0
LONDON: Following are reactions from military analysts and security experts to the explosion at the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad on Tuesday.
HAROLD WALKER, LAST BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ (1990-91):
“It’s worrying because it’s an incremental worsening of the targets selected by people in Iraq.
“There’s been some intelligence of outsiders coming in to stiffen the opposition. Some of these people are Al Qaeda types.
“The targets so far have been almost entirely US military, apart from the oil pipeline and water pipeline, which suggests that there are people who want to impede the reconstruction of Iraq.
“They really want to make Iraq into a quagmire. They want to make Iraq so difficult for the United States that it withdraws with its tail between its legs.
“(But) all the signs are the US is very determined.
“It’s rather depressing at the moment. It all goes back to the decision of the Pentagon to fight the war ‘lite’.
“They fought the war extremely effectively, but then they were unable to make the transition from war-fighting to peace-making.
“They’ve been playing catch-up and right now it doesn’t look like they are catching up.”
CHARLES HEYMAN, EDITOR OF JANE’S WORLD ARMIES:
“There’s a possibility — just a possibility, and no more than that — that this is really the opposition’s warning to the United Nations not to get involved in Iraq. But it’s early days. We will have a clearer picture later on tonight.”
AZIZ ALKAZAZ, ANALYST AT GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR MIDDLE EAST STUDIES:
“I’m tempted to think a whole number of groups are involved in the series of attacks we’ve seen and some with different motives. It’s striking how few reports of responsibility there are, or at least how few are seen by the western media.
“The strategy is a fairly simple one of hit-and-run.
“I think there is likely to be a growing measure of frustration in the general population with little sign, for example, that the promised elections will happen on time.
“Weapons have been distributed among the population ahead of the war. There was little surprise that a war was going to happen. I think you could see an increasing number of attacks in the future.”
FRANK UMBACH, SECURITY ANALYST AT THE GERMAN COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS:
“It seems there is an escalation with the United Nations rather than just the United States being targeted. It would appear that it’s an attack aimed at foreigners operating in Iraq, not just America.
“It points in the direction of those who have no interest in the secular state which might be necessary to bind together all the separate groups in Iraq. That could be, but isn’t necessarily, a Shia grouping wanting an Islamic state along the lines of 1979 Iran.
“It would be easy to say the attacks are the work of Al Qaeda, but you have to be cautious before attributing all the responsibility to them.
“There have been reports of 3,000 young men waiting at the border, and it is a very porous border, to cross into Iraq to wage a war against what they see as occupying forces.
“It could also be forces loyal to Saddam, wishing to be seen as Al Qaeda or as an Islamic groups. Indeed there could be cooperation between the grouping, even if they do not share common goals.
“I wouldn’t say that the United States is losing control, but it is facing increasing problems of daily security.... There’s an important issue of how many troops they and their allies want to contribute.
“The US has about 140,000 troops there now, plus 18,000-20,000 from other nations. If you take the troop contingent in Bosnia as a model, there would need to be 360,000 troops in Iraq. If you took Kosovo, up to 500,000 — that’s based on troops per civilian population.”
MUSTAFA ALANI, ASSOCIATE FELLOW AT THE ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE, LONDON:
“This is a similar attack to the one on the Jordanian embassy 10 days ago. It is not an amateur job...To assemble this sort of bomb, it must be a well-organised group with a plentiful supply of explosives.
“I think we are now entering a new stage of the Iraqi resistance movement: from random attack to well planned attack.
“I believe the clear candidate here is an Islamist group which considers the UN an enemy as much as the US..The aim is to show that America is not in control of the security situation in Iraq.
“The impression now is that America is losing control and resistance is intensifying every day. I think this is the major objective.”
MAGNUS RANSTORP, IRAQ EXPERT AT ST ANDREW’S UNIVERSITY, SCOTLAND:
“There’s a unifying (opposition) strategy of bleeding the United States to death, of sabotaging their ability to reconstruct...It’s a war of attrition.”
TOBY DODGE, IRAQ EXPERT AT BRITAIN’S WARWICK UNIVERSITY:
“It’s an escalation both in terror, the public nature of the spectacle, and of course of the casualties. And I think clearly this has been in the offing.
“Where do you go from a war of attrition, killing an American every day? You go to the next step up in a level of violence and fear, and I think this marks a new chapter in the horrific mess that is Iraq.
“Given the indiscriminate nature of the bomb, the ruthlessness involved and the level of technical competence, I think we’re looking at probably the rump elements of Saddam’s security service or the army.”
ROSEMARY HOLLIS, MIDDLE EAST EXPERT AT LONDON’S ROYAL INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS:
“I think it’s about wrecking the prospects of effective rebuilding in Iraq.
“So it is someone who is not just anti-US and the US occupation, but someone who intends to profit from the fear and chaos felt by all members of the international community.
“It would have to be either a fairly extreme supporter of the old regime or a supporter of anarchy — a category which would include Al Qaeda.”—Reuters
