|
Saddam is not the issue by Abid Ullah Jan "Delenda est Carthago" - Carthage must be destroyed. Cato the Elder, the Roman Senator, uttered these words at the end of his every speech. They conveyed his obsession - to wipe out the Roman Empire's growing political and commercial rival in the south. Eventually, Cato and Scipio Africanus, the Tommy Franks of the Roman legions, did succeed in building up the political momentum for the campaign. Carthage was defeated and ransacked, and all its crops set on fire. The Romans used elephants to plough salt into the soil of what today is Tunis. Never again was Carthage a threat to Roman commerce! Just like the authoritarian Roman Empire, the US is neither a law-abiding global citizen, nor a magnanimous super-power. It owes its economic, political and military hegemony in the world to inequitable trade pacts, UN farces and protocols like the Koyoto! Hence, when it raises the specter of Iraq‘s weapons of mass destruction, or WMD (possession of which, in the American dictionary, is defined as a ‘heinous crime’ if the possessing states are countries like Iraq, Iran or Pakistan, but not Israel or India!), it is only reasonable to take these assertions with a handful of salt. Oil and WMD may well be strategic concerns for the US, but the latest twist in its twelve-year old campaign against Iraq, is not for these reasons alone - at least not in 2002! We are witnessing an interesting scenario unfold. It is the post-September 11 era, with the American leaders arrogantly demanding their pound of flesh and bullying other countries to follow their lead. The American objectives have to be met. But there is one problem. No one seems to know what those objectives are! And this gives rise to questions. If Washington is indeed after Iraq's WMD, how is it that the US-directed and hand picked army of "inspectors" could not discover them in eight long years of searching? This 'search' was carried out while Iraqis starved and died due to lack of adequate food or medicine, under the most draconian economic sanctions in human history. And it yielded zilch! They found nothing, because there was nothing to find. So, instead of insisting on another round of futile ‘searches’, maybe the US would do better to fold the CIA, and send its officers packing! Iraq's story is long since over. Security Council members (other than US) demanded in 1998 that in light of the IAEA findings, the nuclear file on Iraq should be closed. According to the Washington Post report (April 14, 1998), UN nuclear weapons inspectors announced that, as of April 3, 1998, 211 inspections at 93 locations revealed no signs that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or related material. As for biological weapons, even an Israeli military analyst Meir Stieglitz, wrote in Yediot Ahronot: "There is no such things as a long range Iraqi missile with an effective biological warhead. No one has found an Iraqi biological warhead. The chances of Iraq having succeeded in developing operative warheads without tests are zero." (1) So, is the war-mongering stemming from Bush Junior’s fixation to avenge his father's loss of face in the past? To debunk the myth that the Persian Gulf has been a burial place for American presidencies and their reputations? This indeed could be one of the reasons. And the theme of this modern day war saga may well be “Oil, Revenge and More”. But, aside from greed and psychological needs of those in power in Washington, the key motive can be elucidated by asking one simple question: What has changed since the Gulf War that is forcing the US to remove a villain whose "bad behavior actually served America's interest in the region?” (2) The answer is: “American priorities!” Saddam, as an enemy, was necessary for maintaining anti-Saddam coalition. He was necessary for long-term American presence in the Gulf. His removal was avoided to avert anti-Americanism in Arab streets and palaces. James Baker III, former US Secretary of State, had given five compelling reasons to show that toppling Saddam in 1991 would have been a "dangerous mistake.” These included, "loss of life,” "military occupation,” "bolstering Iran,” "fracturing the coalition” and "destroying the foundations for post-war peace.” (3) It may be noted, that all these concerns are as valid today as they were in 1991. However, Uncle Sam has now discovered an enemy and a threat that is far dangerous than Saddam – The Axis of Islam. It is apparent that as was the case with the Taliban regime, Saddam's stay in power is not the issue. The issue is Islam. Iraq's nuclear capability has long been destroyed. It is now the weaponry and military might of other countries in the axis of Islam that needs to be systematically destroyed. This will ensure that the imagined or real "threat of Islam" to Israel and American security is neutralized. In the Washington Post's recent interview with Kamal Kharrazi, the foreign minister of Iran, the sequence of questions about the nuclear program of Iran, and Israel's right