[thechat] must-read editorial
Erik Mattheis
gozz at gozz.com
Fri Mar 28 20:31:14 CST 2003
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.
More information about the thechat
mailing list