My Two Pence on the W-word

(¯`·._.·[ Concern of the Millenium ]·._.·´¯)



  One impact of the general anti-war sentiment and feeling of hatred towards America will be an increase in the Islamic terrorist activities, and the liberal muslims will not be left with a moral high ground that they had gained after the civilian deaths on 9/11.

  I`m already seeing that the Jihadis who actually are war-lovers have tried to mix themselves with the peace-lovers, to gain advantage of the situation. The MMA had been seen carrying out peace marches in Pakistan, while holding posters of Osama ben Laden.

  How will this extremism be neautralized? Who should think about this neautralization? Who is responsible for it?

sameerJB:

Afghanistan was a relatively isolated case. There are millions of arabs spread across two continents. America cannot afford to perform experiments in Iraq for fear of sparking off other movements. and even if there is general relief at saddam being kicked out, american presence even for a year would create resentment.

Great article Maryam. I think you just expressed what a large majority of us feel. The antiwar sentiment is ever growing and as others have already stated, you can still make yourself heard. The fact that rightwing newspapers are criticizing Dubya, and that Robin Cook resigned is further encouragement. I just wish the ``islamists`` see what a large number of Eurpoeons and Americans stood up to protest against the war and acknowledge that the West is not homogenous.

Instead of concentrating on the antiwar case from moral, political and international standpoints, a case for the future of Iraqi people should take precedence. Nations and countries belong to people and not to governments. I do not disagree with many of the antiwar reasons but they all deal with fear of US hegemony, illegality of war and against the world`s opinion. I also agree that WMD, threat to US from Iraq, nuclear threat are phony arguments.

My argument is that at least women and girls in Afghanistan are better off and having the opportunity to go to school and see healthcare professionals among other things. Similarly despite the reality of naked agression against Iraq, I believe Iraqis will be better off as soon as war comes to a conclusion. For average person on the street, survival comes first except for diehard nationalists and religious fanatics. The price for a better life which could be marginally better or decidedly better is stationing of perhaps 50000 US troops for the next 10 years. How have lives of Germans, Japanese or South Koreans worse because of stationing of large number of US troops?

There is price for remaining illiterate and backward. It is poverty, hunger and disease. Similarly the price for living under totalitarian regimes is the enhanced possibility of the loss of pride and disorderliness associated with the bad policies and paradigms of totalitarian regimes.

Thus far, as expected, Iraqis are not putting up their lives on the line for the survival of Saddam regime. Moreover, due to domination of the skies and also night vision capability of US troops will help decrease civilian casualties even in urban warfare. I think, once US troops plan to enter Baghdad, they will destroy the power supply with Baghdad blacked out with only US troops having the capability of night vision. The entry into Baghdad will come on the nights of new moon with no moonlight at night.

Just now some Turkish forces have entered Iraq from the north. That will be a mess if they start fighting Kurds but US will try to convince Turkish troops to not cross border.

16 million people will not have food.

Oxfam has refused to accept assistance from the ``coalition`` involved in the bombing of Iraq.

The distribution of food by the US will not be enough to feed 16 million people.

Half of Iraq are children.

The US will be bombing water supplies and soil with uranium that will reach 150 feet into the ground

people who opposed the war should not be too disappointed. large scale opposition has forced uncle sam to think of humanitarian consequences of war. we should also be grateful for the fact that iraqi soldiers unlike the rulers, know when to quit. iraqi casualties, both civilian as well as military will be much lower than predicted. short war is going to insure that humanitarian situation does not get out of hand.

real issue is how muslims are going to react to u.s. occupation of a muslim country. mullahs probably will have a field day every friday delivering hate filled khutbas in front of hundreds of millions. wonder how the real nutcases are going to respond to the constant hate filled diatribe.

campaign also shows that iraq issue was about occupation rather than regime change or wmd. does not make sense for uncle sam to spend upwards of $ 50 b to get rid of 15 people especially when cia had tabs on their location all the time.

worthwhile also to see the coverage of the war on fox new. coverage provides an insight into mindset of people who are running the war. one particular military expert was hoping to see uncle sam drops moab in the middle of baghdad. how appropriate that now these people will determine our future.

