AS the world prepares, once again, for an onslaught on Iraq, Muslims, globally, resign themselves to the inevitable thumping that a superior military force will shortly deliver to deflate the chest-thumping rhetoric that is, unfortunately, the greatest weapon in the Iraqi arsenal.
The predictability of the outcome of any military campaign against Muslim countries in their present state is the prime cause of the frustration and resentment of the citizens of these countries with their rulers. These are the obese kings, roly-poly emirs, natty playboy princes and suited chief executives, who rule at home on the strength of their mediaeval military and cruel intelligence apparatus, but whose parade-ground tactics have been left many leagues behind in the race against their forsworn foreign enemies.
The saddest part of the recent short-lived reoccupation of Leila by Moroccan troops was not their swift removal by a Spanish Armada. But, it was, in the aftermath, the pathetic pictures once again of Muslim civilians involved in the battle that their splendidly-uniformed and expensively-trained and -maintained armies had initiated, and then been unable and unwilling to take to a logical end. The jubilant Spanish must have felt that this naval triumph and the routing of the auld enemy had finally erased the memory of the trashing that they received at sea from Drake 450 years ago.
However, Muslims across the world in this cruel age of information that brings home truths to us instantly were once more subjected to the humiliation of seeing Muslim youth on the battle front swinging stones from catapults and slings, at sophisticated warships, just as their brethren in Palestine do against tanks, fighter aircraft and precision bombs.
In recent times, wherever and whenever conflict has taken place, the Muslim leadership, particularly that of the monetarily well-endowed amongst them, has preferred to back off and beat a hasty retreat rather than soil their dainty hands and grand uniforms with the blood and guts of either the enemy or themselves. No provocation or humiliation has been sufficient to provoke the wrath of the leadership and cause the unwrapping of the meticulously-polished ceremonial sword.
Each misery or suffering of their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine, India, Kashmir and Afghanistan, has seen them turn the other well-fed cheek and sue for immediate and unconditional peace with the perpetrator, offering at the same time a military base, or information about any of its own citizens.
Why then, given the peaceful mind-set of the official Islamic leadership at large, does the worthy Alpine committee that scans the records for the ultimate peacenik, look at confirmed warmongers like the President of US or the Prime Minister of UK, to bestow the Nobel Peace Prize on? Who can be more suitable than the entire Muslim leadership or, at the very least, some typical stalwart from within its ranks, for the Nobel Peace Prize?
Indeed, were it to follow a rational and logical methodology, the Peace Prize committee would have to turn several pages of its list before it finds a non-Muslim leader to consider for the greatest contribution to peace under the most provocative of circumstances. While leaders with Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or godless antecedents, have been busy depleting and testing out their respective arsenals upon our populace and in our territory, our men have pushed up the market price of white flags, falling over each other in their haste to be the first to reject war and embrace peace at all costs.
Often, in moments of crisis, OIC leaders have met in the gaudiness of their summits to consider weighty issues and to announce the fruits of their collective wisdom regarding the future course of the world. Not once have these statesmen allowed even the threat or the mere whisper of war to enter the sacred record of their deliberations, lest it offend the committee in Oslo. Shunning controversial figures from within their own ranks and collectively avoiding discussion of contentious issues that could somehow lead to aggressive thoughts invading peace-loving minds, their organization recommends itself highly for the ultimate prize.
While the OIC may be the only organization deserving the highest accolade that the endowment of Alfred Nobel can offer, individual Muslim leaders can be found aplenty, who rear (politely of course) their peace-loving heads in the quest for recognition as the ultimate peacemaker against the greatest odds.
Those from amongst the most deserving of recipients since Lord Buddha, are arguably the group that provides its people weak-kneed and wobbly-ankled leadership, whose people suffer the consequences of war and are not equipped themselves to deliver even a retaliatory slap.
Such leaders will meet, in camps and on boats, with those who wage war on their people at every opportunity and promise to deliver everlasting peace, come what may. Hanging tightly onto the coattails of that promise is the solemn oath to cling to office and fend off all challenges to their leadership from less docile alternatives, who might meander off the potholed and cratered road to everlasting peace.
The previous winners of the prize were responsible for the deaths of millions and destruction of societies and countries in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Sinai, etc. before they actually sat down, talked and delivered peace. Given this fact, are the leaders of the Islamic countries missing a vital link in the road that they have charted to the coveted prize? Given that Mr Bush must wage the war to win the peace that would then press his claim for the Peace Prize, should the committee also consider the case of Mr bin Laden, or his organization, who triggered the revenge that supposedly forced Mr Bush to arms and to the ensuing peace, and who may then be equally responsible for the end result?
If Mr Saddam Hussain accused of having tortured, gassed, murdered and mutilated his own people were now to sit down and come to an amicable peace with Mr Bush, would he breast the tape ahead of the other in the competition? Or would this be unfair to Mr Winston Churchill. who, according to Philip Knightley as Secretary of State for Air and War between the two Great Wars, suggested that the RAF should take on the job of subduing Iraq: It would... entail the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death... for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.
Should the Peace Prize go to the man who thought up the scheme or the one who carried it out?
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee focused its attention on the peaceful designs of men such as Bush, Blair, Sharon and other nemeses of the Muslim World. This should teach our leaders to come to the realization that to win the ultimate Prize, they must do more than preen around in the proper clothes and look good. They must prepare for the long haul of getting themselves ready for battle, for the battle itself is inevitably short, and is won by the side that has prepared for it best.
So, too, with the Peace Prize. Prepare for and fight the battle first. The Prize will follow.
AS the world prepares, once again, for an onslaught on Iraq, Muslims, globally, resign themselves to the inevitable thumping that a superior military force will shortly deliver to deflate the chest-thumping rhetoric that is, unfortunately, the greatest weapon in the Iraqi arsenal.
