Opinion - News Analysis   

War termination

By V.R. Raghavan

Wars either end by petering out over time or through dramatic flourish, which remains embedded in peoples' memories. General Lee's surrender in the American Civil War and the shipboard surrender ceremony of the Japanese at the end of the Second World War are part of military legends. The drama of the surrender of the Pakistani Army in Dhaka with one General overseeing the signature of the surrendering one, surrounded by tens of thousands of Bangladeshi citizens cheering, will remain part of military lore forever.

The war in Iraq appears to be moving towards a denouement whose shape is yet to be clear. The coalition command declares that it can move in and out of any part of Baghdad at will. The fall of the Information Ministry and some of Saddam Hussein's palaces and the occupation of the Al Rashid Hotel are put out as military gains. Iraqis are countering it by showing pictures of life remaining undisturbed in the capital.

There is no doubt that the coalition forces have an upper hand and the Iraqi military and Fedayeens are on the back foot, even as they launch some counter attacks. If the landmarks in Baghdad have fallen, why are the coalition forces not occupying them? They would then lose the huge advantage of mobility and surprise. Even more important, they would lose the safety of being inside tanks and armoured fighting vehicles under full air cover of combat aircraft and helicopter gunships. It is easier to make strong forays into and out of Baghdad with tanks than occupying captured buildings.

The U.S. military has demonstrated unparalleled speed and skill in reaching, investing and dominating Baghdad. The operations are a measure of their military leadership's abilities in retaining both operational flexibility and momentum.

They have got the measure of the Iraqi military and kept them under relentless pressure.

The challenge for the coalition commanders is now one of terminating the war. What would signify the end of war? War termination requires the disappearance, if not the surrender, of the top Iraqi leadership. If Saddam Hussein cannot be found, can his top political and military leadership be rounded up or made to disassociate from him? That will need occupying better parts of official Baghdad. Coalition commanders are rightly chary of doing so. The military forays into Baghdad are designed to influence the Baghdadi population into believing that Saddam is no more in control, and that they can and must rise in revolt. Instead of Baghdad's streets being patrolled by the coalition infantry, the people of Baghdad should take to them. That outcome would signal the effective end of war.

Iraqi leaders continue to speak of trapping and destroying the enemy. They are also resorting to announcing cash awards for every coalition soldier killed or captured. It is evidence of motivation amongst their officers and men being on a downward spiral. There is increasing evidence of soldiers discarding uniform and arms and mixing into the population. Are they responding to a Baghdadi mood waiting to explode against the regime?

Military history shows that a moment comes in war when the balance can irrevocably turn against one side. That moment is triggered by any one of a set of factors like loss of leadership control, collapse of military discipline or evidence of betrayal by key persons in the political hierarchy. The war is close to that triggering moment. When that moment comes, a small event can produce a cascading effect of Baghdad's public withdrawing its allegiance from its leaders.

The prospects of a war which keeps Baghdad under part control of the coalition forces and Iraqi military, and the bulk of Iraqi territory in the former's control will lead to serious consequences. The Baath Party will continue to broadcast its control even as the interim government will have to demonstrate its ability to govern. This outcome will need a large and extended U.S.-British military presence in Iraq, whose political consequences in mainland U.S. and U.K. can be unpredictable.

Not being able to hand over power to the new government in Baghdad would unsettle the military gains so far made by the U.S. forces. The need to retain a large military presence in Iraq would then turn into a long-term need.

The implications of this turn of events would have a major impact in West Asia and beyond.

Brilliant military achievements have often been nullified by inept political management of the conflict. We have so far witnessed the power and skills of a modern and unmatched military machine. Attempts to obtain successful political outcome, which is the essence of a war, is going to be seen in the days and weeks to come. Whether statesmanship rules the outcome or small political minds throw away the military gains remains to be seen.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Science & Tech | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Stamping out dissent
• In Chechnya, a welcome fallout
• Why dissent fails
• The changes in China - II
• War termination
• Baghdad... the gift of God
• Indifference to war
• Indefensible
• Demolition move
• Posture cannot be policy

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu