A simple ‘sorry’ will do

“Afghanistan was easy. Iraq is another matter. Coalition troops will get trapped on the long, hot road to Baghdad. Supply lines will not hold.”

“Entry into Iraq may have been easy. But once they get to the outskirts of Baghdad, the Republican Guard will fight fiercely.”

“Once inside Baghdad, there will be door-to-door fighting. It will be an impossible trap.”

“The Shias will never agree to a constitution where they do not dominate. The Islamists will never agree to a constitution where women have the right to vote. The Sunnis will definitely sabotage any election where their pre-eminence is threatened.”

I think it is now time for the media pundits to apologise. They do not need to be very profuse. A simple “sorry” will suffice. In classical Greek traditions, Cassandra was a prophetess who prophesied bad outcomes and was always right — but who was never believed. I guess we can call these contemporary self-appointed experts anti-Cassandras in so far as they are believed when they prophesy bad outcomes, but who at least until now have always been wrong. In war-time those who spread defeatism and constantly predict military failures for their own side can be with some justification accused of aiding and abetting the enemy. I for one do not think state-funded agencies like the BBC should be accused of treason. After all free speech is a right that is more or less derived from the Magna Carta and goes back some eight hundred years!

I am not suggesting that everything about the Iraq war has been correct. There were moral dilemmas to start with. Was Saddam a threat significant enough to be dealt with by war? Peace always sounds morally superior. It is also usually politically popular. (Remember Neville Chamberlain was very popular, for a while!) Not finding the Weapons of Mass Destruction was a profound problem as it highlighted weaknesses in the intelligence apparatus of the world’s most advanced powers. It certainly took some of the sheen off the moral advantage that the coalition had going into Iraq. But in practical terms, I felt relieved. The point about pre-emptive action is to go in early before there are WMDs when dealing with a regime that is quite capable and willing to obtain and use WMDs on its neighbours and its citizens. The European advocates of non-interference are particularly worthy of derision. Let us not forget that the Europeans pussyfooted while Bosnian Muslims were under attack and it was only meaningful American intervention that saved the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo from more catastrophes.

There have been major executional failures. Abu Ghuraib was an enormously shameful occurrence. It is pertinent to note that several people have been already tried and sentenced. It would be interesting to check out as to how many custodial crimes are investigated, let alone tried or punished, so swiftly in other countries or jurisdictions. Those who live in glass houses should be careful. It is also interesting that it is the free US media that surfaced the shameful episode and there was open inquiry by US legislators, an inquiry that was televised to the whole world, warts and all.

At the other end of the world, the Gaunatanamo detentions have been a major source of angst even to persons like me who are broadly US supporters. Interestingly, here too the system and the due process seem to be working. The US judiciary speaking through the justices of the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the executive branch that, being non-citizens, these detainees did not have the right of legal redress. Again, one wonders how many countries give these rights meaningfully to their own citizens, let alone to non-citizens captured in a combat zone.

There have been other operational failures and mishaps for sure. Need the Iraqi army have been dissolved so soon? Could Al-Sadr have been dealt with more sensibly? Could the elections have been held sooner? And so on.

None of this can take away from the fact that the broad contours of the Anglo-American effort have been reasonably successful so far in achieving both strategic and tactical aims that many in the world share — some openly and candidly, some silently and furtively lest they jump into the well of political incorrectness. It is however too soon and quite silly to declare victory. An enterprise of this kind and magnitude involves enormous risks and great uncertainties. While playing Cassandra is not desirable, neither is a naive optimism justified.

Much may still go wrong. The ground situation in Iraq could easily deteriorate. The coalition will find itself in a severe dilemma. There is a temptation to cut and run during this post-election high. This might be mis-read as a sign of weakness. The purveyors of violence and beneficiaries of instability will then use this opportunity to escalate their actions and try to plunge Iraq into civil war. On the other hand, when there is instability, there might be a temptation for the coalition forces to intervene with strength. This too could backfire as it would undermine the very basis of the elections where the Iraqi people were given an opportunity to take control of their destiny.

Walking this fine line between staying there and being on call to ensure stability while not intruding too much in order to ensure that the newly elected Iraqi government manages its own destiny, this will take a high order of a complex set of skills not unlike those demonstrated by General MacArthur circa 1945. This time around, hopefully the great pundits of the media will be at least a little more humble if not supportive of the efforts of their governments.

The writer is chairman and CEO, Mphasis. Write to him at jerryrao@expressindia.com