Take Iraq to Counter Saudis

[Guest guest]

India and the Logic of Iraq

 

Professor M. D. Nalapat

 

The events after the tragedy of 9/11 confirmed that the

(British-installed) Al Saud dynasty in Saudi Arabia was acting as the

principal financial backer of groups from which the pool of the

terrorists involved in the attack came from, it was clear that - until

a regime less linked to extremism took charge - reliance on that

country as the world's "swing" producer of crude oil was an

unacceptable risk. Since then, the US has been seeking to draw Russia

into an alliance designed to ensure the flow of hydrocarbons from that

country into Europe. However, the ramshackle, mafia-ridden system in

Russia has proved to be difficult to alter, hence the need to find an

alternative "swing" producer that can stabilize the price of oil at a

level ($16) that can resuscitate the sputtering world economy

 

Were the US to ensure a regime change in Iraq as the consequence of a

swift and successful war against Saddam Hussein, the world economy

would benefit at the cost of the Iraqi strongman. Baghdad has the

capacity to pump nearly 9 million barrels of crude per day at very low

cost, as against the 7 million (of much more expensively produced)

crude now being produced within Russia. Raising of production by Iraq

would lower the price of oil to the level needed for international

economic recovery (as mentioned @ $16 per barrel). Within Iraq, living

standards would once again rise, and the proud and industrious people

of that country would very soon likely become an Arab success. Thus,

despite denials by the Bush team, the truth is that the coming war in

Iraq is about oil, and also about Saudi Arabia. A regime change in

Iraq would put the extremist-funding Saudi monarchy on notice,

hopefully leading in time to a change to a more representative and

pious regime in that noble land, misnamed after a family rather than

after the great creed of which it is the home

 

George W Bush has evidently never heard of Infowar, else he would not

have emulated Pashtun principles by casting the battle against Saddam

Hussein in personal terms ("He tried to kill my dad"). The reality is

that a regime change in Iraq is crucial to international economic

recovery and to a lowering of the reliance of the world on Saudi

Arabia's British-installed dynasty. The fall of Saddam Hussein would

be good not just for the people of Iraq but for the rest of us, a

proposition that may not be politically correct, simply correct. And

this applies to India as well. Lower oil prices will help our economy,

as will the expansion of the market in Iraq caused by increased

revenues within that country

 

Sadly, even today the Government of India - led by the ageing

Nehruvian, Atal Behari Vajpayee - believes in the Jawaharlal dictum

that Indian interests should nowhere figure in any calculus of foreign

policy. Mahatma Gandhi's chosen Prime Minister was the individual who

ordered a cease-fire before the whole of Kashmir got liberated, and

who rejected the offer of a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

Today, the heirs to Nehru are in danger of adopting a policy that

places the interests of Saddam Hussein above that of the billion

people of this country. Indian interests mandate support for a regime

change in Iraq, despite the fact that this policy is being spearheaded

by an Administration that, thanks to the State Department and the CIA,

is following a viscerally anti-India policy. Naturally, t would be

better for a change in regime to come about peacefully, and in such a

context, it may not be out of place for India to offer asylum to

Saddam Hussein and his associates and family members, and treat the

man with honor. The fact is that Iraq under Saddam is a socially

moderate state where women are treated with much more respect than in

Saudi Arabia, and where Shiites are given a far better deal than by

the Al Saud. In order to avoid a repeat of his 1990 mistake - of not

withdrawing his army from Kuwait before Desert Storm - Saddam Hussein

needs to exile himself, in order to spare his country the pain of war.

Assuming that he elects to fight instead, a war would become inevitable

 

In such a war, `chemistry' is as critical as `mechanics'. While the

latter refers to the actual mechanics of battle, such as the hardware

represented by tanks, missiles, aircraft and other weapons, the former

comprises the `software of war': the complex of attitudes and

motivation that determine morale and fighting spirit. During Desert

Storm, the bulk of the Iraqi army collapsed after a few blows by

US-led aircraft. This time, the fighting will take place on Iraqi

soil, and in the cities. Both these factors, together with the

privations caused by the extremely cruel sanctions regime enforced

with genocidal rigor by the UN, may result in a much fiercer spirit

than was the case twelve years ago. To soften up such morale, what was

needed was a carefully planned Infowar designed to separate Saddam

Hussein from the Iraqi people, and crucially, the Army from the

President. Unfortunately, what seems to have taken place is the

reverse, with Saddam Hussein being seen by his people as the victim

rather than the aggressor. Little can be expected of a State

Department- CIA machine that has botched up the War on Terror, by

allowing the Pakistan Army to create a safe haven for terrorists on

the Afghan border, in the same way as the Terai belt in Nepal has

become the refuge of the extremists working against India.

 

The attitude of the European powers to the US proposal is similar to

the hypocrisy of countries such as Denmark that shelter under a US

nuclear umbrella but shrilly protest when India (a somewhat larger

country, in a more dangerous neighborhood) attempts to give its own

population a bit of similar security. The Europeans, like jackals in

the jungle, will feast on the carcass without doing anything during

the hunt. The fact is that Europe will benefit as much as the US will

by a regime change in Iraq, nor will any European power be bashful

while attempting to get as much goodies as possible from a new Iraqi

dispensation. Rather than seek to prevent a war that is both necessary

and beneficial to itself, what New Delhi needs to do is to press for

the establishment of a government in Iraq that is controlled solely by

the people of that ancient land, rather than from outside. There

should not be a repeat of Saudi Arabia, when a puppet regime got

imposed on a noble people. The post-Saddam regime in Baghdad need not

be pro-India or pro-US, all it needs to be is pro-Iraq

 

It needs to be emphasized that the conclusion, that New Delhi needs to

support, at least in practical terms, a regime change in Baghdad, is

independent of any view as to the qualities of Saddam Hussein. The

Iraqi strongman has been the beneficiary of much largesse from both

Washington and Riyadh, for his war against Iran. It is only when he

trained his sights on Kuwait that he became a pariah. Even after

Desert Storm, it is worth noting that the US Air Force helped by

deliberate inaction the suppression of the Kurds and the Shi

ites, and that even today, neither group has much priority in

Washington's scheme of things. Were US corporations linked to George

Bush or Dick Cheney to begin carpet-bagging activities in Iraq after

Saddam gets deposed, the world's `sole superpower' is likely to be the

focus of substantial Arab anger that may soon translate into terrorist

activities within the Homeland. Indeed, both Bush and Cheney need to

go the extra hundred miles to ensure that those close to them do not

get empowered to profit from the change in Baghdad

 

In 2001,Pervez Musharraf succeeded in converting defeat into victory

by ostensibly linking his country to the US-led `War on Terror'. That

prevented arch foe India from being an active member of the coalition

against Al Qaida. As a result, Osama bin Laden and much of his gang

escaped capture, while Musharraf got billions of dollars without

delivering on any significant promise made by him. Today, Atal Behari

Vajpayee needs to shed his obsession with Nehru and take a decision on

a war with Iraq that best protects the interests of the people of

India, rather than one that furthers esoteric doctrines thought up

amidst the clink of cocktail glasses.