Killing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts

re annogul

hmmm. i agree with most of your analysis. but, to simply call this attack EGO, well it doesnt do justice to the US`s motives.

the gulf war broke out right after the end of the cold war. there was no other reason to bombard iraq (it was the most concentrated air war in history) than to make a point. the point being that just becuase the threat from `communism` is over, doesnt mean there is no threat at all. and so our `allies` better stay in line and keep paying their homage and dues to the thug/cop of the world. so, if you are japan or europe, you have to continue to behave and give in to US interest -- if you want your oil (from the middle east) to continue flowing in.

anyway, gotta run...

Rishi, Rishi, Rishi...

The whole purpose of my writing in was to put in my two cents in regards to the attack on Iraq being more than just a distraction for the public. And I couldn`t agree with you more that any US policy--whether it happens to help or hurt other interests along the way--is shaped, first and foremost, for self-interest. (And I only wish we Pakistanis could learn a little from that.) In fact, I thought THAT was the whole point I was trying to make. And if US interest happens to hurt the interests/security of others along the way, it`s just too easy for them to ignore it or trample right over it if those being trampled over don`t have a collective voice, a real political presence, if you will. And it`s a whole other debate HOW that political presence can be brought about...

I really have no sympathy for any group which passively bickers and laments over the ``cruel hand of the West (or any other percieved oppressor),`` without taking any real action to further their own interests with any real dedication. In fact, we Pakistanis are very good at that.

So, when I pointed out that it would have been very difficult for the US to have attacked in such a situation if this were a white Christian country, it isn`t because I was implying ``oh, there go the big white guys against the poor victimized Muslims.`` I was merely suggesting that in the exact same circumstances (and I stress EXACT: big bad dictator ruling innocent starving folks, where chances of big bad dictator being affected are next to nil while thousands of the folks are likely to die)I don`t think it would have been possible--and this is because we really don`t have a srong enough political presence. I don`t think I need to explain to you that ``US bombing Christian Bosnia`` or ``US action against Iraq...to save Kuwait`` cannot in these regards be compared to the current mess.

Oh, please, your words send shivers up my back: ``there..now are you equating yourself with Saddam just because you two happen to belong to the same religion?``

I was talking about the PEOPLE of Iraq, Rishi. If you`re saying all this just to push some buttons and get things going, you`ve certainly succeeded!

``No other moslem country is willing to sacrifice itself to help Iraq, atleast to promote the ever elusive moslem brotherhood...Hell, even India opposed it more than most of the Moslem countries did........``

Exactly. Where did I say that the ``ever elusive moslem brotherhood`` is finally solidifying into a tangible shape? I`m saying just the OPPOSITE. We leave too much for others to do for us, and then spend too much time complaining that they didn`t do a good enough job of it.

I suggest you reread my first reply. Gotta understand, bud.

--AS

Re: Annogul

The first two reasons were pretty sound.

The third, how about the US bombing Christian Bosnia to protect Moslems. Even if it was a rather late reaction. But for the US effort, more and more Moslems would have been butchered in the US. The US action against Iraq was initiated to save Kuwait (another Moslem country not Jewish or christian). And have you forgotten the second world war (the countries defeated were christian not moslem).

The US bombs Iraq,not because it is moslem and it does not have a collective voice. It bombs Iraq because Saddam was stupid and it serves the US interests.

you say ``lobby for our causes``. there .. now are you equating yourself with Saddam just because you two happen to belong to the same religion.?

No other moslem country is willing to sacrifice itself to help Iraq, atleast to promote the ever elusive moslem brotherhood.

Even if one of the Moslem countries grows up to be as powerful as China or Russia, it would still not react anywhere beyond the reaction that the Chinese or the Russians or the French did. Hell, even India oppossed it more that most of the Moslem countries did........

yeah, you Gotta do something. you can start by trying to understand a little bit first.

Rishi

This whole scenario has no easy explanation. I think jumping to a ``Wag the Dog`` comparison without exploring the many layers of parallel concerns and motivations is falling prey to gross oversimplification. That may be easier and more ``delicious,`` since it gives us something definite to hate, to identify as the root of all our frustrations, but it certainly reduces everything to a two-dimensional picture, clear and crisp though it may be.

