Recent Accounts of US Perfidy in Iraq

Footnote:

This review was published in Dawn`s `Book & Authors` section on May 9th, 2004.

Here is how I-Slammism works.

I-Slammers ``do not claim to be the champions of freedom and humanity.``

Yet I-Slammers don`t accept the obvious fact that they follow an inferior `religion,` if I-Slammism can be called a religion at all.


Since I-Slammers ``do not claim to be the champions of freedom and humanity`` they go around pouring shit on everyone else. After all no one can be a perfect ``champion of freedom and humanity.``

They have a good thing going, these I-Slammers.

There is no sense of moral hypocrisy, of course, I-Slam being antithetical to any notion of morality.

Slam, Slam, Slam....that`s the morality of I-Slam.

fuzair,

[The point that I was making is that if you look at the work of Zeynab Ali and her fellow travellers, it is unremittingly critical of the US, usually from a human rights/morality perspective.]

This is disingenuous. Any criticism of American policy must be along these lines as this is precisely the spin the Americans themselves put on it. It`s fine and dandy to bring up the barbarity of the Arab militias in sudan (which needs more attention, imho), but these militias do not claim to be the champions of freedom and humanity itself. This is a critical point.

Zeynab Ali

Keep writing the truth and don`t get discouraged by the frustrated comments of slave minded aiders and abeters of liars, theives, and genocidal maniacs. They are just pissed that their masters have to put up with an act that they are humiliated. Rest assured that they are only acting like they are humiliated because they got caught. And these slaves are only encouraging their masters that it wasn`t that big a deal and what these self-proclaimed torch-bearers do to the humanity living in this part of the world, is just business as usual.

Wajahat # 9 . . . thank you for your response.

My point is simple - Khartoum, actually all of Sudan, has a deep enough Islamic heritage, so does Iraq, and so for that matter does India.

But where is the sense of proportion when the media aproaches the issue of the Sudan? And who, then, will try to correct this?

Ofcourse we do not cease talking about atrocities in Iraq, or Gujarat. But neither do we go into denial on Bangaldesh, Sudan, sectarian violence, women`s rights, Ahmeddiyas, Hudood, Saudi Arabian outrages against Muslims, the works . . .

So for a moment assume that a Pakistani is asking Zeynab Ali, a representative here of the Pakistani media, since he places Dawn, Nation and The News in his byeline . . .````What adjectives would you use towards describing the war on natives in Sudan (Darfur) by Arab Militia?````

# 3 # 4

Veeresh, The reason the likes of Z Ali and others are highlighting or writing about this, is because this issue has recieved the publicity that Sudan hasnt, You are right about the massacre in Sudan which although the Arab Militia plays a role in, is also done by the govts approval to destroy the support for the anti govt rebel groups gaining ground in the rural areas. I can understand the biases that you may have, yes we Muslims are pretty bad as well, like any other generalised race, yes we have our evils and yes we can be reluctant to talk about it, but does that mean that we just stupify our feelings about the attrocities in Iraq... Based on those assertions the likes of you and anyone from India should remain quite forever on anything to do with these issues as you should be complicit in the gujarat massacre. I mean your argument is just baseless...

Fuzair

Cowards and hypocrites are those who cant really give a reason or understand and are mostly putting others down. That makes you a prime candidate.

To my critics:

The point that I was making is that if you look at the work of Zeynab Ali and her fellow travellers, it is unremittingly critical of the US, usually from a human rights/morality perspective. Fair enough... except that if we are to expend outrage, it would be better to expend such outrage fairly evenhandedly and include our ``own`` people in that expression of outrage and disgust. Whether it is the Sudan or Syria or Pakistan, most Muslim governments get an automatic pass from these critics of the US (and Israel): everything is usually a gigantic conspiracy for them. That lays them open to a charge of hypocrisy at best and dysfunctional paranoia at worst.

BTW, if you look back at my posts (assuming you are so inclined) you will see that I was not a supporter of the Iraq war and certainly not a supporter of Israel. I am simply saying that there are more deserving targets of our righteous indignation.

fuzair, #4:

In what way, shape, or form is Z. Ali displaying hypocrisy? Please enlighten us...

Zeynab,
thanks for sharing this with us...... a very well-rounded and informative write-up. I would certainly pick up the other books you mentioned, which haven`t really been publicized so much, after reading this.


#3 and #4
I don`t really get it .....what exactly is so disgusting and hypocritical about a brief review of a few recently published books. #4 you seem to be venting some misplaced religious antagonism here with your distasteful interjections about about the `ummah` , which seem a little out of place on this board.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Veeresh:

I doubt you and I would find much to agree on besides this: people such as Zeynab Ali are indeed disgusting hypocrites.

Cheers.

Dear Zeynab,


You start with ````As tragedy unravels in Iraq, the perfidious claims made by the Bush administration and its apologists of fighting a ‘just war’ are coming undone. ````

What adjectives would you use towards describing the war on natives in Sudan (Darfur) by Arab Militia?

Just curious. And disgusted at the hypocrisy displayed by people who will whine spectacular about Iraq, when conditions ``at home`` are much worse.

