Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Taming the Arabs

Expand Messages
  • ummyakoub
    US Objective -- Taming the Arabs/Muslims not Saddam Yamin Zakaria Saddam Hussein, despite all his faults, was viewed in the Arab/Muslim world as a symbol of
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 5, 2004
      US Objective -- Taming the Arabs/Muslims not Saddam
      Yamin Zakaria

      Saddam Hussein, despite all his faults, was viewed in the Arab/Muslim
      world as a symbol of resistance against the US and Israeli
      aggression. Being the only Arab leader to attack Israel with Scud
      missiles earned him that distinct reputation. Nonetheless, the norm
      is that Arab leaders in general excel in internal repression, and
      Saddam was no exception. Now that Saddam Hussein has been finally
      captured, as have most of the senior members of the Bath party and
      government, will the US troops finally leave Iraq and the region
      (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia) as a whole? Not just
      a `reduction' in their presence, but to leave the area completely. As
      the original pretext of the threat posed from Saddam exists no more,
      nor does the threat of the mythical WMD, as none have been found to
      date. The answer is unlikely, simply because, the war was not about
      the threat of Saddam or disarming Saddam of his mythical WMD or
      bringing Saddam to justice on behalf of the people of Iraq.

      The US government knew very well that Iraq had no WMD capability that
      could constitute a threat even to its immediate neighbours let alone
      the US itself. Collin Powell and Condaleza Rice openly broadcasted
      this on TV, well before the war. They even bragged about Iraq's
      significantly reduced conventional weapons, whilst defending the US
      policy of containing Iraq for a decade through the imposition of
      sanctions and the no-fly zone (See John Pilger's TV documentary). The
      disarming of Iraq's alleged WMD was the ONLY legal `justification'
      given by the coalition forces for invading and attacking a sovereign
      country without any provocation. The issue of WMD has now been
      conveniently reduced to WMD `programme'. Which the politicians,
      commentators and analysts on FOX, BBC and CNN use as a fig leaf, when
      they are questioned on the subject. Remember the 45-minute threat
      alleged by the dossier (plagiarised PHD thesis) of Tony Blair? It
      must have been a typo; perhaps it should have read 45 months or
      years. The other pretext of the 9/11 connections with Iraq has been
      dismissed by the anti-war camp, since no clear evidence of such a
      link has been produced. However, the Bush administration is telling
      the truth from its own point of view. One needs to read between the
      lines. There is a connection between Iraq and the alleged 9/11
      perpetrators, which is that they are both part of the Islamic
      civilisation, or as the more crude Yanks would say, they are all rag
      heads. Hence, Iraq war was a form of collective punishment dispensed
      to the Islamic world in return for 9/11 (other reasons are discussed
      later). This needs to be inferred, as it is unacceptable to use such
      language in the diplomatic arena.

      Then comes the issue of bringing Saddam to `justice' on behalf of the
      Iraqi people, as Saddam's crimes were largely committed against his
      own people and its neighbours but not the Americans. So, why does
      that automatically give the Americans right to attack Iraq? By that
      principal, any of the Arab countries can also attack Britain as she
      has been oppressing the Irish population for centuries? Could America
      itself not also be attacked for the numerous genocides carried out,
      ever since the European colonisers moved to settle in the US? The war
      with Iran was instigated and supported by the US. The convenient
      explanation is, that at that time, with the cold war climate along
      with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism from Iran, the US
      was `forced' to pursue such a policy. When Halabja was gassed in
      1988, it did not even make the news headlines, nor did it arouse
      passion amongst those in the Whitehouse, who are now constantly
      bragging about their lofty moral principles. On the contrary, US
      companies with the direct support of the White House continued to
      supply lethal chemical and biological materials, knowing that they
      were profiting from the blood of innocent victims in Iraq. So much
      for their innocence! No wonder, the US wants to bring JUST Saddam
      to `Justice' and not his accomplices who have sustained his supply
      line for decades. The SUDDEN desire of the US to bring Saddam
      to `justice' is not due to genuine love for the people of Iraq but an
      attempt to give some sort of `moral justification' for the invasion
      and the subsequent carnage, as it had no legal basis in the first
      place. Why did the US not have sudden affection to remove the
      apartheid regime in South Africa? Was it because it reminded her too
      much of Israel and the nostalgia of her own apartheid system, that
      was eventually removed by the civil rights movement! Why does the US
      not have the same affection towards the Palestinians and bring Israel
      to `justice'? The few Arabs/Muslim who are applauding the US at this
      moment ought to think away from their narrow vision, and contemplate
      on the US track record and her intention in the region. It is
      certainly not benevolent. Capitalist nations are not charitable