We can`t deny that the timing of this whole thing is too compelling to dismiss as mere coincidence. Yes, the president is in deep doo doo, and Sadam is everybody`s favorite bad guy, so it`s easy for him to be targeted and share some of the attention of the world, and especially of the American public.

But let`s backtrack a bit: Saddam has the US befuddled, to say the least. And in all fairness, this guy is no easy nut to crack. He doesn`t have (or at least, is great at portraying that he doesn`t) any of the attributes that may be used as manipulative leverage--no conscience, no fear, no desire to be ``liked,`` nothing. The Iraqi people are suffering because of it, and the region (in am immediate sense) and the rest of the world (long-term) face serious threats in its shadow.

For the US, getting rid of Saddam is not the answer either. This leaves the country with too many potentially insurgent factions without a controlling force to keep them quiet. Most notable amongst those are 40-45% Shia Arabs, 40-45% Sunni Arabs, and 15-20% Kurds. If Saddam were killed, a chaotic uprising in the area is almost certain. The Shias would gravitate towards Iran, and the Kurds would declare an independent state, threatening the security of countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states (American allies). For Turkey, which is facing troubles with its own Kurd population, the idea of an independent Kurd state is unsettling, to say the least. And nobody wants a stronger Iran, especially not Israel.

So, what is the US to do? For one, they can hope that someone within his own ``trusted`` group will overthrow him (since there isn`t anyone else out there who could, in the face of the debilitating sanctions). In the meantime, however, this guy`s influence has to be contained. The US impose sanctions, etc. etc.

The sad part is that these sanctions and bombings don`t ruffle a hair on Saddam`s head; it`s the people that are suffering, and he sure doesn`t give a damn. And this is the atrocity, in my view, that the US government is committing: they keep doing this (sanctions, bombings) knowing full well that it is the people who suffer the most, while the ``real`` target of their wrath sits pretty in some presidential palace.

What are the US`s motives, then? Well, the first, as I already mentioned, is the containment of Saddam`s influence.

The second is EGO. It`s hard for the US to swallow that it can`t control some two bit general with a tattered army in a broken down country.

The third, and this should be of most interest to us, Muslims, is BECAUSE IT`S EASY TO DO. Can you imagine US bombers going out to bomb some white Christian country in the middle of the night? I don`t think so. We have no collective voice, no organized movement signifiant enough to lobby for our causes. And really, I think we should take some responsibility for that. Nobody hands anything--rights, respect, freedom--to the underdog, be it women or minorities or people of color. I wish the world were a decent enough place for those privileges to have been the default settings, but it just ain`t.

Gotta do something.

Re: bg (14) [That genius would be me. Thanks, and you`re welcome! (Is this a coincidence that you asked this question while responding to one of my replies?)]

What I meant was that you become a scholar with a scholar, and a ghunda with a ghunda. There is no other way of dealing with a ghunda. If the US is the biggest ghunda on the block of world ghundas, then I say Thank Goodness!

For example, Saddam is a threat to Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a disgrace to Islam and Muslims world over.

[I don`t think we`ll get that far with the above debate.]

I am moved by your eloquence re the Iraqi children dying due to US led economic sanctions. I agree with you that it is America`s flawed policy if it is based on a thinking that by starving a country a revolution there against an ignorant and a cruel dictator can be ignited. I do not approve of innocent bystanders paying a price for the idiotic and meaningless political games played by the governing elite. Unfortunately, innocents have always paid the price in any conflict. Just look around: Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Sri Lanka?and on, and on, and on? Iraq has become a scapegoat for the US, I don`t think by design. Saddam invited it.

I stand corrected on the responsibility issue you raised (6). I thought you meant sharing responsibilities for a better world.

Re: Ferozk

Thanks for clarifying the issue of Congressional support and historical precedent. I didn`t know of this detail. It seems that the impeachment process is indeed going forward as you expect it to. I had interpreted your comment to mean that the house was opposed to military action as such (perhaps on moral grounds too) and not just the timing. My mistake.

I have a problem with your reply to ``all`` though.

