Terrorists wait in the wings
By B Raman
atimes.com
The budget for fiscal 2004 sent to the US Congress by President George W Bush in the last week of January 2003 does not contain any allocation for assisting the anti-Saddam Hussein opposition in Iraq, as against allocations amounting to US$25 million per annum provided for in the budgets for fiscal 2002 and 2003. This has been interpreted to mean that Washington is confident that Saddam Hussein will be dislodged from power and a pro-US government installed in his place shortly, thereby obviating any further need for spending on this account.
There is a qualitative difference in US planning for the operation in Iraq as compared to that in Afghanistan, which preceded Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. While both operational plans are based on the assumption that the US might have to stay engaged (at least for about three years) before pro-US normalcy could be restored, the plan for Afghanistan envisaged continued expenditure by the US during this period.
By contrast, in Iraq, the US envisages that once its ground troops occupy the country, all past as well as future expenditures will be met from Iraq's oil revenue. The new regime to be installed in Baghdad will be required by the US to reimburse the expenditure incurred on the forthcoming military operations, as well as on restoring normalcy during the occupation. The Iraqi people will be made to pay for the US war against them. Reliable reports from sources close to Iraqi exile groups say that they have already signed a secret agreement with the US undertaking this commitment.
The present assessment is that the US-UK operations to occupy Iraq will start in the beginning of March, unless, in the meanwhile, good sense prevails in Washington and London - of which there are little signs presently. The US will not like to start the military strike until most, if not all, of the millions of Muslim pilgrims from all over the world who have congregated in Saudi Arabia for the hajj have dispersed.
Now that Saddam must be aware that the invasion of his country is just a fortnight away, will he wait until they launch the invasion, or will he exercise his option of preemption in the face of open threats to occupy his country and overthrow him? He could do this by launching a preemptive strike against Kuwait, against pro-US Kurds in northern Iraq or against Israel in the hope of thereby forcing US ground troops to fight prematurely and add fuel to Muslim anger against the US. This might also have the advantage of creating difficulties for the return of hajj pilgrims to their respective countries.
Well-informed sources say that while the dangers of such a preemptive strike by Saddam have been factored into US planning, its possibility is rated low due to the following reasons:
With Iraqi territory, air space and communications networks under continuous surveillance by the US, it would be very difficult for Saddam to launch such a strike.
Were he to nonetheless manage one, whatever opposition there is now to US-UK invasion plans - particularly in France, Germany, China, Russia and the Arab world - might melt away and his isolation would be complete. By launching a preemptive strike he would lose the aura of martyr and play into US hands.
What, then, might be the possibility of another terrorist organization - Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF), Hezbollah, Hamas, the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, etc - launching widespread preemptive strikes in different countries against US-UK targets in the hope of thereby adding to public pressure against the war? Might there be a flare-up in Afghanistan to divert US attention from Iraq? The dangers of this are rated high since the intelligence agencies of the West, despite being beefed up after September 11, are still considerably handicapped in collecting preventive intelligence about the thinking and plans of terrorist organizations.
American and British intelligence agencies are playing it safe - as all intelligence agencies, including India's, often do on such occasions - by over-assessing the threat perception even in the absence of precise intelligence, so that they are not later accused of intelligence failure if preemptive terrorist strikes materialize. The extensive security precautions undertaken in the US and the UK during the past few days reflect such over-assessments by the intelligence agencies. Deliberate over-assessments may also have a psychological value in influencing the waverers to come out in support of the war.
The message, supposedly by bin Laden, broadcast by Al Jazeera on February 11 is more defensive than offensive. It does not read like a call for action to his followers all over the world to prevent a US invasion of Iraq. It is more a call for action after the US troops have invaded Iraq in order to defeat them. While he has called on true Muslims to tactically support the Saddam regime despite its apostate character in order to defeat the US, it is apparent from a careful reading of the message and of the kind of sermons being given in Pakistani madrassas - particularly in the Binori madrassa of Karachi headed by Mufti Shamzai, widely seen as bin Laden's religious mentor - that anti-US Muslim elements would be happy to see US troops invade Iraq. They are calculating that this would further aggravate the Muslim anger against the US and Israel all over the world, thereby facilitating the ultimate defeat of the "crusaders" and the Jewish people.
A similar calculation is evident in the thinking of the Shi'ites of the region and of the government of Iran - but for a different reason. There is genuine fear in Tehran that if US operations in Iraq are successful, Iran might be the US's next target for a similar operation. The Iranians would, therefore, want the US to get bogged down in a war without end in Iraq, in the hope that this would discourage US "adventurists" from undertaking similar operations against Iran. Tehran's advice to the Shi'ites of Iraq is likely to reflect this calculation.
It is interesting to note that almost the entire anger and propaganda in the Islamic world is directed against the US and Israel and that very little is said against the UK, despite Prime Minister Tony Blair's vociferous support of the US. The Islamic world is ignoring the UK with contempt.
Of the leaders of the Islamic world, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and President General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan have reasons to be concerned about the sequel to the US invasion of Iraq, if and when it materializes. In both the countries there is strong anti-US fundamentalist influence at the lower and middle levels of the army - more so in Egypt than even in Pakistan. How would these fundamentalist elements react to the US invasion? That is the fear that would be uppermost in their minds.
B Raman is Additional Secretary (ret), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, and presently director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai; former member of the National Security Advisory Board of the Government of India. E-Mail: corde@vsnl.com. He was also head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency, from 1988 to August, 1994. |
