February 23, 2003
defence & security affairs
Your Q, His A
Air commodore JASJIT SINGH, Editorial Advisor (Defence and Strategic affairs) to The Indian Express, answers your questions on strategic issues. Singh, a former director of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis, can be reached at jasjitsingh at expressindia.com.
. UN inspectors have practically accepted that Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons, although possession of chemical and biological weapons would require further inspections. Iraq, even if belatedly, seems to have agreed to all other conditions like flights by reconnaissance aircraft and we see even French Mirage-IV deployed on such tasks. France, Germany and even Russia and China have continued to oppose use of force at this stage. Under the circumstances, do you think the US would still go ahead with a war on Iraq?
The US is nearly fully prepared to launch a war by early March. It certainly has the will and capability to do so. The likelihood of a war, therefore, remains in spite of all the factors that you mention. What may undergo changes is the timing of it, and the way the war would be fought. It is useful to remember that the political goal of the war remains a ''regime change'' which would lead to assured disarmament, besides other things. Iraq 's neighbours would not be unhappy with a regime change even if it is brought about by force. US/UK Special Forces and covert operations have been going on inside Iraq for months. By now, the President's palaces would have been photographed in detail. But it is interesting that the US forces deployed around Iraq appear to be structured more in the mould of occupation forces (with off-shore air power, till bases in Iraq are captured), rather than an invasion force. Here, one must look at Iraq's geography and demography carefully where the bulk of populations live in a part of the country mostly in the ventral zone. What we may yet see is not a war in the classical sense but occupation of the less-inhabited areas in the West and South-west Iraq which are oil-rich to ''save'' oil-fields from being destroyed by Saddam Hussein. The North is where irregular, mostly Kurdish force may engage in battle with air support by the US. The actual area under Baghdad would then be progressively limited to the capital region. UN mandated disarmament process could continue then with the threat that US forces could intervene in remaining areas even under ''humanitarian'' rationale which is likely to emerge in case of revolt (possibly in or after July, the traditional month for revolutions and coups) being triggered against the regime. Except that more than 200,000 US troops would be at hand with numerous military and air bases to operate from.
(snip)
© 2002: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world.