| |
Terrorists wait in the
wings
By B Raman
The
budget for fiscal 2004 sent to the US Congress by
President George W Bush in the last week of January 2003
does not contain any allocation for assisting the
anti-Saddam Hussein opposition in Iraq, as against
allocations amounting to US$25 million per annum
provided for in the budgets for fiscal 2002 and 2003.
This has been interpreted to mean that Washington is
confident that Saddam Hussein will be dislodged from
power and a pro-US government installed in his place
shortly, thereby obviating any further need for spending
on this account.
There is a qualitative
difference in US planning for the operation in Iraq as
compared to that in Afghanistan, which preceded
Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. While both
operational plans are based on the assumption that the
US might have to stay engaged (at least for about three
years) before pro-US normalcy could be restored, the
plan for Afghanistan envisaged continued expenditure by
the US during this period.
By contrast, in Iraq,
the US envisages that once its ground troops occupy the
country, all past as well as future expenditures will be
met from Iraq's oil revenue. The new regime to be
installed in Baghdad will be required by the US to
reimburse the expenditure incurred on the forthcoming
military operations, as well as on restoring normalcy
during the occupation. The Iraqi people will be made to
pay for the US war against them. Reliable reports from
sources close to Iraqi exile groups say that they have
already signed a secret agreement with the US
undertaking this commitment.
The present
assessment is that the US-UK operations to occupy Iraq
will start in the beginning of March, unless, in the
meanwhile, good sense prevails in Washington and London
- of which there are little signs presently. The US will
not like to start the military strike until most, if not
all, of the millions of Muslim pilgrims from all over
the world who have congregated in Saudi Arabia for the
hajj have dispersed.
Now that Saddam must be
aware that the invasion of his country is just a
fortnight away, will he wait until they launch the
invasion, or will he exercise his option of preemption
in the face of open threats to occupy his country and
overthrow him? He could do this by launching a
preemptive strike against Kuwait, against pro-US Kurds
in northern Iraq or against Israel in the hope of
thereby forcing US ground troops to fight prematurely
and add fuel to Muslim anger against the US. This might
also have the advantage of creating difficulties for the
return of hajj pilgrims to their respective countries.
Well-informed sources say that while the dangers
of such a preemptive strike by Saddam have been factored
into US planning, its possibility is rated low due to
the following reasons:
With Iraqi territory, air space and communications
networks under continuous surveillance by the US, it
would be very difficult for Saddam to launch such a
strike.
Were he to nonetheless manage one, whatever
opposition there is now to US-UK invasion plans -
particularly in France, Germany, China, Russia and the
Arab world - might melt away and his isolation would be
complete. By launching a preemptive strike he would lose
the aura of martyr and play into US hands.
What,
then, might be the possibility of another terrorist
organization - Osama bin Laden's International Islamic
Front (IIF), Hezbollah, Hamas, the Al Aqsa Martyrs'
Brigade, etc - launching widespread preemptive strikes
in different countries against US-UK targets in the hope
of thereby adding to public pressure against the war?
Might there be a flare-up in Afghanistan to divert US
attention from Iraq? The dangers of this are rated high
since the intelligence agencies of the West, despite
being beefed up after September 11, are still
considerably handicapped in collecting preventive
intelligence about the thinking and plans of terrorist
organizations.
American and British intelligence
agencies are playing it safe - as all intelligence
agencies, including India's, often do on such occasions
- by over-assessing the threat perception even in the
absence of precise intelligence, so that they are not
later accused of intelligence failure if preemptive
terrorist strikes materialize. The extensive security
precautions undertaken in the US and the UK during the
past few days reflect such over-assessments by the
intelligence agencies. Deliberate over-assessments may
also have a psychological value in influencing the
waverers to come out in support of the war.
The
message, supposedly by bin Laden, broadcast by Al
Jazeera on February 11 is more defensive than offensive.
It does not read like a call for action to his followers
all over the world to prevent a US invasion of Iraq. It
is more a call for action after the US troops have
invaded Iraq in order to defeat them. While he has
called on true Muslims to tactically support the Saddam
regime despite its apostate character in order to defeat
the US, it is apparent from a careful reading of the
message and of the kind of sermons being given in
Pakistani madrassas - particularly in the Binori
madrassa of Karachi headed by Mufti Shamzai,
widely seen as bin Laden's religious mentor - that
anti-US Muslim elements would be happy to see US troops
invade Iraq. They are calculating that this would
further aggravate the Muslim anger against the US and
Israel all over the world, thereby facilitating the
ultimate defeat of the "crusaders" and the Jewish
people.
A similar calculation is evident in the
thinking of the Shi'ites of the region and of the
government of Iran - but for a different reason. There
is genuine fear in Tehran that if US operations in Iraq
are successful, Iran might be the US's next target for a
similar operation. The Iranians would, therefore, want
the US to get bogged down in a war without end in Iraq,
in the hope that this would discourage US "adventurists"
from undertaking similar operations against Iran.
Tehran's advice to the Shi'ites of Iraq is likely to
reflect this calculation.
It is interesting to
note that almost the entire anger and propaganda in the
Islamic world is directed against the US and Israel and
that very little is said against the UK, despite Prime
Minister Tony Blair's vociferous support of the US. The
Islamic world is ignoring the UK with contempt.
Of the leaders of the Islamic world, Hosni
Mubarak of Egypt and President General Pervez Musharraf
of Pakistan have reasons to be concerned about the
sequel to the US invasion of Iraq, if and when it
materializes. In both the countries there is strong
anti-US fundamentalist influence at the lower and middle
levels of the army - more so in Egypt than even in
Pakistan. How would these fundamentalist elements react
to the US invasion? That is the fear that would be
uppermost in their minds.
B Raman is
Additional Secretary (ret), Cabinet Secretariat,
Government of India, and presently director, Institute
For Topical Studies, Chennai; former member of the
National Security Advisory Board of the Government of
India. E-Mail: corde@vsnl.com. He was also head of the
counter-terrorism division of the Research &
Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency,
from 1988 to August, 1994.
(©2003 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies,
or to submit a letter to the editor.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
