Saturday 19th June 2004 :
Rumsfeld’s ill-advised threat
2 comment(s).
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a worried man on Friday. His
war plan has come under bitter criticism and his troops in Iraq have
bogged down in the face of a determined adversary. He was in a sombre
mood as he should be. But his belligerence seems intact. At his press
briefing, he held out a clear warning to Syria and Iran, Iraq’s two
neighbours, against taking “hostile actions” against the United
States. He accused Syria of supplying Iraq with night-vision goggles
and warned Iran against positioning Revolutionary Guards and other
elements on the Iran-Iraq border. What does he mean?
Plainly speaking, he has held out a threat to Syria. “We consider such
trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government
responsible for the incidents.” This statement is both broad and
specific. Holding a government responsible is as far as another
government can go short of actually going to war. This was also clear
from his response when he was asked if he was threatening military
action against Damascus. His reply: “I’m saying exactly what I’m
saying. It was [the threat] carefully phrased.” So, there is no doubt
about the content of Mr Rumsfeld’s message. The use of the term
“incidents” is also clever. It can refer to both the act of supplying
the equipment as also the results of such supplies, namely the
enhanced capability of Iraqi troops to engage the attacking US forces.
Put in the context, it seems Mr Rumsfeld was referring to the latter.
“There’s no question that...it [supplies] vastly complicates our
situation.” “Our situation” in this case is a clear reference to the
losses the attacking coalition forces have had to take as a result of
enhanced Iraqi defense capability.
Interestingly, Mr Rumsfeld’s warning to Syria follows accusations by
Washington that some Russian firms have been supplying military
equipment to the Iraqi army. Russia has denied the charge, though some
Russian analysts have provided proof of such transfers. It is unclear
whether Russia supplied such equipment directly or whether such
transfers were made through a third country. But quite apart from
these accusations, the question is: Can Washington actually
operationalise its threat against Syria and possibly, Iran?
Technically speaking, it can. For instance, it can go in and bomb some
targets in Syria; or, since the threat has also been held out to Iran,
it can bomb Iranian territory, too. But in reality, doing this would
be suicidal. The attackers are already facing much stiffer resistance
than they expected against the Iraqis. Earlier estimates had projected
the Iraqi army as a bunch of supine, demoralised soldiers who would
surrender by the thousands once the shooting began. That has not
happened. Any attacks on Syria or Iran would mean war against those
countries too. That would mean embroiling the entire region in an
apocalyptic conflict. Such a decision would also mean justifiable
multi-national resistance against the US invaders by the Muslim
countries. Governments, already facing the pressure of public opinion,
would find themselves totally besieged. Some of them may even fall.
The world, not just the Islamic part of it, is already scared of this
war. Opinion in even those European countries that are supposedly part
of the coalition of the willing is against the war. Prime Minister
Tony Blair of Britain may have survived the voting test in the Commons
but if Washington were to open another front, he would take a bad hit.
He is already precariously perched despite the vote. It is no
coincidence that while US Secretary of State Colin Powell denied the
United Nations would have any major role to play in post-war Iraq,
Prime Minister Blair wants just such a role for the UN. His statement,
coming as it did on the heels of Mr Powell’s, is clear indication that
he may not survive the US unilateralism any more.
Mr Rumsfeld would do himself, Washington and the rest of the world
much good if he could disabuse himself of this cowboy attitude. The
ongoing war itself should humble the likes of him. America is very
powerful and there is no gainsaying that fact. But America cannot take
on the whole world. Its power rests on its ability to make the global
financial system work as best as it can. Even if it could go in and
bomb the hell out of countries, it would end up the loser because of
the ensuing chaos. The financial globalisation system would be the
first casualty of such madness.
An expansion of the theatre of hostilities would also mean a
decimation of the US ground forces in the region. The US, despite its
technological superiority and economic clout, cannot do certain things
and one of them is its inability to stretch its human resources beyond
a certain point. Neither can it blast out of existence all the
Lilliputian countries it cannot stand. It’s time Mr Rumsfeld read
Gulliver’s Travels and stop pushing his luck. His slip is showing. *
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-3-2003_pg1_1
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
