Back International
By Atul Aneja
According to diplomatic sources, the U.S. maybe losing patience with diplomacy for obtaining the United Nations' sanction for an attack. Two crucial developments have taken place recently that could persuade Washington that it should consider attacking Iraq quickly, even if the U.N. does not endorse the use of force, sources say. First, there are clear signs that France and Russia may not hesitate to veto a fresh "war" resolution on Iraq, as envisaged by Britain and U.S., that gives the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, an extremely narrow time-line to surrender all his weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. route for an attack on Iraq, therefore, stands virtually blocked. Second, Britain, Washington's staunchest ally, has begun to show nervousness, by suggesting that the proposed new resolution can be modified to include an extended time-line for Mr. Hussein to comply. This reworked resolution could also give Iraq the option in disarming, not all at once, but in phases. Sources pointed out that a possible postponement of an attack, that a modified resolution entails, is unlikely to suit the Bush administration. With the possibility of sandstorms starting to kick up in the Arabian desert towards the end of March, a further postponement of an attack could put off military action to the end of this year. That, in turn, would mean exercising the politically distasteful choice of withdrawing or rotating the nearly 300,000-strong U.S. forces that have been deployed in the Persian Gulf. It is extremely unlikely that the Bush administration, dominated by hardliners, will accept a loss of face over Iraq. Signalling that its commitment to occupy Iraq using force has not wavered, U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea have been reportedly ordered to go on combat readiness from Tuesday afternoon. Despite the large deployments, U.S. military planners were expected to work on the contingency of going to war in case the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was hampered by his Labour party ranks from contributing nearly 40,000 troops to the war effort.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu |