The war over Iraq may well be the prelude to a much more ambitious American campaign to refashion the Middle East by bringing security, stability, and predictability to the region and beyond. An overwhelming military success in Iraq and an effective regime change in Baghdad will be a testing ground for future American-led operations and post-war reconstruction. But the success of such major surgery remains in serious doubt.

Bush’s neo-conservative doctrine, founded on Reagan’s became crystallized after September 11th, based on the thesis that the US attack is the best defense: after toppling Saddam Hussein, the Americans will work to diplomatically and militarily neutralize other potentially dangerous regimes in the area.Decades of conflict in the Middle East have persistently undermined vital U.S. national security interests. Dictatorial regimes and national conflicts have unsettled and endangered key US allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. They have threatened vital oil supplies to America, Europe, and the Far East, thus undermining economic development. And they have generated both local and international terrorism against American and Allied targets.

The Neo-Conservative Offensive

After years of piecemeal measures, largely defensive reactions, small-scale assaults, diplomatic quagmires, or outright neglect, the new White House has decided that the time has arrived for more comprehensively tackling the Middle Eastern problem. The details of this vigorous and daring approach crystallized after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, but the contours were laid out several years before.

The Bush team includes a number of key “neo-conservative” activists who were instrumental during the Ronald Reagan presidency in combating the Soviet “Evil Empire.” Their successes in not only helping to bring down global communism and liberating the eastern half of Europe, but also in provoking the collapse of the Soviet Union, established a precedent for future strategy in other important regions.

The “neo-cons” were largely left out in the cold during the Bill Clinton presidency, but they spent their time in various academic and research institutes devising a new approach to major regional crises. Whereas they viewed the 1990s as the decade of liberation and democratization in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the next decade was to be the era of Middle Eastern stabilization through a radical political overhaul. A new Republican administration gave them the opportunity to finally put their ideas into practice and Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have proved largely supportive of their agenda.

The events of September 11th both vindicated the “neo-con” approach and provided impetus for the next regional campaign. The terrorist outrages evidently proved that instability and tyranny in the Arab world bred resentment against America and provided opportunities for terrorist networks to flourish. Failed states and dictatorial regimes alike provided suitable environments for terrorism by enabling funding, training, and recruitment. And both varieties of problem states needed to be dealt with swiftly to thwart any terrorist escalation and to protect American interests around the globe.

September 11th convinced even the un-believers and skeptics that the policies applied by Washington since the 1991 Gulf War were simply inadequate to handle the daunting new threats. Hence, the Clinton administration has been consistently criticized for closing its eyes to the growing menace. While terrorist cells needed to be eradicated, the sources of the problem also had to be confronted. Otherwise, America would simply be engaged in cutting off the perpetually growing heads of a vicious international Hydra.

In his introduction to America’s new National Security Strategy (NSS), issued in September 2002, President George W. Bush stated bluntly that:

We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

The first step in this strategy was the elimination of rogue regimes in critical areas of the world. According to the NSS, America’s “best defense is a good offense.” In fact, such a policy had been well articulated by Republican Senator John McCain during his Republican presidential bid in 2000 and was subsequently adopted by the White House in a modified form.

McCain called his policy “rogue state roll back.” However, he applied the idea more broadly than many of Bush’s advisors and was supportive of destroying the Milosevic regime despite the fact that it was President Clinton who had launched the war against Serbia in 1999. McCain’s approach called for more intensive actions to dislodge dictators from power from Minsk to Havana, although not all offensives could or should be military.

For the Bush White House, the Balkans were not viewed as a key strategic concern. Its definition of vital national security interests remained narrower and more focused. In particular, “rogue regimes” were those threatening states that combined a domestic dictatorship with anti-Americanism, were in the process of acquiring or developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and maintained links with terrorist organizations or engaged in terrorist acts. This restricted the field to a handful of unsavory powers.

Breaking the “Axis of Evil”

In his address to the American public soon after September 11th, President Bush pinpointed an “axis of evil,” consisting principally of three countries—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea – although others could be added at some future date. The first two powers were at the center of the Middle Eastern imbroglio while North Korea was a simmering and potentially dangerous sore point in East Asia.

Critics of the Bush policy point out that Iraq is probably the least threatening of the three “axis” countries. Although it does possess a vile dictatorship and is surely developing some WMD capabilities, its reach and scope are limited, its army is generally weak and incompetent, and it does not pose an ideological or political threat to its neighbors. Arab nationalism is not as strong a mobilizing force as Islamic radicalism.

Saddam Hussein’s misfortune is that he became dangerous enough to warrant an American attack, but not dangerous enough to deter U.S. military action. Hence, the Iraqi operation is certainly the easiest among the three “axis” countries. By contrast, any military operation against Iran would be on a different order of magnitude.

