 |
Posted on 04/10/2003 10:44:49 PM PDT by cgk
|
Some liberation
In victory's wake comes a bandwagon effect, gilding the arms of the winners and tarnishing the cause of the losers. Bystanders not wishing to be seen on the wrong side of the argument are tempted to climb this bandwagon. They try to convince themselves that they always knew events would turn out like this.
This is happening now in Iraq. The entry of American troops into Baghdad and the collapse of the Saddam regime are drowning questions about the nature of this war, the purposes behind it and why it was started in the first place.
The story for the moment, beamed relentlessly around the world, is about the joyful scenes in Baghdad with the symbols of tyranny being smashed and the 'liberators' being welcomed. Quite forgotten in the din are the 'weapons of mass destruction', the ostensible justification for this war. Where have they gone or is Saddam still hiding them, for a final assault, in some caves in his hometown of Tikrit?
Saddam may have been, was, a tyrant and a butcher. But this war was not about eliminating tyranny and butchery or giving Iraq democracy. It was not about his lavish palaces or the gold and marble in his lavatories. These are just the fig-leafs on a war of aggression which was always about occupying Iraq, getting control of its oil resources and making the Middle East more secure than it already is for the US and Israel.
The inconvenient truth bears repeating. When he served American interests, Saddam was an American favourite. When he fought Iran, no one lost sleep in Washington on account of his butchery and tyranny.
The ideological footprints leading to this war are well documented. Ideologues like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were talking about the necessity of removing Saddam much before September 11. These friends of Israel were pushing for this war as much as a demonstration of American power as a means of reinforcing Israeli power. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and behind them their perceived backers, Syria and Iran, were all to be dealt with for the sake of Israel.
Syrian and Iranian fears are thus not groundless. In the neo-con think tanks of Washington the need to take care of these countries after Iraq has been openly discussed and advocated. No wonder even as the war on Iraq was on, first Rumsfeld and then Powell fired warning shots in the direction of both Syria and Iran. So who's next on the American hit list? is not idle propaganda. This question is rooted in the literature of conquest and occupation compiled in the shadowy and twilight world of the friends-of-Israel holding leadership positions in the Bush administration.
Other simpletons have occupied the White House before but perhaps none so dim-witted or with so unsophisticated an understanding of the world as George W. Bush. Hitler was more polished, infinitely more intelligent. He did his own thinking and was no one's cat's paw. Bush is the front man for a cabal of sinister men weaving a tapestry of dominion more Zionist than American in intent. And we are to believe that all this is for the sake of democracy and liberation.
It takes no gallup poll to figure out the mood in the Muslim world - a mood compounded of humiliation, helplessness, despair and self-loathing. Not out of any love for Saddam but because the invasion and brutalization of Iraq, taking place against a backdrop of Islamic incompetence and impotence, has not been a pretty sight to watch. America imposing its will in so naked a fashion and the Muslim world either collaborating with the aggressor or just too plain scared even to protest. History books are unlikely to count this as the ummah's finest hour.
The Anglo-American forces, after all, used Arab soil as a launching pad for their aggression. American cruise missiles flew over Arab waters or across Arab airspace before hitting their Iraqi targets, as often as not killing Iraqi civilians. In a long roll of dishonour only Syria, Iran and distant Malaysia stand out for at least holding out verbally against this war. And Turkey, or its parliament, for not allowing access to American troops.
As for the people and defenders of Iraq, they have nothing to be ashamed of. Outgunned and outclassed by the most hi-tech military in history, they still held out, with astonishing bravery, for 22 days. Baghdad was a surprise where resistance melted away quickly. But in the cities of the south the Iraqis - call them Saddam militia, Fedayeen or whatever - put up a stiff fight, at times running circles around the Anglo-American forces. Umm Qasr, Nasriyah (brave Nasriyah), and the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala - their names have resounded across the airwaves.
Lest American valour be dressed in too much war-paint, what kind of a chance did the Iraqi defenders with their meagre arms have against an invading army which could call upon precision-guided air strikes against sniper fire? If in one of the greatest mismatches in history Iraqi fighters still held out at all, all honour to them.
Let's not forget that the Iraqis were defeated and their defences eventually annihilated by superior firepower. They never surrendered.
For sheer panache and bravado a special prize must go to the Iraqi information minister, Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahaf. Cool and not without humour, he was spitting defiance right until the end. Brit and American military spokesmen have lambasted him for carrying denial to new heights. May be so, but his press conferences are likely to be counted amongst the enduring images of this war.
For Pakistanis it should be easier to put things in perspective. None of our wars, and we have fought a few, lasted for more than 17 days, a magic number defining the frontiers of our military prowess. And far from anything like the American military, each time we fought an army very much like our own.
But where do we go from here? What do we learn from all this? The anger across the Muslim world will play itself out in more breast-beating and empty frustration. Walking in America's shadow, and tied to the US in varying degrees of dependence, the countries of Islam have simply no stomach for standing up to the US. Ever heard of sheep standing up to a wolf? In the run-up to the Iraq war, the world of Islam resembled nothing more closely than a herd of sheep.
There's another strange theory holding the Muslim liberal classes in thrall. Pointing to the intellectual and social superiority of the West, they argue that the countries of Islam must reinvigorate themselves before talking of defiance. Valid point but what happens between now and reinvigoration? Should the world of Islam allow itself to be kicked around for as long as this goal is not achieved?