Hi Everyone :)
Wow..well, I really didn`t expect this to get published, it was a spur-of-the-moment thing.

A bunch of you guys seem to have a problem believing the figure I supposedly `pulled up`. I don`t remember my exact source but I believe it was a White House/US military official. Besides, that wasn`t really the point anyway. The loss of ONE innocent life is terrible, devastating etc. I just wanted to talk about how we have all become so desensitized that this loss is just a figure, a statistic and not a real, breathing person.

And I never said that 4000 is an `okay` figure. The reason I compared WTC with this war was because, relatively speaking, the figure is lower and secondly, the former tragedy happened out of the blue, we didn`t know it was about to happen.

temporal #2 thanks :)

Godot #3, I don`t want to pull this discussion into religion but its partly inevitable. Saddam Hussein is a monster, there`s no doubt about it and I hardly believe that he stands as an Islamic icon. One has to be misinformed about Islam to believe that Saddam Hussien is an accurate representative of it.

Pagal Insaan #4 I didn`t write an article at the time Saddam Hussein killed thousands of Kurds because I think I was about 9 and even less politically aware than I am now :P

#6 Pmishra2 `War is a terrible thing and George W. is an uncouth texas bumpkin.` -completely agree! As far as sacrificing 1000 (?) people for getting rid of Saddam is concerned, I believe there are other alternatives to getting rid of him. Perhaps they would involve more diplomacy and be trickier than simply bombing the hell outta the place, but there are alternatives for 1000 people NOT to die.

#7 zensufi
I meant powerless because our actions haven`t and aren`t making a difference.

#10 Tahmed
thank you :) Yeah it is too early but I just wanted to talk about it because usually everyone is simply concerned with the political side of this war, ignoring the loss of human life that would occur. Iraqis would lead a better life, hopefully, if Saddam is taken out but its going to take a massive amount of nation-building which I don`t trust the US to provide. Also, imagine the psychological damage to the people`s minds that has already been in place over the past 10 year and now some more. There are tons of factors. This war is hurting the US economy aswell. They`re spending more on bombs than on books. *sigh*

#15 Ras, #16 Ansari, #17 taimurmalik, Thank YOU :)

#18 Romair, agree with you. the people should not have to pay the price for such politics between the leaders.

#23 Thanks :) That was a beautiful letter by Paulo Coelho...Did it actually reach Bush? And great lyrics too!

#25 Dude, you just illustrated my point so well. Thats the whole thing. Its just numbers to us. Just numbers. The reality that these numbers stand for a face, a name, a cute childhood story, a bad habit, a favourite colour etc. is just not there! Its too bad you don`t think a country with innocent civilians is worth defending.

#28 Ferozk, I agree with you for the most part but I don`t think that its useless to cry about loss of Iraqi civilians. I personally never want to get used to the feeling of human loss...I never want to be indifferent to it. I feel like its important to keep the pain fresh always so as to always be `human`.


thats all for now...
~peace (no pun intended)
M

http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20030319-040543-3049r

Top White House anti-terror boss resigns
By P. Mitchell Prothero

From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk

Published 3/19/2003 5:37 PM


WASHINGTON, March 19 (UPI) -- The top National Security Council official in the war on terror resigned this week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism.

Rand Beers would not comment for this article, but he and several sources close to him are emphatic that the resignation was not a protest against an invasion of Iraq. But the same sources, and other current and former intelligence officials, described a broad consensus in the anti-terrorism and intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq would divert critical resources from the war on terror.

Beers has served as the NSC`s senior director for counter-terrorism only since August. The White House said Wednesday that he officially remains on the job and has yet to set a departure date.

``Hardly a surprise,`` said one former intelligence official. ``We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don`t blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel resources and the relationships with our allies.``

A Senate Intelligence Committee staffer familiar with the resignation agreed that it was not a protest against the war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but confirmed that frustration is widespread in the anti-terror establishment and played a part in Beers` decision.

``Randy said that he was `just tired` and did not have an interest in adding the stress that would come with a war with Iraq,`` the source said.

