World Media Watch for August 16, 2002

BUZZFLASH NOTE: Once again, these are the views and perspectives of the individual papers, not of BuzzFlash or Gloria. They offer BuzzFlash readers a way of reading what other nations are saying about the crisis, whether we like it or not. We repeat: This is not an endorsement of their viewpoints.

* * *

1//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting, USA--WILL IRAQ BE AN AFGHANISTAN - OR ANOTHER BAY OF PIGS? (On the one side is the very real promise of air- and special operations-based warfare. On the other side is the question of just how far you can push this model before it traps you into a war of attrition. For those who assert confidence in the political consequences of a military action, there is the memory of the Bay of Pigs. On the other side -- in its extreme form -- there is Stalingrad and the memory of what defensive warfare can do to a mobile enemy when drawn into a major city. These are the cautionary tales with which U.S. defense planners are working.)

2//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--WASHINGTON SETS SIGHTS ON IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA (...diplomatic sources in the Persian Gulf states and the Middle East are now convinced that before it launches any aggression against Iraq, Washington will first attempt to create instability in Iran and Saudi Arabia.)

3//The Guardian, UK--KAUFMAN: MPS WON'T SUPPORT IRAQ ATTACK (Gerald Kaufman, the former shadow foreign secretary, today became Labour's highest ranking name to voice his concerns over an attack on Iraq...He also calls George Bush "the most intellectually backward American president in my political lifetime". The pre-emptive shot across Mr Blair's bows comes on the day Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser, reiterated Washington's determination to oust the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein.)

4//The Independent, UK--DISSIDENTS 'INJURE' SADDAM'S SON IN BAGHDAD SHOOTING (The London-based Iraqi National Congress (INC) said a resistance group had tried to assassinate President Saddam's younger son, Qusay, while he was in a motorcade in one of Baghdad's more up-market districts on 1 August. It said he was shot in the arm... George Bush, as part of his plans for "regime change" in Iraq, signed an order earlier this year authorising the CIA to use "all available tools" to overthrow the Iraqi leader.)

5//The Economist, UK--AN EMPTY ELECTION (The air is thick with stories of plans to rig the polls. The government is said to be bribing a number of small parties to combine under the banner of a pro-Musharraf "grand national alliance"... If General Musharraf is nervous, there is good reason for it. A tainted election will rob him of the legitimacy he craves and plunge the country into another round of instability.)

* * *

1//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting 15 August 2002
http://www.stratfor.com/fib/topStory_view.php?ID=205760

WILL IRAQ BE AN AFGHANISTAN - OR ANOTHER BAY OF PIGS?

Summary

Certain factions inside Washington are pushing the Afghan model of warfare -- combining massive air power with cooperation by opposition forces already in country -- as a viable strategy for a possible attack on Iraq. However, the conditions inside Iraq are much different, causing some to question whether such a campaign could raise the specter of the Bay of Pigs operation.

Analysis

(SNIP)

For the Kurds, therefore, cooperation with the United States in toppling Hussein promises great risk but denies their desired reward. And finally, the Kurds are on the periphery of Hussein's core strategic area. Hussein has been extremely efficient at sealing or eliminating any internal rifts that might be exploited to stage an uprising.

So Hussein has opposition, but opposition alone is different from effective opposition. Saddam's security forces are highly effective, in large part because of their brutality. After many years of successfully destroying and disrupting any organized opposition inside of Iraq, it is extremely doubtful that indigenous opposition forces can be mobilized, armed and trained between the time the air campaign loosens Saddam's grip on them and the moment they must commence offensive operations.

There is an analogy here with the Bay of Pigs, which was predicated on the assumption that the landing of a few hundred paramilitaries, coupled with U.S. air power, would trigger a rising against Cuban leader Fidel Castro. There was never an expectation that the direct force would be successful, only that it would trigger indigenous forces. It could be argued that the cancellation of planned air strikes represented a major shift from the original plan, but it is extremely unlikely that even air strikes would have led to an uprising. Castro's security services were simply too good and his popularity was too secure.

