THE apparent failure of the war campaign to locate the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq would have embarrassed any other aggressor, but as far as the US is concerned, morality has never been a strong point. A month into the campaign, not a single litre of chemical agents that were being touted as a threat to global peace has been found. Yet, it has the cheek to raise the same bogey against several other sovereign states. The world continues to wonder, who next, and when. And the way things are moving, the apprehension is not totally misplaced.
The US Public Affairs Office in Karachi has been churning out in the last few weeks a plethora of worksheets in support of what its officials have been claiming in terms of Iraqi WMDs. One such release said Iraq had 26,000 litres of Anthrax, 38,000 litres of Botulinum Toxin, and tons of VX Nerve Gas, “just one drop” of which is “enough to kill a person.”
This was in addition to “1,000 tons of Mustard Gas, 550 mustard gas-filled munitions, and hundreds of biological weapons-capable aerial bombs.” This was not all. Iraq, the US claimed in an effort to raise war hysteria, had Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that could reach not just “Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel”, but as far as “New York, Paris, London, Berlin and Beijing”.
Also distributed were copies of satellite pictures showing “freshly graded earth” at Al-Musayyib Complex, and the “terrorist poison and explosives factory” at Khurmal. That Saddam Hussain would have been sitting on this deadly stockpile watching the Allies topple its regime is pretty hard to digest.
The failure of the Allies, however, is not being discussed by the Western print media, which finds it easy to focus on what is happening on the ground rather than get unduly worried by what is not happening there. For instance, you would find write-ups on Saddam’s lavish and opulent lifestyle and his preferences — Italian suits, double-breasted, by Canali and Luca’s; silk ties in solids or subtle patterns, and so on. Even that he used to brush with Colgate.
David Zucchino, writing in the Los Angeles Times, has narrated what the Marines found when they captured one of the presidential palaces. “The dictator’s clothes were hanging in the wardrobe of a luxurious upstairs bedroom in one of the dozens of compounds within a palace complex that stretches for two miles along the west bank of the Tigris River ... The palace had 142 offices, 64 bathrooms, 19 meeting rooms, 22 kitchens, countless bedrooms, one movie theatre, five huge ballrooms and one football-field sized monster ballroom. Even a cursory tour took hours, through mirrored hallways, across marble floors, and beneath intricately tile-domed entryways.”
In one of the rooms there were shelves of Arabic language books, “one containing a photo of Josef Stalin, reported to be Saddam’s role model.”
In another area of the palace were “vast supplies of TV sets, Moet champagne, Russian vodka, imported American cigarettes, 150 Persian carpets, Parker pen sets, French wines and expensive Lladro figurines.” The elaborate inventory is enough to establish that Saddam was, indeed, a very bad man. He was having a ball when the ordinary Iraqis were struggling to make ends meet. But what about the Weapons of Mass Destruction?
While the silence on this grave issue of the Western media is understandable, what is not quite understandable is the similar posture adopted by the English-language newspapers in the Arab world and, even more surprisingly, in Iran. While the vernacular press in Arabic and Persian is pretty vocal in its opposition to wide-ranging US plans, their English-language counterparts are taking a more middle-of-the-road position. It is no wonder that Israeli newspapers Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post have both described the reaction of the Arab press as confused, which happens to be an apt description.
In a recent editorial, Jeddah-based Arab News could find nothing more to comment upon than the failure of the US forces to stop the looting spree that gripped parts of Iraq after the fall of the regime. Condemning US and British army spokesmen for saying that they were “an army, not a police force” for Baghdad and Basra, the editorial said: “They have invaded Iraq; they are now responsible for everything that goes on in the country. They cannot pick and choose where that responsibility ends. It is total ... The anarchy has to be halted. If it is not, the Americans and British can forget about the campaign for Iraqi hearts and minds. It will have been lost before it got started.” Talking of hearts and minds is OK, but what about the elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction, which were the very basis of the conflict?
David Hirst, writing in The Guardian, has come the closest to pinpointing the problem with the Arab media, saying it is Saddam’s “shabby exit” that has added to the “Arab sense of despair.” He writes: “What many Arabs see as the craven, ignominious, completely selfish manner of his (Saddam’s) going has only added contempt to the other emotions they feel — anger, despair, exasperation, and a profound sense of impotence.”
