January 11, 2003	Saturday	Ziqa'ad 7, 1423

LONDON: As the world debates the odds of war, Iraqis — and oil traders — are paying more heed to the US military buildup than to Washington’s mixed messages, Britain’s caveats, Ankara’s cold feet or European qualms.

In defiant speeches this week, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has told his people how their troops will defeat US military might and accused UN weapons inspectors of spying.

True, he has grudgingly opened many doors to the inspectors, whose bosses told the Security Council on Thursday they had found no “smoking guns” in six weeks of searches. But chief arms inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei said Iraq had failed to disprove suspicions about its alleged banned weapons programmes.

Many Iraqi analysts and dissidents abroad still expect war, despite assertions by British and some US officials that the progress report the UN experts must deliver on January 27 is not a deadline for a decision to invade Iraq.

CREDIBLE THREAT: The United States and Britain say the military buildup is necessary to convince Saddam to disarm voluntarily, or failing that, to topple him and disarm Iraq forcibly.

“It has to look like the US is ready to go to war any time to get a coup d’etat (in Baghdad),” said Rosemary Hollis of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

At the same time the British and the less hawkish members of the Bush administration have sought to dampen speculation that war is imminent by saying Saddam still has time to comply.

The tension between the military and diplomatic tracks was exposed this week when British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw drew criticism from Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon for saying the chances of war with Iraq had decreased to 60-40 against.

According to Iraqi analyst Mustafa Alani of London’s Royal United Services Institute, war is unavoidable.

“There is no way the US administration will change its mind on the removal of the Iraqi regime. Bush can’t be re-elected in 2004 if Saddam is still in power,” he said.

“The battle will be short. You don’t need to commit the same forces (as in 1991) — 60,000 for action, 40,000 in reserve. You might need bigger forces later for stability,” he said.

The still incomplete US buildup has already reached these levels. Britain, gradually working up its contribution, could eventually send 25,000 troops, defence analysts say.

“The Americans have close to 100,000 combat troops of all four services in the region,” independent British defence analyst Paul Beaver said.

He said allied forces would be ready for action at the end of February or the beginning of March.

Apart from the onset of hot weather after March, which would make fighting uncomfortable, another factor in the timing of war may be the sensitive Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, which ends in mid-February.

US military concerns are now focused on Turkey’s apparent reluctance to host American troops for a possible invasion from the north, to complement ground attack options from the south.

But Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul said on Friday he had authorised the US military to inspect Turkish bases to see how useful they would be in any war on neighbouring Iraq.

UNEASE IN EUROPE: European Union leaders, queasy about waging war on Iraq and ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, insist an attack on Baghdad is not inevitable and plan to send a peace mission to mainly Arab countries as part of efforts to prevent it.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana told the French newspaper Le Monde it would be hard to justify military action unless Iraq was proved to have secret weapons programmes.

Analysts say the United States may try to maximise world support for war by seeking a second Security Council resolution against Iraq after the January 27 report by Blix and ElBaradei. If it cannot swing the council in favour, it may decide to go ahead anyway, citing last year’s resolution 1441 that gave Iraq a final chance to disarm or face serious consequences.

Tim Garden, of the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College London, said Saddam might hand Washington a trigger for war by thwarting the inspectors or staging pre-emptive action.

“If not, it’s going to be quite difficult to get a second resolution through,” he said. “Given that Saddam has cooperated with the inspections, it will be difficult to do the jump to saying that now the UN should go for it.”—Reuters