Your reply implies that the Iraqis are ``unfit`` and are therefore suffering. The right to life is a basic human right. Since the ``allies`` are now engaged in taking away this right of the Iraqi people, we are outraged. Moreover, I do not see in what way the people of Iraq are less fit than the peoples of other regions.

On the issue of Iraqi people not rebelling against a dictator, I believe that they would if given sufficient opportunity. In their present state under sanctions they certainly cannot. I wouldn`t blame them for having a dictator. External support is a very important reason for dictatorships. The president of Iraq is not an exception. The present campaign is not aimed at removing him. This is another reason for my opposition. The ``allies`` are not willing to commit ground forces and remove Saddam Hussain`s regime. They do not want to replace him for the fear that the replacement may turn out to be worse than him(for their interests, that is).

In the absence of anything better, here is my solution. Remove sanctions on Iraq. Wait for the death of Saddam Hussain and a democratic uprising. As temporal points out getting rid of chemical weapons is unrealistic. UNSCOM should be happy with what they have achieved so far. Someday, as Nikolai Chouchescu(I don`t remember the exact spelling) ended communist dictatorships, Saddam Hussain or someone else will precipitate the end of all dictatorships. That day may be closer than we think. The west is delaying this for the sake of Clinton, Oil companies and as an excuse to maintain forces in the mid-east. Yet another reason for my opposition.

Re: Ferozk (Reply #18)

I`m sorry you feel that way Ferozk. As much as I deplore Clinton for repeating this ``Wag the Dog`` all over again, I despise the Republicans for everything they stand for. They are the biggest champions of this ``cold, calculated`` mentality that seeks to maximize self-interest while stepping on everyone else`s heads (not feet.)

This realist mentality is responsible for much of what is wrong with this world today. You say survival of the fittest, then don`t cry and play the blame game when they blow up the World Trade Center. It is the ``cold, calculated`` action of a weaker opponent who doesn`t own cruise missiles and who`s just trying to protect his own self-interest. Whoever is successful in doing the most damage wins. Right? There`s no right or wrong way to win in the fight for survival in a jungle. You play by your rules, they play by their own rules. Why make all the fuss about terrorism and fundamentalism and all that crap? Do you see now why your logic doesn`t work?

You blame the Iraqis for not standing up for themselves. Where the hell have you been for the last eight years sir? A God damned dictator does not need the support of the whole country to maintain his rule, you know that. The standard practices of spreading terror and spies while keeping tight control over flow of information is what they all do to keep people under control. Add to that the enormous wealth inflow from the sale of oil and the blesssings of a world power and what you have is a typical Middle Eastern dictatorship that just can`t be overthrown without outside help.

Now, for your information, Bush asked the Iraqis to rise against Saddam. They saw a chance to end the nightmare and they acted upon it. For a brief period, they actually liberated the Northern and Southern Iraq from Saddam`s grip. All they needed was a little more time to consolidate their hold.

But General Schwarzkopf, of his own admission on a PBS documentary, said he was asked by the Iraqis if they could fly helicopters in the region. Frightened by the specter of a democratic and possibly fractured Iraq, royal dictators of the region, and the ``cold, calculated`` political advisors of the Republican president, advised him to let the Iraqis crush the rebellion. A weaker Saddam, who could double as a whipping boy, was much better than a strong democratic Iraq. Shwarzkopf said he saw no reason why the Iraqis couldn`t fly the helicopters. That`s all Saddam needed. The rebellion was crushed soon. The helicopters turned out to be the decisive factor.

A few years later, it was deja vu all over again. Kurds and the opposition forces combined their resources with the help of two CIA operatives and the $120 million they were given to overthrow Saddam. But just the night before their first strike, the CIA operatives were called back, opposition forces were told to stand down and the operation was abandoned. The opposition commanders went ahead with their attack but, lacking the intelligence feed from the CIA, they were quickly routed back by the Republican guards. After that, the Turks never let that happen again by applying pressure on the US not to help the Kurds and by sending in armies in Iraq to crush the Kurds themselves.

Don`t sell yourself short Feroz, you`re an educated person, don`t trivialize the suffering of Iraqis or anyone else by blaming them for their own suffering. It doesn`t suit you.