He continues: “The Arabs note that the Israelis are rejoicing that the regional balance of power has shifted dramatically in their favour, that after Baghdad others, starting perhaps with Damascus, will become targets for regime change, or at least a very serious, US-enforced change of attitude. “The Iraqi defeat was seen as all but inevitable from the outset. But it was at least expected that Saddam, the man who cast himself as a latter-day Saladin, and vowed to make Baghdad the graveyard of the ‘aggressors’ in a second ‘mother of all battles’, would go down fighting.
“In the earlier stages of the war, Arabs found some solace in such resistance as there was to the invaders; some crumbs of comfort in the fact that the ‘uprising’ on which the ‘liberators’ were counting had signally failed to materialize; some pride in the Arab volunteers who went to the defence of this threatened province of the greater Arab homeland. But glorious last stand there was not to be. Even the Iraq opposition, contemptuous though it was of Saddam Hussein, had expected better than this.”
This brings us to the key question, who next. John Larkin and Murray Hiebert Fear, writing in the Far Eastern Economic Review, say North Korea has a few things to worry about. “As American troops and tanks pound their way into Baghdad, North Korea is clearly worried that it will be the next target, and the United States has done little to alleviate these fears,” they write.
However, they hasten to add that despite the “ominous signs”, military experts and many analysts believe “a solution is still within reach as there is too much for everyone in the region and beyond to lose by war”.
That settled, the US is perhaps wondering whether to move westward to Syria, or eastward to Iran. The former seems to be the choice as far as the Western print media is concerned.
Toronto Star’s Thomas Walkom, has dilated on why exactly Bush and his coterie are so interested in continuing with their martial approach. Syria, he says, has an aging military that poses no serious threat to anyone. It has quietly cooperated with the Americans in their fight against terrorism. More to the point, Syria is not a major oil producer. The US Energy Department estimates that Syria will become a net oil importer within 10 years.
“Still, the regime in Washington is deliberately beating the drums ... Even the old chemical weapons wheeze is being dragged out.” Politically, war is good to Bush. “He knows his father lost re-election because he allowed the first Gulf War to end too quickly, thus allowing voters to focus on other issues such as the economy. The younger Bush does not wish to make that mistake. With the 2004 presidential election campaign about to begin and the US economy slowing, he will find it tempting to keep the war — any war — going.
“Bush already has an extraordinary carte blanche from Congress to invade just about any country he chooses. And he is endowed with a frightening moral certainty that allows him to believe that whatever he thinks — or thinks he thinks — must be correct.” With Iran being a tough nut to crack, what can Bush do in the meantime, asks Thomas, and gives a forthright answer: It is better to keep the electorate distracted. And what better distraction is there than another war? This is where the advantages of attacking Syria come into play.
Unlike North Korea, it has no nuclear weapons to defend itself. Besides, “US troops are already next door. The American public is still primed for war. US casualties in the Iraq campaign have been just about right — enough to make the war seem serious, but not so many as to reduce popular appetite for carnage. So why not Syria? The ‘liberation’ of Damascus should play well on television. After all, Syria has a Baath party government, too (albeit one that is hostile to Saddam’s Baath party — but who cares about the details?).”
But this is a rare voice of sanity in the Western media. For a more realistic feel of what the American and British newspapers are saying these days, let’s turn to Andrew Sullivan, an American journalist who writes regularly for Britain’s The Sunday Times. He has argued that whatever the US is planning to do, its target remains Middle East peace. “A successful war against Saddam and a democratic revolution in Iran could give Bush an opportunity for a real settlement in Israel,” he says.
The US effort, according to him, is for all those “who want to live freely without the threat of Islamist terrorism ... Saddam first. Iran next. Then much more will be possible.” One wonders if this is a piece of journalism, or an extract from some CIA blueprint. Keep guessing!
THE apparent failure of the war campaign to locate the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq would have embarrassed any other aggressor, but as far as the US is concerned, morality has never been a strong point. A month into the campaign, not a single litre of chemical agents that were being touted as a threat to global peace has been found. Yet, it has the cheek to raise the same bogey against several other sovereign states. The world continues to wonder, who next, and when. And the way things are moving, the apprehension is not totally misplaced.