In Iraq, the premise of the operation is similar to assumptions made about Cuba -- namely the fact that conditions for an effective uprising are in place. Some argue that air power has advanced so dramatically since 1961 that the relative weakness of the Iraqi opposition would be compensated for by more effective air strikes. Obviously, U.S. intelligence knows that the Iraqi opposition being paraded in Washington is an empty shell. It also knows that raising a meaningful force inside of Iraq is unlikely.

Therefore, the United States seems to be making the following bet: Air power has demonstrated its ability to so destroy an enemy that a relatively small force could engage and defeat what little may be left of the Iraqi armed forces. The force deployed in 1991 represented massive overkill. A much smaller force, perhaps 20 percent as large, could have been as effective.

Therefore, in the 2002 or 2003 model, a substantial air campaign, combining naval air in the Persian Gulf with Air Force strikes from Turkey and Qatar, will be sufficient to permit a ground force of two divisions or less to manage the situation. Special operations troops will focus on intelligence, targeting and disruption missions but will not be expected to raise an effective indigenous force.

Given the experience, this argument appears plausible. But it does not deal with a single crucial element: Baghdad.

(SNIP)

The U.S. Army has not assaulted a very large, defended city in its history. Since the United States is casualty-averse, its doctrine calls for maneuvering around urban areas without entering them. That means that there is a tremendous unknown: the ability of the United States to paralyze with a high degree of certainty any defense of Baghdad -- bearing in mind that a disorganized defense can be just as devastating as an organized one in that environment.

The essential assumption has been that air power could so destabilize Saddam's armed forces that they would be unable to maneuver and defend. The core unanswered question is whether air power would be equally effective in disrupting defenses inside of Baghdad.

Would forces there stand and fight? Would they melt away? Could a two-division mechanized force subdue the city with acceptable casualties? Most important, could the United States know the answers to these questions prior to launching the attack?

We should add to this that there will be political constraints placed on the air campaign. A strategic bombing campaign against Baghdad causing tens of thousands of casualties might win the war, but the pressure it would place on the international coalition would be enormous. Yet in tactical combat inside an urban environment, close air support without massive collateral damage is hard to come by.

These are the nightmares confronting American planners. On the one side is the very real promise of air- and special operations-based warfare. On the other side is the question of just how far you can push this model before it traps you into a war of attrition. For those who assert confidence in the political consequences of a military action, there is the memory of the Bay of Pigs. On the other side -- in its extreme form -- there is Stalingrad and the memory of what defensive warfare can do to a mobile enemy when drawn into a major city. These are the cautionary tales with which U.S. defense planners are working.

2//Asia Times Online August 15, 2002
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH15Ak03.html

WASHINGTON SETS SIGHTS ON IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - With the United States having won the first phase of its war on terror by driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan, diplomatic sources in the Persian Gulf states and the Middle East are now convinced that before it launches any aggression against Iraq, Washington will first attempt to create instability in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The sources say that Washington aims to create internal turmoil within these two countries - the most influential in their respective regions - to lessen their political clout, which would then allow the US to pursue its goals in their regions. For their part, Iran and Saudi Arabia will intensify their efforts to protect their interests.

Iran has a tradition of being the cultural leader of the Persian plateau, but it lost its position with the emergence of Islam. Other political and military revolutions also overshadowed its position. However, the 1979 Islamic revolution signaled the cultural revival of Iran, and after the breakup of Soviet Russia in 1991, Central Asian republics naturally gravitated toward Tehran, and since then it has actively courted them.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is the leader of the Wahhabite form of Islam, which is particularly anti-US, and in this capacity it supports movements for Islamic revival all over the world. The logical climax of these movements is jihad. (These movements define jihad as the struggle to uproot man-made systems and install divine guidance on earth.) The obvious result of this school of thought is controversy, conflict and war. Palestine, Kashmir and the Philippines are prime examples, and Saudi Arabia has openly funded the Philippines' Moro National Liberation Front, the Hamas in Palestine and the Lashkar-i-Taiba in Kashmir.

