Iraq crisis: Countdown to war or more uncertainty?

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta, bandoro@csis.or.id

A drawn-out attempt by the UN to convince the world of whether or not Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction is still under way as the U.S. and its allies continue to park their troops in the Persian Gulf region. A worldwide protest against a possible U.S.-led war in Iraq took place in the U.S., a number of European capitals and other parts of the world. By the end of January it should become clear whether the world is in a countdown to war or whether the uncertainty will continue into February or even beyond.

Though the U.S has not yet decided to go to war, the current mobilization of thousands of troops has fueled the feeling in the world that war is likely to take place. If war does occur, it would essentially be a replay of the 1991 Gulf War, but on a smaller scale.

The air campaign would be more intense than the last, and ground troops would be deployed more quickly. A possible war in Iraq would not only have serious repercussions on the stability and security of the Middle East region, but would also effect the way the Muslim world perceives the U.S.

It is almost certain that conflict between the U.S. and Iraq will divide neighbors and nations. Divisions might also occur within U.S. domestic politics.

Tension is likely to emerge between hawks and doves, with the hawks arguing that if inspections get nowhere, war is the only answer, and the doves saying that more time should certainly be allowed and UN authority sought.

We are not very sure how powerful the doves are in persuading the U.S. government against going to war with Iraq. But those domestic divisions may not be an attractive game for the world to observe as it is now already discussing the possible devastating impacts of the war.

The UN nuclear inspection team reported that it had found around 12 chemical warheads, although they were not filled. The exact significance of this remains to be determined. The inspectors have also found imported machinery related to rocket development. In spite of the findings, the inspections have not come to the conclusion that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, prior to the meeting of the Security Council on Jan. 27.

The team still expects that Iraqi leaders will be cooperative.

In its report to the Council, the team will assess the level of compliance of Iraq, and whether the team thinks that Baghdad still has weapons of mass destruction and whether it needs more time to complete its job. If the team asks for more time, most Council members would likely agree. But if the U.S. opposed an extension, then the Council would certainly be split. What we would witness then is either endgame or further delay of the war.

By learning from past U.S.--Iraq relations and judging the former's current stand over the issue, it is almost certain that the U.S. will keep its options open for unilateral action, even if there were no breach by Iraq.

Implicitly, this means that it is the UN that should declare whether Iraq is in breach or not, and not the U.S. But the U.S. might insist that it has accused Iraq of a breach and of not being truthful in its weapons declaration. For the U.S., it might not be enough to be the cause of war, but Washington, given its seemingly uncompromising stand and growing impatience with Iraq, reserves the right to make its own judgment, meaning that it will not give the UN Security Council the only say.

If war became a reality, it would certainly jeopardize the very fabric of international stability. The world would be severely divided and the friction between the West and Islam more intense. It would encourage radicalism, anti-Western sentiment and undermine efforts to promote democracy, particularly here in Indonesia.

But the scope of anti-Western sentiment in our country would depend on whether the attack were perceived as unilateral action by the U.S. or carried the approval of the UN Security Council. A U.S. attack on Iraq could not be considered an act of terror if it had the backing of the UN.

Many believe, however, that there will be no second Security Council resolution, the first being No. 1441 on the need for further discussion if Iraq were found to be in breach of its weapons declaration. This would mean a great likelihood of the war being initiated unilaterally by the U.S.

War in the Gulf would not automatically end the world's fight against terror. However, the war itself might be seen by many as a violation of civil rights, especially against women and children. It would also change the perception of some members of the international community about the way terrorist acts should be deterred.

But the most frightening effect of such a devastating war would be the possibility of terrorist groups, as part of their retaliation efforts, doubling their strength and seeking to inflict more severe and, perhaps, permanent damage to the Western world.

Because U.S. troops have already been deployed, many believe war is only a matter of time; some have even speculated that the attack on Iraq could take place on Jan. 27 when the UN inspection team is due to report to the world body on whether Iraq has nuclear or chemical weapons. But does a military buildup mean that war is inevitable, or is there a point of no return?

Even as the U.S. is sending tens of thousands of troops to the Gulf, President Bush has not yet decided whether to go to war with Iraq. The U.S. top military officer, Gen. Richard Myers, was reported as saying that although there was a military buildup that would not mean that war was a certainty, and so from a military perspective the "point of no return" had not yet been reached. Gen. Myers' opinion can be assumed to mean that a military force could be taken to the brink of war and then stood down without firing a shot.

Myers may have been speaking to assuage both Americans' and the world's anxiety about war. He may be right that even the most massive deployment of forces can be reversed as long as hostilities have not begun. But Bush may view the matter differently. Considering the size of the forces deployed in the Gulf, Bush has three options: Either the U.S. will go to war, the Iraqis will admit to developing weapons of mass destruction, or the Iraqis will overthrow President Saddam Hussein.

The first two options are the most likely. The world is wondering what Bush will say in his Jan. 28 annual State of the Union address, an obviously important platform to set out the American position. At present, it is up to the world how it will judge the political, economic and strategic consequences of these two options. Otherwise, the world might just as well prepare for the countdown to war.