The Middle East policy of the US is such that not just Bush, but any political party in power would have attacked Iraq, says Sundeep Waslekar , president of the Mumbai-based Strategic Foresight Group and the Founder of International Centre for Peace Initiatives.

An Oxford educated Think Tank; Waslekar , who is considered a strategic thinker, has put forth a research-based analysis of the political situation in the Middle East and the controversy surrounding the execution of the deposed Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein . He spoke to timesofindia.com on the issue. Excerpts from the interview:

Q. Some analysts say that Saddam's execution was the settling of a personal score of George Bush. Do you think on the same lines?

I don't agree with this, even if there is an element of truth in this. America has strategic objectives. The US decision to attack Iraq, depose its President Saddam Hussein and then hang him after a trial, points to its intention to create a long-term strategy that has been well calculated. Undoubtedly, it has gone wrong but there is no denying the fact that US' long term goal is to establish a strategic superiority in the Middle East region. It would be immature to ascribe its intentions to frivolous acts like settling of personal scores.

One has to look at the history in the region. In the early nineties, when Israel's (peace) talks with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) materialised, it was the result of US calculations. The US has always felt a threat from Iraq and Iran. And so, it managed to convince Israel to agree on a peace process with Palestine. Iran and Iraq have posed a threat to the US strategic interests in the Middle East and a danger to its ally, Israel's existence in the region.

Q. If not oil then, what is the US interest in Iraq?

Oil is one of the factors but it's not a major one. The location of Iraq is such that it's at the centre of trade routes giving access to Russia, China, India and Iran. Even if America is interested in the region's oil, it's not for personal consumption but as a source of supply to potential business competitors like China and India.

Q. Is America regretting its decision to invade Iraq?

Its strategies have gone wrong. But there is a difference between intentions and impact. Just because the impact of the American actions went wrong, does not mean that they didn't have the intention to invade Iraq.

A recent study group report by James Baker (key advisor to George Bush) already shows the writing on the wall. The report recommends withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It's a pretty recent report, released just a month ago.

The report is significant because Baker is said to be close to both, Bush senior and junior and also because it's a result of a bipartisan effort. However, it doesn't mean that it's feasible for America to withdraw from Iraq.

Q. How do you analyse Saddam's execution?

The way Saddam's execution was handled shows there is going to be more problems in Iraq. The slogan shouting by pro-shia hangmen (normally hang-men do not interact with convicts and they remain aloof) and the entire process being broadcast on TV points to the fact that there are really dark days ahead for the people of Iraq.

Today, sectarian conflict is going out of control of anyone in Iraq. And Iraqis don't mind this mess. The US policy is following the old British (colonial era) policy of divide and rule. Thus, they too don't mind the in-fighting.

In fact, you see this policy in force, wherever there has been a US presence in the world. In Palestine, it's divisions between PLO and Hamas. In South Asia, there's a divide between India and Pakistan, and, in each case, they (Americans) are having a control over both sides.

Q. If no one is going to gain from this mess, why is the US persisting with this policy. Even they do not stand to gain anything from this, do they?

They are not looking at it from a rational human perspective. The implications for them are short term; they think they can benefit. These divisions are not limited to Iraq alone but extended to all over the Middle East. Interlinked issues, and this (in-fighting) contributes to the division and disorder in the region. There are really dark days ahead of us, more so for Iraq.

Q. Who is responsible for the state of confusion and disorderliness in Iraq and how has the American strategic thought impacted in the other parts of the world?

I see an intellectual bankruptcy of strategic thinkers in Washington and London. They have failed. Their strategic thinking has resulted in anywhere between 50,000 to 5 lakhs deaths (taken from different sources), mostly of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the last two years 3000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, which is more than the World Trade Centre (WTC) casualties of 9/11 inflicted by Osama Bin Laden. The US and the UK thoughts have resulted in killing of more American soldiers than Osama's thinking that killed American citizens in the WTC bombing.

And while all this drama is going on, the real tragedy lies in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Since the WTC terrorist attacks, 50 million children have died of malnutrition in those parts of the world, which is equivalent to the total number of deaths in the Second World War. But no one is talking about it because of the US policy of neglect.

Their policy is cantered on the power gain in the Middle East and so even the media (mainly the western media) harps on the region and continuously runs reports on it. In reality, there is no alternative strategic thought coming out of any other part of the world. The main problem in the world today is that there is a complete and total bankruptcy of strategic thinking.

In the cold war period we had the alternative thinking provided in the form of the Non-aligned movement (NAM). Had it not been for NAM, the world would have been divided in the 50s and the 60s, itself. The NAM has faded today, but it had served its purpose then by adhering to principles of mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, non interference in domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co existence. The founding fathers (one could say alternative strategic thinkers) of the Movement were, Jawaharlal Nehru (India), Tito (former Yugoslavia), Sukarno (Indonesia), Nasser (Egypt), Nkrumah (Ghana).

Q. And where will all this lead to?

There is bad news and good news. The bad news is that it's going to create a lot more divisions. Saddam's execution has fostered sectarian divisions in the Middle East. Terrorism is gong to increase. In March 2003 (the time of American invasion of Iraq) there was only one terrorist group in Iraq. As of today, in January 2007, there are 50 terrorist groups operating in Iraq. The whole world will get polarised.

The good news is that, away from all this drama, in the Middle East, there has been a real impetus for political reforms and economic modernisation, which was ignored so far. Even the conservative Saudi Arabia is pushing for such reforms, at its own pace. Countries like Morocco and Egypt are all heading in the direction of modernisation.

