The Bush administrations dangerous colonial adventure by Patrick Seale aljazeerah.info

aljazeerah.info Opinion Editorials

The Bush administration's dangerous colonial adventure

by Patrick Seale, the Daily Star, 4/5/03

The message from Washington and London is that the war in Iraq has entered a “decisive phase.” Allied forces at the gates of the Iraqi capital are said to be engaging Saddam Hussein’s elite troops in fierce combat. What conclusions can one draw?
l First, the coalition’s political and military leaders appear to be under great strain, not only in Washington and London, but also in Madrid. They are losing ground to their domestic opponents. Rows are breaking out, such as the widely reported clash over strategy between US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks, the US military commander. American and British leaders must now heed the dictum of Field Marshal Von Moltke, chief of the Prussian General Staff and victor of the 1870-71 war against France. “No military plan,” he said, “survives the first contact with the enemy”.
Pressures to bring the war and the Iraqi regime to a quick end are now so intense that General Franks is not even waiting for the 4th Infantry Division to join the battle, although it is probably the best mechanized division in the US Army. Having been rerouted from Turkey, its troops have only just started arriving in Kuwait, and will not be ready to fight for another two or three weeks. Yet, in the desperate hope of a quick victory, the US is pressing ahead with the attack on Baghdad. There is clearly immense anger, frustration and impatience at Iraq’s continued resistance to the invasion. Arabs were not meant to behave like this! They should have surrendered or run away! In its arrogant expectation of a decisive outcome, America may once again have created mirages in the sand.
l Second, the US is adjusting its military means to cope with the new situation. Reinforcements are being flown in and greater firepower giant bunker-busting munitions and carpet bombing by B-52s is being used to attempt to destroy Iraq’s Republican Guard divisions defending the capital. As a direct consequence of the new strategy, the toll of Iraqi civilian casualties is rising rapidly. The trumpeted “concern” to avoid civilian deaths is now being abandoned by a desperate United States.
l Third, anxious to isolate the Iraqi battlefield and deny the Iraqis any help from outside, the US has issued severe threats to Syria and Iran not to intervene. It is worried that weapons, supplies and volunteers might begin to infiltrate across Iraq’s porous frontiers and stiffen the resistance. But Syria and Iran may have an interest in weakening the US forces as much as they can so as not to be the next targets of an American attack. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s visit to Ankara suggests that the US is also concerned to ensure that Turkey does not complicate the situation in northern Iraq by moving against the Kurds as they harass Iraqi positions around Kirkuk. Having fought with American special forces, as in this week’s campaign against the al-Ansar enclave, the Kurds will expect a post-war political reward in the form of increased autonomy. This, above all, is what worries the Turks.
l A fourth conclusion is that we are witnessing a clash between two military doctrines. The US cannot afford to retreat but nor can it tolerate a long war. Its declared objective is Saddam Hussein’s unconditional surrender. Hence its strategy is to blast Baghdad with overwhelming firepower and force the regime to its knees. In contrast, Iraq’s strategy is to bleed the American bull (like a picador in a bull ring) and sap its morale by sucking it into a long drawn-out urban guerrilla war. Saddam Hussein appears to have prepared his forces for this sort of war by decentralizing army command and control to the lowest level possible, by delegating responsibility for each urban center to a trusted senior officer, and by supplying each town with troops, weapons, fuel and food.
l A fifth broad conclusion is that, in spite of undoubted pressures and internal strains, the mindset of the Bush administration remains so far unchanged. The war we are witnessing is the application of the wrong conclusions America drew from the attacks of Sept. 11. With its ideology shaped by right-wing think tanks and pro-Israeli lobbyists, the Bush administration refused even to consider that America had been attacked because of its biased and mistaken policies in the Arab and Muslim world. Instead it was persuaded that the “roots of terror” lay in the “failed,” “sick” and “corrupt” societies of the Middle East. It followed that it was necessary to change these regimes and reform these societies. Hence the Iraq war as a first step to the “remodeling” of the entire region!
What is to happen in Iraq after the war? As both the Pentagon and Colin Powell have made clear, the United States wants “dominant control” over a post-Saddam Iraq. It appears to be planning direct rule, somewhat on the model of British colonial rule in Egypt after the 1882 occupation. The civil administration of Iraq, as well as humanitarian assistance and reconstruction, will be the responsibility of retired Lieutenant General Jay Garner, a man notorious for his arms dealing and his close personal ties with Israel’s Likudniks, acting as a sort of pro-consul on the model of Lord Cromer in Egypt. Meanwhile, military affairs and security will be the responsibility of General Franks’ deputy in CENTCOM, Lieutenant General John Abizaid (apparently on the strength of his knowledge of Arabic!) on the model of Britain’s Field Marshal Lord Kitchener.
Thus, two US generals, Garner and Abizaid, both strikingly ill-fit for the job, will have the destiny of Iraq in their hands. Backed by US military force, they will be assisted by a small army of American administrators to run the various regions and “ministries.” In a throwback to colonial rule, the US even wants to take over the running of Iraq’s oil industry, the foundation of its economy, which has been run for decades by Iraqis and employs 50,000 people. No role seems to be in consideration for US-backed Iraqi opposition figures like Ahmad Chalabi or Kanan Makiya who, if they make an appearance at all, will almost certainly be considered traitors and Quislings by Iraqis.
The British view is quite different. Prime Minister Tony Blair is pressing for a UN-sponsored conference of all Iraq’s political groups. He wants the UN, not the US, to play the leading role. Needing political cover, Blair has other demands as well. He wants real progress toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including a total freeze on Jewish settlements and an effective monitoring mechanism. This is causing a crisis in Anglo-Israeli relations. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has already sent Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom to Washington to undermine the British position. Blair will soon discover that Sharon has more clout than himself in the American capital. In Iraq, Blair does not want British troops, already stretched to the limit, to be given policing duties in occupied Iraq, where they would inevitably be seen as lackeys of a US colonial-type administration. British opinion would rebel against any such thankless and subordinate role.
But it is unlikely that Blair will get his way with Bush on any of these counts. Indeed, the growing perception that Blair lacks real influence in Washington is beginning to sap his position at home. He has split his own Labor Party, damaged Britain’s ties with France and Germany, and shown that the “special relationship” with the United States is nothing but a one-way street, with no rewards for Britain but only burdens. With such a lamentable record, Blair’s political future must surely be in doubt.
Bush’s other ally, Spain’s Jose Maria Aznar, is also facing domestic problems and possible defeat at national elections in 2004. He was rash enough to give his support to Bush against the wishes of the great majority of Spaniards. Municipal elections in May are likely to confirm that his conservative party has lost ground to its Socialist opponents, led by Jose-Luis Rodrigues Zabatero.
Led by Bush and a cabal of neoconservatives, the United States has embarked on a colonial misadventure. It has always opposed the emergence of an Arab power able to challenge its interests. But now we are witnessing a qualitative change in US policy. The United States already has a military presence in almost every Arab country, and exerts enormous influence everywhere. Bush has gone further still. He is applying naked military force against a major Arab country in pursuit of unchallenged hegemony. The coming months are likely to prove the folly of his gamble.

Patrick Seale, a veteran Middle East analyst, wrote this commentary for The Daily Star

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.