'This war may set a precedent for unilateral invasion'<\/p>\n
War disrupts daily activities, such as commerce, and a
\nprolonged war in Iraq is feared to impact Indonesia strongly,
\nwhile the country has yet to recover from its economic crisis.
\nThe Jakarta Post reporter Tiarma Siboro talked to Maj. Gen.
\nSudradjat, Director General of Defense at the Ministry of
\nDefense. Following is an excerpt from the interview:<\/p>\n
Question: As the world's largest Muslim country, some fear
\nthere could be repercussions from the Iraq war on Indonesia,
\nwhich also maintains economic ties with the U.S. How will the
\ngovernment anticipate this?<\/p>\n
Answer: The war affects all countries. The impact can vary
\nfrom political, economic, military, social and cultural arenas.
\nEconomic problems will be the most painful to us, as we still
\nrely on foreign investment.<\/p>\n
Distribution among many countries have been interrupted by
\nsecurity disturbances; and changes of market demand will also
\naffect the stock of raw materials for industry.<\/p>\n
The fluctuation of the price of oil will also affect our state
\nbudget, and eventually influence economic growth. Indonesia has
\nabout 40 million unemployed and we are very sensitive to possible
\nsocial disturbances that may ensue. And we're also planning the
\ngeneral elections for 2004, which will be prone to conflicts.<\/p>\n
Do you share the view that securing oil supplies is the main
\nmotive of the U.S.-led war in Iraq?<\/p>\n
Actually, the war is a war against terrorism, triggered by the
\nU.S.-led antiterrorist campaign. Iraq is known to have developed
\nweapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical
\nweapons, and the world worries whether these weapons will be used
\nfor inappropriate purposes in the hands of a dictator like Saddam
\nHussein.<\/p>\n
Given Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in the early 1990s, it is
\nviewed as possible that Iraq might launch a similar attack on
\nother countries, such as the Arab Emirates and Syria. These
\nconsiderations gave more reasons to justify the attack.<\/p>\n
What implications do you see in the war?<\/p>\n
I think we have to talk about the omnipresence of U.S.
\ninterests, especially in the Middle East, whereas the U.S. feels
\ninsecure if Saddam remains in power in Iraq.<\/p>\n
As a superpower, the U.S. was easily able to change the regime
\nin Afghanistan, and now it is trying to do the same in Iraq. Now,
\ncan the U.S. protect its interests? If the U.S. insists on
\nchanging the regime in Iraq, this would be against international
\nethics. But again, it is difficult to confront a superpower which
\ncan invade Iraq without prior approval from the U.N.<\/p>\n
What do you think of Iraq's strategy so far?<\/p>\n
The first Gulf War lasted 46 days, while the current war has
\nbeen going on for only two weeks. But the invasion of Iraq this
\ntime is twice as fast as the first Gulf War.<\/p>\n
Our concern now is whether this war will last for a long time.
\nMaybe the U.S. will easily oust the regime, but this would not
\nmean that the war is over, especially if the troops are involved
\nin urban warfare.<\/p>\n
This will be a long war requiring serious anticipation from
\nthe world community. If only it could end immediately, we could
\nstart economic recovery, but otherwise there will be various
\nconsequences that countries, including Indonesia, must face.<\/p>\n
Do you think the war could spread beyond Iraq?<\/p>\n
The magnitude of this war is not as big as that of World War
\nII, or the war in Vietnam. Sure, the U.S. is spending more, but I
\ndon't see that it will affect the world's economic situation in a
\nsimilar manner to 1929, which led to the Great Depression.<\/p>\n
As for politics and security, there have been dramatic changes
\nand the world will learn a new lesson in security values. It is
\nnow not impossible that a country can easily invade another
\ncountry.<\/p>\n
These elements can set a new paradigm for a future world war.
\nWe worry if the strong countries hold power because the UN
\nmechanism is no longer effective in managing world order. We also
\nworry now whether countries affiliated to the U.S. (in the
\ncurrent alliance) will face no sanctions (from the UN) should
\nthey launch an attack against other countries.<\/p>\n
I don't think Indonesia (would be a target) unless, for
\ninstance, we are considered to be continuing to accommodate, or
\nfacilitate, the spread of terrorism.<\/p>\n
What can the Indonesian Military (TNI) learn from the current
\nwar, especially in regards its relationship with the supreme
\ncommander?<\/p>\n
Our military can learn much from the current war, as it
\ninvolves new technology and sophisticated strategy, such as the
\nuse of "smart bombs" or its helicopters. In the past, a military
\nattack would be more focused on the use of an infantry unit with
\narmored vehicles, but today they combine all military resources
\n-- helicopters, armored vehicles, infantry units, as well as
\nnaval and air force units -- engaging in simultaneous attacks in
\na big-scale operation.<\/p>\n
Troops now carry bigger backpacks, meaning that they carry
\nmore equipment. This war demonstrates the high technology of war
\nmachines. We can also see how Iraq, with less developed
\ntechnology, copes by developing defense tactics combining militia
\nand guerrilla methods. This is the world's new laboratory of war.<\/p>\n
Talking about the position of the president as the supreme
\nmilitary commander means talking about the civilian-military
\nrelationship. Civilian supremacy entails authority held by a
\nlegitimate president who has the support of the people.<\/p>\n
George W. Bush is a legitimate president, and in a democratic
\ncountry like the U.S., the military is subordinate to the
\npresident. The military only follows what has been ordered and
\ndoes not carry out political responsibilities. Whatever the U.S.
\ntroops do in Iraq, no one can ask them to be responsible for
\nanything because this is the responsibility of Bush and his
\nministry of defense.<\/p>\n
Likewise with Saddam Hussein -- regardless of whether or not
\nhe is legitimate -- he is the president and the Iraqi military
\nshould obey him as the holder of political power in the country.
\nIraqi soldiers cannot be asked to be responsible for anything.<\/p>\n
Is this what we call a professional military?<\/p>\n
Yes -- therefore, we have to be careful in developing a
\nmilitary posture as well as in the use of military force, because
\nonce we use military force, it will always be followed by a
\nserious impact, or "collateral damage", especially if we deploy
\ntroops for inappropriate aims.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/this-war-may-set-a-precedent-for-unilateral-invasion-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}