Iran has over a million soldiers under arms, it has built up a respectable military capability, and it has developed long-range delivery systems that make Tehran potentially more dangerous not only to neighbors but even to some NATO countries. Moreover, Iran has had a bitter and long history of anti-Americanism and continues to be led by radical clerics who depict America as the “Great Satan.”

Iran has also been more engaged with international terrorism than Iraq, as it finances and trains several terrorist groups active in Israel and Lebanon, while its foreign policy priority calls for the eradication of the state of Israel. Tehran’s direct links with al Qeada also seem more credible than that of Baghdad’s, amidst persistent reports that terrorists from Afghanistan have found shelter in Iran.

Although Bush policy makers are not planning a major military assault against Iran, a strategy is developing not only to contain this “rogue state” but also to disarm it. Among the elements are active support for the anti-clerical opposition, sowing dissent within the armed forces, mobilizing the large Iranian diaspora, buttressing the Caucasian and Central Asian states that are weary of Iranian influence, and even selective sabotage operations against nuclear power facilities that could be used for developing nuclear weapons.

The White House also hopes that the power of the US military on display in Iraq will act as a major deterrent to any Iranian ambitions in the region. But at this point any major military operation is not envisaged unless Iran stages some dramatic provocation or is on the verge of developing a nuclear device. Moreover, alternative voices in Washington will seek to restrain the “Bushites” from launching into an operation that could dangerously backfire on American credibility.

Other rogue states in the Middle East are also on the Pentagon radar screen, including the “side axes” of Syria, Yemen, and Sudan. While none of these countries pose any immediate threat, their prior support for terrorist groups ensures that they will be closely monitored by Washington and U.S. agencies will devote substantial resources toward infiltrating their political and military structures or even unseating their governments if this minimizes the terrorist threat. In some cases, as in Yemen and Pakistan, America will act on the ground to capture or eradicate terrorist cells whether the local governments prove cooperative or not.

Allies Under Fire

To help bring about a new order in the Middle East, many in the Bush team understand that there must be some regional balance and such a strategic operation cannot be perceived as anti-Muslim or anti-Arab. Hence, in the wake of the Iraqi war there will be a renewed focus on resolving the seemingly permanent Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

The White House appears to be committed to finally creating an independent Palestinian state within the next two years but on certain strict conditions. The Palestinian authorities need to establish a credible and freely elected government whose powers can balance those of Yassir Arafat. Moreover, they must relinquish all claims to destroying Israel, eliminate the terrorist networks of Hizballah and Hamas, and sign a fully-fledged treaty with the Israelis.

However, there is a difference of opinion regarding Israel within the Bush administration. While many of the “neo-cons” do not want to place undue pressure on a loyal ally, others calculate that without major concessions from the Israelis, America’s strategy will be widely perceived as an attack on the Muslim Arab world in defense of the “Zionist agenda.” The sincerity and direction of the Bush strategy toward Israel and Palestine will be sorely tested after the Iraqi conflict winds down.

Saudi Arabia could also come under growing American pressure to introduce some democratic elements. Uncritical U.S. support for the Saudi family dictatorship could become a growing source of militant unrest. On the other hand, pressures on pro-American Arab dictatorships to democratize could create space for Muslim radicals and religious fundamentalists who will in turn endanger the broader Bush doctrine. This will become the most perplexing dilemma for the White House.

Other Rogue States

The most indigestible “axis of evil” state is sure to be North Korea. The Communist tyranny shows no sign of weakening. Instead, it is now threatening the entire East Asian region with a nuclear conflagration.

Under the cover of the Iraqi crisis, Pyongyang is desperately trying to provoke Washington either into some kind of offensive military action or into signing a peace-treaty and a non-aggression pact. President Bush is wary of either option, as both carry immense dangers: the latter would essentially legitimize the outlaw regime. However, the State Department’s calls for a regional initiative to resolve the crisis, involving China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea, is heading nowhere.

North Korea’s recent missile tests and the restarting of its nuclear weapons program in violation of a 1994 agreement. have disturbed its neighbors and led to calls for rearmament in Japan, while South Korea has placed its military on heightened alert. Talks with Seoul aimed at easing nuclear tensions scheduled for next month may also be canceled.

The United States asserts that is seeking a peaceful settlement to the dispute, but supreme leader Kim Jong Ill claims that Washington’s ultimate intention is the same as with Iraq. And in a sense he is correct, because regime change in Pyongyang would certainly benefit the entire region. But the likelihood of military action appears remote because in the event of an American attack the vast North Korean military could devastate Seoul in a matter of days.

