will move to the third stage, Iraq's final destination. State political authority will be turned over to a hand-picked Iraqi government, while military and security portfolios will be given to the Iraqi opposition in exile. However, the US will retain military control over the country to ensure that the state continues to move along the path laid out for it. Meanwhile, the US will continue to supervise the political, ideological, and cultural transformation of Iraq, paying close attention to the younger generation to guarantee that the transformation proceeds in accordance with US objectives. Within this framework the US will attempt to propagate certain ideals such as democracy, respect for human rights, civil society, and a free market economy, integrating Iraq into the global order and linking it particularly to the US.
This phase will last a relatively long time. The ultimate objective is to prepare Iraq to accept total US exploitation of Iraqi oil and to secure Israel's position by building Iraqi-Israeli-Turkish relations, which will become the basic geopolitical axis in the region. This axis will serve US interests and enable it to achieve its primary objective of redrawing the world according to its own particular vision.
This political and strategic plan, accompanied by a parallel military plan, is now coming to fruition, taking place almost imperceptibly amidst the whirlwind of political events. US military preparations for an attack on Iraq are reaching their peak, as the US and Britain intensify their efforts to present a new resolution to the Security Council that would give them the authority to pursue the war without allowing Iraq any further grace period in which to voluntarily give up its forbidden weapons. National Security Advisor Condolleeza Rice has appeared on the scene once more to deliver a stinging critique of those nations asking that more time be granted to the international inspectors. In trying to sell the new resolution, Rice said that it will force Iraq to abide by the obligations set out in Resolution 1441 or face dire consequences. At the same time the US is completing its military build-up in the region, mobilising its forces and fanning them out across the theatre of war. Indeed, the contours of the US strategic offensive have already begun to crystallise. Given these military and strategic considerations there is no stopping the current military preparations or the imminent attack on Iraq.
In the middle of all this a call went up to hold an Arab summit in Sharm El-Sheikh to discuss the present situation. The conference was held at the lowest ebb in the Arab world since the establishment of the Arab League, with Arab interests conflicting as they never have before. This was visible even in attempts to define a date for the summit. One camp believed that it should be held at its original date, the end of March, while the other camp pressed for the end of February. The difference between these two dates was enormous.
Which leads us to examine the stance of Arab states and their relations with the US, particularly their cooperation with US efforts. We can divide the Arab countries into four major camps. The first includes Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and Jordan, all of which have close ties with the US and most of which are bound by military cooperation agreements with the most powerful nation on the earth today. There is every indication that these states will come to the aid of the US. The second camp includes, most importantly, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, followed by Syria and Lebanon. These nations are attempting to find a balanced position that takes into account regional and Arab interests and the current international reality, pushing for a political and diplomatic solution to the problem rather than a military one. The third camp contains one Arab country, Libya, whose president initially announced that he would not attend the summit. The final camp comprises the remaining Arab countries.
* The writer is deputy director of the Centre for Middle East Studies.
