• UN inspectors have practically accepted that Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons, although possession of chemical and biological weapons would require further inspections. Iraq, even if belatedly, seems to have agreed to all other conditions like flights by reconnaissance aircraft and we see even French Mirage-IV deployed on such tasks. France, Germany and even Russia and China have continued to oppose use of force at this stage. Under the circumstances, do you think the US would still go ahead with a war on Iraq? The US is nearly fully prepared to launch a war by early March. It certainly has the will and capability to do so. The likelihood of a war, therefore, remains in spite of all the factors that you mention. What may undergo changes is the timing of it, and the way the war would be fought. It is useful to remember that the political goal of the war remains a ‘‘regime change’’ which would lead to assured disarmament, besides other things. Iraq’s neighbours would not be unhappy with a regime change even if it is brought about by force. US/UK Special Forces and covert operations have been going on inside Iraq for months. By now, the President’s palaces would have been photographed in detail. But it is interesting that the US forces deployed around Iraq appear to be structured more in the mould of occupation forces (with off-shore air power, till bases in Iraq are captured), rather than an invasion force. Here, one must look at Iraq’s geography and demography carefully where the bulk of populations live in a part of the country mostly in the ventral zone. What we may yet see is not a war in the classical sense but occupation of the less-inhabited areas in the West and South-west Iraq which are oil-rich to ‘‘save’’ oil-fields from being destroyed by Saddam Hussein. The North is where irregular, mostly Kurdish force may engage in battle with air support by the US. The actual area under Baghdad would then be progressively limited to the capital region. UN mandated disarmament process could continue then with the threat that US forces could intervene in remaining areas even under ‘‘humanitarian’’ rationale which is likely to emerge in case of revolt (possibly in or after July, the traditional month for revolutions and coups) being triggered against the regime. Except that more than 200,000 US troops would be at hand with numerous military and air bases to operate from. • Recently, there were two cases of foreign aircraft intruding into Indian air space around the peninsula. Earlier we had cases like the Purulia arms drop case and other air violations. Why can’t the Air Force intercept such violators? Air defence of India and its airspace is one of the primary responsibilities of the Indian Air Force, while civil aviation authorities manage civil traffic. We have built up infrastructure to deal with intrusion and violations across the borders with our neighbours. The hostile intrusion of Pakistani Atlantique reconnaissance aircraft in August 1999 is one of the successful cases of interception. But we must recognise that even there, the sheer size and scale of the commitment require extensive resources to be devoted to creation and maintaining of air defence assets. Air traffic over and close to our air space has increased by leaps and bounds in recent years. But radars and other surveillance equipment have not kept pace with the needs. At the same time, greater synergy between the civil aviation department and the Air Force is needed. Unfortunately limited resources and turf interests of civil aviation agencies often mitigate against all efforts at air-space synergy. Air defence would remain at sub-optimal levels as long as the system responsible for air defence is merely an ‘‘information addressee’’ of uses of air space by aircraft other then those operated by the IAF.