Q. So, you see peace and prosperity returning to the region in the next decade?

In the next 10 years, it's hard to tell towards which direction the Middle East will go - modernisation or conflict or destabilisation. Right now, the region is in a flux and they are in an, in-between situation. But there is a reasonable prospect for the good to survive. Today, I am more optimistic about the future of the Middle East than I was three years ago because I am seeing positive developments taking place in the region.

Q. Is Saddam's execution going to change the situation for the Iraqis?

Like I said, the single most impact will be that the sectarian conflict will worsened, as a result of this execution and the manner in which it was handled.

Q. So then, what is the future of Iraq?

At this point, Iraq's biggest problem is its survival as one country.

Q. Does that mean you see the possibility of a separate Kurdish state, emerging out of Iraq, in the form of Kurdistan?

I do not see a division of Iraq. Its neighbours Turkey and Iran do not want an independent Kurdistan. Turkey and Iran have major say in the regional politics. Turkey is a member of NATO and an aspiring member of the European Union. But, Turkey is certainly worried about the situation in Iraq.

We shouldn't forget the example of Afghanistan (regarding divisions). After five years, Talibanis are making a comeback. Within 2006, there has been a sort of resurrection of Talibans, in some parts of Afghanistan, at least.

Q. Do you see a third world war taking place?

I don't rule it out, but if it did take place then we are 20 years away from it. War involves lot of calculations; there are many factors involved in it. War doesn't happen by accident. In 20 years there is a risk, but who knows, in that time other things may happen and there is a policy-shift.

Q. The cold war period maintained the balance of power in the world. Now, the US is widely criticised as being a bully. Are we living in a uni-polar world today, with US on one side and everyone following it?

No, it's not a uni-polar world. We must not forget that in many parts of the world, there is a strong resistance to US. What I am saying is that there is no alternative thinking emerging out of any other parts of the world, unlike the cold war period. There is a paucity of thoughts, not actions.

There is a growing resistance to American monopoly of power in Russia, China, Latin America, parts of Western Europe. So, it's not an unquestioned uni-polar world. Apart from Israel, India, Japan and Poland (the pro US countries), all over the world there is an anti US sentiment. In many parts of the world, the government is pro US but people are anti US (the Middle East is an example).

Yet, it has not resulted in an evolution of strategic alternative thought. We are in an in- between space. US is not a super power any more. But it's a super force. Super force is physical but if you look at America's economy, its GDP has slid from 50% to 30% today and is making a slide towards 15%.

Leadership comes from moral authority, which has declined in case of America. US has lost out in economic terms and moral terms (all non physical dimensions), which makes any country a Super Power. Today, it has no moral authority, no economic authority and no strategic authority. Hence, the mess in Iraq.

Q. Did Saddam receive a fair trial?

It's a very technical question. One has to look at the legal and technical conclusions. People who say he did not receive a fair trial are only expressing their sentiments, and there is no documentary evidence of it. They have not studied the provisions of Iraqi Constitution, International Law etc. Hence, I don't think any of us can reach that conclusion without studying all the (technical) aspects in detail.

Q. UK has been a major US ally in its war against Iraq. But, now do you sense disappointment or wariness on its part and that London wants to distance itself from Washington?

Prime Minister Tony Blair lost his leadership. He may have different views but unless they are converted to policy preferences, it's not saying much. There is a lack of approval from the Labour Party (on the issue of Iraq).

Q. Saddam Hussein in his last hours, just before his execution said, Palestine was Arab. Why? Did he want to create trouble for Iraq even after his death?

Saddam supported Palestine cause all along. But it was not top of the agenda. We do not know how religious he was in his private life but publicly, in the past, he had not shown any affinity for religion. At the time of his execution, he uttered words from Quran and hailed Palestine, all this was directed towards religion.

In 2003, before he was captured, he was talking about Palestine and religion. It's tactics of a politician who was working on back foot to recover his constituency. It's a desperate effort.

But the fact he particularly mentioned Palestine seconds before his execution, did it mean he wanted to create trouble for US, after his death?

It's possible he could have been vindictive. But his consistent behaviour, ever since he was deposed, and even before he was deposed (end of 2002), if you analyse his statements, he was speaking of religion, quite often.

Why didn't Saddam accept Jordan's invitation of exile and a possible safe passage, in the earlier days of US invasion of Iraq three years ago? He could have followed the example of Idi Amin, the ferocious dictator of Uganda, who lived in exile for many years and died, peacefully, in 2003, in Saudi Arabia.

Basically, Saddam knew the game was up. In Id Amin's case, the conflict was between the dictator and another group in his own country. But Saddam's conflict was with an outside power. In such cases, no third country would like to interfere. If Jordan had offered him exile, I think it was not in consultation with US. It was something they may have done on humanitarian grounds.

In fact, for Saddam, the game was up in the early 90s when US first attacked Iraq. It was the time when the Americans re-calculated their strategic interests in the region.

Q. This means, 9/11 or not, the US would have attacked Iraq?

The WTC terrorist attack of 9/11 gave US a little bit of legitimacy and created a side show in the form of Afghanistan. Had 9/11 not happened Iraq would have been attacked in 2001? And I don't think it was just the Bush administration that was doing it. I think any American political party, in power, would have done the same - attacked Iraq.

Their style may have differed but the policy would have remained the same. I think this policy of US recalculation of its strategic interest in the Middle East has a bipartisan support.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_attack_on_Iraq_was_irreversible/articleshow/1100706.cms