FLASH: PREPARATIONS FOR ANOTHER WAR: IRAQ?

FLASH 18 (2/1/02): BUSH'S "AXIS OF EVIL," RUSSIA, IRAQ, AND THE RISKS OF WAR

"This is the established Order of Things, when a Nation has grown to such an height of Power as to become dangerous to Mankind, she never fails to loose her Wisdom, her Justice and her Moderation, and with these she never fails to loose her Power; which however returns again, if those Virtues return." -- John Adams, Autobiography, IV, 158

With his State of the Union remarks about an "axis of evil" (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea), President Bush has created a storm of criticism in Europe, Russia, Asia, and South Korea. (For widespread expressions of concern, even from Britain's Foreign Secretary and NATO's British Secretary-General, see the London Independent of 2/2/02.)

This is not surprising. Bush's war on terrorism has up to now been responsive to 9/11. The strategy he proclaimed on 1/29 is one of triumphal unilateralism. If he continues to proclaim and act on it, we can expect a number of dangerous anti-American developments.

The key assumption behind the President's speech is that articulated by Zbigniew Brzezinski and others: that US military dominance is now so great that no coalition of forces can challenge it. The counter-assumption (once held by the US State Department) is that the US can be the dominant power in the world as long as its chief competitors -- Russia and China -- can be kept relatively isolated from each other and the rest of the world.

President Bush seems willing, even eager, to show that the US does not worry about Russia and China. Once consequence of menacing Iraq and Iran will almost certainly be to increase Russian influence with both countries and others in the region. Another will be to shift Western European countries towards more right-wing nationalist policies; and since World War II such nationalists have tended to see Russia as a counterweight to US hegemony. Finally one can expect pressures from inside Russia to have Putin adopt a more militant anti-American policy, or (failing this) to replace him. An article of 1/30/02 by James Robbins in the National Review combines a case for action against Iraq with a "who cares?" reminder that "Russia has stated repeatedly that the use of force against Iraq would be unacceptable and destabilizing:"

"Iraq is a geostrategic menace to the United States and to the civilized world. There is no better time to begin to take action against Saddam's regime, no greater opportunity to squelch this threat before it reenergizes.... Russia has stated repeatedly that the use of force against Iraq would be unacceptable and destabilizing. Of course, there is little Russia could do practically if force was used - certainly not intervene on the side of Iraq."

However it is naive to think that Russia's response would be limited to actions in Iraq. We know this from a recent article summarizing Russian warnings over Iraq in Newsmax.com on 1/15/02, before Bush's 1/29 speech. Summarizing Nezavisimaya gazeta of 12/27/01, it states:

"Moscow's direct support or tacit approval of Washington's strikes on Iraq would demonstrate to other Russian allies -- mainly India and China -- Moscow's extreme unreliability....In the case of soft strikes on Iraq, Russian moves would be limited to mild protests and diplomatic maneuvers. However, it is doubtful that Washington at present will limit itself to half measures. Doubtless, President Bush and his team are eager to extend the victory in Afghanistan to Iraq and build on America's geopolitical successes in Central Asia....a new victory would give the U.S. unopposed dominance in the Middle East, but would also consolidate the positions of Islamic fundamentalists and move Arabs to retaliate against Americans....It also cannot be ruled out that a U.S. war on Iraq would trigger another war(s), including heavy Israeli strikes against Palestinians and an Indian-Pakistani conflict in Kashmir. Finally, Kuranov asks, what could be the reaction of an important player like China? Prominent Russian sinologist Dr. Sergei Luzinyan gives his opinion: "China's reaction towards possible action of the U.S. against Iraq will be very negative or even very tough. China has old and close political ties with Baghdad, and China never gives up on old friends and partners. Besides, China is already upset over the U.S. invasion of Central Asia, considered by Beijing to be in 'its own sphere of influence.'"

According to the Washington Post (1/31/02), "Bush administration officials made clear yesterday that U.S. military action against Iraq, Iran or North Korea was not close at hand despite President Bush's warning on Tuesday that he would not stand idle as these countries threatened U.S. security."

However the Washington Times (1/31/02) agrees that US action is likely:

"Regarding Iraq, several administration sources say Mr. Bush plans to move against Saddam. The only questions remaining are timing and the method that will be used. The CIA is said to advocate a coup; Pentagon policy-makers are examining using the Afghan war as a model to oust Saddam from power. Generals and admirals are said to be in disagreement over whether a war in Iraq would require huge numbers of American ground troops. The State Department is wary of another war with Iraq's forces. Amid the internal debate, some in the Pentagon are trying to bolster the case for a war against Iraq by finding links between the Middle East terrorist groups that Saddam supports and bin Laden's al Qaeda network."

And if the US chooses or is drawn into a ground war, the Pentagon plan for such an operation would involve up to 100,000 US troops, according to The Herald (Scotland) (1/31/02): "MILITARY planners at the Pentagon have drawn up a blueprint for a two-pronged invasion of Iraq involving up to 100,000 US troops in support of local Kurdish and Shi'ite rebels.... The plan calls for a "sandwich" strategy which would see 50,000 Americans attacking from the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq while another 50,000 advanced from Kuwait, and possibly Saudi Arabia, under cover of an overwhelming air umbrella of fighters and helicopter gunships."

If there is a unilateral US operation of this scale, over-riding the protests already voiced from other nations in the region, it is hard to imagine that such a war would be contained to Iraq.