Rehan.

Re: Ask

Congress, as you noted, is upset at Clinton for getting away, but it is also angry at Clinton for keeping it out of the info loop. Congress should not buy the argument that the debate on impeachment should not go ahead, because of the military action in Iraq, as most Democrats are claiming. There is a historical precedent which says that it can; Vietnam. Nixon impeachment procedings, pushed by the Democrats, occured in 1974, during the Vietnam war. That war was a much bigger issue than Iraq.

Re: All

I agree with your anguish over the loss of innocent lives in Iraq, and as RR stated ``the shattering of Iraqi parents dreams..``

Please understand this, without emotionally reacting to it, foreign policy military decisions have nothing to do with human sufferings. They are made with cold, calculated self interested motives.

Do you people really think that Nawaz Sharif cares about the suffering of the Kashmiris when he tells ISI to fund the insurgents, knowing fully well that it will only increase Indian troop presense in the region ? Does Arafat really care about Hamas boming Israeli buses knowing that the Israelis will withdraw from the talks and the people of Palestine will suffer as a result ?

No, because to them the political benefits of the action far outweighs the costs which they are inflicting on the people, who have always paid the cost of their political ambition with their lives. Clinton is no different. The stakes are too high in this issue; a president determined to safe his presidency and like a wounded tiger cornered, he is extermely dangerous. This military action has nothing to with deterring Iraq, it has everything to do with keeping impeachment out of the media spot light.

I agree with Godot. The west should not be blamed for every problem confronting the Muslim world, but our leaders should be. There is a certain hypocrisy in crying foul over the treatment of the Iraqis and blaming the west, then also hoping that the west will help them. The misfortune of the Muslims and their hardships, can to a certain extent be blamed on the colonial powers, but not all of them.

Why are the Iraqis so keen to suffer Saddam Hussein; why don`t they rise up against him and throw him out...what do they really have to lose? I am willing to cry for Iraq, but I would like to know what are they prepared to do to end their own misery. I hold the Iraqi people accountable for their own state of misery and if they choose to be victims of Saddam Hussein`s terror and to suffer for him, then it is their choice and they are welcome to it, but please do not ask me to cry for them.

The world is not a boys scout camp where we all hold hands and sing happy songs around the camp fire. It is a Darwinain jungle where only the fittest and the strongest survive and the rest are just at the bottom of the food chain, waiting to be devoured.

We know what these missiles are called: Monica missiles. All he has to do is to bomb Iraq for 2 more weeks , then the new congress is sworn in. End of troubles!

Re: bg(14)

Thank you.

Clinton`s comments about wanting to do this before Ramandan sounded ominously familiar. Reminded me of Imam Hussein and the Battle of Karbala, when his opponent declared that he had to kill Imam Hussein before he goes for Magrib Prayers.

re: godot (reply #9) [by the way, which genius came up with this number reference -- thanks!]

``I do, however, believe that a scholar should be dealt as a scholar, and a ghunda like a ghunda.``

i dont get it. then what is the difference between the ghunda and s/he who acts like a ghunda in response? i mean, is that how optimistic you are about any other means of dealing with someone except bombing them at the slightest pretext?

``If Saddam`s ghunda-gardi was limited to Iraq and to his people, it`s fine. Saddam should then be a problem only for the Iraqis, and the US should not try to get rid of him through a war, in which innocent civilians die. But Saddam is a threat to others, outside Iraq, who are not ghundas like him.``

for example? may i remind you, that the biggest ghunda on the block is the US govt., who has committed more acts of aggression against sovereign nations than ANY other country since world war 2!!

``It is unfortunate that innocent Iraqis have to pay a price for it. Poor Iraqis are screwed either way.``

it is unfortunate indeed. the problem is not that iraqis are screwed either ways, the problem is that the US imposed sanctions and bombing only kill more of them and make them weaker, so that they cant even put up a decent fight against saddam hussein. the economic sanctions against iraq are the strictest, most punitive against any nation in modern history. according to the most conservative estimate (reported recently in the washington post) about 260,000 children 5 years old and younger have died due to the sanctions. i refuse to believe there is no other option except to starve the country to death to get rid of saddam. what kind of logic is that. estimates of total deaths of civilians due to sanctions range between half to one million !! imagine that one million people in an economic war. while the world, all but silently stands by the US wags its dirty finger at saddam hussein.

