Last week saw a leaked US report that Washington had drawn up preliminary plans for an all-out war on Iraq by land, sea and air — to happen early next year. This week, there are again bullish noises coming out of the White House and Pentagon about overthrowing Saddam Hussein. This time, the story leaking from senior military sources is that American and British agents are already on the ground in Iraq, fomenting revolt.
So, it seems, we can assume that the well-publicized plan to overthrow the regime in Baghdad is going to happen. Or can we? It is quite clear that these “leaks” are deliberate: the Bush administration wants everyone to know what its plans are. But that inevitably raises the question: Why? It is one thing to plan an invasion but to then announce it to all and sundry as if it were an event on the social calendar - “invasion of Iraq in early spring” — is, as far as military tactics go, lunacy.
There is another reason to question these bullish noises from Washington: there is no love lost between the Bush administration and the Iraqi opposition. Washington makes no attempt to disguise its total lack of faith in the Iraqi National Congress — which is why it has persistently refused its demand for arms and training. Yet it has to be assumed that if the Pentagon seriously plans to topple Saddam Hussein, it will do so using the tried and proved formula of supporting local insurgents with American airstrikes and Special Forces. It worked in Afghanistan and it meets the demands of both American military planners and public opinion of limited direct involvement by US ground troops.
So if Washington is not working hand in hand with the frankly fractious INC to train and arm a force that can march into Baghdad — and there is no evidence whatsoever of that — and if it not training the Kurds —and there is no evidence that they, for their part, want to get into another fight with Baghdad having being abandoned by the Americans in 1991 — what is Washington’s plan? Does President Bush really intend to send in quarter of a million US troops to “finish off” the business left by his father? There is no doubt that Bush wants to see Saddam Hussein toppled. But there has to be more than a suspicion that the rumors and the carefully placed leaks are intended more to keep Baghdad nervous and guessing rather than signal a war ahead. There may also be a convenient parallel objective.
In the wake of Sept. 11, Bush has enjoyed record ratings. But the popularity is beginning to slip, particularly now that attention is on corporate fraud and its disastrous effect on the stock market. With the Republicans now under the microscope, the president and the vice president on the defensive over allegations of suspicious deals, the White House will be desperate to refocus public attention on an area where the administration can be seen to be doing all its John Wayne best for the country. Saddam Hussein fits the bill.
There is a gaping hole in Washington’s Iraqi policy: the rhetoric does not match what is happening on the ground. Unless this is a brilliant case of double bluff, it has to be asked whether there is less to this than meets the eye, whether it is disingenuous propaganda, for consumption in Baghdad and at home.