It took the West 500 years of uninterrupted intellectual and scientific development to be where it is now. From the Renaissance to precision-guided munitions, a smooth and coherent progression. Must defiance or a refusal to be kicked around await the dawn of an Islamic Renaissance? This way the countries now at the receiving end of American imperialism will be waiting forever.
The Vietnamese did not wait until they had attained western standards of scientific progress before taking on the Japanese, the French and then the Americans. Castro did not wait for an industrial revolution before defying the US. The Chinese Revolution was just a year old when Mao took on the US in the Korean war.
Defiance and progress are not mutually exclusive qualities. If we look closely at history we may see that nations going through fire and blood are the ones that sooner attain the shores of progress. Nations with no heart or spirit in them are good for neither struggle nor progress.
The Hitler reference is most telling.
Oh, the lies, the lies, the lies.
|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Well, Amir, I think you've summed up the Arab world quite nicely....
And we understand the consternation about that is being experienced by him, by Arab nationalists, by paleos, by Democrats, and by leftists everywhere.
"It would be folly if Washington thinks in terms of ruling Iraq by proxy by manoeuvring a puppet regime into power to serve as a fig leaf for occupation"
source: After Saddam, What?
"Today’s unanimous vote by the United Nations Security Council to enforce the numerous prior resolutions flouted by Iraq was little more than a fig leaf providing the flimsiest of cover for the United States to wage war when it feels like it"
source: UN Resolution a Fig Leaf for the US
"As the build-up to war continues, it will likely become ever clearer that the UN is simply being used as a fig leaf for aggression and the public opinion advantages of any security council deal may well prove less significant than they now appear"
source: UN Being Used as a Fig Leaf for Aggression
"With the revelation that the much vaunted British Dossier on Irak (sic) is a bogus one and the obvious fact that the Powell number at the UN is in the same vein, and with the certainty now that the Security Council will not give its green light to attack Iraq, the U.S. and the UK won't have any fig leaf to hide the naked agression they are about to unleash onto tens of thousands of innocent civilians with certainly most lethal consequences."
source: Media Compilation: Earth Rainbow Network
"But it's beginning to look like Blix believes that his mission is not to discover Saddam Hussein's hidden arsenal but to produce a diplomatic fig leaf that could render war impossible."
Source (surprisingly...originally from LA Times):Will Blix See a Fig Leaf But Ignore Smoking Gun?
"(early snip)"an unelected and unstable government controlling a stock of deadly weapons ( Pakistan, and now, indeed, the US itself)"; "Just as the fig leaf of the US establishment’s respect for the sovereignty of other nations has finally fallen off, our own fig leaf, of being an ‘independent’ State backed by one of the world’s largest armies, is also fast yellowing and crumbling.
source: The Autumn of the Fig Leaf
"Unabashedly, Bush gave a speech on March 07, 2003, portraying the gathering dark clouds of a criminal war against Iraq, in the terms of a poker game. He challenged other countries opposed to the criminal war to "show their cards" while the U.S. and the U.K. would conveniently keep their cards hidden. Lest he misses the point, he is playing a game of Russian roulette, and his fig leaf has fallen."
Source: (former Iraqi nuclear scientist)The Fig Leaf of Moral Impotence
"The UN was created and is sustained by the major powers in order to provide a fig leaf for imperialism and a distraction for resistance movements."
source: (socialist alternative, haha) Can UN Weapons Inspections Avert a War?
There's many many more. A strange phrase to use.
It ain't just the muslims, Mrs. Jones. :)
And the world of (radical, fundamental) Islam's goals? (maybe all of them, but I suspect the writer is a Wahabbi).
1. Drive Israel into the Mediterranean Sea.
2. Kill all Christians.
3. Kill all Infidels.
4. Kill all your young men. (see: "martyr")
5. Kill the Zionist Imperialist Pigs.
6. Inhabit land, then claim it has always been yours, and "holy."
7. Laugh all the way to the mosque.
8. Did I mention... Kill?
9. Throw children as young as toddlers in jail if their parents don't voice support for your oppression.
10. Butcher, torture, maim your own people and blame it on the infidels.
11. Butcher, torture, maim your enemies and blame it on the infidels.
12. Rape every woman you come across, especially if they work for CNN.
13. Kill those women you raped if they complain.
14. Leave your family father-less, husband-less, earner-less when you blow yourself up in the name of Allah.
15. Kill some more infidels.
16. Die trying, or else.
17. Head up to that Great Mosque in the sky where 72 virgins await you.
18. Make momma Mullah proud.
Lofty goals aren't they?
Thank you. Now I know that a neo-con is Buchanan/Rockwell/LaRouche/Browne.
So what is a paleo-con? (sheepish)
Uh, yeah... the biggest enduring laughingstock of this war!
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ping list.
A dinosaur on the verge of extinction.
Well, that's true. Liberation wasn't the meat and potatoes. It was the gravy. :D
And Hitler of course was evil, occupied most of Europe in order to force his Nazi socialism on the conquered, and sent 6 million Jews to their deaths. I suppose you forgot that while writing your stupid article? But I suppose Hitler is a hero in your eyes?
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.