Add to this the inability to even locate most of the senior members of the Pack of 52 (including Saddam and his sons) and the continued support that they seem to enjoy from some of his people, the problem gets more complicated. Also, the manner in which the US troops have handled the situation so far has not been anything but indicative of downright arrogance of power supplemented by lack of experience and inability to close ranks with the people and show real concern. I would call this as "candies-for-not-shooting-me" culture.

You can kill a man or woman from a distance and you can cause death and destruction of people and their homes without really coming into contact with them. That was what the high technology used in Iraq was all about. But to govern an occupied country under the circumstances that we are witnessing in Iraq is not going to be easy. Expectation levels of the people are high and chances of failure are more. Pressures, which could be brought to bear, cannot be anticipated by the troops operating there. For the US troops, who are more scared of death, unlike our "Kshatriya" soldiers, the problems will become more acute as the days go by. Our soldiers do not consider death as something that they can wish away. It is inherent in the job that they chose to perform. For the US citizens, body bags returning home are unacceptable. There lies the fundamental difference between the American and Indian soldiers.

In Iraq, it would not be the same situation as our army had faced in the insurgency prone areas in the North East or even in the Punjab when Pak sponsored militancy ruled high in the eighties. This is also true in the far-flung areas of our country where no worthwhile administration exists but where the army alone is the link to win the hearts and minds of the people on behalf our government. What our army has done and is doing in such situations has never been done by the US troops.

Irrespective of the recent reports by some of the so-called experts from the US on the functional efficiency of our armed forces, where aspersions have been cast on our army, its capabilities and attitudes, when it comes to dealing with human beings and help our Government to achieve its objectives, none can compare our armed forces. When I was in the faculty of Defence Services Staff College at Wellington, Nilgiris, I have heard US student officers who are taken on a forward area tour along with other foreign officers undergoing training there, telling me, "our troops would never operate under such hostile conditions as the Indian army operates. We take our hats off not only to their bravery but also for maintaining such high morale and smile on their faces while operating under such terrible conditions of living in the forward posts and picquets".

That is precisely the reason as to why the US wants Indian soldiers in Iraq. Of course, such deployment of our troops would ensure early withdrawal of American troops to return to the comfort of their homes and their families. For our soldiers living with their families is a bonus because even in peace time locations, they do not get 100% family accommodation and many of them are made to fend for their family accommodation and pay exorbitant rent. Besides peace tenure is reduced these days, thanks to their commitment in controlling militancy in various parts of our country or taking part on training exercises or wait in the deserts or mountains for the order to come to go to war as it happened in Operation Parakaram. Therefore, our soldiers are more qualified (or trained) to live in privation and being separated from their loved ones, unlike their American counterparts. One can also conclude that our soldiers are more qualified to operate in Iraq by all counts than the US troops!

In Iraq, only chaos seems to have ruled ever since the US and its coalition forces have "liberated" the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Yet, going by the media reports, the number of people who prefer Saddam’s tyranny to democracy, thanks to the American benevolence, is increasing by the hour. The US and her coalition partners must now be thinking of ways and means of getting out of Iraq honorably and without many body bags coming out of the very same Iraqi ports which were liberated recently. Already the causality rates after the end of the war have increased with reports of almost daily killing of American troops by the Iraqis.

Yet, the US needs to have its presence in Iraq for all the reasons, which need no repetition. According to their thinking, in this "having-the–cake-and-eating-strategy", countries like India could play greater role. And how they seed this idea in our minds? This is what the outgoing US Ambassador in India Mr Robert Blackwell had to say on June 19, 2003 and, I quote " …. Let me say that India is not this timid little entity that says ‘oh my goodness because the Americans can’t talk to us because we will feel pressured’. India is a rising great power with great confidence, civilisational power, military power, diplomatic power. We can say things to India without India …shrinking back…" And what is unsaid is that therefore "India should play its role and Iraq is the right opportunity to exhibit our capabilities to become that great power – civilisational, military, diplomatic etc. All you have to do is send in your army and do the job for us" So simple.

Indian armed forces have rich experience in various kinds of roles. Not only is our armed force good at maintenance of law and order within our shores, but it has also excelled in winning the hearts and minds of the people, even in other countries. This has been achieved in insurgency operations within the country as well as in peace keeping or peace making operations under the aegis of the United Nations in many parts of the world.

The only experience that our armed forces have had in the role that they may be called upon to play in a foreign soil like in Iraq was in Bangladesh. But there, our troops were withdrawn very quickly. The difference there was that our armed forces liberated Bangladesh from the tyranny of the very rulers of Pakistan, whom the US cannot seem do without inspite of being labelled as the country which sponsors terrorism. Besides, Bangladesh is our neighbour and we did have strategic interest in undertaking that operation. Power as well as destiny of the people of Bangladesh was handed over to their leaders in quick time. We also withdrew bulk of our troops quickly from Maldives leaving behind some to train their forces of that country on their request and that too for a short time.

