Notwithstanding an American admonition to “get the hell out of there,” Ankara seems likely to keep its troops deployed in northern Iraq to pre-empt Iraqi Kurds from creating an independent state on the ruins of Saddam Hussein’s crumbling regime. As Washington desperately needs overflight rights over Turkey to deploy its warplanes, it is in no position to meaningfully protest over the deed. As at the time of writing, the UN had taken no cognizance of the Turkish action, it seems plausible we may witness a reshaping of the Gulf map, as happened in the aftermath of the two world wars.
Reports suggest that the US State Department and Arab governments have negotiated names for a provisional Iraqi government, post-Saddam Hussein. There is talk of the country being divided into three provinces, the north and centre being governed by the Americans, and the south by Britain. Power would be wielded by civilian governors, such as General (retd) Jay Garner in Baghdad and former US envoy Barbara Bodine (a Jew) in Mossul. All this is, of course, still in the future.
What is certain at this juncture is the fall of Baghdad and the establishment of a puppet US regime (whatever its longevity). This would put Iran (where the mullahs are still a formidable power centre, much hated by the civilian public) in a pincer between the new regimes of Iraq and Afghanistan. In New Delhi, there is considerable talk about Iran being the next target of US military action, to be followed (so India fondly hopes) by Pakistan. One will have to watch the events in this region closely before rushing in to comment. But some keen observers have noticed that the fall of Baghdad will find Syria hemmed in by Turkey, Israel and the US–occupied Iraq.
Defence analysts believe that notwithstanding the obvious gain of the Iraqi oil fields (far richer than the Saudi, with whom America’s sixty year monopoly agreement expires in 2005), the real aim of the US military action is geo-strategic. Even though much of the world cannot see how, Washington believes it is sending a direct signal to the Muslim world that it will not tolerate terrorism. We would have to see how this translates on the ground, in terms of the Saudi export of Wahabi Islam and funding of Islamic fundamentalists. We would also have to observe carefully how the paradox of local relief at US presence in Iraq squares with increased anti–US sentiments in the Muslim world, and the impact this will have on incidents of terrorism in other countries, particularly our own.
Meanwhile, it is sunrise for the American economy. The war is estimated to cost approximately $40 billion, but the Iraqi reconstruction pie will be a princely $90 billion, and the dollars will be raked in once Iraqi oil exports are resumed. The Texas-based Halliburton oil and construction company, with which Vice President Dick Cheney has been closely associated, expects a major share of the windfall. Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root is bidding for infrastructure contracts in the war-ravaged country, and has already won a contract to extinguish Iraqi oil wells (contracts for which alone are estimated in the region of $900 million).
Certainly the Americans have done their homework before undertaking the Gulf adventure. While sharing the horror of civilized persons at the suffering of innocent civilians, one wonders what planning has been done by the Indian government. Former cricketer Mansur Ali Khan organized a massive protest against the US in Bhopal, which suggests that the Congress party is going to play the Muslim card for all it is worth in the forthcoming assembly elections. This could explain why Chief Minister Digvijay Singh withdrew on the Bhojshala issue so abruptly; state BJP leaders would do well to weigh these issues while conducting their respective campaigns.
For India (and also for the BJP), a share of the Iraqi reconstruction pie should not distract from the war against Islamic terrorism. Our concerns include achieving sovereignty over all of Kashmir; ending Pakistan-sponsored militancy in the valley; ending acts of Islamic terrorism all over the country; and ending the hostile demographic invasion.
It is quite apparent that diplomacy will not yield tangible results. Attempts to talk peace by willfully ignoring incidents of criminal assault have failed miserably. After Lahore, followed by Kargil, followed by Agra, followed by the attack on the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly and the blitzkrieg on the Indian Parliament, I find it immoral to talk about confidence-building measures with an incorrigible enemy. There are times when the tolerance of evil is itself evil. We reached that point with the attack on Parliament, and the situation vis-à-vis Islamabad has not changed materially since then. Indeed, it is because some of us refuse to recognize these realities that we faced the attack on Akshardham in Ahmedabad, the multiple attacks on the Raghunath Temple in Jammu, and the deaths of innocent civilians in the run up to last year’s assembly election in Kashmir.
No citizen is ever going to be sympathetic to the Indian government’s compulsions in failing to act against Pakistan after the attack on Parliament, especially after deploying the army at the border on full alert for over a year. There is even less respect for the Home Ministry’s failure to decide whether or not infiltration had increased or decreased as a result of the deployment, as if terrorists sign a visitor’s book each time they cross over!
At present, the view from New Delhi shows that Gen. Pervez Musharraf is well entrenched in Islamabad. The only threat to his life is from the Islamic fundamentalists whom he is now trying to restrain under American pressure (there is some justice in the world, after all!). And while I can’t for the life of me see a link between poor beleaguered Saddam and the Al Qaeda, none of us disbelieve reports that Osama bin Laden is alive and kicking, most probably in Peshawar city. And Osama means Al Qaeda, ISI, Pakistani military, and other bete noirs of the Indian nationalist establishment.
What is more, Gen. Musharraf is unfazed at the convincing exposure of ISI activities in India, or even at the growing global discomfiture with Islamic terrorism. His dedication to the Bhutto blueprint of creating an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by hook or crook (mostly the latter) has done much to promote nuclear proliferation in this part of the world. These weapons are now in real danger of falling into the hands of rogue elements in the inherently unstable Pakistani establishment, where there is close synergy between the army and the mullahs.
Personally, I do not think a mere change of regime will yield lasting results to India, because what we have seen of Pakistani leaders and intellectuals over the past five decades gives us no confidence in that society’s ability or desire to sustain a modern democracy. Unfortunately, unlike Iraq, Pakistan has no mineral wealth worthy of making it worth an exercise in modern-day colonialism. That is why, no matter which General or mullah comes to control the nuclear trigger, I have serious doubts about America’s rushing in to serve as India’s street-sweeper or mine-sweeper. The sooner Mr. Vajpayee accepts this the better for us all.
The Pioneer, 25 March 2003