Posted on 04/11/2003 6:40:53 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The Arab region is about to awaken, one more time, from a nightmare that caught it by surprise from the deep sleep it was in, shunning reality and the measures needed to adjust this reality. This awaking might be just a yawning before going back to sleep, once again moving away from a circle of vitality and energy. Thus, the Arab region would return to its vicious circle of equivocation, corruption, weakness, complaint and frustration. But if this awaking is real, then people and leaders will achieve a qualitative leap at the level of ideologies and emotions. The Arabs have a transitional period before they make a choice, and this time needs to be used in an intelligent way, by fixing a practical limit between the starting point and the goal. In fact, these times do not allow for any reckless confrontation with the U.S., as the latter is ready to repress and subdue with an extremist, nationalistic, arrogant and vengeful attitude.
But at the same time, the Arab region cannot contend with submission, imploring and isolation for fear of the furious American giant. Choices are available; Iran for instance, represents an example of which attitude to adopt during this transitional stage. What is needed at this point is to awaken an unusual Arab thinking.
It is clear that most Arabs were surprised by the evolution of the U.S.-UK war, which ended with the end, disappearance, fall or escape of Saddam Hussein's regime. This surprise stemmed more from the American troops' entering Baghdad without the resistance vowed by the Iraqi regime, than from the military victory of the troops of the greatest country in the world.
Most Arabs did not mourn the fall of a regime that was tyrannical and despotic. But it does not welcome either an American occupation of Iraq, even if this will be for a short period, before establishing a democratic Iraq. This is due to the lack of trust in the American administration's objectives in this war, and in an army that claims that Iraq's invasion is only the first step.
Iraqis have the right to rejoice after the fall of a regime that destroyed them. Iraqis cannot be blamed for being happy about the regime's fall, even though many Arabs were shocked at the way they greeted the American troops and held posters thanking George Bush. Iraqis have the right to vent their frustration after they long suffered local colonialism and occupation, and the terrible despotism of the most oppressive Arab regime.
After enjoying the regime's fall, the Iraqi people should carefully plan their moves to reclaim Iraq, so as not to let the American occupation last a long period of time, and avoid turning the 'liberation' into the fragmentation of Iraq, with a generals' regime replacing that of the dictator, and the invaders of Iraq and their companies exploiting the country's natural resources instead of the Iraqi people.
If Arab people, especially the elite, want to take the opportunity of the Iraqi regime's fall to accomplish a qualitative leap, they will have to read carefully the way Washington takes decisions and familiarize themselves with those individuals who control the power, make the decisions and state the goals. They should work in an organized manner in order to influence these people, or else they will once again fall as victims.
The Bush administration will not be tolerant, generous, forgiving or altruistic just because Bush is a kind or pious man. The administration is driven by feelings of revenge, humiliation and hatred. Its members believe that this is the only language the Arabs understand. Their terrifying arrogance has no limits, and what they consider to be a victory in Iraq will enable them to impose their vision and agenda upon the entire region and world; an agenda that is not at all characterized by partnership or taking into account other countries' views. Their language is one of interests, might, imposition and superiority.
George W. Bush is not very different from the rest of his administration. He seems to have fallen for them, and for their dangerous opinions and theories. He flirts dangerously with radicalism, whether within the Pentagon, at the Bureau of Strategic Thinking and through the Defense Policy Board, which advises Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfovitz, and Douglas Faith. Moreover, Bush recently appointed Daniel Pipes to the U.S. Peace Institute, which is a federal institution established by the Congress to reinforce peaceful solutions to international conflicts.
If Bush is not familiar with Pipes' writings about Iraq and Islam, then we could consider him to be a real ignorant, totally unaware of what he is getting involved in, namely with the neo-conservatives. But he is supposed to be bold enough to correct his mistakes, and thus, he should withdraw Pipes' nomination and apologize for it, as well as punish those who involved him in this by immediately firing them.
But if Bush does know what Pipes stands for, then the message will be clear to all Arabs and Muslims, in the U.S. and anywhere in the world: George W. Bush hates every Muslim and Arab and truly seeks a conflict between religions and cultures.
Daniel Pipes is one of the most violent and radical hatred-inciting academics. He launched the intimidation campaign that targeted university professors who dared criticize Israel. He is obsessed with Israel and his true hatred is directed at Muslims and Arabs. It is a disgrace to see the American President, on behalf of his administration, appoint him to a position supposedly conceived to foster understanding and peace. He is a racist man, and it is a shame that he should represent the U.S.
Daniel Pipes is no worse than Richard Perle, who significantly contributed in planning Iraq's invasion and occupation, to serve Israel first, and to adapt the notion of preemptive strike, which could be considered as a gift that landed in the lap of Richard Perle and Daniel Pipes. If both Perle and Pipes remain outside the American policy-making circle and outside the American President's decisions, only then would it be possible to say that people are entitled to their own opinion. Besides, dialogue is very healthy for the U.S., but there is another active group, besides the Defense Policy Board, the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, which makes policies and gives opinions that could be false, but just for the sake of altering events to have a strong impact on U.S. policy in the media, inside the administration and at the level of the public opinion. Furthermore, there also exists a communications agency for the radicals in American television, directed by the former assistant of Daniel Pipes, who is excellent in media communications.
