MOSCOW, November 11. / RIA Novosti political analyst Vladimir Simonov/.
Who's standing beside whom does mean a lot not only in relation to people on the rostrum of the Mausoleum. American analysts noticed that President George W.Bush, while announcing on the White House lawn the adoption of a new UN Security Council resolution on Iraq, put Colin Powell at his side. At the same time, he generously praised the State Secretary for "his leadership, good works, and persistence." This way, the President somewhat "restated" Powel as the leader of his foreign relations team.
Lately, this role had been slipping away from Powell. He was loosing battle after battle against the hard-liners in the Administration, whether it was the US policy in the Middle East, the Iraqi issue, or even the US participation in the international humanitarian programs. Vice-President Richard Cheney and Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who lead the flock of Washington "hawks", could barely hide their triumph. It was, probably, their team that spread the rumors that Powell "had run out of steam", that he had been losing President's favor, and that he was about to resign.
The rumors never materialized. On the contrary, the new UN Security Council resolution which doesn't contain the clause allowing for the forceful solution of the Iraqi issue, was justly regarded by Washington elite as personal achievement of the State Secretary, who had changed from a General's uniform to a civil suit not so long ago. Maybe that's why he skillfully managed to stave off the onslaught of Rumsfeld's generals and Cheney's entourage, who were suggesting to the President not to bother with the new resolution, but to simply inform the Security Council about the "legality of the US strike against Iraq from the standpoint of international law", instead. The "hawks" insisted that Iraq had been violating the UN Security Council resolutions for ten years, anyway.
Powell managed to convince the President otherwise. Bush strongly believes that the UN is the 20th century organization not capable to face the threats and demands of the 21st century. Nevertheless, the President acquiesced in the State Secretary's arguments that without an international coalition possible only under the UN aegis the war against Iraq would have an improper look. In essence, this war would be considered by the world community as a unilateral act of vengeance on the part of a superpower intoxicated by its might and breaking all the norms of human coexistence.
The details revealed in the last few days indicate how close the resolution 1441 was to failure. It happens that the British Premiere Tony Blair had been trying almost every day over the phone to convince Bush that the adoption of a coordinated resolution was more important than bickering over every word in it. It also happens that the Russian Foreign Minister informed Powell about Russia's consent at 9 a.m. on Friday - the day of voting. The cell phone call about Syria's consent reached the US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte when he was approaching the doors of the Security Council Hall. Three months of stress endured by Powell ended on a bright New York morning.
But not for long. The State Secretary himself considers his triumph over the proponents of military strike against Baghdad as an interim victory. Washington "hawks" are just waiting for their turn. It could come even before February 21, when the UN inspection team headed by Hans Blix must report to the UN Security Council about its findings in Iraq.
Even Powell doesn't expect much from Baghdad's acceptance of the resolution, although, it will apparently follow shortly. The Department of State thinks that, more than anything else, Baghdad's response would be enveloped in the usual Arab-style web of reservations and understatements, which could be interpreted different ways. The predominant opinion is that Iraq would not allow the new inspection procedures, which resemble "a strip search". As a result, sooner or later Bush will surround himself with "hawks" and ask them "When are we going to war?" with an encouraging look in the eye.
The President has already approved the war plan. The information about the plan has been leaked to mass media not solely for the purpose of blackmailing Saddam Hussein and his generals who, presumably, still have time to denounce their leader. The plan is also intended to assure the world community that the USA would conduct an accurate, well-planned campaign against the Hussein's regime and not against Iraqi people. Besides, it takes into account the comprehensive experience of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the recent campaign in Afghanistan. As one of Russian satire writers stated ironically, "the bomb is being stuffed with humanitarian aid".
So, how does the war against Iraq look like, at least on paper approved by the US President?
The period of preliminary air strikes will be much shorter than during the "Desert Storm" operation when they lasted for 43 days. This time, a month should be sufficient. More than 60 percent of airborne ammunition that will rain on Iraq will be laser-guided, precision bombs and missiles. In 1991, only nine percent of weaponry used in the campaign was of the same "miracle nature". Among targets of priority are presidential palaces and command centers, whose destruction, according to the Pentagon planners, should bring the collapse of the Iraqi regime closer.
The air strikes will be followed by the transfer of 250,000 troops with the use of all possible means - a helicopter group based in Kuwait, by land and sea. In addition, a token force of a thousand British troops, supplied by the closest US ally Tony Blair, will take part in the operation.
The actual attack will be launched according to a "rolling wave" principle. First, the allied troops will quickly establish several bridgeheads inside Iraqi territory in order to use them later as strongholds for the invasion of larger forces deep into Iraqi territory. This way, the Pentagon plans to avoid some awkward diplomatic situations related to large-scale concentrations of military forces on the territory of "third-party" countries, for instance, Saudi Arabia.
It goes without saying that by that time the US Special forces units will infiltrate Iraqi territory. Apart from routine activities - targeting air strikes, destroying weapon depots, including possible WMD bases - they will be assigned some rather unusual tasks. For example, preventing Baghdad from flooding the swamps in the south of Iraq in order to hinder the fast advance of the allied forces, or hampering the Iraqi attempts to set the oil wells on fire.
The American concern about oil wells runs like a common thread through the whole military plan. The real interests of " the US noble battle against the Iraqi terrorist nest" clearly stand out in this case.
The later stages of the campaign would involve, according to a high-ranking Pentagon official, a "seamless transition" from invasion to military occupation of a significant part of Iraqi territory. It follows the model of the US occupation of Japan after the Second World War. Initially, a US military governor would rule over Iraq. It would probably be Thomas Franks, the Commander of US Forces in the Persian Gulf.
It's about time he puts a portrait of Douglas MacArthur, who served as a Commander-in-Chief of the US occupational forces in Japan after its capitulation in 1945, on the wall of his Iraqi office. Judging by the plan of the military campaign against approved by George Bush, American history must spin around like a dog chasing its own tail.
But history has a capricious nature and might act in an unpredictable way.