FLASH: PREPARATIONS FOR ANOTHER WAR: IRAQ?

FLASH 26 (3/11/02): BUSH'S MOUNTING INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ PROVOKES OPPOSITION IN UK, EUROPE

Counting on his eighty percent popularity ratings and the 3/10/02 CBS feature on the World Trade Center bombing, President Bush appears to be on the verge of escalating in at least two more countries, Iraq and Yemen.

The London Guardian (3/11/02) reports that the United States has already started a quiet military buildup in preparation for a ground war in Iraq. U.S. special forces are training Iraqi opposition forces in Kurdish-held areas in northern Iraq, preparing them for an attack on Saddam's forces.

The London Observer (3/10/02) reports that the United States has asked Britain to prepare plans to contribute 25,000 troops to join in an attack on Iraq.

In one option, "British troops would be part of a 250,000-strong ground force to invade Iraq in an operation similar to Desert Storm in 1991." A second option calls for smaller special forces units to support Iraqi opposition forces, much like Afghanistan. "The third option - thought to be preferred by the Foreign Office - is one of 'aggressive containment'. Under this plan, air strikes against Iraq would be intensified if Saddam did not agree to a comprehensive inspections agreement."

But US polls also indicate that support for US action in Iraq would drop to 29 percent if US allies are not also in support. It is clear that this support, even in Britain, will be problematic.

According to the London Times (3/11/02), Prime Minister Tony Blair was warned against being dragged into a conflict with Iraq, with several of his Cabinet members threatening to resign. "No decision has been taken," said Robin Cook, the House of Commons leader. "No decision may ever be taken."

As I have reported previously, there is even stronger opposition in Russia and from France and Germany in western Europe. According to the London Guardian (3/12/00), most members of the European Union believe that "the US is wrong to think that its Afghan success can be duplicated in the different circumstances of Iraq. All are disturbed by the trend towards US unilateralism."

Meanwhile, according to the BBC (3/4/02), former CIA agent Robert Baer "has said that a US invasion of Iraq could cause untold chaos in the Middle East."

In his words, "What terrifies me is that if the US attacks Iraq, destroys Saddam's army - which is what really holds the country together - it's going to break up ethnic and religious groups. If you destroy the army, the chances of Iran invading the south are very high."

[Read Robert Baer's account of his hands-on work for the CIA with the divided Kurdish opposition in the failed 1995 Iraq rebellion (See No Evil, 171-213), to understand better the reasons for his informed pessismism about preent US plans.]

In the interview, Mr Baer also predicted the demise of the interim government in Afghanistan, saying that "it won't last until June". He went on to call Afghanistan "ungovernable" and said that different warring groups will soon move in and carve up the country. "I think once the snow melts, people are going to start fighting," he said.

The week since his gloomy prediction has seen recurring reports of increasing tension and occasional violence between southern Pashtuns and northern Tajiks and Uzbeks in Afghanistan.

As we learn further from the BBC, two British scholars say the US strategy for defeating al-Qaeda is in fact having the opposite effect.

They describe the military response to the terrorism of 11 September as "deeply counter-productive". Broadening the war on terror from Afghanistan to Iraq, they believe, could provoke Baghdad into first use of chemical or biological weapons.

The two academics are Professor Paul Rogers, of Bradford University's peace studies department, and Dr Scilla Elworthy, director of the Oxford Research Group (ORG). Six months on from the attacks on the US, the ORG has published their appraisal of what has been achieved, entitled Never-ending War?: Consequences of September 11 (The Oxford Research Group website has a summary of the 16-page report.): "Unless core issues of marginalisation and disempowerment are addressed, the end result of responding to terror with violence will be increased support for groups like al-Qaeda."

This academic judgment is reinforced, according to the London Observer (3/10/02) by the opinion of British police and intelligence operatives that al-Qaeda is not just a "hierarchic and disciplined terrorist group," but "something more like a broad-based political movement."