A N A L Y S I S

Bush Caught in a no Win Situation in Iraq
Harjap Singh Aujla

THE Iraq War was initially quite popular all across conservative America. Many people really thought that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind and financer of Al-Quaeda Movement and he was the villain that was producing weapons of mass destruction. The Americans knew it quite well that Saddam was a tyrant, who got thousands of Shiites and Kurd rebels killed during his long rule over Iraq. But, the Iraq war was not fought just due to sympathy for the Shiites.

The planners of this war either did not know or just ignored the ramifications of this serious endeavour. President Bill Clinton perhaps felt it appropriate not to commit ground forces against Saddam. During his eight yearlong tenure, he made several successful air attacks against the Iraqi military installations in the Northern and Southern no fly zones. Perhaps Clinton thought instead of waging a full-scale war an aerial action was enough to send a signal to President Saddam.

The fact remains that American ground forces are already there in Iraq, but their presence is not making much material difference to the realities on the ground. America has over one hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq. At night, when the violent incidents are planned, the American soldiers are mostly confined to their base camps. Even during the daytime they move in large convoys. This is a common knowledge that credible intelligence is necessary for victory in any modern day war. And intelligence can not be gathered by moving on selected routes in large convoys. Lack of credible intelligence on Iraq, which could be collected in the back alleys of Baghdad, Basra, Tikrit, Mosul and other cities, is America’s most serious problem. Adding twenty thousand more soldiers is unlikely to solve the problem of lack of intelligence.

France and Russia for a long time were deeply involved in trade and business in Iraq. They had time to study what happens inside the minds of the Iraqis. They studied the character traits of the man on the street in Iraq. What they gained best was the knowledge about the population demographics of that country and each ethnic group’s hatred of the other groups. Iraq was ruled by a Sunni Muslim. Most of the other Arabic countries are also ruled likewise by the Sunnis. Iraq was however different, its Sunni population constitutes only one fourth of the population. Rest of the population is mostly Shiite, constituting sixty percent of the total population. The fiercely independent minded fifteen percent people in the North are Kurds. The Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds hate each other and seriously suspect each other. Like any dictator Saddam was controlling all these groups with an iron fist. The borders with all the neighbouring countries were effectively sealed. Even the most innovative Al-Quaeda could not enter Iraq.

France, Russia and Germany knew that destabilization of the central authority in Iraq could lead to lawlessness and disobedience of the worst type. They knew that introduction of democracy could give overwhelmingly more power to the Shiites, which could be detrimental to the rights and aspirations of the other groups. A Shiite dominated Iraq could also become an estranged nation in the Arabic World, which is ruled mostly by Sunni autocrats. In the immediate neighbourhood, Iran’s conduct has also not been exemplary, since 1979, it has been at loggers heads with America. The French, the Germans and the Russians could also foresee the development of a close military and civilian relationship between a Shiite lead Iraq and an ambitious Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran. Due to diplomatic reasons, perhaps, all these countries did not prefer to tell America bluntly about such possibilities. India’s Prime Minister Vajpayee also was seeing this kind of possibilities, but with a new and sensitive friend America, even he was too tight lipped. A knowledgeable China also preferred to stay silent.

The Republican dominated Congress, influenced by the party loyalties, was far more inclined to agree to the request from President Bush for twenty thousand additional troops for Iraq and consequently more dollars. After the November 2006 elections, the scenario has completely reversed. The control of the U.S. Congress has gone into the hands of Democrats the opponents of this war. The Democratic leadership does not see any quantum difference made by the additional troops in Iraq. They are more concerned about the lives and safety of American troops. Already more than three thousand American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq, the number of permanently disabled and otherwise seriously injured soldiers is a lot higher. All this loss of human life, without any tangible gains to America or the World, seems unacceptable to the Democratic leaders.

The President Mr. George W. Bush will use all the logic at his disposal to convince the Congress to agree to finance the deployment of twenty thousand more troops in Iraq, but there will be a lot more opposition to his proposals in the house and going will not be easy at all. Eventually, due to the presidential power of veto, the president may succeed in getting his favourite fiscal appropriation, but it is likely with a lot of attached strings. The success or failure of the additional American troops in Iraq will determine the fate of President Bush’s similar fiscal demands in future.

Right now President Bush appears to be caught in a no win situation. Who so ever is elected the U.S. President in 2008, will be confronted with a serious issue of staying put in Iraq or pulling out of it.

BACK

With Compliments from


Gogi Sidhu
President

Satish K. Jain
Executive Vice President

1301, Mahalo Place, Rancho Dominguez , CA 90220 U.S.A.

http://www.magnespec.com
Phone:- 0013106032262