Hell-bent on battle
With war a forgone conclusion, the issue now becomes post-Saddam arrangements -- and whether the US can go it alone, reports Khaled Dawoud from Washington
United States officials made it clear this week that time has run out on discussions of whether war will take place against Iraq. Iraq's continuing process of destroying its Somoud-2 missiles, its declaration that it would provide more information on how it got rid of banned chemical and biological weapons and its readiness to allow private interviews with scientists (without tape recorders or the presence of minders) were all too little, too late for US officials.
In a key speech last week at the American Enterprise Institute -- a den for conservative, right- wing scholars -- as well as in his weekly radio address on Saturday, US President George W Bush concentrated mainly on post-war arrangements: how the US will provide medicine and food for Iraqis, how it will establish democratic institutions, and, more importantly, how the war will open the door to reshaping the situation in the region, including a re- start of the Middle East peace process.
In this context, and for the first time in months, White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, again renewed US rhetoric that the goal of the expected war would not only be Iraq's disarmament, but "regime change". This led to a further deepening in the split between the United States and other permanent members of the UN Security Council, particularly France and Russia. Both countries insist that the declared goal of Security Council Resolution 1441 was Iraq's disarmament -- not regime change.
In recent statements, the US president and other top officials have ignored the growing debate on the possible cost of war and the number of troops that will be needed to occupy Iraq. The administration was quick to dismiss an estimate by the Army's Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, that "hundreds of thousands" of US troops would be needed to maintain stability, prevent sectarian violence and distribute humanitarian aid. US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said he disagreed with Shinseki's estimate as "way off the mark", and pointed out that it did not seem "logical" for him that the number of troops needed to occupy Iraq would be the same as those needed to win a war. Rumsfeld also disagreed with estimates leaked by US officials to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, that the war against Iraq could cost up to $95 million, if not more. He said that it was impossible to give an exact estimate of the war price, since that would depend on developments on the ground.
Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, backed his boss's view in a testimony he gave to the Senate on Thursday. He told senators that US troops would remain in Iraq, "as long as necessary, and not a day more". He said that maintaining the sanctions regime in Iraq, overflights in northern and southern Iraq and weapons inspections have cost the United States nearly $30 billion over the past 12 years. Overthrowing Saddam, he added, would not only spare the US those costs, but would also help the United States pull its troops out of Saudi Arabia -- a source of tension repeatedly used by Al-Qa'eda leader Osama Bin Laden as a pretext to justify his anti-US attacks. Wolfowitz also reiterated Bush's statement on how regime change in Iraq could advance the Middle East peace process. "If we get rid of the whole regime, think about the impact that is going to have on the Arab-Israeli peace process," he said.
After the report due to be presented by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix on Friday, the United States and Britain are likely to seek a vote from Security Council members on their draft resolution declaring that Iraq has missed its "final opportunity" to disarm.
Whether or not the two countries will manage to get at least nine votes -- and no vetoes -- from permanent Security Council members -- remains an open question. Except for Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, the United States remains uncertain how the vote would go at the 15-member council.
The British weekly The Observer reported on Saturday that the United States has been so keen on winning the nine votes that the National Security Agency, headed by Condoleezza Rice, ordered its agents to spy on business and domestic calls made by members of the Security Council, "minus the US and Great Britain, of course". Regardless of the authenticity of the leaked memo obtained by the paper, US officials are making no secret of the fact that they are exerting tremendous pressure on what is now known in diplomatic circles as the U-6, or the six "undecided", non-permanent members of the Security Council: Cameroon, Guinea, Angola, Chile, Mexico and Pakistan.
One senior official, who spoke to Al-Ahram Weekly on condition of anonymity, was frank in his description of ongoing efforts to gain the six votes. "They know that the issue is not the vote over Iraq, but the future of their relations with the United States," he said. Several US papers also reported this week a telephone conversation between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac in which the American president was extremely blunt, telling his French counterpart that America, "will not forgive or forget" the stand taken by Paris in opposition to the US war plans.
Fleischer failed to clarify whether the US and Britain would proceed in seeking a vote at the Security Council even if it became clear that the resolution had no chance of passing, either by failing to secure the minimum nine votes or by a veto from either France or Russia. Most US officials believe China is likely to abstain, not willing to go to the extent of risking its vital economic ties with Washington. "We continue to believe the second vote is desirable, but not mandatory," Fleischer said. "The president made it clear, however, that regardless of the outcome [of the vote], we will disarm Saddam Hussein with a coalition of willing nations."
Yet, the real setback for US efforts this week was the Turkish parliament's rejection of allowing the deployment of 62,000 US troops on its soil to launch an attack on Iraq from the north. The plan was for other US troops to proceed from the south, through Kuwait, squeezing the Iraqi army in the middle and assuring the United States a relatively quicker victory, as military analysts believe.
US officials said they were "stunned" by the Turkish vote, especially that it came after assurances from Turkish officials that the necessary majority would be secured. They also made it clear that the lucrative aid package of up to $15 billion promised Turkey would not be delivered without parliament's approval. However, the same officials insist that nothing will deter them from launching their intended war against Iraq and that they are now considering Plan B: airlifting the troops to northern Iraq, where runways have already been constructed to receive huge US planes.
Military experts say this plan will be more costly and is expected to delay the US war plans by at least one week. The US troops, now waiting for over two weeks aboard ships across from the Turkish coast, would likely be deployed in Kuwait, joining the 120,000-strong troops already posted there.
Confirming their intention to go to war, the Pentagon on Monday ordered nearly 60,000 more troops to the region, bringing to over 250,000 the number of American forces deployed within striking distance of Iraq. Britain, for its part, said it would deploy some 40,000 troops.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 6 - 12 March 2003 (Issue No. 628)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/628/sc2.htm