Target Saddam

Some 80 years ago the mountaineer George Leigh Mallory was asked why he was so obsessed with climbing Mount Everest. (He was destined to die making a last attempt.) In words that have become famous, Mallory replied, "Because it is there."

On a recent visit to the United States, I had the chance to meet one of the highest ranking members of the American foreign policy establishment. I was amazed at the vehemence with which this person, one of the closest advisers to the President of the United States, spoke about Saddam Hussein. If anyone were wondering why the United States has decided to open up a new front while Al Qaeda and the Taliban --- in fact, Afghanistan at large --- remain unsubdued, I would sum it up in the words, "Because he is there."

Nobody should have any illusions about the depth of the hatred that Washington has for the Iraqi dictator. Every senior person in the American capital is fully convinced about certain facts. First, that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction --- namely, chemical (a proven fact), biological (possibly), and nuclear (not yet, but striving to get them).

Second, that he is willing to use them (as he proved by using gas on the Iranians and on his own people --- a weapon last used on a mass scale in World War I).

Third, that the best time to remove Saddam Hussein from the scene, for good, is before he perfects his weapons and his tactics.

In a sense, Washington is haunted not so much by the living Hussein as by two ghosts from the past --- Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain. Sixty-four years ago, the latter, then prime minister of Britain, met Hitler at Munich to barter away the freedom of Czechoslovakia. Churchill, then a backbencher in the Commons, fulminated against the "defeat", warning that the policy of appeasement would lead to greater humiliation. He was, as history books tell us, totally correct. Since then, Churchill's case against "appeasement" has burnt its way into the brains of every Western statesman; they are determined that there will never again be another "Munich".

All this may seem a bit of a stretch to the rest of the world. It is hard to think of Saddam Hussein being as much of a threat to the world as an Adolf Hitler. What is more, it remains to be proved that Hussein is guilty of fostering terrorism in the same manner as, say, Al Qaeda. (And I know there are some who believe that there is no case even against Osama bin Laden!) But this is irrelevant; all that matters just now is what the United States thinks.

Washington's attitude presents other countries with a bit of a problem. Even granted that Saddam Hussein is a despicable human being, does that give the United States the right to force his removal? However, given the overwhelming military domination of the United States and its proven capacity to act alone if need be, what options do other nations have?

They may protest --- and then be proven impotent as the United States does exactly what it wants. Or they may acquiesce silently --- and be accused of being America's puppets. There is some talk of going to the United Nations. But that body is, frankly, useless. That point was underlined in the recent German election. The chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, grabbed the headlines by adopting a staunch anti-American position on the issue of war with Iraq. But everyone missed his rider; Germany, the chancellor said, would not join any operation even if it received a mandate from the United Nations. In other words, when it comes to German national interests, United Nations directives would be ignored just as regally as, say, the United States or Iraq do!

Leaving the members of the Western alliance aside for the moment, what will be India's stance when war comes? (I was tempted to write 'if war comes', but given the American attitude it seems a certainty.)

Delhi has few illusions about Saddam Hussein or his desire to own new and deadlier weaponry. It did not need any dossiers from London or Washington to be convinced of the fact. Delhi has long known that Indian contractors were responsible for making some of the Iraqi dictator's armouries, if not his arms. As one Indian official told me, "You don't need underground bunkers with 37-foot-thick walls of concrete just to build a bedroom!"

India also believes that several key nations in the Gulf, Saddam Hussein's closest neighbours, are convinced about the American case even if they do not say so openly. Delhi believes that it is only a matter of time before these Arab governments make these sentiments public.

As a matter of practical politics, it is a no-brainer for Delhi. When both the United States and the Arab states are convinced of the need for a regime change in Iraq, it is stupid to adopt any other position.

Some people who have their heads stuck firmly in the past may speak wildly of building another non-aligned front. Pardon me, but who shall align against the United States and for Iraq? India has no vital interests in Iraq. No sensible human can defend the record of Saddam Hussein the man. So, the best thing for India to do is to keep quiet (if it disagrees) or to support the war enthusiastically.

Personally, I think the second option is better, a clear departure from the Nehruvian legacy of muddled foreign policy. But I am sure the Left will disagree, dragging one cliche after another to justify its case!