The US grand design for Middle East

THE drama of death and destruction in Iraq has now been going on for 48 hours, and by all accounts this is just the beginning. The media close to the Pentagon say the aerial strikes and the limited ground operation so far constitute just the beginning of the blitz, and the full force of American military might is soon to be unleashed. The world has also been told that the war planners have taken precautions to ensure that collateral damage is minimal. This is nonsense. There is no war in which there is no collateral damage, especially in a war where the attacking side is relying on a devastating aerial campaign to pulverize the victim’s defences and then ask the land forces to perform the coup de grace. Baghdad is a city of five million, and it is the principal target of US-British air strikes. The city was attacked in the first hours of the war, and since then the presidential palaces, Republican Guard headquarters and other sensitive points have been targeted. The civilian death toll is not yet known, but one can well imagine how horrendous the level of civilian deaths and damage to non-military installations will be as the war progresses.

Other things remaining equal, it should not take the Americans too long to destroy the Iraqi armed forces and then occupy the country. What fate President Saddam Hussein and his family suffer, whether the occupation will meet with serious organized resistance from mobile guerilla forces and for how long, and how soon the invaders can cobble together a coalition of dissident forces to give a civilian face to foreign occupation are questions that cannot be answered with any degree of precision at this stage. What is certain, however, is that we are soon going to witness just the first phase of America’s long-term plan for the Middle East.

Last month, Mr Colin Powell told the Senate foreign relations committee that, in the aftermath of the Iraqi war, there would be territorial changes that would “enhance” America’s interests. While the US secretary of state was not specific, one can clearly see what Washington’s interests may be in an area which is full of oil wealth and where America’s protege, Israel, is perpetually in search of greater military strength and more land. A break-up of Iraq is full of “possibilities” for America and Israel. An independent Kurdistan under Washington’s auspices, for instance, could enhance America’s leverage with Iran, Turkey and Syria — the first two with large Kurdish minorities. Also depending for sustenance and survival on America could be a Shia statelet in the south and a Sunni one in the middle. To these client mini-states, America would want to bring democracy!

In a larger context, America would not be unhappy to see — in the wake of Iraq’s possible dismemberment — a popular “Islamist” backlash against “moderate” pro-US regimes. This would make clients only more dependent on America. More important, Israel will never fail to exploit the war and the post-war turmoil and convulsions to advance its own expansionist goals. It would attempt “a final solution” of the Palestinian question. In specific terms, this would mean “transferring” the Palestinian people from the West Bank and Gaza to neighbouring Arab lands and then annexing these territories to fulfil its ambitions of a Greater Israel.

The Middle Eastern states would be making a grave mistake if they do not realize the gravity of the situation and come closer to face the new challenges. The only solution, for instance, to the Kurdish problem is that they should be given their full rights as citizens of Turkey and Iran and their cultural rights be safeguarded and their economic interests protected and promoted. Also, time has come for the Arabs to realize the damage which foreign bases are doing to their interests. These bases are used for promoting America’s political and commercial interests and for serving as Israel’s eyes and ears. They are not there for the benefit of the Arabs. Currently, planes flying from these bases are killing Arabs in Iraq. Unless the regional states develop a grand strategy of their own to stand up to outside powers and their designs, they will be taken care of one by one.

New-look cricket team

THE Pakistan cricket team’s dismal showing in the on-going World Cup has prompted sweeping changes in the set-up of the country’s most popular sport. From top players to selectors, and from the management to the coach, the team has been purged of a number of stalwarts. In their place, a youthful new-look side has been selected to play in the upcoming triangular tournament in Sharjah. Among those axed is captain Waqar Younis, who simply could not meld together a cohesive unit out of a group of extremely talented but temperamental players. His place has been taken by former captain Rashid Latif, who had earlier announced his retirement from international cricket. Latif’s decision to storm out of the 1994 series in Zimbabwe accusing senior players of corruption triggered the match fixing controversy and earned Latif a reputation for integrity. The talented Yousuf Youhanna has been picked as the vice-captain. Most observers believe that the current set-up is a stop-gap affair.

Among the senior players axed from the side are Waseem Akram, Inzamamul Haq, Saeed Anwer and the derailed Rawalpindi Express, Shoaib Akhtar. While the group represents a formidable array of talent, it simply failed to click in the World Cup. As a result, a side that once inspired awe and fear among opposing teams was knocked out of the tournament in the preliminary round. Replacing these stalwarts is a group of virtual novices who will have to prove themselves worthy of their place in the team in the months ahead. If the experiment succeeds, these players could form the nucleus of a future team. Most of the selectors too have been replaced, with chief selector Waseem Bari axed in favour of former captain, Aamir Sohail. Javed Miandad also makes a comeback as coach, following the resignation of South African Richard Pybus. One doughty survivor of the World Cup fiasco is the PCB chairman, General Tauqir Zia. He refused to bow out gracefully following the World Cup fiasco, and has taken upon himself the challenge of rebuilding the team. For the sake of the future of Pakistan cricket, one can only hope that the general’s current experiment is more successful than his previous ones.