& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

'Shock and awe' kills innocents

Praful Bidwai writes from New Delhi
***Why has the US taken such grave risks while mobilising a formidable armada to bludgeon Iraq? American objectives go beyond oil, and are rooted in plans to establish total global supremacy. The US wants to redraw the map of the Middle East and redesign the world order -- through military hegemony. Nothing sums up this grand venture better than the Washington-based think-tank, Project for the New American Century. PNAC wants an Empire, in which the US alone has veto power and calls all the shots.***
WHEN President Bush launched "shock-and-awe" on March 20, his advisers promised him a nearpainless war leading to a quick "regime change". They believed a "decapitating" strike would eliminate President saddam Hussein.
If that didn't work, 3,000 "Tomahawk" missiles fired in 48 hours -more than the total used in the 1991 war -- would wreck Iraqi army's morale and trigger its disintegration, or a coup.
This strategy came a cropper. Us intelligence agencies blundered in assessing the vulnerability of Iraq's command structure. This was akin to their terrible mistake in 1991 in bombing a civilian shelter in Baghdad, killing 400 innocent peoplebelieving that Mr Hussein was in it.
Last week, the Anglo-American war coalition took its own rhetoric about "liberating" Iraq seriously and launched an assault hoping the southern shias would garland the invading troops, and Baghdad would soon fall. After all, the coali-
tion enjoys overwhelming superiority over half-disarmed, sanc-tions-battered, Iraq.
Totally forgotten were past lessons. The colonial British also promised to "liberate" Iraq from "tyrants". Gen stanley Maude in 1917 said, like Gen Tommy Franks today: "Our armies do not come into your cities ... as conquerors ... but as liberators". Terrible tyranny followed. The Iraqis learned never to trust imperial powers.
The coalition has suffered setbacks, which can potentially change the war's course, especially its political complexion. These include resistance and anger against the invasion, death of 49 Western soldiers, a fratricidal American attack, and re-eruption of "guerrilla" fighting. Quite simply, the Iraqis are fighting -- not for Mr Hussein, but to defend their nation!
Resistance has proved damaging to the war coalition in almost every town. It took five days to "pacify" Umm Qasr after its "fall". Iraq's only deep-sea port, Umm Qasr has a population of 4,000. What happens in Basra (pop 1.5 million) can only be imagined. The British are now targeting its civilians. They are also inventing a
"Shia rebellion".
If this is a prelude to what's to come in Baghdad, then US-UK could get sucked into close-quarter combat -- in which they enjoy little advantage, unlike in high-technology warfare.
So far, Iraq's command has held. Mr Hussein is in control. If this persists, the US will have two options in Baghdad: get into street-to-street warfare, or use indiscriminate force, by bombing civilian
facilities or residential areas -- as happened on March 26 in a Baghdad market where 17 civilians were killed.
Among Us options are "eweapons" and "microwave pulsebombs". Although called "non-lethal", these can be horrific. Pulsebombs release microwave radiation, which instantly "fries" electronic circuits within 2-2.5 kilometres, melting radars, computers, radios, hospital machinery, even pace-makers. This last is like your heart exploding!
such methods will kill innocent people by the thousand! But they won't stop urban guerrillas. The occupiers will probably retaliate with excessive force -- like Israel does in Palestine, causing world-
wide outrage.
The vital issue is, how many casualties is the US-UK prepared to suffer? Gulf veteran General Barry McCaffrey says the casualties could be as high as 3,000 dead!
The US public is shocked by Iraq's capture of seven prisoners of war. Washington has accused Iraq of "parading" and mistreating them, violating the Geneva Conventions. Iraq indeed displayed the ^PoWs. This was wrong, although
Iraq didn't "parade" them.
The British were far worse in displaying Iraqi prisoners handcuffed or marching with their arms raised. Us troops even forced Iraqi PoWs to kneel and strip-searched them.
The Geneva Conventions are primarily about protecting innocent civilians -- whom the Us-UK are shooting. Only one convention deals with PoWs' harassment, or subjecting them to "insults and public curiosity". This description is inappropriate in the Iraqi case. The PoWs were not humiliated -unlike in 1991.
The Us follows double standards. Take Guantanamo Bay, where over 600 Al-Qaeda suspects lie detained, often in chains, worse
off than animals. They have been brutalised, driving 29 to attempt suicide. The Us doesn't even call them PoWs, only "unlawful combatants".
This is an insult to international law. The Us has violated several more important statutes than one Geneva Convention, including the UN Charter!
Washington has a huge credibility problem. It underestimates the strength of Arab nationalism and
its own unpopularity in Arabia. In Jordan, the ratio of positive to negative perceptions of the Us has decreased from 34/61 to 10/81.
Even Turkey has refused to station Us troops, thus denying easy access to northern Iraq. It has offered overflight rights on condition that its forces enter northern Iraq to hit the Kurds. This has further alienated the Kurds from the Us.
Why has the Us taken such grave risks while mobilising a formidable armada to bludgeon Iraq? American objectives go beyond oil, and are rooted in plans to establish total global supremacy. The Us wants to redraw the map of the Middle East and redesign the world order -- through
military hegemony.
Nothing sums up this grand venture better than the Washington-based think-tank, Project for the New American Century. PNAC wants an Empire, in which the Us alone has veto power and calls all the shots. such "full-spectrum" dominance precludes even "advanced industrial nations ... aspiring to a larger regional or global role".
PNAC's members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, etc, who are all at the apex of power. President Bush has implemented some key PNAC recommendations. This war is only one of them.
Mr Perle admitted this on March 21 at a briefing of the American Enterprise Institute. The super-hawks' short-term postwar agenda? Radical reform of the UN, "regime change" in Iran and syria, and "containment" of France and Germany!
The world's up against demonically powerful forces. We must resist their unjust, horrible war. It's Iraq and Iran's turn today. It could be Pakistan or India's tomorrow. This is not alarmism. A visit to < < www.newam
ericancentury.org>> reveals it's the cold truth.
so, our government and political parties shouldn't waffle on Iraq. Our citizens must take the peace movement seriously by joining it.
Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.