(SNIP)

With Saudi Arabia increasingly equating its policies with the thinking of Islamic scholars, the decline in US-Saudi relations has therefore begun. Saudi religious figures have been barred from traveling to some Western countries, and US Democratic Senator Joseph Liebermann has accused Riyadh of providing financial support to Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups, and called for the funding to be stopped.

At the same time, a prominent US think tank has termed Saudi Arabia an enemy of US interests. According to reports, a briefing last month for a top Pentagon advisory panel depicted the long-time US Gulf ally as an emerging enemy to the US and a backer of terrorism, sources familiar with the briefing said. Saudi Arabia was a key US ally in the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq and has bought billions of dollars in American arms. It still provides bases for US forces on its soil.

The sources, including former US officials, confirmed a Washington Post report that an analyst from the independent Rand Corporation urged the US to press Riyadh to stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outfits around the world and to halt anti-US and anti-Israeli statements in the kingdom. Pentagon officials declined to comment directly on the briefing to the panel which advises the Pentagon on defense policy, but they stressed that the board did not represent the official views of the US government. The sources declined to provide details of the meeting, but the Post reported direct quotes from Rand Corporation analyst Laurent Murawiec who, it said, provided a harsh assessment of Saudi Islamic fundamentalism at a time when Washington is preparing military plans for a possible invasion of Iraq to oust President Saddam Hussein.

"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," the Post reported Murawiec as saying. "Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies." The briefing urged US officials to target Saudi oil fields and overseas financial assets if the Saudis refused to comply, according to the Post

The situation in Saudi Arabia is having an effect on the region. According to reports, in a recent meeting between Jordanian King Abdullah and US President George W Bush, the monarch maintained that due to current Saudi policies, Jordan remained isolated and would be placed in a difficult position if the US tried to use its land to attack Iraq. The king reportedly said that Jordan would face internal political turmoil whipped up by Islamic movements, and externally it would have no support from its neighbors.

At a time when friction is simmering between Saudi Arabia and the US, Iran has emerged as a key player and a threat to US interests. Tehran has taken Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Azerbaijan into its fold. The province of Herat, in the west of Afghanistan on the Iranian border, has now become a sanctuary for Iranian intelligence bent on countering US interests in the areas. And at a time when the Afghan government is considering action against the governor of Herat, Ismail Khan, Iranian president Khatami is visiting Afghanistan this week. Sources said that this visit itself would create a split among the ruling coalition in Kabul. Iran has pledged US$550 million to help rebuild Afghanistan.

Observers say that Iran has played its cards intelligently, and that France and Germany will become the main focus of its external policies as it seeks to find a replacement for the loss of possible future US commercial ventures in Central Asia.

3//The Guardian Thursday August 15, 2002
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,775032,00.html

11.30am update
KAUFMAN: MPS WON'T SUPPORT IRAQ ATTACK
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

Gerald Kaufman, the former shadow foreign secretary, today became Labour's highest ranking name to voice his concerns over an attack on Iraq.

Writing in the Spectator, Mr Kaufman warns that any invasion would cause "significant casualties" and Tony Blair would find it difficult having to rely on the Conservatives for the majority of his Commons support.

He also calls George Bush "the most intellectually backward American president in my political lifetime".

The pre-emptive shot across Mr Blair's bows comes on the day Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser, reiterated Washington's determination to oust the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein.

Ms Rice told the BBC: "If Saddam Hussein is left in power doing the things that he is doing now, this is a threat that will emerge, and emerge in a very big way."

(SNIP)

However, Mr Kaufman makes special mention of Ms Rice when criticising the president's inner circle.

He writes: "Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose bellicosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy. Pity the man who relies on Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice for counsel."

He adds: "Today, there is substantial resistance in the parliamentary Labour party against war on Iraq, not just from the usual suspects, the Tam Dalyells and the Alan Simpsons, but from many mainstream MPs.

