The last hope
Confusion and resignation abound as Iraqis await war, writes Michael Jansen in Baghdad
Iraqis still cling to the slender hope that war might be averted by a positive report to the Security Council on 14 February by the chiefs of the UN weapons inspection bodies, Mohamed El- Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Hans Blix of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).
Since El-Baradei has maintained that Iraq did not restart its nuclear programme after it was dismantled in 1991, the pressure is on Blix to deliver a report that would deny the US the pretext to launch a war. Blix must, however, be able to show that Iraq is both cooperating with his inspectors and complying with UN resolution 1441 in order to maintain credibility with Washington, which keeps moving the goal- posts by demanding that Iraq agree to new demands. The latest demand is to allow US-piloted U-2 aircraft to fly over the whole of Iraq. General Amir Rashid, presidential adviser and former head of Iraq's Military Industrialisation Programme, said that the U-2 was not mentioned in 1441 and complained that its deployment could compromise Iraq's security. However, he did not rule out deployment.
Commenting on the first interim report submitted by El- Baradei and Blix, Rashid said the presentation had been "unbalanced" and "disproportionate" and did not accurately reflect the facts. Some issues had been "amplified and magnified into problems", creating a "somewhat negative" impression of the disarmament effort. He complained that the report did not state flatly that nothing had been found at sites inspected at the instigation of the US and UK and that their allegations had been found to be false.
Unfortunately, however, General Rashid did not translate his complaint about the lack of proportionality into figures. If he had, he could have shown that of the 439 inspections mentioned in the report only a handful had yielded "findings" -- the discovery of 11 chemical missiles in a forgotten storehouse and 30,000 pages of documents relating to a programme shut down in 1988 at the home of a scientist. The rest had drawn blanks. Therefore, the ratio of possible violations to "non-findings" would be in the range of less than 0.1 per cent to 99-plus per cent.
The next report from El-Baradei and Blix could coincide with the proposed mission of distinguished international personalities which is being mounted by Hans von Sponeck, the former head of UN humanitarian operations in Iraq with the support of the New York-based Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR). Amongst the figures who might participate are former South African President Nelson Mandela, who has been highly critical of the war policy by President George W Bush's administration, and former US President Jimmy Carter.
Iraqis know what to expect if the US decides to launch a war on their country. The campaign, code named "Shock and Awe", is expected to begin with an assault on the capital and its environs with newly developed "high-power microwave" weapons devised to knock out electricity installations, communications and electronic equipment, allegedly without inflicting permanent damage. This would be accompanied by a blitz by 3,000 precision guided bombs and missiles against Iraqi military, government and party targets during the first 48 hours of the war. Some 300-400 Cruise missiles would pound Baghdad daily for at least a week, averaging one missile attack on the city every five minutes.
Other weapons listed in a report released last week in Baghdad by the CESR would include precision-guided missiles fired from aircraft, area-impact munitions, such as cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives and multiple rockets. Some of the munitions are likely to carry warheads tipped with depleted uranium. The use of nuclear weapons has not been ruled out by the US.
During this phase, ground forces would seize control of Iraq's northern and southern oil fields and seal the country's frontiers to prevent Iraqis fleeing the onslaught from seeking refuge in neighbouring countries, as happened during the 1991 war. As the code name for the operation indicates, the objective of this massive use of firepower against Baghdad, an open city, is to force the Iraqi armed forces to capitulate without mounting serious resistance, which could cost the lives of the invading forces. The stunning onslaught could, however, cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Although the Pentagon says that 75 per cent of the weaponry used would have electronic guidance, these systems often fail and tons of explosives land on civilian targets. (The failure rate during a cruise missile attack I witnessed on Baghdad in January 1993 was nearly 50 per cent). Targeting civilian infrastructure would put millions of Iraqis at risk of disease from the lack of sewage and sanitation while bombing governmental and military facilities located in populous areas would jeopardise the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people. The governmental ration distribution, on which all Iraqis depend for basic foodstuffs, would come to a halt. Whatever the Bush administration claims, the war will, essentially, be against the Iraqi people. They expect to be targeted in precisely the same way as they have been targeted by sanctions.
Iraq's defensive strategy is said to involve the concentration of troops in and around the capital and other major cities. Since the Iraqi armed forces do not rely on civilian power and communications networks, it is believed that their less sophisticated command and control systems could survive the onset of the war. However, no one knows how the Iraqi military will react. The assertion on 1 February by Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan that "suicide martyrs" would defend the country clearly reflects this uncertainty.
Senior Iraqi officials claim that civilians in some neighbourhoods have been armed and are prepared to defend Baghdad in house-to-house fighting. But this assertion has not been independently confirmed. If there is sustained and serious resistance to US and British ground forces in the capital, Western diplomats predict that bombing would be intensified and the invading forces could resort to the use of armoured bulldozers to clear wide swaths of territory for the entry of tanks and armoured troop carriers.
No one here expects Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to depart without a fight. Assassinating him would be very difficult because he surrounds himself with close, loyal associates who would lose everything if they were to abandon him. He also has a number of doubles who could be deployed as decoys while he organises his escape. He could, like Osama Bin Laden, simply disappear into thin air.
While a great many Iraqis would be glad if Hussein was overthrown, the majority fear that toppling his government would bring about the fragmentation of the country and chaos. Several people who oppose him told Al-Ahram Weekly, "He is the only man capable of holding the country together and imposing order." There is a widespread fear of looting by the poor of wealthy and middle-class quarters.
Security is light and lax in Baghdad. There is no sign of a military build-up. This contrasts with the situation in neighbouring Kuwait, where troops have been deployed in civilian areas and the imposition of martial law is imminent. Security is also tight in Jordan, where demonstrations have been banned since the onset of the Intifada in October 2000. Families are stocking up on food, sending prices spiralling upwards. Jordanians feel powerless to halt the US march towards a war that they know will have terrible consequences for Iraq and their own country and contribute to ongoing de- development and degradation of the entire region.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 6 - 12 February 2003 (Issue No. 624)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/624/sc5.htm