Not if, but when. Not why, but how. Nyier Abdou finds Washington and Baghdad still locked in the same decade-old rhetoric Pundits, journalists, academics and diplomats alike are still stirring the debate on whether the US and Britain will go to war in Iraq, but many now think it is too late in the game for a "will they, won't they" discussion. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed an order last week deploying an additional 62,000 troops to the region, bringing the total number of US troops amassing in the Gulf to 150,000. Leading US administration hawk Richard Perle, who heads the US Defence Policy Board, has pointed to the nagging discrepancy between known weapons stocks and the number of weapons reported to have been destroyed as proof that Iraq is assuredly in breach of UN resolution 1441. In his monthly press briefing on Monday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair stressed his support for weapons inspections, but left the door open to moving militarily in Iraq without another UN Security Council resolution. Growing anti-war sentiment in the UK and Europe has freed up sceptical MPs, even within Blair's Labour Party, to voice their concerns about unilateral action in Iraq without conclusive evidence of the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Some analysts have interpreted this growing unrest within political circles as a sign that Britain might soften its stance on Iraq, but even as Blair was passionately stating his commitment to the "take the UN route", the Ministry of Defence was coordinating the largest British naval deployment since the Falklands war in 1982. The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) is due to present its first full report to the UN on 27 January, and many have come to see the date as a crucial deadline. But Mohamed El- Baradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said on Monday that months more would be needed for inspections, which inspectors claim have been hampered by cat-and-mouse games with the Iraqi leadership. El-Baradei stressed that the 27 January briefing should be viewed as nothing more than an "update". On Tuesday, EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made clear that they supported giving UNMOVIC more time in Iraq, rather than pressing ahead with war. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has also said that a new Security Council resolution would be preferable, although he added that without one, Britain would still be within its rights to act with force. Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix indicated last month that inspectors had not found any evidence that Iraq had maintained its weapons programme since UNMOVIC closed its operations. His comment that there is no "smoking gun" in Iraq has proved useful to both the pro- and anti-war camp. Anti-war activists seized on the claim as an indication that war plans should be shelved barring concrete evidence of a rejuvenated WMD programme in Iraq. But pro-war hawks in the Bush camp reason differently, claiming that the lack of evidence only exposed the farce of weapons inspections at this late stage. Since Iraq certainly have WMD, the argument goes, and they have not been uncovered, then they must be hidden. The weight being placed on the inspections report is to some extent a red herring. It is clear that the US is preparing for war and confident the provocation needed will present itself. For many political observers, the question is not if, but when -- the "no-war scenario" is a marginal theory that seems to be withering as war preparations evidently shift to a new phase. As part of it's psychological operations in Iraq, the US launched an e-mail offensive last week, sending messages in Arabic that apparently implored Iraqis to come forward with any information that UNMOVIC would find useful. The crucial elite who have access to the state e-mail service, such as state employees and scientists, are thought to have received the messages before Iraq responded by blocking e-mail service. According to Reuters, which saw the e-mails, the messages warned of "grave personal consequences" if people did not provide information on WMD and said those who contribute to the use of "these ugly weapons" would be regarded as war criminals. "The United States and its allies want the Iraqi people to be liberated from Saddam's injustice, and for Iraq to become a respected member of the international community," the messages read. "Iraq's future depends on you." The e-mails come out of the same psy-ops campaign that has been broadcasting radio messages in Arabic and dropping leaflets with a similar message. The same process was applied in Afghanistan, but this is the first time the US has tried e-mail. One broadcast demands: "How much longer will this corrupt rule be allowed to exploit and oppress the Iraqi people?" while Arabic music plays in the background. While the march to war seems to have accelerated in recent months, a report in the Washington Post this week indicates that plans for war in Iraq and the removal of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein were decidedly in the works directly after the attacks of 11 September. Quoting numerous senior officials, the report painted the current confrontations with Iraq as "in many ways a victory for a small group of conservatives who, at the start of the administration, found themselves outnumbered by more moderate voices in the military and the foreign policy bureaucracy." As the US leadership pursued its war on terrorism on many fronts, the Iraq policy gained a momentum of its own, culminating in the fearsome military build-up in the region. While the US conceded to work within the UN system, the resulting policy is still one of inevitability: if inspectors find anything, then war is justified; if they don't, then war is needed to find what is believed to be there. "Unless the inspectors know exactly where to go, the chances that they'll find anything is practically zero," Richard Perle told the BBC this week. While the question of "will they, won't they" may be a marginal one, the debate over how soon is lively, with a wide range of theories on offer. Concerns about a ground war during the summer pushed estimates for the start of a war to February or March, but there are numerous indications that this may no longer be certain. Although the US is aggressively amassing its military power in the Gulf, the logistical issues of such a massive deployment may take more time. By hanging back and allowing weapons inspections to take their course the US gains time that could be used to gather more international support and appear more judicious in its policy. Still, maintaining 150,000 troops in the Gulf is extremely expensive, and that will certainly be a factor in the decision whether to attack or not.