The source said that the concern by the administration about low morale in the intelligence community led national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to ask Beers twice during an exit interview whether the resignation was a protest against the war with Iraq. The source said that although Beers insisted it was not, the tone of the interview concerned Rice enough that she felt she had to ask the question twice.

``This is a very intriguing decision (by Beers),`` said author and intelligence expert James Bamford. ``There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq.``

Bamford cited a recent address by President Bush that cited documents, which allegedly proved Iraq was continuing to pursue a nuclear program, that were later shown to be forgeries.

``It is absurd that the president of the United States mentioned in a speech before the world information from phony documents and no one got fired,`` Bamford said. ``That alone has offended intelligence professionals throughout the services.``

But some involved in the fight on terror said that it was dangerous to look too far into one resignation -- particularly from an official who has not blamed the war on Iraq.

``I found his resignation shocking,`` said one official closely involved in the domestic fight on terror. ``And it might reflect a certain frustration over the allocation of resources. But I`m not positive that there`s a consensus (among intelligence services) that deposing Saddam`s regime is a bad idea for fighting terror. I think that there are serious concerns about resources and alienating allies, but some of us see an upside.``

But others point out that the CIA warned Congress last year that an invasion might lead to a rise in terrorism. This, they say, is evidence there`s more than just ambivalence about the war among the spy community.

``If it was your job to prevent terror attacks, would you be happy about an action that many see as unnecessary, that is almost guaranteed to cause more terror in the short-term?`` said one official. ``I know I`m not (happy).``

Beers joined the NSC in August after heading the State Department`s International Narcotics and Law Enforcement branch, where he ran the Plan Colombia program to fight narco-traffickers in that country. Beers served both Bush administrations as well as serving in similar capacities with both the Clinton and Reagan administrations.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

The death of Iraqis, innocent or not, do not matter, because they will never amount to anything more than a historic statistic.

There is no sense or reason to cry over, what is happening in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is an evil, which has to be erdicated and I do not cry for him, but I honestly feel empathy for the Iraqis, who will suffer due Saddam`s power lust and meglomania. Idealism and praises to it aside, there will be more blood spilled and more lives silenced and the eventual road to peace will be littered with many more graves. The end of the journey is beyond the horizon, but the begining of the end has started. The end of this war will not be measured in battlefield victories or a new world order, but in the loss all that was once cherished and wished and was considered as the epitome of rationality.

I am against this war not because I disagree with its stated aims, but because I do not the support the methodology, which made it a reality. It is futile to argue that it is a just war; it is not. This war is a mistake, because the reasons for its execution are ambigious and even more than that, the costs of this war are too unbearable. The costs are unbearble because the international system that had governed the world since 1945 is finished. The world is caught in a dilemma - it is existing between two paradigms. The old paradigm is dead and the new one is yet to be articulated. The principle of international law has been replaced by the law of the savage oppressing the meek and in the process ordaining a virtue of insensitivity in the discourse of the world.

The tragedy of this war will unfold in the years to come, but the first blush of truth is already self evident. It is crystal to everyone that the United States has the power, willingness and indifference to destory the world in quest for its interests. The real tragedy does not lie in the above statement, but in the fallacy contained within it. The United States can easily destory the world by itself, but it cannot rule the world alone by itself. The United States will easily win this war and the many others, which will follow in its wake, but it will also gain the indifference of the international opinion in the process. The United States will have to learn a simple truism, which might result in a much needed hubris, that the United States can easily kill all those who disagree with it, but if it does, it will simply have their dead bodies and not their obedience to the American wishes!

Ciao

correction #18: ``-2 children and one million pregnant or lactating women will need immediate ``therapeutic feeding````

should read,

-2 million children and one million pregnant or lactating women will need immediate ``therapeutic feeding``

Of the many contradictions in this war, here are three:

The US states that Iraq has nukes, and it needs to attack it to disarm the nukes. If Iraq has nukes, then why in the world is the US attacking it without any worries. Isn`t the US administration afraid that Iraq will use the nukes against the US soldiers, thereby killing tens of thousands of them?

