Page 2
4. How easily, and with what risks, could Saddam be
removed militarily?
For many defence analysts, the answer to this question takes
us back to the beginning. If Saddam does have weapons of
mass destruction and is ready to use them, then the battle to
topple him will be neither easy nor risk-free.
Rear Admiral (retired) Stephen Baker, the chief analyst at the
Centre for Defence Information in Washington, stresses that
such weapons have to be regarded with utmost respect. "We
would have to have a very, very robust defensive response."
The attacking forces would need to have airborne tactical aircraft
with precision-guided missiles, as well as upgraded Patriot
missiles, able to intercept Iraqi missiles minutes after they were
launched.
John Pike, who runs GlobalSecurity.org - a military and
intelligence online newsletter - said the greatest danger could be
an Iraqi attack on Israel, instantly transforming the conflict into
one that pits all Arabs against the Jewish state and its
supporters. Pentagon planners, he said, "are having a very hard
time coming up with a workable plan which does not involve
chemical or biological weapons versus Israel".
How much resistance could the 400,000-strong Iraqi army put
up? There is general agreement that the bulk of the force, made
up of conscripts, will not fight. Adm Baker believes that even
applies to the elite Republican Guard. "They have paid attention
to Desert Storm. They know the lethality of the coalition and the
US."
But Judith Yaphe, a former senior analyst on Iraq for the CIA
now at the National Defence University, warns that the
Republican Guard has grown "a lot leaner and meaner" since
the Gulf war.
Once again, Mr Ritter takes the most radical view. "The
Republican Guard never cracked during Desert Storm," he says.
"They always fought. And the Special Republican Guard, about
50,000 to 60,000 men, will fight to the death."
Moreover, Mr Ritter said, the ruling Baath party would mobilise a
guerrilla resistance. US casualties, he predicted, could run to
hundreds and perhaps thousands. Iraqi deaths would be in the
tens of thousands or higher.
Dr Chalabi paints a similar doom-laden picture. Just as the US
has been unable to pin down the leader of al-Qaida, so Saddam
could simply disappear into the Baghdad crowds.
"Saddam is one person in 25 million. He would be more difficult
to find than Bin Laden. He has only to put on a dishdasha and
walk in the souq, and nobody would recognise him."
Any serious military campaign would take months of planning,
say British defence officials. They dismiss as extremely unlikely
a ground invasion that would require tens of thousands of troops,
the support of neighbouring countries and a massive bombing
campaign.
"Where would American troops invade from?" asks a senior
defence official, adding that only Kuwait would provide a base,
and even then with extreme reluctance.
In Afghanistan, much of the fighting against al-Qaida and the
Taliban was conducted by local opposition groups.Gen Salihi
thinks Iraqi opposition groups would be just as crucial in any
strike against Saddam, and insists that were these groups
properly supported by the US then victory would be guaranteed.
"That's a dream," says Ms Yaphe, who scoffs at the idea of a
substantial involvement of local opposition forces. "It's going to
be 99% American effort."
Sir John Moberly also questions any central role for the Iraqi
opposition. "The Americans hope a lot of Iraqis would rise up. I
am not sure that would be the case. The Kurds would not want
to get involved and the Shia muslims in the south, who have the
best military capability, look to Iran as their mentor. It was not
very sensible to include Iran in the 'axis of evil'."
5. If America went to war with Iraq, would it be in the
British national interest to take part?
"Absolutely not," says Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies
at Bradford University. "It would risk destabilising the the whole
region."
Dr Hollis is also fearful that by backing a US strike, Britain could
be brought into the firing line. Iraq could be provoked into
establishing direct links with al-Qaida and provide the network
with more recruits, she says, raising the spectre of terrorist
attacks on Britain.
But for diplomats such as Sir John Moberly a middle path needs
to be struck. "It would certainly be in the British interest not to
be creating problems for the Americans," he says. But nor
should Tony Blair allow himself to be seen as Washington's
puppet. "We have to be ready to support the Americans, but not
accept everything they do."
6. What kind of regime would replace Saddam were he
toppled?
No Iraqi with an ounce of decency will ever accept a government
bearing the stamp "Made in the USA". So says Dr Chalabi, who
ridicules the idea of exiled opposition leaders returning to
Baghdad to replace Saddam. "Once the dollars stop, none of
these dollar-revolutionaries in the opposition will leave the
comfort of London and New York to live in Baghdad and rule
people that most of them haven't seen since the Gulf war."
Gen Salihi, by contrast, holds up the vision of a post-Saddam
multiparty democracy representing all peoples and religions. The
Kurds must get their rights, within a united Iraq, and no group or
family should dominate Iraq alone.
"A democratic system can resolve all problems and give all
groups a chance to participate in the next government," he
says.
It is precisely Iraq's ethnic and religious diversity that would be
the problem were Saddam overthrown, believes Mr Hamid, of the
Arab League. He prophesies not one, but several civil wars
inside Iraq.
Whitehall officials also speak of a potential "nightmare scenario"
with Iraq split into three parts, with the Kurds in the north
demanding a separate state, something which would be fiercely
opposed by Turkey, Iran and Syria.
"There is an enormous risk of expectations. Kurdistan is not
what people want," said a defence official.
At worst, says Sir John, such would be the instability that there
would be a great temptation to replace Saddam with another
Saddam - another iron-fisted military man.
"The US has a personal animus against Saddam. I do not think
they have a clear idea of what they are going to do or what the
results will be."
7. Would removing Saddam by force make the world a
safer place?
"The biggest danger is you might remove one danger and
increase another," says Dr Hollis, referring to the prospect of
further alienating Arab and Muslim opinion at a time when "Israel
was being allowed to get away with murder".
"It is most likely to lead to further tension and conflict", says
Prof Rogers. Alternative solutions would have to be found, he
added.
For Dr Chalabi, the Middle East is only safe with an Iraq that is
fully intact and fully participating in the peace process. Mr
Hamid goes further, warning that war would be "a disaster for the
region, because Iraq's neighbours will be flooded with tens of
thousands of Iraqi refugees".
Mr Duelfer sounds a rare note of hope, not least for Iraq itself.
"Iraq could be the engine of development in the Middle East. It
can rebuild itself. They've got a lot of real talented people, and
there is a lot more holding Iraq together than pulling it apart."
In the end, this question also circles back to the beginning, and
President Bush's maxim: Inaction is not an option. "Saddam
Hussein is a danger to Iraq, to the region and to the world," says
Col Taylor. "Whatever you do entails risks, but the risk in not
doing anything is more risky."
guardian.co.uk |