Once again, these institutions have the right to market whatever they believe in or whatever they think is in the interest of the U.S. or Israel. The danger is when President Bush adopts their logic and allows them to participate in the U.S. decision-making without any accountability. The lesson Arab must learn is very expensive; if they don't understand this properly, they will remain outside the sphere of influence.
The people George Bush chose for his administration such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have also men and companies that are important to them. They want them to take advantage of post-Saddam Iraq. They represent the highest authorities, such as appointing Jay Garner, the retired general as a Wali (Governor) in Iraq, and nominating the former CIA director James Woolsey as 'director' of the occupied Iraq.
Garner is very close to the radical group in the Pentagon, that first looks to the Middle East region from Israel's perspective. Woolsey wants the U.S. to carry out World War IV, as he says, for several years, in order to redraw the Middle East map. He has a list of enemies among which is Syria and the Sunnites in general, for they are considered as responsible for having created Al Qaeda. As all other radical members of the group, he wants to focus on the Sunnites-Shiites subject as one of the means to redraw the map towards further divisions.
One of the most important inspirers of this ideology is Paul Wolfowitz, who is now the inspirer of Bush. He stresses "changing things in Syria," as he says, and Bush likes a lot the way both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld threaten Syria, for he commented this, smiling and saying: "that's good."
At this time, and under the mandate of these people, the Syrian leadership should think carefully about its choices. For it is not allowed to sway between submission and fighting. It should whether anticipate what will be asked of it and proceed to a real democratic operation in Syria that will lead to the Syrian people choosing to stick to this leadership, or "a change in the regime" in Syria will take place following to the Iraq invaders plans.
As for Hizbullah, which represents for Syria the right to resist an occupation, which is different from "terrorism", the Pentagon group intends to destroy it in a way or another. For the group believes that Syria did not cease the opportunity to negotiate with Israel about Golan, and it has to accept now much lesser than Israel offered several years ago. Syria is the last country to deal about Israel's borders, whether it is peacefully or through war. This is a strategic serious decision on the agenda of those who seek the change of the region's map. The Syrian leadership should go back to the strategic choices it has, in light of what happened in Iraq.
What happened in Iraq was not exclusively the result of the strategic plan of the invaders. For it contributed in it, the obstinacy of the Iraqi leadership and its refusal of implementing the group's agenda earlier in an anticipated initiative. Many Iraqi civilians were killed and Iraq suffers high damages of a strange war, we still ignore why Saddam Hussein carried out.
The important thing now is that Iraqis self-control their future in a balanced, reasonable way, away from fighting and submission.
It is important that Arab leaderships understand that it is imperative to deeply change the government and control quality, and Arab people understand that it is time to get rid of complaining and blaming others. The radical trends should understand that they won't be able to defeat or even face actively the U.S., and the moderated trends should understand that there is a chance to sway between submission and fighting.
The transitional stage in Iraq requires the wisdom of the U.S. instead of victory arrogance, and the insolence of greatness. The UN is very important in this stage, for the international legitimacy helps to remove doubts about the American objectives, as well as in supervising necessary elections quickly. It is not realistic to think that the U.S. will leave Iraq to the UN. But what the American administration can avoid is to impose people the Iraqis do not love and trust, like Ahmad Chalabi. In this regard, persons like Adnan AlBajahji do no fear taking the risks of the transitional stage in Iraq. Adnan AlBajahji is a prominent nationalist man, opposed to the regime, the war and a military government in Iraq. His past allows him to play an important role at this stage, so we wish he would.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq is over. Practically, George Bush is the President of Iraq today. Tomorrow, Iraq will be for the Iraqis, if they want to and work hard for it. It is also the objective of others, if the Iraqi people will rely on others to decide for their destiny.
Iraq is a stage. Arab people can turn it into a wake up call. Otherwise, it would be forever an Arab sleep, only awakened by a nightmare that will last several generations.
This is, in fact what the arabs understand. The high political objectives of securing access to oil or regional advantage are understandable but base motives to the tribal mindset. But revenge, well, that is something that George the American owed to Saddam of Tikrit. The Arab "street's" understanding is based on a 3000 year old ethic that says that one avenges injury or attempted injury to one's family. Saddam's attempt to have x41 assassinated is sufficient motive (in the tribal arab mind) for W to gather up all the force at his command to go and kill Saddam and lay waste all that is Saddam's. It was only to be expected. That mindset and our invasion of Iraq rather than Iran or Syria gains us respect from the arabs from camel jockeys to modern sultans such as Assad.
If anyone doubted where the author of this piece was coming from, this sentence should make everything clear.
Denial is apparently still a river in Egype for these people. WHY DID THE AMERICAN TROOPS ENTER BAGHDAD "WITHOUT RESISTANCE?" Because we killed the freaking resistance, IN ITS TRACKS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.