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