The only viable solution is to strongly deter any North Korean attempts to intimidate the region by threatening outright nuclear annihilation if any atomic devices are positioned against neighbors. At the same time, more intensive efforts must be undertaken to undermine the regime and not allow it to prolong its existence by gaining foreign assistance and international legitimacy.

There are many other smaller evil states around the
globe. Castro’s Cuba is currently staging a major crackdown on political dissent but essentially it does not pose a threat to anyone except its own population. American allies, such as the Philippines, Georgia, Columbia, and several Central Asian countries, have their own specific problems with guerrillas and terrorists and are gaining American assistance in combating the threat. However, the regimes themselves are not endangering U.S. interests.

State-Building Bush Style

Much of the longer-term Bush strategy hinges upon establishing stable and functioning states in the wake of any American military campaign. In recent weeks, there has been much talk about democratizing the Middle East and starting with the construction of a democratic federal state in Iraq. This would be accompanied by substantial economic assistance, reconstruction aid, and foreign investment.

Although the aim is noble, the chances appear distant. At best, a mild pro-Western dictatorship in Iraq may be able to balance the three major ethno-religious groups with a heavy American military presence. But the situation could become even messier than in Bosnia-Hercegovina following the NATO intervention. Although Bush policy makers speak about decentralization and pluralism, paradoxically this may require greater centrally directed “state-building” than they now admit.

Otherwise, federalism may rapidly lead to Iraq’s fracture as Kurds and Shiite Arabs push to create their own separate states. The major danger to the Bush strategy is the unintended consequences of weakening the centralized Middle Eastern states. Attempted transitions to democracy, the rule of law, and federalism may result in the ignition of latent ethnic and territorial conflicts across the region and give space to Islamic radicals.

The Bush strategy will also exacerbate conflicts between Washington and the United Nations. The White House does not want a UN administration in Iraq or other post-conflict countries. It calculates that this would weaken any determination to stamp out anti-American forces and could prove politically unsuccessful as it has in other world trouble spots.

Meanwhile, French President Jacques Chiraq does not want the US and the UK to obtain a UN mandate in administering and reconstructing Iraq. This would evidently legitimize the “unilateral” American invasion and subsequent regime change while establishing a dangerous precedent for future actions unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. The political war between America and France is sure to escalate in the coming weeks.

We have entered a conflictive and potentially dangerous new world in the aftermath of September 11th. After the Bolshevik takeover in Russia in 1917, Leon Trotsky argued for the necessity of a “permanent revolution” on a global scale. American policy makers now see themselves as involved in a “permanent global war” against the sources and manifestations of terrorism in which Iraq is merely one of the first battles.

The Iraqi War will truly begin once American forces gather around Baghdad

The American penetration in Iraq is coming along better that the American commanders had anticipated, and the leading American Third Division, leading the penetration from Kuwait towards Baghdad is already nearing the capital city. According to US military assessments, the units will reach Baghdad by Tuesday, when they will begin to distribute themselves around the city and the deciding battle for Iraq will begin. What has gone down to date has been no more than a weighing of forces, as Saddam had no true intentions of defending the southern part of the country which, due to the desert terrain, is very difficult to defend.

One area where the American military power will not be so great is in the urban regions, and the Iraqi side is definitely inclined to pull the Americans into the cities to fight. To date, the Americans have avoided this, as they have no need to fight in the cities. They have intentionally avoided the urban areas, entering into battle only at the port town of Umm Qasr, as that port is imperative for supplies.

Thanks only to bypassing other cities have the US forces succeeded in arriving at Baghdad so quickly. However, recent events have shown that this has not been without great risk. Urban centers are a perfect place to distribute members of Iraqi units, which were broken or avoided in the American penetration. There is a significant difference between this land based penetration and the one in the Gulf War: though the Americans now have many Iraqi prisoners, they are still fewer than in the previous war.

At that time, the Iraqis gave themselves in en masse for
they had nowhere to go, while now the units are running home or going to towns where they are hiding amongst the civilians. On the one hand, that suits the US units as they do not want a mass of prisoners to slow their penetration to Baghdad. However, on the other hand, this is a danger, as Iraqi soldiers have remained behind them and are prepared to attack the US units in ambush, especially the units farther back, which was the case with the ten US soldiers of the supply unit at Al Nassariyaha.

The American strategy “hit in the head” is now more evident and seems to come down to only one thing: to remove the head of the regime, which will lead to the fall of the entire regime. For that reason, the US troops are in a great hurry to position themselves around Baghdad, in order to completely isolate the town. The very physical isolation of Baghdad will prevent effective fighting from the Iraqi side. How the Americans will conduct themselves once they have encircled the city is still impossible to assess, though some military experts believe that they will immediately begin a fierce attack on the town, while others claim they are in no hurry and they will try to exhaust the city and force it to surrender.