to exist is tell tale of the prevailing mood in Washington. (4) But, stripping these states of the resources to defend themselves is not all. The US wishes to occupy what Bush chose to call “the axis of evil", in which North Korea was cited as part of the grand deception. Afghanistan is fully, and Pakistan is partially, occupied. The existence of both countries remaining intact in the next two decades is being questioned by think tanks in America. Israel has been given a free hand to use innovative ways to make the Palestinians suffer and die. The assiduous work of pro-Israel political forces on Capitol Hill has resulted in the gradual transformation of Saudi Arabia from an ally to an enemy. Full occupation of Iraq and replacement of Saddam with another CIA groomed Karzai of Iraq would be a feat that the US could not perform in Saudi Arabia. It would also set the stage for meaningfully confronting Iran, Saudi Arabia and any other Muslim state. The blueprint for the creation of a "Global Pax Americana", uncovered by the Sunday Herald, was drawn up much before Bush assumed power. The plan proves the US intended taking military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. (5) The division of Muslim countries as was done at the end of the colonial period is in the cards. The plan of dividing Iraq was referred to by Bulent Ajaweed, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister, on February 08, 1998 when he said in a press interview: "The United States wants to divide Iraq in order to establish the state of Kurdistan which will be under her control." The British Minister of State, Lord Gilbert, also said on February 13, 1998: "The possibility of dividing Iraq in case of a military strike targeted against him cannot be disregarded.” At the same time, the British Foreign Secretary also alluded to the idea of division when he said: "One of the possible results of an American military operation against Iraq is to divide the country.” In November 1995 the Washington Post published a report about the military build up and relations between the US and the Gulf States. David Mack, the previous official for "Arab Peninsula Affairs" in the American Foreign Office said that the equipment stored in the territories of these States and on the American ships is enough to supply any American division anywhere in the world. Having sampled the 21st century version of military conquest and occupation in Afghanistan, the US is now emboldened to use the very factors underlined by James Baker III to its advantage. a) Loss of life is irrelevant. b) Military occupation is a trend. c) Before Iran can get the opportunity to export Islamic fundamentalism with the help of Shi'ites in Iraq, US would be at Iran's neck. d) US is no longer worried about fracturing coalition as it has decided to go it alone, thus maintaining its military hegemony, and e) the foundation of peace in the Middle East has already been leveled. It is obvious that in seeking to reorder Muslim countries and nations to its whims and Machiavellian designs, the US is becoming too arrogant for her own good. Invasion and occupation of Muslim lands is increasingly being seen as a War on Islam. A growing sense of desperation is leading many in the Muslim World to arrive at one conclusion - that only a hard-line response to American injustice and double standards can force her to make necessary course corrections. Arab radicalism, that James Baker thought was "defeated", has resurfaced. US will do well to remember this: Iraq or Afghanistan is not Carthage; nor is Bush, Cato the Elder. Concluded Notes: (1) Rep. Cynthia McKinney, a Congresswoman from Georgia, at “NewsHour”
with Jim Lehrer on Febuary 10, 1988 and quoting Israeli Military analyst
Meir Stieglitz, who wrote in Israel’s largest daily, Yediot
Ahronot, that there are no biological or long range WMD in Saddam’s
possession. Abid Ullah Jan is a columnist for The Statesman, The Nation, and the Pakistan Observer (Pakistan). He is also sub-editor for the Tribune International (Sydney, Australia), and is the Executive Director of the Integrated Regional Support Programme (IRSP). He can be reached at abidjan2@psh.paknet.com.pk NOTE BY DR. AMIR ALI: American history is that of a wolf who attacks the weak but never attacks the strong. During the last fifty years the U.S. government created incidents to find excuses to attack Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Panama, little island countries of the Carribean, Iraq, Afghanistan and others. The American government stays away from major powers even if they are declared enemies, such as the former Soviet Union, the Republic of China and now, Russia. The best solution of the American aggression problem is to go nuclear for all countries. If fifty Muslim majority countries start their nuclear programs actively throughout the Muslim world, that would spread American resources thin. Developing nuclear bombs and delivery system will keep Americans within their own boundaries rather than invading the weak.
|