Reading the columns of The Washington Post and Time magazine's neoconservative Charles "I cover for Bush" Krauthammer, Newsweek's Mumbai-bred Fareed "I am more American than the Americans" Zakaria and The New York Times' Tom "I have all the answers" Friedman, one gets the impression that the history between America and Iraq goes back only to last March. They believe that all President Bush needs to do to win in Iraq is to ignore the world that was not really sympathetic towards the US even after 9/11, pacify the Sunni triangle and win the battle of ideas against militant Islam. In his latest Time piece Krauthammer makes the outrageous claim that Bush should not attend funerals of American soldiers because the insurgents will "be encouraged to think their strategy is succeeding and therefore have yet more incentive to keep killing Americans." Wasn't the whole idea behind the invasion not to let the terrorists dictate American behaviour? Of course, none of these "experts" had bothered to consult the Iraqi people. If they had, the Iraqis would have recited a litany of complaints: "You encouraged Saddam to attack your enemy Iran in 1980, and the decade-long war cost us billions. Your Jewish Ambassador Gillespie told Saddam that the US would not take sides in a dispute between two Arab states (Iraq and Kuwait), which Saddam took to be a green light to attack Kuwait in 1990. After your victory in Gulf War I in 1991, you encouraged the Shias and the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and then abandoned them to Saddam's brutal retaliation. Saddam did not bomb us; you bombed us for 13-years. You took the lead in enacting crippling UN-sanctions against Iraq that killed millions of Iraqi men, women and children and turned prosperous Iraq into pauper Iraq. You invaded Iraq; we did not invite you. You want to bomb us into democracy; we don't like being bombed. Your soldiers barge into our homes, take our men away, and destroy our buildings like Israel does to the Palestinians. You are here to help Israel and steal our oil, and then you want us to call you "liberators?"

In Iraq America is up against Iraqi nationalism. Even if America paves all the roads in Iraq with gold, attacks against American interests and personnel will continue, because the Iraqis do not want them in their country. Nationalism is a powerful disease that infects the whole nation, which then stands up as one. Paraphrasing a comment that heavyweight boxing legend Muhammad Ali had made in a completely different context about his opponent Ken Norton, before the world's super power America took on Vietnam in the 1960s, Vietnam was a nobody. Nationalism made Vietnam such a somebody that it defeated the superpower America. After America left, Vietnam is again a nobody! Remember how we Bangladeshis rose up as one to fight the Pakistanis in 1971? And in spite of the might of each of the three nations, Sri Lanka has not been able to defeat the Tamils, India the Kashmiris and Russia the Chechens. And over the last fifty-five years, six million Jews of Israel, armed to the teeth with American weaponry have not been able to defeat the unarmed 3.5 million Palestinians. Only the hopelessly optimistic, therefore, would think that 130,000 American troops would be able to subdue 25 million Iraqis forever.

The Jewish neoconservatives had bet, correctly, that even if the US invaded Iraq unilaterally bypassing the UN, once they were there the nation and politicians of every stripe would have to rally around the troops and by extension the cause. Every politician, including New York Senator Hillary Clinton who visited the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq over the Thanksgiving holidays, is now saying that America must not leave Iraq without defeating the terrorists first. Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich provides the flip side of this argument: "If the invasion was wrong in the first place, why should it be wrong to withdraw now?" The bottom line is, whatever happens in Iraq will have little consequence on the war on terror. Whether the US defeats the "dead-enders," "thugs," "assassins," and "terrorists" in Iraq or are defeated by them will have absolutely no impact on the terrorism of Al Qaeda (70% of Americans agree). What will have an enormous impact is America's stance in the Middle East. According to former President Carter, Mr. Bush's current Middle East stance is "an ostentatious alliance between the White House and the Sharon government, I think to the detriment of our national image and to the detriment of an eventual peace agreement." Unless the Bush administration redresses the root cause of Islamic terrorism -- America's 100% support for Israeli terrorism -- according to Noam Chomsky, America is condemned to fighting a perpetual war on terror.

The feeling in the Islamic world is that the United Nations Security Council exists for three Ps to Promote western interests, to Protect Israel and to Punish Muslims! Whenever a single nation casts a single veto in the Security Council, it knows that legally and morally it is wrong. The veto is cast because the vetoing nation could not persuade any other nation to agree with it. Whenever the same resolution is presented in the toothless General Assembly, the vote is usually 136-4, with only US, Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands voting against the resolution. Over the last 55 years, Muslim anger has been building up at the US's automatic veto to spare Israel of the consequences of its criminally outrageous abuses of the lives, property and dignity of the Palestinians. Al Qaeda terrorists feast on such anger. The unfortunate fact is, as long as America's injustice towards the Palestinians continues, so will Al Qaeda. President Bush's 100% tilt towards Sharon's Israel will only exacerbate American's security problems. Al Qaeda has equated the UN with the US. That is why last August they bombed the UN compound in Baghdad.

The challenge for any American President is formidable. Jews are single-issue voters. When the interests of Israel are at stake, party label matters little. Sensing Senior Bush's coolness towards Israel in 1992, life-long Republicans such as The New York Times' William Safire and A. M. Rosenthal campaigned vigourously against the sitting Republican President! Presidents Carter and Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu and every other living Nobel Peace Prize winners, except two, opposed the war against Iraq.

Nobel Peace laureates from Ireland were arrested for demonstrating against the war in front of the White House. Yet, the only two peace laureates who supported the preemptive war (isn't it ironic that peace winners were supporting war?) were the two Israelis: Shimon Peres and Elie Wiesel. The most hawkish advocate of war among the Democratic presidential candidates is the Jewish Senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman. When a Virginian Congressman Moran stated the obvious, that the Jews were leading America into war against Iraq, Jewish legislators, such as New York's Charles Schumer and the Zionist-controlled press jumped all over him and made him regret and repent. The Jewish Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, has just introduced a bill to punish Saudi Arabia. The bill is co-sponsored by none other than Schumer! If one were to question why Jewish legislators were abusing their powers to help Israel by punishing Israel's enemies and harming America's long-term interests, you would be crucified! It is as though the Zionists are afraid to be judged by what they do. Because the European Christians exterminated the European Jews in the holocaust, the Jews hide behind the faç

ade of collective victim hood ("anti-Semitism"), even as, in a role reversal, they inflict similar atrocities on the Palestinians. Opinions such as the writer's is promptly denounced as anti-Semitism by the Zionists even though the best friend of the writer's youngest son is a wonderful Jewish kid who comes and stays in our house, and even though we think the world of his parents!

America is unquestionably the world's military leader. The problem for Mr. Bush and America is that to be the world's moral leader it has to be just and fair. One cannot claim moral leadership by asking everyone to ignore a major sin, such as, adultery. Israel is America's adultery!