Our armed forces had bitter experience in Sri Lanka when we sent IPKF to that Island nation. Even though it was sent there under the explicit request of the Sri Lankan Government, the bitter opposition to its conduct of operations both from within India and from outside should make us think twice before we commit our forces in another country.

But none of these operations have anything in common to the one in Iraq, should the Government decide to send our troops there. We did not send our troops to liberate Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. In fact we opposed the US led coalition operations on moral grounds. It is true that our armed forces have earned a very good name in all the peace keeping and peace making operations that we were requested to undertake under the aegis of the United Nations in the past. However, commitment of nearly one division worth of troops in Iraq is a different ball game altogether.

Even if our troops operate under the interpretations of Resolution 1483 of the UN, even if our troops are given a separate sector with total freedom of action, even if our troops are not placed under command of any of the Coalition forces and even if the Indian Government is prepared to pay for the cost of maintaining these soldiers in Iraq (the US is not going to pay for the services rendered in Iraq by our soldiers) the question to ask is "do the people of Iraq want us there?" If yes, what is the role that we are going to play and for how long? What exactly is the "Road Map" (a very popular phrase these days) that we have and which our Government has accepted? What is our mandate in Iraq? Whose mandate are we talking about?

Iraq needs governance after normalcy returns and that too by its people. One can argue that today only chaos is reigning supreme and therefore it would take time before normalcy can be restored and power handed over to the people of Iraq. Is our army going to get involved in this kind of exercise, which is mainly the job of politicians and diplomats and more importantly of the countries which has brought the situation to this pass? Iraq needs doctors, medicines and medical equipment, plumbers, electricians and construction workers. Above all Iraqi people need good governance and that too by themselves. Has enough been done already to meet these requirements or are we going to be asked to bring normalcy in Iraq by use of force – the same force which was used to bring it to this horrible state of chaos and human suffering?

Would it be correct to assume that the situation in Iraq is same as it existed in Japan after the end of World War II? If so, the US did not need any other country to police Japan. Why does it need in Iraq? If the situation is different because the geo-strategic and geo-political situation in the world has undergone total change, thanks to the uni-polar world that we have today and, whose undisputed leader is the United States, then why not force a clear cut direction from the UN and ask for peace keepers or a stabilization force (a new buzz word), instead of trying to find meaning within Resolution 1483?

Some argue that by sending troops to Iraq, India would benefit in the following ways:

• It accords the "first real mission" experience between US and Indian armed forces and that they would learn from this experience and , consequently it would bring both the democracies closer
• Iraq and Iraqis need us and this would be the best opportunity which would provide India with a foothold which could translate into major "profit" from the billions of dollars that are likely to be poured in for the reconstruction of the "destroyed" Iraq. More over in the long run, the Iraqis after they get "total freedom" and are well entrenched with democracy, India’s gain would be immense not only in Iraq but in the entire region itself.
• India can use this opportunity to "negotiate deals" with the US, especially in weapons acquisition and other "multi-use weapon technology"
• This would enhance India’s claim as a power to be reckoned with and would make it easy for India to get the permanent seat at the UN
• India should not let slip the window of opportunity to be in limelight which may as well be taken over by our "regional" neighbour and rival Pakistan
• Such an involvement of our troops in Iraq would make the US change its relationship with Pakistan and we could gain substantially from this "rescue" act of coming to the aid of the "beleaguered" US troops in Iraq

Are these arguments valid? To me, these arguments are invalid for the simple reason that Mr Robert Blackwell so clearly said. India is and will be a power to reckon with and therefore one billion people of India cannot be discounted or forced into doing things that the US desires. India is no Iraq and nor, is it going to broker some agreement to get the US discontinue its support to Pakistan and announce to the world that Pakistan is the only country with "evil" prefixed to its name. This will not happen for long and those of us who think that this is going to come about by sending our troops to Iraq to become martyrs for the American cause, are living in a world which is not real. Our national interests should be governed by our national sentiments and views and not of the Americans. This argument that we may miss out on this opportunity which will be grabbed by Pakistan (our regional "rival" player) is perhaps a wrong argument to use. There are larger issues, which concern India’s national interest and these do not require our troops to become cannon fodder in Iraq instead of the Americans.

Therefore, I am of the conviction, India need not send its troops to Iraq under the set of conditions which exist there today. The United Stated Government is trying to find legitimacy in the UN Resolution 1483 for countries such as India to send troops to Iraq to control the emerging situation, which could become more chaotic in the days ahead. We need to wait and watch, evaluate all the pros and cons, work out arrangements for deployment for our soldiers and then only send them there.

But time is of great essence because it is time that would make more US soldiers getting killed in Iraq and it is time that the US does not have to control the emerging situation there. And, it is time that the world sat back and took a hard look and wonder, "if Operation Iraqi Freedom" was indeed necessary? I think it was necessary for the world can do without a single power centre and it needs to counter the arrogance of the single great power. This cannot be done if we bow down to pressure from this great super power and send our troops to Iraq to do a dirty job when the US soldiers are in the safety of their homes with their families.

Did I hear someone say, "there is a price that one has to pay for everything in life?"