"Tony Blair would find it difficult to support and participate in a war against Iraq whose majority in the House of Commons was provided by the Conservatives."

He cautions: "It is impossible to rely on a quick victory - or a victory at all - against them if they have their backs to the wall in their own homeland. Deaths of civilians would be inevitable in any war against Iraq, and could heighten opposition internationally to an invasion."

4//The Independent 15 August 2002
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=324442

DISSIDENTS 'INJURE' SADDAM'S SON IN BAGHDAD SHOOTING
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

Members of the Iraqi opposition said yesterday that one of their gunmen had wounded a son and presumed heir of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

The London-based Iraqi National Congress (INC) said a resistance group had tried to assassinate President Saddam's younger son, Qusay, while he was in a motorcade in one of Baghdad's more up-market districts on 1 August. It said he was shot in the arm.

(SNIP)

There was no independent confirmation of the attack, and no comment from Baghdad.

The opposition group said resistance members in an Oldsmobile car had broken into the motorcade and a gunman opened fire. The vehicle escaped but was later destroyed at a checkpoint by government troops using a grenade launcher. The INC said that President Saddam was personally supervising the investigation into the incident.

Qusay, 36, derives his power from running the elite Republican Guard as well as internal security and intelligence, but has fewer public roles than his flamboyant older brother, Uday, who runs several newspapers, as well as TV and radio stations.

The thuggish Uday was left barely able to walk when he was injured from the waist down in an assassination attempt in December 1996.

(SNIP)

An INC spokesman said that Qusay was "an obvious assassination target" because "he is the second man in command in Iraq, a war criminal who cleansed prisons and put down revolts brutally".

INC, an umbrella organisation grouping a number of opposition groups and activists, is working with America to try to change the leadership in Iraq, possibly through a military strike. Iraqi opposition leaders met senior American officials in Washington at the weekend.

George Bush, as part of his plans for "regime change" in Iraq, signed an order earlier this year authorising the CIA to use "all available tools" to overthrow the Iraqi leader.

5//The Economist Aug 15th 2002
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1284087

AN EMPTY ELECTION
Three popular leaders face arrest if they dare to return
From The Economist print edition

(SNIP)

As well as deterring these three popular leaders from returning for the election, the government has sought to ban their parties. It decreed that no party could contest the election if any of its office holders had been convicted of any offence. Mr Hussain was convicted in his absence of murder. Mr Sharif was convicted of terrorism shortly before he went into exile. Miss Bhutto was convicted last year by a special "accountability court" for "disrupting court proceedings" by not attending.

The party leaders have done their best to get round the decree. Mr Sharif has passed the presidency of his party to his younger brother. Miss Bhutto has announced the formation of the PPPP (the fourth P standing for parliamentarians), which plans to contest the election under her lieutenant, Makhdoom Amin Fahim. Mr Hussain long ago stepped down as chairman of the MQM, preferring instead the honorary title of quaid, or great leader.

The government has banned public rallies in the run-up to the election. The air is thick with stories of plans to rig the polls. The government is said to be bribing a number of small parties to combine under the banner of a pro-Musharraf "grand national alliance". Visiting officials from the European Union have been swamped by complaints that the government is fixing things to its advantage. They have said that the EU could halt its development aid to Pakistan if the elections are found to be rigged. Now Pakistan's foreign minister has taken offence and is refusing to meet the group, while the information minister has accused the EU of "interfering in the internal affairs" of Pakistan.

Miss Bhutto and Mr Sharif are still threatening to return to Pakistan at the last minute to whip their supporters into action by embracing the martyrdom of imprisonment. If General Musharraf is nervous, there is good reason for it. A tainted election will rob him of the legitimacy he craves and plunge the country into another round of instability.

* * *

© 2002, Gloria R. Lalumia
insight@zianet.com

Updated listings of Radio for Progressives on the internet at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical

* * *