Rumsfeld’s ill-advised threat

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a worried man on Friday. His war plan has come under bitter criticism and his troops in Iraq have bogged down in the face of a determined adversary. He was in a sombre mood as he should be. But his belligerence seems intact. At his press briefing, he held out a clear warning to Syria and Iran, Iraq’s two neighbours, against taking “hostile actions” against the United States. He accused Syria of supplying Iraq with night-vision goggles and warned Iran against positioning Revolutionary Guards and other elements on the Iran-Iraq border. What does he mean?

Plainly speaking, he has held out a threat to Syria. “We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government responsible for the incidents.” This statement is both broad and specific. Holding a government responsible is as far as another government can go short of actually going to war. This was also clear from his response when he was asked if he was threatening military action against Damascus. His reply: “I’m saying exactly what I’m saying. It was [the threat] carefully phrased.” So, there is no doubt about the content of Mr Rumsfeld’s message. The use of the term “incidents” is also clever. It can refer to both the act of supplying the equipment as also the results of such supplies, namely the enhanced capability of Iraqi troops to engage the attacking US forces. Put in the context, it seems Mr Rumsfeld was referring to the latter. “There’s no question that...it [supplies] vastly complicates our situation.” “Our situation” in this case is a clear reference to the losses the attacking coalition forces have had to take as a result of enhanced Iraqi defense capability.

Interestingly, Mr Rumsfeld’s warning to Syria follows accusations by Washington that some Russian firms have been supplying military equipment to the Iraqi army. Russia has denied the charge, though some Russian analysts have provided proof of such transfers. It is unclear whether Russia supplied such equipment directly or whether such transfers were made through a third country. But quite apart from these accusations, the question is: Can Washington actually operationalise its threat against Syria and possibly, Iran?

Technically speaking, it can. For instance, it can go in and bomb some targets in Syria; or, since the threat has also been held out to Iran, it can bomb Iranian territory, too. But in reality, doing this would be suicidal. The attackers are already facing much stiffer resistance than they expected against the Iraqis. Earlier estimates had projected the Iraqi army as a bunch of supine, demoralised soldiers who would surrender by the thousands once the shooting began. That has not happened. Any attacks on Syria or Iran would mean war against those countries too. That would mean embroiling the entire region in an apocalyptic conflict. Such a decision would also mean justifiable multi-national resistance against the US invaders by the Muslim countries. Governments, already facing the pressure of public opinion, would find themselves totally besieged. Some of them may even fall.

The world, not just the Islamic part of it, is already scared of this war. Opinion in even those European countries that are supposedly part of the coalition of the willing is against the war. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain may have survived the voting test in the Commons but if Washington were to open another front, he would take a bad hit. He is already precariously perched despite the vote. It is no coincidence that while US Secretary of State Colin Powell denied the United Nations would have any major role to play in post-war Iraq, Prime Minister Blair wants just such a role for the UN. His statement, coming as it did on the heels of Mr Powell’s, is clear indication that he may not survive the US unilateralism any more.

Mr Rumsfeld would do himself, Washington and the rest of the world much good if he could disabuse himself of this cowboy attitude. The ongoing war itself should humble the likes of him. America is very powerful and there is no gainsaying that fact. But America cannot take on the whole world. Its power rests on its ability to make the global financial system work as best as it can. Even if it could go in and bomb the hell out of countries, it would end up the loser because of the ensuing chaos. The financial globalisation system would be the first casualty of such madness.

An expansion of the theatre of hostilities would also mean a decimation of the US ground forces in the region. The US, despite its technological superiority and economic clout, cannot do certain things and one of them is its inability to stretch its human resources beyond a certain point. Neither can it blast out of existence all the Lilliputian countries it cannot stand. It’s time Mr Rumsfeld read Gulliver’s Travels and stop pushing his luck. His slip is showing. *

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-3-2003_pg1_1