US races against time and sandstorms
By B Raman

The medium-intensity sandstorm which had been blowing across the deserts of West Asia has subsided and weather forecasts predict tolerable, armor andaircraft friendly weather for seven to 10 days.

Contrary to media predictions, the Bush administration has made a radical departure from the battle plans of Kosovo and Afghanistan, which were marked by intensive air action for days before the ground troops ventured into battle. Now, the ground troops have gone into Iraqi territory right from the word go, with simultaneous air action designed to weaken the morale of the Iraqi political and military leadership.

The new strategy reflects the US anxiety to achieve its ground objectives as rapidly as possible before another serious sandstorm sets in, and a willingness to suffer casualties in the process. Reports from Baghdad speak of confusion and declining morale in the Iraqi political and military leadership, including in the much-vaunted Republican Guards.

The predicted anti-US demonstrations have resulted in violence only in Yemen. In other places, such as Amman and Cairo,the demonstrations were newsworthy, but not uncontrollable or worrisome. The streets of Pakistan have been reassuringly (for the US) far from volatile. This should be encouraging for the US-led coalition because the ground offensive coincided with a Friday, when Muslim emotions tend to be high. There are indications of stepped-up action by al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Gulbuddin Heckmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami in Afghanistan, but the US should be able to deal with them.

The British, who know Iraq and its terrain better than the Americans and who are less suspected of partisanship by the Shias of the south, have been playing a more active role in the south, while the US, which has a better equation with the Kurds of the north, have been more active there. But the US is having problems controlling the Turks, who are already reported to have sent 1,500 troops into Iraqi territory, disregarding US requests not todo so.

A rapid-action US contingent is making a dash toward Baghdad, preceded by intensive air action, in order to reach there before another sandstorm starts. If the Iraqis put up stiff resistance at Baghdad, the US will need to reinforce the advancing contingent considerably by air before they step into Baghdad and get involved in street fighting. However, there is a strong possibility of Saddam, if still alive, caving in, thus obviating the need for messy action in Baghdad.

A careful reading of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's statements and remarks at Brussels, where he had gone for a European Union summit on March 21, 2003, indicates that while he whole-heartedly stood behind the US and supported its unilateral military intervention in Iraq, he has probably started marking his distance from the Bush administration as far as the post-occupation management of Iraq is concerned. He seems to be thinking that the unilateral military action should be followed by multilateral UN-led post-occupation political and economic management of Iraq.

Blair appears to be uncomfortable with the ideas of the conservatives advising President Bush in Washington, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who want unilateral US-led management of Iraq after the occupation with little or no UN role. Blair, on the contrary, has been throwing hints that he would like the UN to be brought in immediately after Iraq is occupied, and given the leadership role in post-occupation management. This would require a special UN resolution. What Blair has been hinting to Washington, DC, seems to be: Thus far with you, but no further.

However, President Jacques Chirac of France continues to be petulent and has been dismissing out of hand the hints coming from Blair. He has also indicated that France would oppose any UN resolution which might have the effect of legitimising the military action against Iraq.

It remains to be seen whether Blair will stick to this approach of resuming multilateralism after the occupation, or cave in to US pressure. It would be in the interest of India and other non-aligned countries to encourage Blair on the new road which he apparently sees for himself, instead of letting themselves be cajoled by the US.

(B Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, and presently Director, Instititute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and Convenor, Advisory Committee, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. E-Mail: corde@vsnl.com)