      Where is `free' Iraq now? Her economy has been opened up by the US
      (rather then the `free' Iraqis) to the foreign companies (including
      Israel), in a manner that even `free' America would not do to its own
      economy. Where are the `free Iraqis' that are authorising the likes
      of Halliburton and Bechtel to make use of Iraq's oil and other
      resources? What happened to the billions of dollars worth of oil
      revenues, that is unaccounted for? Bush and Blair are constantly
      announcing their agenda on behalf of the `free' Iraqis but yet they
      are unwilling to give them a voice by holding free elections. It is
      amazing how a foreign nation can speak on behalf of another nation
      without legal or moral authority. Iraq is not ready to be `free',
      simply because the climate is not yet suitable for preserving US
      interests. Grooming a suitable puppet can take a while. A cursory
      glance at the small numbers in the demonstrations being held in Iraq
      reflects what the Iraqis truly think about the capture of Saddam
      Hussein. Not that they love him, but many realise that the US has
      ulterior motives. Just like when Saddam's statute was symbolically
      toppled, rather than giving an aerial view that clearly showed how
      few the actual number of people present were, a close-up was
      telecasted, which presented a misleading impression of that events.
      In fact, the mass demonstrations held in the Sunni area in support of
      Saddam after his arrest may not be awesome but certainly larger then
      the support for any of the US appointed members, within the Iraqi
      governing council. Now, the other figure that continues to rise is of
      the victims in the mass graves. Perhaps the numbers will reach six
      million, when it becomes an indisputable fact that gets televised
      constantly. Sounds familiar? What about the victims of the US and its
      coalition forces as a result of this illegal war? Who will bring them
      to justice for their heinous crimes? What about the cluster bombs and
      the depleted uranium that continues to kill and poison Iraq? The
      ordinary Arabs/Muslims and most of the world know who are the real
      war criminals.

      For those who are already clear about the hypocrisy and the lies of
      this illegal war, they will shout "oil" as being the reason for this
      invasion and occupation, and most certainly it is a factor. The US
      (not `free' Iraqis) had no qualm in prohibiting the war opponents
      (Germany, France and Russia) from bidding for the war booty. Which
      left no doubt about "oil" rather then "liberation" as being one of
      the primary factors for the invasion. Remember, the oil ministries
      were never hit unlike every other building in Iraq, and it was the
      first thing that was secured well before other less significant
      places like hospitals, water plants, electricity etc.

      Apart from oil there is another reason for this occupation, something
      that many of the simplistic minded Arabs/Muslims are failing to
      comprehend due to their short-term vision of the situation, as well
      as being seduced by the propaganda that constantly emanates from the
      Whitehouse. In the mean time some are knowingly lining up with the
      US, hoping to get a slice of the cake from the victor. Of course they
      will also continue the tradition like previous and other Arab
      regimes, of using their positions to inflate their back accounts,
      build palaces, torture chambers and buy endless amounts of weapons
      to `defend' themselves against their own population. Lets face it;
      Iraq is not the only place in the world or the Middle East where the
      torture chamber existed. Try looking into Saudi Arabia or Turkey or
      Egypt but of course, that is inconvenient at the moment, as they are
      all good US allies. As for the US the war is not about Saddam,
      billions of pounds are not spent with the loss of lives just for the
      sake of one tin pot dictator. They have a clear vision. As
      Condoleezza Rice and Bush, stated many times, democratising Iraq
      would be an example for the rest of the region. The implication is
      that its fate has already been decided by the US rather then being
      left to the Iraqis, who may not aspire for such a model as the early
      signs clearly indicated. No wonder the US is reluctant to hold free
      elections at this moment even though it brags about `free' Iraq.

      Then comes the interesting issue of Saddam's trial. The US as usual
      is using Hobsons logic. If Saddam states what the US wants to hear
      then he is telling the truth, otherwise it is a lie. The US is
      already very apprehensive about the Hague, as it is a European
      institution and may not be able to control what Saddam spills out.
      Therefore, he most likely will either be tortured by the US, or by
      proxy the CPA will do an excellent job. Eventually a show trial will
      commence, where only selected information is likely to be leaked to
      the public or he may commit `suicide' like that of Dr David Kelly!
      What everyone also expects is the possibility of some sort of deal
      with Saddam, whereby he acknowledges the possession of WMD and then
      its transfer to Syria and/or Iran. That would be really magic, as it
      would vindicate Bush and Blair for going to war and also gives the
      green light to the Neo-Cons, chicken Hawks to prepare their tanks to
      roll into Damascus and/or Tehran.

      Yamin Zakaria

      London, UK




      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.