But then, that`s protecting the ``Ummah``. And can the ``Ummah``, race, colour or religion irrelevant, ever be ``perfidious``?

I happened to have watched President’s press conference and at no point did the President “indicate that the Mission has been sanctioned by the divine”. President did show his passions about the reasons for the war and showed his strong support for the principals of the war. I guess, one can put their own spin on his passion for and commitment to war as any statement by a politician is a fair game for political analyst and talking heads. Now, how a war is just or unjust depends on which side of the war you are.

There are some legit reasons for the Iraq war. The execution and the timing of the war can be questioned. The nefarious actions at Abu Graib can be condemned but the war itself was part of the stated US policy.

“Speaking before the National Endowment for Democracy last fall, President George W. Bush delivered an important statement of American purpose. He rightly argued that the United States has an interest in political freedom in Muslim countries, because the absence of freedom denies people peaceful avenues for expressing dissent and thus drives them toward shadowy, violent alternatives. He fairly criticized past administrations for having been too tolerant of authoritarian Arab regimes. And he committed the United States to the difficult but vital task of supporting more open and democratic societies in the Middle East.” -Foreign Affairs, Published by Council on Foreign Relations.

Which of the above stated goals of the US policy are Unjust? None at all!

The Muslims govts are afraid of the US goals and point out that the terrorist in Muslim countries are a product of, and drive their legitimacy from the Israel-Paleastine conflict.

This arguement, though whole heartedly bought by the Muslims intellectuals and middle class does not hold much water as most of the Muslims terrorists are actually asking for political freedom in their own countries. Case in point: OBL is more interested in political rights in Saudi Arabia than in Palestine. Other terrorist such as the ones in Pakistan are fighting for causes like Kashmir- close to their own environments and not in Palestine. Similar are the views of Algerian muslim terrorists.

The Bush admin did show arrogance and ineptness in pursuing those goals.

“But the manner in which the Bush administration has advanced these goals has been driven by a radical set of convictions about how the United States should act on the world stage. Key strategists inside the administration appear to believe that in a chaotic world, U.S. power -- particularly military power -- is the only real force for advancing U.S. interests, that as long as the United States is feared it does not matter much if we are admired. These same people believe it is best to recruit temporary ``coalitions of the willing`` to back our foreign actions, because permanent alliances require too many compromises.” - Samuel R. Berger. Former NSA, President Clinton.

Philip Bobbit, Director of Intelligence on the National Security Council under Clinton stated long before Bush came to power:
‘The US would intervene when the threat to our vital strategic interests was overwhelming and imminent; or when significant strategic interests and humanitarian concerns coincided; or, when a vital strategic interest was absent, humanitarian concerns were high and strategic risks were low’.
-‘What’s in it for US?’, Guardian, 7 June 2003.

Both the Clinton admin and the Bush admin held the same view that to protect either the US strategic interest or the humanitarian concern, the US would intervene.

Philip Bobbit in his book The Shield of Achilles makes clear that the major ideological innovations powering them are the creation of the Clinton, not of the Bush Presidency.
He(Phillip) advocated “the proclamation of the legitimacy of military intervention—regardless of national sovereignty or absence of aggression—to defend human rights, to stamp out terrorism, or to block nuclear proliferation”.
Following that Clinton launched a full-scale war on Yugoslavia; bombed Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan; and came close to a pre-emptive attack on North Korea in 1994.

It is clear that Iraq has been on the US mind since 1990 and especially after it attacked Kuwait in 1991.

The house of Saud in KSA, was fearful of Iraq since 1991 and the US has pretty much maintained the War like conditions during the whole 90s. In conditions like that the War on Iraq was already planned and President Bush asking Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on Nov. 21, 2001, to start a war plan for Iraq has no significant other than providing legitimacy to Bob Woodward, whose book is actually favorable to the Bush Admin and was written in haste to counter Richard Clarke’s book that was planned to be out in April and the WH was fully aware of the contents of Dick Clarke’s book.

Dick Clarke in his book never opposed the Iraq war. He was actually in favor of attacking Iraq his issue was with the timing of the war.

Clarke wanted to take care of Al-Qaeeda and OBL first before moving on to other targets.
But Dick represented only one side of the argument. Here is a news report about Abu Musab Zarqawi and why he was not arrested or killed in Iraq. Switch the name from Zarqawi to Bin Laden and Iraq to Afghanistan and see why the US admin was and still is reluctant to arrest OBL.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

“In June 2002...the Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp [but]....the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council....The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it....The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.”

If Osama is arrested, the US cannot sell any other war to its public. Once Osama is in jail the 911 chapter in the eyes of the Americans, closes for good and any US admin would have hard time convincing Americans of any future action against terrorists.

nice piece ms ali..
i am a freelance journalist based in new delhi, india and have written in the past for the indian expres and the times of india...and other net based publications...
i normally cover international affairs with a special perspective on pakistan...specially coz i have my roots there...
would you be interested in co-authoring articles on issues of mutual concern...
i can send you some of my previous work if u like... have also written for this site...
get across to me if yo wish
amanmalik000@hotmail.com

aman malik
india