The US is losing one solider a day on the average in Iraq. The battle is continuing and is likely to intensify in the near future. Pentagon’s latest operation, named Desert Scorpion, is aimed to ‘De-Baathise’ Iraq. The purging process, under the aegis of coalition forces, reminds one of Saddam’s strong-arm tactics to eliminate his opponents. This leads one to believe that the neo-conservatives are staunch followers of Mao-se-Tung, who advocated that “power flows from the barrel of a gun.” The use of force by occupying forces against people over whom they have no claims is a problem which will confront small and weak countries in the new world order. Those who protest against US occupation could be branded terrorists – thus confusing the definition of terrorism.

In a recent incident in Iraq, US forces fired on protesting civil servants demanding their salaries. Apart from the ex-Baath party officials who have raised the banner of revolt, the common people are also protesting because their basic right to livelihood has been denied due to massive aerial bombardment. The situation in Iraq is appalling. Most of the schools, colleges, hospital and offices are shut. Normal life has been disrupted. Immense shortages of water, electricity and total absence of municipal services is causing garbage dumps to pile up. Is this democracy?

Did the US (a self proclaimed champion of democratic values) seek the Iraqi peoples’ consent before subjecting them to such humiliation and misery? Did Washington study the after effects of war on the people of Iraq?  The zeal with which the coalition forces are protecting Iraqi oil assets proves that the war is all about oil and empire, and is nowhere concerned with democracy. If establishment of democracy was the real aim then early elections in Iraq under the UN banner would have been a more viable option. Iraq was under tremendous pressure before the war began in March 2003. The UN inspectors were free to move around anywhere inside the country. However, none of the Security Council members ever discussed the issue of peaceful regime change in Iraq. It is indeed an irony that after destroying Iraq through massive bombardment and disrupting its social harmony, the US talks about re-construction and stability in Iraq.  It is now trying to legitimize its actions by incorporating the South-Asian militaries into the ongoing war in Iraq.

The request for the Indian military peacekeepers by Pentagon is a sinister design to bring the military manpower resources of the third world countries under its command and control. During the First and the Second World War, the British Raj had done the same by enrolling millions of Indians in military service and using them to establish their empire in the whole of Indian Ocean region. India has a commendable record in UN sponsored peacekeeping operations. However, under the present circumstances, it would be an egregious folly to equate Indian troop presence in Iraq with peace keeping. As the former Indian Prime Minister IK Gujral (in his article Hindu, 19 June 2003) has pointed out, peacekeeping involves mediation between two warring parties. In Iraq, the warring parties are the coalition forces and the Iraqi people. If Indian forces go there as part of a US led campaign, they would be as far from neutrality as the neo-conservatives are from democratic values. UN peacekeepers and their blue helmets were seen as a credible international force rooted in neutrality and fairplay. Therefore, UN forces have rarely indulged in enforcing peace through violent means. However, troops based in Iraq would not have the luxury of enjoying the people’s confidence. They would have to involve themselves directly in perpetuating the Anglo-American occupation much against the wishes of Iraqi people; this would involve direct military operations in which soldiers are likely to get killed.

It may be simple for Americans to tell their soldiers about the need to fight wars in distant lands. But how will India explain and justify to our soldiers the rationale of getting killed for a cause with which he cannot identify. We could explain to our soldiers that the military is gaining experience and money through these operations. But such justifications would draw our military away from the cause of defending our country and using them as a resource to garner funds and contracts.