For U. S. President Bush, Iraq President Saddam Hussein is the villain and he must go. Bush is adamant that there should be military action. The key allies of the U. S. A. have indicated that they may oppose such an action in the U. N. Security Council but Bush is preparing his country to fight Iraq on its own. Will there be a war and if so how long will it last? No one can answer these questions, as events may overtake. However, all the desperate signs are visible. The noose is tightening on Iraq and U. S. patience is running out. Troops are moving towards the region. At the same time, there is resistance from the key allies of the U. S. except perhaps Britain.

Interestingly, Britain has been the adviser to the U. S. A. on European and other matters traditionally. Britain cannot do without the support of the U. S. A. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is being used by the American President to deal with the European Union on many issues. Blair is playing second fiddle to Bush and is also acting as his errand boy. Blair seems to think that Saddam is weakening because of the military build-up in the region and he wants to keep up the pressure. However, even within the U. K. there is not much public support for a war.

France and Germany have made it known in plain language that they would oppose any military action against Iraq at this point of time. This is their reply to the warning given by the U. S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that there should be no opposition in the U. N. Security Council.

Is the U. S. A. getting isolated on the Iraq issue? Apparently so. First of all, no country wants a war as it will ruin their economy. With increasing global linkage, it is quite imperative for each country to look after its own interests. Each country also has its own problems.

Secondly, the question is about the actual duration of the war. It is said that a war may cost anywhere between
$ 100 billion to $ 500 billion. Once the war breaks out, the immediate fallout will be on the European side and the Gulf region. The short-term impact on the U. S. A. is less as it is on the other side of the ocean. The European countries are not in a position to absorb any more effects of a war right now as they are trying to stabilise their growing economic strength. France, which at one time had made it known that it would not stand in the way of a U. S. sponsored resolution on attacking Iraq, has now said it would not support a second resolution. They would like to soft-pedal the issue and bail out the U. S. A. if necessary. After all how long could the U. S. A. keep its troops in readiness?

France is not the only ally, which has come out in the open against military action. Germany, which has been at odds with the U. S. A. for some time now, has also made it known that it will not support a second resolution. Germany’s argument is that a war will be at considerable risk to the global fight against terrorism. China and Russia too have been against military action with the result that in the U. N. Security Council, the U. S. A. appears to be isolated. There is a history as far as the European powers are concerned and they would like telling the U. S. A. to go slow against Iraq through the U. N. and their own individual efforts. This is exactly what they are doing now. It is a blow to the American military strategy that even Jordan has refused to host U. S. military forces in the northern front. The idea is to attack Iraq from all sides once Bush gives the final go-ahead. The efforts to open a northern front from the Turkish side also had suffered a setback. There is an anti-war mood in the Arab countries.

Despite all these odds, will Bush take a decision to take on Saddam Hussein in the next month or two? Or is he positioning himself for the next presidential election? He has been talking tough language and preparing the Americans for a war. Some say that the imminent attack on Iraq is being driven by domestic rather than international pressure. Look at the scenario. Bush is getting ready to face the 2004 elections. Everyone knows that at least one year ahead preparations are made for the candidature. While he has some advantages as there is no effective challenger from the Democratic Party, it will not be a cakewalk for him unless he puts his house in order. He would have to sell himself to the American public for a second time. The economy is still in a bad shape. The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. The unemployment roll is increasing and the deficit is also increasing. As mounting challenges to Bush’s leadership are increasing, a war with Iraq would give him a boost if he were able to show results. Victory over Saddam would certainly produce public euphoria, which will stand Bush in good stead at the time of re-nomination. Therefore, many things have to be considered before the final word ‘go’. He would have to assess whether a war is going to be in his favour and how much the American public will support him. A quick military victory over Saddam may save Bush politically. If it turns out to be a misadventure, there is the risk factor for Bush. There is another theory as to why the U. S. A. would like to be in the Gulf region. It is not because of Saddam Hussein but it wants to sit close to the oil. Being the sole super power, the U. S. A. has come to believe that " my interest is the global interest" and therefore remain closer to Baghdad. Everything has to be tailored to suit the American interests.