[thechat] must-read editorial

[Erik Mattheis]

This sums up this week better than anything else I've read, from Arab 
News, a newspaper from the UAE. No matter what side you're on, it helps 
answer the "why's" when we're struggling to grasp the "what's".

Zeeshan, could you explain for us a bit the thing about Salahuddin and 
the Crusades? I think that will perhaps

Chakwal Diary: 'Shock and awe' stiffens Iraqi resistance
 From Ayaz Amir 28-03-2003

Since the Crusades the world of Islam has awaited the arrival of a new 
Salahuddin  – the Saladin of Christian legend – someone who would 
redress its wrongs and redeem its lost honour.

Now from the smoke and ruins of America's aggression against Iraq 
arises a Salahuddin in the unlikely form of the dictator of Baghdad. 
For all his past sins and follies,  Saddam Hussain today stands high in 
glory as the unchallenged hero of the Muslim world.

Iraqi resistance has touched a resonant chord in Muslim breasts. In the 
space of a few days some of the helplessness and humiliation attending 
the Muslim  world as a result of American and Israeli arrogance has 
begun to wash away.  Such is the miracle wrought by the defenders of 
Iraq.

This is a war being fought on two fronts simultaneously: in the killing 
fields  of Iraq and the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. Whatever 
the outcome of  the first battle, Saddam has already won the second. 
His tyranny and brutality lie forgotten, his courage under fire and his 
defiance the only things registering  with Muslims the world over.

Stalin killed more people than anyone in history. But when he stood up 
to Hitler and led the Red Army to victory over Germany, he became a 
hero to his people.

It was not supposed to happen like this in Iraq. Saddam was supposed to 
be ousted by his own army while the Anglo-American armies were to be 
greeted with welcoming  flowers. The Shias were supposed to revolt in 
the south, the Kurds to march towards Baghdad from the north. The Iraqi 
army was supposed to melt away and it was all supposed to be over in a 
matter of days.

Instead, the Americans have an incipient nightmare on their hands. 
There has been no uprising in the south. Umm Qasr (pop. 45,000) did not 
fall for many  days. Nassiriyah is still being fought over. Wednesday 
evening CNN was reporting an absurdity: that according to American 
military sources the whole of Nassiriyah  was not their objective at 
all but just a "corridor" through the town. Such 'truths' are becoming 
the staple of this war.

The Iraqis have not played according to script. They have refused to 
become sitting ducks in the desert and have retreated before superior 
forces. Holed    up in the cities, on ground of their choosing, they 
are harassing the Brits and Americans wherever they can. And they are 
refusing to be cowed down by missile attacks or precision bombing. If 
the Americans want them they'll have to go after them. After the tough 
fighting in the south this is not a prospect to  gladden American or 
British hearts.

There's even the murmur now beginning to spread on the airwaves that 
perhaps the Americans put too few troops in the field for the job in 
hand.

Well, for a walkover their troops were pretty sufficient. But a 
walkover is the last thing anyone is seeing in Iraq.

Understandably, the Brit-American coalition is crying foul. At Centcom 
HQs in Doha one of their spokesmen said that Iraqi irregular tactics – 
riding in pickups, melting into the population – were akin to the 
methods of global terrorism. Goliath's brutality is kosher. David's 
fighting back is terrorism.

  Hence the cottage industry of lies which is the comic side to this 
brutal war of aggression. Iraqi resistance is being attributed to such 
dark villains as "diehard loyalists", "fedayeen", etc – names meant to 
inflame the imagination.

No one in the Anglo-American camp will be caught placing Iraqi 
resistance where it truly belongs: the grit and valour of the Iraqi 
army. Whatever happened to the Iraqi division which was supposed to 
have surrendered on the first or second day of the American attack? 
There's been no word about this phantom formation since. What about the 
popular uprising in Basra the Brits were crowing about two days ago? 
This bit of propaganda has also ended in a whimper. In the telling of 
lies the Brits, as always punching above their weight, are outstripping 
the Americans.

No wonder the BBC sounds more pathetic than CNN. The spirit of Blairism 
seems to have infected everything British. The Iraqi information 
minister, Saeed Al-Sahaf,  had it about right: " I think the British 
nation has never been faced with a tragedy like this fellow", referring 
of course to Tony Blair. Sahaf said this jovially which gives you some 
idea of the morale of the Iraqi leadership.

It's a remarkable fact that in the midst of devastation and conflict 
the Iraqi leadership is looking so relaxed and confident. If anyone 
looks drawn and tense  it is Bush and Blair.

And mind you the Iraqis are on their own with no supply lines from 
anywhere. General Aslam Beg's assessment was just 12 years off the 
mark. In the first  Gulf War there was precious little 'strategic 
defiance' on the part of Iraq.

But during the second by God there is. Iraq is now the victim of 
aggression, not the aggressor Defending their hearths and homes is 
giving a steely edge to Iraqi determination.

What a contrast with our behaviour. Or should the curtains remain drawn 
around  this subject? One phone call, just one, from Colin Powell and 
Pakistan, or its  military government, caved in to every last American 
demand. That and a bit  of arm-twisting applied to the then ISI chief, 
the luckless Lt Gen Mahmood, visiting Washington at the time. The 
swiftness of our submission took even Powell by surprise.

True, the Taliban were bad business and it was only sensible to sever 
all ties with them. But the ruling military carried Pakistani 
acquiescence too far. Ostracising  the Taliban was one thing, offering 
the Americans bases to attack Afghanistan quite another. We even 
delivered the Taliban ambassador to Islama-bad, Zaeef,  to the 
Americans. There was no need for this piece of infamy.

And for what? For peanuts. We offered the Americans what they wanted 
not because of what they were giving us but to assuage our own fears. 
Important Pakistanis  had convinced themselves that if Pakistan were 
slow to capitulate, American retribution would be swift and severe.

Look at the Turks. They put up a stiff price for their collaboration 
and even  though the Americans were ready to bribe them it was the 
Turkish parliament  which scuppered a deal thus denying American troops 
access through Turkey. And thus preventing the formation of a northern 
front against the Iraqi army.

Nor is this all. The Turks are giving the Americans another headache by 
sending their troops into northern Iraq with a view to keeping an eye 
on Kurdish ambitions.  The Americans want to use the Kurds against 
Saddam, much as they used the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against 
the Taliban. But the Turks are wary of Iraq's  Kurds assuming too many 
airs fearing that their own Kurds might catch the infection. The lesson 
is plain: Turkey has exceedingly close ties to the U.S. but it is    
not allowing its interests to be compromised.

In this dark hour for the people of Iraq the world of Christendom is 
behaving with infinitely greater honour. Pope John Paul has spoken out 
against this war  and there have been huge anti-war demonstrations in 
the very countries which form part of America's infamous coalition. 
Nothing the Muslim countries can do will deter Bush or Blair. But 
public opinion at home turning anti-war is another matter.

Meanwhile, as the battles rage on, the Brits and Americans are hitting 
the Iraqis with the most destructive and terrible weapons the world has 
known. These "shock  and awe" tactics were meant to break the Iraqis 
but they are having just the opposite effect. Iraqi resistance is 
hardening, not weakening. And Saddam's heroic stature is rising by the 
day.