<%-- Page Title--%> Chintito <%-- End Page Title--%>

<%-- Volume Number --%> Vol 1 Num 135 <%-- End Volume Number --%>

December 26, 2003

<%-- Navigation Bar--%>
<%-- Navigation Bar--%>
<%-- 5% Text Table--%>

Killing Deserts


The biggest mistake the American administration can make at this time is to assume that the publicised public celebrations in Iraq following the arrest of former president Saddam Hussein, under the effect of drug according to daughter Raghad, tantamount to support for the US-led coalition forces. Financially the most powerful nation in the world could be further from the truth than from the elusive WMD.

After months of acknowledgment by the Western press that videotapes premiered by Al Jazeera television carried the 'actual' voice of Saddam bucking up the resistant Iraqis, the same confused media discovers a bombshell of a scoop from the bottom of a six feet deep mud hole; the dishevelled, bearded and tired man hardly giving the impression of a leader liable of masterminding what appears to be the early days of a far-reaching guerrilla warfare.

While Vietnam was hot, sweaty and fertile, Iraq promises to be hot, dry and barren. One need not be an authority on military science to translate that to mean that the Iraqi people shall rise united to compel the US forces to leave their blessed land long before the US government is ready to plot a handover of power to the 'representatives' of the Iraqi people. Auspiciously, the Iraqis being interviewed on Western TV are boldly saying in as many words, 'The Americans must leave Iraq', even after Saddam agreed to a swab test. Ominously, the killings continue even after they gave him a clean shave.

'Nyara goes under the aegle marmelos tree only once' is a maxim that has been proven incorrect by many foolish and foolhardy Bangalee. That's bel tala for us. Now Bush seems to be hell bent to demonstrate the longstanding bondage between the two peoples by ignoring every lesson that the Vietnamese taught them on the likes of the killing fields.

Not far from the increasing hostilities on the banks of Tigris and Euphrates, on Saturday evening the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made news by announcing that he was willing to give up WMD and limit warheads and open his country to international inspection which would mean that the US would lift sanction because there is oil there and US companies are interested and there is pressure on Bush and blah blah blah. In less than twenty-four hours the straw was out of the bag with the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw hailing the momentous decision of the Libyan leader. But did not Saddam do all that Gaddafi is pledging to do? Are not the political standings of both the long-serving leaders the same in their respective countries? Are they not revered as heroes by their people? But to the West only one of them is now a 'dictator'.

The US psyche works on the system that omuk 'dictator', even he be elected, is not popular among all his people, that tomuk leader of that poor country has such and such flaws and therefore must be thrown out. But is Bush popular with 100 percent of his people, or even 75? Or now even 50? It did take the American election process days before they could decide (?) between Bush and Al Gore. And the less we talk about Blair the better. He has humiliated all that the people-oriented Labour Party and its celebrated stood for centuries.

The US-UK alliance went on to insist that Saddam was indeed hiding WMD somewhere. Therefore attack Iraq and kill its innocent civilians, including women and children, destroy hospitals and schools, raze centuries old habitations, because the weapons are hidden somewhere.

Blair's 45-minute threat-from-Saddam theory has long been proven in Britain as a blatant lie. Saddam was never that powerful and it appears now was seemingly riding on a bluff. The coalition happily fell for it. They almost designed it. Ultimately they found Bush's 'dangerous' man hiding in a hole, unkempt and impoverished, too weak to even fire a single shot.

It all boils down to oil. Gaddafi it seems is willing to strike a deal and Saddam was not. It should be interesting to see what the 270 families of the Lockerbie plane disaster in 1988 have to say about the jet-paced developments now taking place to bring Libya back to normalcy.

Speaking for the Iraqi common man, woman and the children, would it not have been more sensible and humane to try and convince Saddam politically as a trading partner rather than let loose an army that as it appears now will find the deserts reminiscent of the killing fields of Southeast Asia?

Closer to home, our government deserves much appreciation for its judiciousness in deciding not to send our forces to Iraq without the much-sought-for UN umbrella. The common Iraqi people will pray for you for not siding with the oil pirates.


(C) Copyright The Daily Star. The Daily Star Internet Edition, is published by The Daily Star