The US has started the complicated process of political, economic and security transfer of power under the Transitional Administration Law with a deadline of 30 June 2004. The major issues, and potentially divisive ones, that must be resolved by 28 Feb, are: What kind of government will Iraq have? What will be the role of Islam? How much local rule will ethnic, tribal or religious groups have? Will the Kurdish leaders accept surrender of their autonomy? And most important, who will rule Iraq? While these questions are abstruse and difficult to find answers to, US Secretary of State has admitted that that he has seen no proof of linking al Qaida to Saddam Hussein but has sought to justify the war on Iraq on the specious argument that Iraq had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force.

It may be recalled that Powel himself made the case most strongly in February 2003, when he urged the UN Security Council to back US action in Iraq. He now says, possibly by way of an escape route, that the intelligence community gave him these inputs and at that time he was referring to the presence of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, believed to be a close associate of Osama bin Laden, in Iraq.

The US motivation for invasion of Iraq, shrouded in mystery till now is becoming clear. Apart from incidental security to Israel, it was purely the lure of control of oil by installing a puppet regime in Baghdad. Iraq has the second largest oil reserve, after Saudi Arabia. It has a proven reserve of 112 billion barrels. Iraq is 90 % unexplored and it has the lowest production cost. Between Jan and Nov 2002, an estimated 2 million barrels per day were pumped out and this capacity is likely to go up to 2.8-2.9 million barrels per day. It has the capacity to earn annually as much as $ 20 billion by way of export.

It may be recalled that Saddam was once among the US’s close allies in 70’s, when Iraq was very wealthy and was actively spending money on its modernization and infrastructure. After the Shiite Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, the relationship between US and Iraq became warmer. The present US Defense Secretary made three visits to Baghdad with military information and intelligence. It is common knowledge that US helped Iraq militarily during Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988. US sought desperately to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq, which was eventually done in 1983. All that would change in 1990 and culminate in invasion and ruin of Iraq in 2003.

Since the US victory in Iraq, UN teams and US have been scrubbing the country for WMD’S. David Kay, head of US-led Iraq Survey Group has found illegal missiles but no stockpiles or ongoing production of chemical or biological weapons Iraq. It is reported that David Kay is so fed up of pressure to ‘produce’ evidence that he is planning to resign without submitting the final report. Within the US itself, the criticism of the ‘misguided’ policy is getting shriller by the day. The Bush administration is accused of systematically misrepresenting the weapons threat from Iraq.

The insurgency against the American occupation rages on, with concerted attacks on US bases, helicopters and military personnel in and around Baghdad and other cities. This insurgency without the ‘myth’ of Saddam Hussein is far more sinister and dangerous. It certainly shows signs of continuous instability in Iraq and the power struggle that will persist. There is no denying the fact that bringing the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together for governance of Iraq will be a difficult task as all three are characterized by disparate attributes, Shiites for religious fundamentalism, Kurds for fierce independence and Sunnis for addiction to power. Finally, finding a leader who transcends all this will be as difficult, if not more as finding a needle in a haystack. By all accounts, it appears Middle East is headed for some turbulent times.

We in South Asia need to draw relevant lessons and take necessary steps so that instability in the Middle East does not spill over to our shores. Firstly, we must take care of our energy requirements, as supply of oil may not remain uninterrupted. Secondly, terrorism must be dealt with a sense of urgency and firmness. Thirdly, we must move into an era of economic cooperation in the region and rise above petty conflicts. Fourthly, we may consider the possibility of forging a military alliance on the lines of NATO for South Asia. And finally we must move into such a secure relationship so that a common currency, as envisioned by Indian Prime Minister becomes a possibility in the immediate future. The future lies in economic emancipation and cooperation. Let not history pass us by.

COUNTERPOINT

Shel Silverston

New York

Bobby Sharma’s "A Nightmare for the US" is astounding! I am certain that he is bright and I am trying to determine if he is misguided, prejudiced, or doesn't have a clue about geopolitics.

The world, and particularly the West, stood by while Hitler slaughtered his own people. Not only Jews, but the Gypsy population, gays, and anyone who opposed him. They stood by as well when he, in violation of signed treaties, rebuilt German military. When caught cheating, denials and semantics were used – the West winked and blinked. It procrastinated when Stalin slaughtered those who disagreed with him.

Has Mr. Sharma not learned the lesson of history? Has he forgotten the attack on Iran? Does he discount use of gas against the Kurds? Has he forgiven the invasion, looting and burning of Kuwait? Does he really believe that the United States invaded because of oil? Nonsense, the U.S. could purchase any and all oil it needs and desires.

How does Mr. Sharma account for, among other things, Libya opening to inspection? How does he account for Syria admitting receipt of Saddam Hussein's funds (only $200 million admitted of several billion transferred – but this is their opening price for negotiation of how much they can keep).

Mr. Sharma quotes excerpts of David Kay's reports. He conveniently eliminated the section dealing with chemical weapons found, production facilities found, and transfer by truck to the Syrian border. Mr. Sharma must be clairvoyant to know what is in Mr. Kay's mind.

The Bush administration has been accused of misrepresenting the weapons threat from Iraq. Accusations do not make facts. Would Mr. Sharma prefer that the region waited (along with the United States) until Saddam attacked (having deceived long enough to develop and launch one or more dirty bombs)?

The insurgency against the American occupation continues, but at a slower and slower pace. As American intelligence improves and the insurgents kill more Iraqi people, the tide turns further.

Mr. Sharma's closing paragraph has merit – as we say here – he hit the nail on the head. Too bad he does not apply this logic to the other parts of his writing. I wonder if he would propose waiting if Pakistan began fueling its missiles since there would be no proof that such making ready for launch was for an immanent attack. Would he wait for the attack?

(Shel Silverston has served on the President's Roundtable from 1989 through 1992 during the administration of President George H. Bush. In addition, he has served on the Military Intelligence Staff, Far East Command (Korea) 1950-1952)

Bobby Sharma

I am flattered that my article “A Nightmare for the USâ€Â