``Yes, I do believe in shared responsibility. But responsibility, just as relationships, is a two-way street.``Shared`` is the operating word.``

okay, so what and by whom is being shared here?

best,
bg

The sooner both Clinton and Saddam are gone the better.

JR

Re:mubbashir,temporal

You are absolutely right. This is target practice for US missile systems. The improvements made on them in the past seven years are being tested out. And of course, the US wouldn`t like to see oil prices going down further.

re: Ferozk

``THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SINCE VIETNAM THAT A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS IS NOT SUPPORTING, AND THE A MAJORITY OF THE SENATE IS QUESTIONING,THE PRESIDENT IN A FOREIGN POLICY DECISION.``

I agree with most of your comments. But remember, the congress is not opposed to this attack. They are just upset that Clinton is trying to get away.

Please do not worry about future historians. Similar things have been going on for a long time and present day historians have done a nice job of putting a spin on them or covering them up altogether.

re: Random

Right on. I am sure you will like these two quotes from Noam Chomsky (made in an interview with Frontline`s V.K. Ramachandran in March,1991).

``Britain tails along like a loyal puppy dog on this topic``

``Britain hopes to kind of recover its feelings of imperial glory by trailing along after the big guys across the ocean.``

Ashish

This is a real mess.

A true political crisis of international proportions. First you have a President who is willing to do ANYTHING to save his skin and who, it could be argued (not very well), is being pushed to the wall, pursued by an irresponsible Congress bent on a program (impeachment) which their electors have rejected and don`t want to be part of. So you have a President who is willing to do anything but also a Congress willing to do anything to bring him down. Let`s not be swayed by either the President`s `stern talk` or the Congress` crocodile tears for innocent Iraqis or their `high moral` ground talk about serious impeachable crimes.

Then you have Tony (Tory) Blair humilatingly lapping at Bill`s feet. The less said the better.

And of course you have right in the middle, Saddam Hussein and the Ba`ath party, unquestionably one of the most bloody and evil products of human political endeavour. No one is right, but the innocent will get bombed none the less.

Happy Ramadan folks.

re godot

``This is inflammatory in the name of religion. You guys put the illiterate mullahs and the demagogues to shame.``

i suppose the US/UK bombing of iraq is good ole pacifying, peace-making. this bombing itself wouldnt infalme anyone? no, only calling a spade a spade would.


``The reason that the Iraqi people, and the rest of the Muslim world, are miserable is that they
are ruled by scum bags.``

ok, so bomb the country and starve its civilians to death and let them die because of the lack of medicines. THAT will get rid of the scum bags!

``It is not the Satanic West led by the US that is responsible for their miseries.``

okay, would you believe shared responsibility?

``You`ve got to put your house in order, boys.``

nice touch, that, ``boys``!

Umair:

I would not be surprised to learn later that Saddam Hussain is a CIA operative--a la Sadat,

Mubarak and a host of other tin pot scum bags.

I mean look at the ``coincidences``-----Bush let Saddam`s Revolutionary Guards ESCAPE from Kuwait

before butchering the conscripted peasants---

everytime Badboy Billy is in trouble Saddam bails him out--- or so it seems.

Iraq`s Nuclear potential has long ago been eliminated---all are agreed on it. Chemical and germ warfare---what hogwash----one can prepare at will from one`s kitchen supplies what the mighty Security Council terms chemical weapons.

The sanctions are a facade aimed to please American friends in the region---Saudi Americans, I mean bedouins, Israel and the mini villages

of the Gulf-----and as an added bonus it serves

American foreign policy objectives as well.

Clinton will continue to lob these missiles if he can get away with it. He is cool, calculating and shrewd. Remember, this ``warfare``

involves no body bags. Also worth remembering-- American Fighting Machinery is not in trim fightin shape and has not seen any real action since Vietnam.

Somehow in all these deliberations, the average

Iraqi--as indeed the average Muslim--- tends to get overlooked.

cynically,