Three possible scenarios in the Gulf conflict

<div class="section1"><div class="Normal">War has begun in Iraq with the US and allied forces launching cruise missiles and air attacks on that country in the wee hours of Thursday. Unlike the 1991 Gulf War, when the aim was to liberate Kuwait, this time the Americans have made up their mind to oust Saddam Hussein and effect a regime change in Iraq.<br /><br />The reason why Saddam survived the 1991 war could well be the American need to preserve him as a check on the growing revolutionary powers in Iran. However, with Iran slowly turning ‘moderate’, the Americans see no such need now.<br /><br />In 1991, Saddam had miscalculated and was slow to realise that following the demise of the Soviet Union, the third world had lost its manoeuvring space. This time too he has failed to see the radical changes that have come about in the American thinking post 9/11 and also the virtual alliance of the US and Iran in the war against the Taliban.<br /><br />The best case for the US would be Iraq’s army and population revolting against Saddam and welcoming the Americans as liberators.<br /><br />The Iraqi army consists of four autonomous corps or a total of 23 divisions, representing some 4,60,000 men at full mobilisation. Estimates show that an average 23 per cent of the annual Iraqi national budget has been allocated to the armed forces for the past 30 years.<br /><br />In reality, however, the Iraqi army exists mostly on paper. The latest estimates show that the army has no more than eight divisions at full strength within the Fourth Army Corps, nicknamed Saladin.<br /><br />A further 10 divisions, at less than a third of their full strength, are kept in reserve for rotation purposes. Theoretically, all the 8,000 or so professional soldiers who provide the backbone of the army are loyal Ba’athists.<br /><br />But Saddam knows that a Ba’ath Party membership card is no guarantee against betrayal. During the past 10 years, over 40 of his generals have defected, among them his own son-in-law.<br /><br />The conscripts, most of them Shi’ites, have even less love for Saddam. They fought during the Iran-Iraq war because they were persuaded that the Iranian mullahs wished to conquer Iraq and turn it into a colony for “the Persians�. <br /><br />However, it is unlikely now that many Shi’ites would wish to die to keep Saddam in power. Also, Saddam is now perceived as a loser, whereas in 1980 and 1990, he was looked at as a potential winner. If this happens, the war would be over in days or at the most a few weeks.<br /><br />The second scenario is the Iraqi army resisting and Saddam launching terrorist attacks on the US or using chemical or biological weapons (it is believed he does not have nuclear weapons), with or without the help of the Al-Qaida. <br /><br />A variation of this theme would be that independent of the Iraqis, Osama bin Laden’s followers launch a major terrorist strike against American targets.<br /><br />In this case, Bush would be proved right and France and Germany will look rather silly. There would be a surge of support to Americans, who may even use ‘small’ nuclear weapons.<br /><br />There will be less concern for civilian casualties and Saddam will be overthrown with most of Iraq destroyed.<br /><br />The worst scenario for the Americans would be the Iraqi army offering resistance, causing heavy loss of American lives and largescale Iraqi civilian deaths.<br /><br />(<span style="" font-style:="" italic="">The writer is a defence analyst and specialises on West Asia and South Asia security linkages</span>).</div> </div>