Only now is it possible to see how much damage the Turkish hesitation has caused the US military effort. The American command was counting on attacking Baghdad from the south from Kuwait and with 60,000 soldiers of the strongest US division, the Fourth Division, from the north from Turkey. However, due to Turkish hesitations, the most powerful US division, with 33,000 troops and the most modern equipment, has not even been included in the battle and nor is it ready to for combat from a second starting position.

Boats with its equipment have been in the Mediterranean for two months already, and the troops are still waiting at their base at Fort Hood, Texas. Only on Sunday was it decided that the Fourth Division would be shipped to Kuwait where the boats, once they pass through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf will unload their equipment and they will enter into combat. This will not be for at least two weeks. This wait to enter into battle and the long travels of the Fourth Division are proof of failed American diplomacy.

Currently, an alternative solution is being sought in order to ensure and American presence in northern Iraq, where there is still no serious military activity. In that region, only planes of the lightly armed 173rd Division have arrived. For days there has been speculation that the 101st air assault division will be sent there, which is still awaiting its equipment in Kuwait, in particular helicopters. However, that division is also lightly armed and could be an easy target for the heavily armed Iraqi Republic Guard, if they need to defend the northern front.

There is yet another variation, the possibility that at least 5000 US troops will be transferred to northern Iraq via Jordan. Though Jordan is still abstaining from taking a stance, it has provided sufficient support to the US forces by allowing special units to be moved to Iraq through its territory, which Saudi Arabia also secretly permitted.

The land based war will truly begin once the American forces gather around Baghdad. Judging by what the US Marines are experiencing, moving more easterly than the Third Division and east of the Euphrates River, the resistance will be quite strong.

America did not attack Iraq for oil

Bakhtyar Aljaf, an Iraqi Kurd, for years has been leader of the scientific institute IFIMES in Ljubljana, which deals with analysis of the political and economic situation in the Middle East and supports the democratization of the region: he explains for Nacional why he supported the intervention and what that will bring to Iraq and the region

Iraqi Kurd Bakhtyar Aljaf (43), director of the consulting company IMICO and the scientific institute IFIMES in Ljubljana, has become a media star in Slovenia thanks to the US intervention in Iraq. This is primarily due to his excellent knowledge of the situation in the Middle East, as well as his mastery of the Slovenian language, in which he comments on the most recent event sin Iraq.

NACIONAL: In your assessment, oil is not the prime motive for the war?

Iraqi oil was not the main point in the American strategy, they could have gotten to the oil in much easier and cheaper ways. Saddam Hussein was prepared even to give them oil at one dollar per barrel, only to avoid being removed from power.

NACIONAL: What then was key?

The desire to turn the Middle East into a region of peace, stability and democracy and to help to find a solution to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Of course, also to secure a sure and stabile supply of oil.

NACIONAL: Why was Iraq selected for the starting point of the changes?

The democratic changes cannot begin in a country ruled by royalty such as Saudi Arabia, as Iraq is a secular country. There are bars and night clubs in Baghdad, the best beer is also drunk there. You must also not forget that in 1984, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spent time in Iraq and he had excellent relations with the Iraqis and that in the Iraq-Iran war, the US sent the Iraqis satellite images of the Iranian positions. Last year, American congressmen visited the Iraqi Kurdistan, after the meeting of the Patriotic Union and the Democratic Party, which had been separated for over 6 years. When asked if Iraq could be democratized, the congressmen responded, “In Iraqi Kurdistan, people have done wonders in 12 years. They have established a model of democracy which is second best in the Near and Middle East, right behind Israel.” Which is true: in Kurdistan today, there are 63 magazines published, 3 satellite TV stations, 65 commercial TV stations, 3 universities, Internet on every corner and the mobile phone network Kurtel.

NACIONAL: How will Iraq look after the democratic changes?

It will be a democratic, multi-party and federal state. The internal differences can be overcome only through federalization, and BiH is a very good example. The Iraqi neighbours, particularly Saudi Arabia, fear that process, as they are also awaiting federalization.

NACIONAL: What will come of the Kurds?

The Kurds in Iraq support federalization of the state and are not seeking their own state. They believe that Kurds in Turkey will have to seek their rights within Turkey, the EU and NATO. The majority of Kurds are not expecting to receive their own state, as the world and the US are against it, and Washington did not even permit the Kurds to form their own government in exile.

NACIONAL: How long will the war in Iraq last?

Two to three weeks at most. The Americans have surprised them with three simultaneous operations: bombing cities and military position, penetration of ground troops and special operations by the marines. This is a completely new tactic as in “Desert Storm” there was a span of 39 days between the bombing and the penetration by ground forces.

NACIONAL: Do you believe that Hussein will use chemical or biological weapons?

Absolutely, only if he gets the opportunity to do so.