Sitting on the horns of a dilemma

The recently heightened rhetoric of a possible strike against Iraq started a heated debate on its consequences in the Arab world. For his part, Amr Moussa, the Arab League chief, has expressed his concern over such an attack, saying that it will threaten the stability of the whole region.
The following is a review of the Arab press' discussion of the possible consequences of an attack against Iraq.

War is a serious matter that should not be left to the whims of military officers alone or politicians, because politicians do not have the ability to calculate the real impact of war and its destructive consequences. This is true especially if these politicians are like U.S. President George W. Bush or British Prime Minister Tony Blair who are determined to embark on a total war against Iraq, writes Al Khaleej (UAE) in its editorial comment.

Indeed, Blair has relieved his army chief of staff, Michael Bussi, from his post on the grounds of his rejection of British participation in the U.S. strike against Iraq. A number of senior officers have also expressed their reservations about their country's participation in this war for fear of its future repercussions and catastrophic consequences. However, it seems that Blair has a different opinion altogether, influenced by economic and financial interests, adds Al Khaleej.

President Bush is facing the same situation. In fact, many high ranking American military officers have expressed their rejection of the invasion of Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, some analysts have attributed the delay of the military operation to the worries of a certain number of army officers of the cost of the invasion, says Al Khaleej.

It is strange to see military officers being more moderate and pragmatic in their decisions than politicians who seem to be unaware of the implications of their decisions on the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. This situation reflects the level of recklessness that governs decision-making in the two most prominent countries and its impact on the safety of the world population. The international community should react quickly to avoid the apocalyptic consequences by imposing more restrictions on those who juggle with the destiny of others. The decision of initiating a war should be taken by responsible persons, concludes Al Khaleej.

At the same time, the Iraqi leadership is moving on several levels to counter the American attack, writes Al Sharq (Qatar) in its editorial comment. In fact, the Iraqi government is trying to achieve two objectives. Firstly, to mobilise and unite the Iraqi people and, secondly, to create common Arab support for its stand concerning the return of the UN inspectors. Indeed, the insistence on Iraq allowing the return of UN inspectors is not because the U.S. cares about the lifting of the sanctions on Iraq. Its concern is updating its intelligence and military information about Iraq and verifying the reality of Iraq's alleged attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction, adds Al Sharq.

According to the revelations, the British-American invasion seems imminent, with the military leadership in both countries finalising the strategic and logistic preparations before launching the military operation, says Al Sharq.

Dialogue not threats

Yet, the Iraqi crisis could still be resolved under the auspices of the UN, and war can be avoided if there is dialogue between the parties concerned instead of threats. This is especially true after Iraq has expressed its willingness to receive a British military delegation together with a commission from the U.S. Congress to investigate and to prove the false allegations concerning its arsenal. On the other hand, the Arab countries should try to defuse the potential American invasion, or at least delay it, or make it more difficult.

Iraq should not only count on its military power but also on the reaction of the Arab population, which could exert pressure on the Arab leadership, especially with the increasing hostility towards the U.S. due to its support to Israel. That is why any escalation against Iraq could set the whole region ablaze, concludes Al Sharq.

However, the latest indications point to the month of October as the most appropriate time to attack Iraq - a date that seems very close and which does not leave much time for Arab countries to prepare themselves to prevent the catastrophe, writes Akhbar Al Arab (UAE) in its editorial comment.

The war will certainly be preceded by the flight of millions of Iraqis from their country to avoid being caught in the line of fire, especially since this war is expected to last for several months or even years, or until one side or the other declares victory. Hence, whatever the outcome, the only losers will be the Iraqi people, adds Akhbar Al Arab.

One can easily presage the catastrophe even before the beginning of the military operations. According to the most optimistic estimates, at least one million Iraqis are expected to die. Iraq is no stranger to U.S. aggression, having experienced it first hand in 1991 with disastrous consequences.

The Iraqis do not deserve such treatment and they certainly are not responsible for the regime in place. Furthermore, there are other countries in the world who have similar regimes and there are also other countries which possess weapons of mass destruction, and yet no sanctions are imposed on them. One such glaring example is Israel, says Akhbar Al Arab.

Finally, it is important to note that the war against Iraq is the beginning of a long cycle that will target all the other Arab countries. That is why we should leave it to the Iraqis to determine the future of their country without any foreign intervention, concludes Akhbar Al Arab.

But there is confusion between the declared intentions and those undisclosed. However, there is certainly a consensus on the need to overthrow the Iraqi leadership, but the most suitable alternative is yet to be determined, writes Al Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) in its editorial comment.

Nevertheless, the intentions of the different parties need to be clarified. Thus, Turkey wants to extend its borders by annexing parts of northern Iraq, especially those containing oil resources. But in the meantime it has fears that such a move will favour the establishment of a Kurdish state, which will imply the partition of its territory. The U.S., for its part, considers that transferring power in Iraq to a partisan government will extend its control over the second biggest oil reserve in the world, especially after the emergence of China as the second consumer of oil at the international level.

It seems evident that long-term strategies govern the American policy, yet the overthrow of Saddam will generate inevitable material and human losses, and the U.S. could find itself once again facing the same scenario that it experienced during its previous military interventions in Somalia and Lebanon, concludes Al Riyadh.

Instead of calming the situation, Kuwait's calling for war is questionable, writes Ibrahim Al Ibrahim in Al Seyassah (Kuwait). During the last few weeks, the Kuwaiti press has anticipated the probability of war, at a time when neighbouring Saudi Arabia was reopening its borders with Iraq at Raraa check point, a