The US and everyone else has reported that they can take out the Iraqi military anytime they want, hence the timeline for the, ``shock and awe`` operation. At the same time, the US has stated that the Iraqi firepower is a threat to the whole world, and specifically to the USA (even though it sits an ocean away). If the US can take out the Iraqis so easily, then how in the world is the Iraqi military such a threat.

If the actual purpose of US invasions is to install democracies in the Middle East, then why did the USA return the al-Sabah family to the Kuwaiti throne, after the 91 Gulf war? Why wasn`t democracy introduced in Kuwait?

#14 by shah. on March 20, 2003 7:57pm PT

Yes mate, you know things are pretty bad...for Pakistan. Just take a look at the last three paragraphs from the ``ultra-conservative Washington Times``

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030321-80756950.htm

Pakistan`s net

Pakistan`s recent arrests of suspected al Qaeda operatives represents a psychological and logistical triumph over the terrorist network. The arrests — particularly of Khalid Shaik Mohammed, who is believed to have masterminded the September 11 terrorist attacks — have been noted by the world and al Qaeda. And though one can hardly quarrel with success, the arrests also bring to the fore some pressing questions for Pakistan.
Working with leads from interrogations of Mohammed, Pakistani authorities arrested over the weekend Yassir al Jaziri, a lead al Qaeda communications operative. The Moroccan national was picked up without incident in a posh neighborhood of the eastern city of Lahore. Although al Jaziri isn`t among the 20 most-wanted al Qaeda members, his capture could significantly disrupt the group`s communications between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Last week, Pakistani authorities also arrested at least five additional al Qaeda suspects.
And Pakistan`s arrest of Mohammed earlier this month represents the highest-ranking al Qaeda operative to be picked up anywhere thus far. Mohammed is allegedly No. 3 in the group`s hierarchy and one of America`s most-dangerous enemies.
Bill Gertz, a reporter for The Washington Times, said in a March 2 article that, according to a senior U.S. official, Mohammed has admitted in interviews to having helped plan the September 11 attacks and is believed to have dispatched al Qaeda member Jose Padilla to the United States to mount a radiological attack. Mohammed was arrested just outside of Islamabad in the early morning of March 1, while deep in slumber.
But, just how did Pakistan make these arrests? Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, known as the ISI, has long been characterized as an institution within itself and not entirely under Islamabad`s control. Given ISI`s renegade qualities, it long has been unclear how reliable Pakistan would be as a partner in counter-terror efforts. But former Pakistani officials say that these arrests demonstrate that, if Washington brings enough pressure on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to arrest al Qaeda members, Mr. Musharraf in turn pressures the ISI, which is prodded into action. In fact, some sources said the ease with which these al Qaeda members were arrested indicates the ISI knew all along where these al Qaeda members were. Others reject that probability, pointing out that integration has been al Qaeda`s most effective camouflage.
Former Pakistani officials agree, though, that the ISI, and perhaps much of the Pakistani population, make a distinction between international terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, and the terrorist groups that are active in the Indian state of Kashmir, a rebellious and predominantly Muslim state. Mr. Musharraf hasn`t leaned hard on the ISI to arrest the groups active in Kashmir, and one official said that President Bush is well aware of Pakistan`s unwillingness to prosecute them, and has desisted from bringing U.S. pressure to bear on this point, not wanting to destabilize Mr. Musharraf`s rule.
But to some degree, the alleged threat of instability has been Mr. Musharraf`s scapegoat. And Pakistan must be made to understand that the Kashmiri dispute won`t be resolved through the slaughter of innocents. If Pakistan wants to be a bona fide member of the civilized world, it must do its part to reign in this terrorist activity. Since both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers, the whole world has an interest in seeing the Kashmiri issue resolved through dialogue as soon as possible.
Pakistan has significantly bolstered U.S. security by shaking up al Qaeda, a triumph Mr. Bush has recognized, in part by extending a waiver of trade and aid sanctions against Pakistan. But, it would be a mistake for America and others to ignore Kashmiri-related terrorism.