Posted on 05/23/2003 1:53:46 PM PDT by veronica
India may be willing to offer troops for `stabilisation duties' in Iraq even if they have to operate under the command of the US military rather than the United Nations.
While the final decision on participation will depend on the composition of the force and the precise command and control structure, official sources made it clear that the formal mandate of a UN peacekeeping force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter would not be the sole criterion.
India, official sources said, was keeping open its options on participating until the final blueprint of the force was available. A US-drafted resolution seeking to legitimise its occupation of Iraq was passed by the UN Security Council on Thursday but the text states that any contributions towards the ``stability and security of Iraq'' would be under the unified command of the Occupying Powers.
In plain English, that means any Indian troops sent there would be under the command of US general Tommy Franks.
Until now, the government's policy has been to participate in peacekeeping operations only under UN auspices. Thus, India did not join the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, which is run by US Central Command (Centcom). But, say official sources, this is more a matter of precedent than rule. ``Though we have only participated in peacekeeping operations under the UN mandate with our troops under the command and control of the UN, there is no rule which forces us to adhere to that'' an official said.
One obstacle the Vajpayee government would face in sending Indian troops to help the US occupation of Iraq would be the Parliament resolution passed while the war was on. Parliament not only unanimously deplored the aggression but also asked for the immediate withdrawal of Anglo-American forces.
While the Indian government will have to find a way of doing business with the `authority' being set up in Iraq, sending its troops to patrol Iraq may not be the easiest way of squaring the issue with domestic public opinion.
Officials said that India would have to see whether the force was constituted as a ``multi-national force'' before taking a decision on whether or not to be a partner. Officials, however, also made it clear that the decision would be a political one, whenever it was taken.
BTW, don't you think the US State Dept. has already considered the impact of this on US/Pak relations? Who's to say that Mush hasn't already given a behind-the-scenes OK to this, concluding that he can handle whatever lunacy erupts on the vaunted Arab Street in his own country?
Hmmm, food for thought.
Perhaps though, we seek to destabilise Musharaf? I mean it bears thinking about. What comes after Musharaf in the long run? Pakistan is an Islamic nation that already has nukes. In my book, that is unacceptable. Al Qaeda has a heavy presence in Pakistan. If the current government were to fall quickly and unexpectedly those nukes would almost certainly fall into the hands of Muslim fanatics. This is a very serious problem. It would be unfathomable to me that our government isn't thinking about all this and doesn't have some sort of long range solution in mind.
Perhaps we would prefer to let the air out of Musharaf's ballon in a fashion that allows us to strike Pakistan quickly and with little debate? Better the Pakistani gov't falls unexpectedly from Al Qaeda's perspective than from our own. If we engineer the fall, we can manipulate the outcome. If Al Qaeda engineers the fall, they will benefit and we will only be reacting to a dynamic situation to someone else's tune.
A muslim country, who possess nukes, on the verge of falling to islamic radicals is not a lasting friend, but a danger that needs to be planned for. Making friends with India seems like a great idea, even better than trying to keep Pakistan stable(a doubtful job).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.