Barbarous War on Iraq
(Consequences and Compulsions)
General Mirza Aslam Beg,
The war on Iraq has been unleashed in violation of all norms of civilized behaviour “to strike awe and terrors” into the hearts of the Iraqi nation. It is a repeat of 1991 war, energized by the shock of 9/11 episode and aiming to achieve Global Primacy and pre-eminence of USA. In 1991, I was the army Chief, and had the courage of conviction, to expose the sinister designs of USA. I was run-down by the government functionaries and others for my views, but, now, all and sundry are saying the same, what I said, vindicating my stand. Allah be praised.
The inevitable has happened and the war on Iraq has begun in spite of all the protestations from across the world and the UN Security Council, to avert war and give peace a chance. But it was not to be, because, USA and the coalition partners have an agenda of their own, similar to the war on Afghanistan, which they won but lost peace. The purpose of war on Iraq, therefore, is to cause psychological impact on the Iraqi forces, breaking their morale and the will to fight, by launching a massive attack by air, land and sea. The central idea is, to cause dislocation, disruption, isolation, rendering Iraqi forces paralysed, with no clear-cut direction to defend the country, against the invading forces. While these operations have been launched, small commando units, agents and saboteurs are being infiltrated, to cause disruption behind the lines.
Coalition forces also have the advantage of marked superiority in the field of electronics, which they are using with advantage, by jamming the communication network, radars and all other electronic systems, thus reducing the operational capability of the Iraqi armed forces. Since oil is an important commodity - thicker than blood, therefore coalition forces would attempt to capture the oil wells and installation at the early stages of war, while the CIA claims to have bought-over the loyalty of some senior Iraqi commanders, who are likely to defect, when the going gets rough. On the other hand, Iraqi forces have organised their defenses around cities and towns, to force battles of siege on the attacker and inflict casualties, while the border areas and vast territories have been left undefended which, the coalition forces would occupy in the next few days time, in order to gain space and position themselves, for employment against strongly defended areas, around big cities and towns.
The war on Iraq may produce, both negative and positive results. The negative aspect are, that UN has been rendered ineffective, and the European Union and the NATO stand divided. The USA will gain control over the oil resources of the region as well as control over the routes of supply, thus creating a dangerous situation for the countries whose economy depends on oil. The positive aspect of the war is that the challenge has emerged to US unipolarity from France, Germany, Russia and China, which is the most significant development, as it would put a check on US unbridled acts of terrorism - 1991 war on Iraq; 1998 war on Cassova; 2001 war on Afghanistan and now the war on Iraq. The contours of a Bipolar World Order have emerged and likely to become a reality after the war, thus correcting the global balance of power.
USA and coalition forces have an agenda of their own. They aim at regime change in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. In all probability, USA may also create an autonomous region of Kurdistan, carved-out of Turkey, Iraq and Syria, and use it as a base for projection of power and influence in the very vital region of the Muslim world. By positioning itself in Iraq, USA will be able to capture the market in the region which is under-developed. Russia and France will be edged-out of Iraq and the existing agreement of billions of dollars, for exploitation of Iraqi oil, will be annulled. And, of course, Israel will get all the boost including US$ 8 billion tranche, already granted by USA.
Pakistan US relations will not be affected because of the war. The 19th March parliament session is an indicator. The session called specifically to pass a resolution on war, was adjourned for want of quorum, so skilfully manipulated. The ‘regime change’ in Pakistan, therefore has delivered what was expected of it, under the so called norms of democracy There is no possibility of Indian attack on Pakistan, because last year India tested our mettle and failed. In fact the stand-off 2002 happened to be the watershed, defining the conventional and nuclear balance paradigm between the two nations, creating a stable nuclear deterrence, despite the fact, that the armed forces of India and Pakistan remained in eye ball to eye ball contact, for almost ten months, without any serious development, on a common borders of over 2900 Kms. There is no serious threat to our nuclear assets either. Pakistan abides by its policy of Nuclear Restraints, while maintaining a minimum credible deterrence. Notwithstanding such aggressive military posturing and coercive diplomacy, 2002 Stand-off helped Pakistan gain credibility for its nuclear programme and a stable and credible deterrence, as well as conventional balance, which was achieved, after a series of crises and confrontations, since 1974 to 2002.
The war on Iraq provides an opportunity to the Muslim world to do intensive soul searching, to find out why it is subjected to such blatant aggression and discrimination? Unity will be conceived as the only remedy to muster strength and adopt a strategy of defiance based on collective consensus. Non alignment movement (NAM), of necessity, must gain strength and momentum, to forge a new approach. France, Germany, China and Russia are emerging as a block, to restore balance of power in the global order.
The war is likely to proliferate global terrorism. After Palestine and Afghanistan, Iraq will produce more terrorists, creating global insecurity. Palestinian and Kashmir issue will come to the global attention and there would be pressures for finding a durable solution for these issues. Afghanistan is in a state of flux and the present regime has not been able to restore peace in the country, with rising pressure for political restructuring of the country, so that a truly representative government, comprising all ethnic groups, comes into being.
It is too early to predict, about the time, the war will take to come to an end but the recent development appear to take a new turn. Iraqi forces are putting-up tough resistance, inspite of brutal bombing of Baghdad and other cities of Iraq. The war has not gone the way Americans had planned. Ground offensive from the North could not start, because, Turkey did no allow their territory to be used. Ground offensive from the South is facing tough resistance from fortified defenses at Umm-e-Qasr, Naseeria and Najaf, thus imposing considerable delay on the advancing delay. And, as more delay is improved, the approaching summer will take its own toll. But what is certain, is, the change in the global power equation - unipolarity giving way to bi-polarity - and re-establishment of global balance of power. Regime change in Iraq may have a snow-balling effect on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other regional countries. The Americans are likely to create an autonomous region of Kurdistan, to serve as the bastion of American power and influence, within and around the heartland of the Muslim world. The Muslim world is divided and rudderless. Third world countries and NAM have lost their voice. In the emerging scenario, the UN, European Union and the NATO are split and they need to galvanize to re-establish their lost élan and vitality.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer rightly warns against a series of US-led ‘disarmament wars’ against other countries in the wake of presumed victory over Iraq, as part of doctrine of pre-emption. He says: “US power is a decisive factor for world peace and stability, but a world order cannot function when the national interests of the most powerful nation are the defining criteria for the deployment of the nation’s military might. There must be the same results for the big, the middle-sized and the small countries.” Pointing to history, he said “being against war was not cowardly - United States had not suffered as Europe had done. The Americans have not had a Verdun (of World War-I) on their continent. There is nothing in the United States to compare with Auschwitz or Stalingrad, in World War II”. And yet, the war has been unleashed defying all norms of civilized behaviour.
The immoral, seemingly has triumphed over moral. But as the saying goes: “conscience is a cur that will let you get past it but that you cannot keep it from barking.” Global conscience will moan and lament what super power has made of humanity.