'This war may set a precedent for unilateral invasion'

'This war may set a precedent for unilateral invasion'

War disrupts daily activities, such as commerce, and a
prolonged war in Iraq is feared to impact Indonesia strongly,
while the country has yet to recover from its economic crisis.
The Jakarta Post reporter Tiarma Siboro talked to Maj. Gen.
Sudradjat, Director General of Defense at the Ministry of
Defense. Following is an excerpt from the interview:

Question: As the world's largest Muslim country, some fear
there could be repercussions from the Iraq war on Indonesia,
which also maintains economic ties with the U.S. How will the
government anticipate this?

Answer: The war affects all countries. The impact can vary
from political, economic, military, social and cultural arenas.
Economic problems will be the most painful to us, as we still
rely on foreign investment.

Distribution among many countries have been interrupted by
security disturbances; and changes of market demand will also
affect the stock of raw materials for industry.

The fluctuation of the price of oil will also affect our state
budget, and eventually influence economic growth. Indonesia has
about 40 million unemployed and we are very sensitive to possible
social disturbances that may ensue. And we're also planning the
general elections for 2004, which will be prone to conflicts.

Do you share the view that securing oil supplies is the main
motive of the U.S.-led war in Iraq?

Actually, the war is a war against terrorism, triggered by the
U.S.-led antiterrorist campaign. Iraq is known to have developed
weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical
weapons, and the world worries whether these weapons will be used
for inappropriate purposes in the hands of a dictator like Saddam
Hussein.

Given Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in the early 1990s, it is
viewed as possible that Iraq might launch a similar attack on
other countries, such as the Arab Emirates and Syria. These
considerations gave more reasons to justify the attack.

What implications do you see in the war?

I think we have to talk about the omnipresence of U.S.
interests, especially in the Middle East, whereas the U.S. feels
insecure if Saddam remains in power in Iraq.

As a superpower, the U.S. was easily able to change the regime
in Afghanistan, and now it is trying to do the same in Iraq. Now,
can the U.S. protect its interests? If the U.S. insists on
changing the regime in Iraq, this would be against international
ethics. But again, it is difficult to confront a superpower which
can invade Iraq without prior approval from the U.N.

What do you think of Iraq's strategy so far?

The first Gulf War lasted 46 days, while the current war has
been going on for only two weeks. But the invasion of Iraq this
time is twice as fast as the first Gulf War.

Our concern now is whether this war will last for a long time.
Maybe the U.S. will easily oust the regime, but this would not
mean that the war is over, especially if the troops are involved
in urban warfare.

This will be a long war requiring serious anticipation from
the world community. If only it could end immediately, we could
start economic recovery, but otherwise there will be various
consequences that countries, including Indonesia, must face.

Do you think the war could spread beyond Iraq?

The magnitude of this war is not as big as that of World War
II, or the war in Vietnam. Sure, the U.S. is spending more, but I
don't see that it will affect the world's economic situation in a
similar manner to 1929, which led to the Great Depression.

As for politics and security, there have been dramatic changes
and the world will learn a new lesson in security values. It is
now not impossible that a country can easily invade another
country.

These elements can set a new paradigm for a future world war.
We worry if the strong countries hold power because the UN
mechanism is no longer effective in managing world order. We also
worry now whether countries affiliated to the U.S. (in the
current alliance) will face no sanctions (from the UN) should
they launch an attack against other countries.

I don't think Indonesia (would be a target) unless, for
instance, we are considered to be continuing to accommodate, or
facilitate, the spread of terrorism.

What can the Indonesian Military (TNI) learn from the current
war, especially in regards its relationship with the supreme
commander?

Our military can learn much from the current war, as it
involves new technology and sophisticated strategy, such as the
use of "smart bombs" or its helicopters. In the past, a military
attack would be more focused on the use of an infantry unit with
armored vehicles, but today they combine all military resources
-- helicopters, armored vehicles, infantry units, as well as
naval and air force units -- engaging in simultaneous attacks in
a big-scale operation.

Troops now carry bigger backpacks, meaning that they carry
more equipment. This war demonstrates the high technology of war
machines. We can also see how Iraq, with less developed
technology, copes by developing defense tactics combining militia
and guerrilla methods. This is the world's new laboratory of war.

Talking about the position of the president as the supreme
military commander means talking about the civilian-military
relationship. Civilian supremacy entails authority held by a
legitimate president who has the support of the people.

George W. Bush is a legitimate president, and in a democratic
country like the U.S., the military is subordinate to the
president. The military only follows what has been ordered and
does not carry out political responsibilities. Whatever the U.S.
troops do in Iraq, no one can ask them to be responsible for
anything because this is the responsibility of Bush and his
ministry of defense.

Likewise with Saddam Hussein -- regardless of whether or not
he is legitimate -- he is the president and the Iraqi military
should obey him as the holder of political power in the country.
Iraqi soldiers cannot be asked to be responsible for anything.

Is this what we call a professional military?

Yes -- therefore, we have to be careful in developing a
military posture as well as in the use of military force, because
once we use military force, it will always be followed by a
serious impact, or "collateral damage", especially if we deploy
troops for inappropriate aims.