Keep out of Iraq's quagmire: India must stand firm

Mr Tony Blair's acceptance ratings are now a negative 17 percent. Mr Bush's scores have fallen to their lowest since the attack on Iraq. The Democrats are beginning to rediscover their voice and criticise Mr Bush.

Mr Blair is unlikely to emerge unscathed from this. His government faces another charge, besides "sexing up" Iraq's "dodgy dossiers": trying to muzzle the BBC. The chairperson of the BBC's board has accused officials of threatening to cut its funding, remove its director-general and rewrite its charter.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Dr Kelly's death is an especially serious matter. The former UN weapons inspector, who visited Iraq 37 times, knew Mr Blair was lying while claiming Iraq was 45 minutes away from deploying WMD. In his assessment, Iraq was nowhere near weaponising WMD capabilities. Mr Bush too faces a severe credibility crisis.

Complicating this is the Iraq situation, marked by growing resistance to the occupation, widespread lawlessness, breakdown of public services. A poll by the conservative British Spectator shows 75 per cent of Iraqis say that Baghdad is more dangerous than before the war. As many as two-thirds fear being attacked in the streets.

Fortyfive percent of Iraqis believe the war was waged "to secure oil supplies" and 41 percent "to help Israel". Just six per cent think that the motive was "to find and destroy WMD"!

Only 29 percent favour the Americans, although only seven per cent want Mr Hussein back. Although 13 per cent want occupation troops to leave immediately, 71 per cent want power transferred to Iraqis within 12 months.

Four months into occupation, the US has failed to restore order or public services. With its pathetic 3,900-strong police, Baghdad is nightmarishly unsafe. Wholesale "de-Baathification" has meant sacking competent technocrats who ran services.

The occupation is proving extremely costly with its $4 billion monthly bill. Worse, Fifty American troops have been killed since May 1. US soldiers' morale is extremely low.

The New York Times quotes a 3rd Infantry Division sergeant: "we feel betrayed" at the cancellation of our scheduled return home. In circulation is an anonymous soldier's email. "Our moral is not high or even low", it says. It is "non-existent."

The US doesn't control the Iraq situation despite deploying 16 of its army's total 33 combat brigades. This well exceeds the recommended one-third ratio. Washington is desperate to relieve its tired, demoralised soldiers and substantially increase total deployment over the present 158,000 troops.

It has approached 90 countries for troops, but persuaded only 19 to commit 13,000 soldiers. American generals too have embarked on a recruitment expedition -- witness Gen Richard Myers' visit to South Asia.

America's desperation to get Indian troops is best revealed in what it told visiting foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal in early July, according to The Indian Express: "Yours is a BJP government, you took the risk in 1998 (Pokharan-II), take the initiative now as well. We know you may ask for UN cover or cite domestic concerns. We can get a UN cover but if you send troops right now, that will strengthen our friendship."

It is surreal that non-proliferation champion US, which supports Security Council Resolution 1172 condemning India's nuclear tests, should commend those very tests as worthy of repetition!

India must firmly reject the US request -- for five reasons. It's established that the case for war on Iraq was based on falsified evidence, sexed-up intelligence, and fanciful inferences. Dishonesty and fraud made the war doubly, grossly, unjust. Equally immoral and illegal is the resulting occupation.

Second, by bypassing the Security Council to wage war, the US mocked at the United Nations and undermined multilateralism. Under the UN Charter, no state can use force without the Security Council's prior authorisation -- except in self-defence.

Iraq's invasion followed the dangerous doctrine of "pre-emptive" or "preventive" war. The world will become a jungle if mighty states invade others because they might pose a threat in the future. India must not legitimise such doctrines or work against a multipolar rule-based world order.

Third, India is being asked to use up the goodwill it enjoys in the Arab world because of its past Non-Aligned role advocating decolonisation. It would be extraordinarily foolhardy for India to do this and become a target of Arab resistance -- thus compromising the security of the 3.5 million Indians living in the Gulf.

Fourth, Indian public opinion is strongly against Iraq's invasion and occupation. Sixtynine to 87 percent oppose troops despatch to Iraq. This was reflected in demonstrations in 500 Indian cities and also in the April 8 unanimous Parliament resolution.

No government which respects democracy can violate informed public opinion. The Indian people and Parliament come prior to the US, even the Security Council. A UN request cannot bind the government -- unlike a Parliament resolution.

Finally, US actions in Iraq are part of the ruling Neoconservative agenda in Washington. The Neocons want a US global Empire. This project is unleashing disruptive forces whose dimensions Washington can barely comprehend, leave alone control. These will visit havoc upon the world.

Colluding with the US will bring India into hostile confrontation with ethnic-religious forces that it must live with. It'll earn it the hatred of the Third World. Iraq has become a quagmire thanks to Washington's cynical policies since the 1960s, when it promoted Mr Hussein against his rivals, and through the 1980s, when it sided with him against Iran even as he used WMD.

The US is a poor "nation-builder". A study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says America has so far conducted over 200 overseas military interventions. Sixteen of these involved "nation-building". Only four succeeded in establishing democracy lasting 10 years or longer.

Why should India rescue an America that's bent on failing in Iraq?

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.