Defeats dismay Arab media

The Daily Telegraph ^ | April 7, 2003 | Gerald Butt

[MadIvan]

Arab satellite news channels, broadcasting footage of advances by coalition forces on Baghdad, are beginning to question whether Saddam Hussein has put up a proper fight against the allied advances.

Throughout the Arab world there is a mood of disappointment. The initial resistance by Saddam's forces raised expectations that he would put up a tougher fight around the capital.

"Why is he letting the Arabs down now," a Lebanese caller asked a phone-in programme, "when his forces fought so bravely in the south of the country?"

A presenter on the Dubai-based al-Arabiya television network said the Iraqi leader had promised "surprises" that would inflict huge losses. "Why have we not seen the surprises?"

A military expert later wondered why the Iraqi army had not concentrated on attacking the allies' supply lines, rather than moving forces back to try to defend Baghdad. "Saddam's fedayeen should be attacking the trucks carrying food, water and fuel," he added.

"Why didn't Saddam order all the bridges to be blown up along the route to the capital?" another studio guest wondered.

Several Arab newspapers highlight the discrepancy between Iraq's assessment of the war and that of the coalition forces. "The information war is intensifying," said al-Sharq in Qatar. In Jordan, al-Rai asked "where the real truth lies amid the confusion and contradiction of the news reports?" Nevertheless, on its front page the paper's main headline read: "Iraq retakes Saddam airport."

The Lebanese daily al-Nahar went one better, saying that "Saddam led the attack to retake the airport", while Akhbar al-Khaleej in Bahrain said: "We have wiped out the invading forces at the airport."

But other Arab papers adopt a more realistic line, with al-Watan in Saudi Arabia declaring that "the Americans have taken the airport and the Iraqis have retreated into Baghdad".

Kuwait's Rai al-Am assessed the situation in three words: "Baghdad's last stand."

[oldtimer]

Kind of reminds of what is happening to our childrens textbooks these days.

[Paleo Conservative]

There they go again!

[denydenydeny]

Schadenfreude is an ugly emotion.

Yet highly appropriate here.

[expatpat]

The Arabs......should take their heads out of the sand they've buried them in for a moment and face reality [instead of their dream world].

They won't do that before the liberals in the US do it -- and you know that ain't going to happen in my lifetime.

[stripes1776]

"Why is he letting the Arabs down now," a Lebanese caller asked a phone-in programme, "when his forces fought so bravely in the south of the country?"

I read a great article by Victor David-Hanson late last year. To answer critics that war in Iraq would inflame the Arab street, he said that the Arab street could tolerate many things. It could tolerate genocide, torture, and gender apartheid, but what the Arab street could not tolerate is the humiliation of defeat. When Saddam is defeated, the street will revile him as a traitor.

[xp38]

Red zone....area surrounding Baghdad and the final 20 yards to the goal line in US football.

[Bush2000]

"Why is he letting the Arabs down now," a Lebanese caller asked a phone-in programme, "when his forces fought so bravely in the south of the country?"

Simple: Because they don't believe that preserving Hussein's sadistic and brutal grip on power justifies dying.

[jocon307]

"You got the surprises, loser. Not the surprises you expected, but then you wuldn't have been surprised, see?

Now for the next... Syria? Iran?? "Palestine"????

So many losers, so much ammo..."

Ditto

Ditto

Ditto

[goldstategop]

Nor do I think there's any danger they'll give up any time soon their Thousand And One Nights fantasies. :)

[Ima Lurker]

Defeats dismay Arab media

And a great deal of the United States media as well.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[KneelBeforeZod]

A defaced portrait of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in the port of Umm-Qasr in southern Iraq (news - web sites), March 23, 2003. Iraqi troops and paramilitary fighters loyal to President Saddam Hussein held up a U.S. advance toward Baghdad on Sunday, inflicting casualties and taking American prisoners on the fourth day of war. REUTERS/Desmond Boylan

[dasher]

Everything has been too easy so far, I'm just concerned that what's left of the Iraqi leadership has something bad in store for us. I wouldn't doubt the possibility that a nuke or a series of chem or bio are weapons ready to go off in Baghdad once there are enough coalition forces there.

[Cold Heat]

LOL!

It is as if they were losing a football game!

[Savage Beast]

Those who face reality have a definite advantage over those who don't.

[smith288]

The Lebanese daily al-Nahar went one better, saying that "Saddam led the attack to retake the airport", while Akhbar al-Khaleej in Bahrain said: "We have wiped out the invading forces at the airport."

pink pigs saw flying in the Baghdad sky... developing...

[tet68]

I read a great article by Victor David-Hanson late last year. To answer critics that war in Iraq would inflame the Arab street, he said that the Arab street could tolerate many things. It could tolerate genocide, torture, and gender apartheid, but what the Arab street could not tolerate is the humiliation of defeat. When Saddam is defeated, the street will revile him as a traitor.


Bingo.

[blackbart.223]

"The Lebanese daily al-Nahar went one better, saying that "Saddam led the attack to retake the airport", while Akhbar al-Khaleej in Bahrain said: "We have wiped out the invading forces at the airport."

They must be getting imports from the poppy fields in Afghanistan and using the fruits of said poppys.

[Keith]

and the Iraqis who thank us for freeing them, and tell the truth about his regime will be seen as tools of the US...


sigh.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Sounds just like the posters on Democratic Underground.

Nah, these guys at least have SOME semblance of reality.