March 19, 2003	Wednesday	Muharram 15, 1424

NEW YORK: The world may be about to witness one of the greatest tragedies of the 21st century unfold before its eyes, and it cannot stop the madness.

Iraq is no direct threat to the United States nor does it have any connection — no matter how hard President Bush tries to make the connection to Al Qaeda. It will be the first preemptive war under the Bush doctrine.

For one who has been living in the United States for almost 21 years, it is difficult to imagine a more bizarre and incomprehensible scenario for war wherein almost every American I have met has opposed the Bush war. No one was able to comprehend the Bush doctrine nor make any sense of it. “We are doing it all for Israel,” most said. One is at a loss to figure out where is the majority of Americans which the administration says is with the president.

On Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney laid it on the line when he compared President Bush’s doctrine of preemption with former President Ronald Reagan’s famous speech in which he called the former Soviet Union an “evil empire” and then went on to win what is now known as the Cold War. Cheney believes that like Reagan, Bush junior will succeeded in his vision of introducing democracy in the Arab world and that, by taking on the terrorists and their supporters head on, ultimately all the nay-sayers will come on board.

“When it comes to the Middle East, we have to face the fact that the critical mobilizing issue is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” says Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. “Democracy is a consequence of incremental hard work. It’s not the consequence of either direct repression, a la ariel Sharon, or bringing the entire Middle East structure tumbling down, a la Bush. It’s an incremental process of building confidence, establishing relationships and pushing people in the direction of compromise.”

“Grand-sounding rhetoric on the sidelines, followed by an intense war, which is likely to produce local resentments and further alienate the world, is not going to either produce democracy, or ultimately increase Israel’s security,” he added. “If we had democracy today in Egypt, we wouldn’t have Mubarak but some members of the Muslim Brotherhood. If we’re not careful, and pushed for a plebiscite in Saudi Arabia, Prince Abdullah might not do as well as Osama bin Laden.”

Former president Jimmy Carter in an Op-ed piece in The New York Times said: “As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.”

But President Bush, who’s wanted a war with Iraq even before the tragic events of Sept 11, is unwilling to listen seriously to anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

As Bob Herbert, a columnist with the New York Times wrote on Monday, “Mr Bush has turned his back on those worried about the consequences of a split in the transatlantic alliance that has served the world well for better than half a century. He’s closed his mind to those who have argued that pre-emptive warfare will ultimately make the world more — not less — unstable. Mr Bush has remained unmoved by the millions of protesters against the war who have demonstrated in the United States and around the world. If any one of those millions has had something worthwhile to say, the president hasn’t acknowledged it.”

From all accounts in newspaper and magazine articles, a coterie of three in the Pentagon sold war to the US president and his top advisers like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to control not only Arab oil but to rule the Middle East through its Israel forever. They are Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defence, Richard Perle, an adviser and Douglas Feith.

Now what exactly does this mean? It means that these Richard Perle — and Paul the advisers are Israeli nationalists. Only in Washington does one get a true sense of the obsession of these Pentagon civilians,” writes Hugo Young, a Guardian columnist. “Conversationally, it is common talk that some of them, not including Rumsfeld, are as much Israeli as American nationalists. Behind nervous, confiding hands come sardonic whispers of an American outpost of Likud. Most striking of all, however, is how unmentionable this is in the liberal press.”

But then the corporate press in America rarely criticizes the Zionists. Notice how Perle can jump from one TV news show to another and nobody mentions his spying for the Israelis or working for an Israeli arms manufacturer. Nobody mentions his “dual loyalties.” When Perle was working for Senator Scoop Jackson, he was investigated by the justice department and found to have violated US policies relating to unlawful transmission of sensitive classified US information to Israel, writes Seymour Hersh in an article in the New Yorker.

“An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy,” says Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, III, Lawrence Hill Books, 1989). “He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company. Perle denied conflict of interest, insisting that, although he received payment for these services after he had assumed his position in the defence department, he was between government jobs when he worked for the Israeli firm.”

In other words, Richard Perle was spying for Israel.

But what about the Democrats on Capital Hill? They are eerily silent over the issue and are unwilling to take positions. Many fear the wrath of the powerful Israeli lobby which is supporting President Bush on war.

Only Senator Robert Byrd called it like he saw it without mincing words on the floor of the senate. His words still resonate:

“Many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq — a population, I might add, of which over 50 per cent is under age fifteen — this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare — this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States senate.

We are truly ‘sleepwalking through history’. In my heart of hearts, I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings... I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 per cent children is in the highest moral traditions of our country. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq.... Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.”