No picnic
By
Salama A Salama
There is no doubt that the US and Britain possess unmatched military and combative skills and capabilities. The enormous disparity between the two sides recalls the tale of David and Goliath. But the euphoria that accompanied the anticipation of certain victory has evaporated as a result of strong Iraqi resistance and the damage inflicted on US-British forces in recent days.
In the first news conference after attacks were launched on a country crippled by years of vicious sanctions, General Tommy Franks announced that the world was witnessing a historically unprecedented war, in terms of fire power, manoeuverability and speed.
The "picnic" the Americans anticipated, however, may last longer than they expected. They now realise the courageous resistance of the Iraqi regime and its leadership will force greater human and political losses than they thought.
Bush's main aim is to achieve absolute security for the US, regardless of how this impacts on the rest of the world. And the real surprise for Bush -- a foreign affairs novice -- is that more than 80 per cent of the world's population realised the dangers of the American adventure and stood as one to oppose it.
Some voices in the Arab world thought the US attack on Iraq might serve as a lightening conductor for a better future, for Iraqis and, perhaps in the longer run, for other Arabs. Some were deluded into believing that American occupation of Iraq would rid the people of the tyranny of a regime that has suffocated it population for decades.
Democracy is the net result of a people's heritage and experience. It is not a sapling that can be transplanted willy nilly. The only certainty, then, is that an Iraq under American occupation will see the keys of power transferred from Baghdad to the White House, from Saddam Hussein to General Franks, from Iraqi oil officials to Dick Cheney and US oil companies. Iraq's membership of the Arab League will be overshadowed by alliances with Turkey, Israel and maybe even Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Attacking Iraq is a turning point in the US's new strategy. Washington would not have embarked on this preemptive strike unless it was part of a comprehensive scheme. It would not have incurred the enormous costs of the campaign, which threaten to destabilise the US economy, nor have courted divisions with European allies and the marginalisation of the UN unless it had specific goals in mind.
Cheney's denial that there is an Arab hit-list beginning with Iraq does not excuse the defective vision of Arab leaders who could not imagine that Iraq would be targeted after Afghanistan. And what is to prevent the US, post-Iraq, from ratcheting up the pressure on Syria or Lebanon, from resolving the Palestinian issue according to Israel's demands? Once again there is talk about the "roadmap", at a time when discussions should be about the new map of Iraq, being drawn up in the absence of Arabs.
France and Russia's opposition to Washington, believe some, is for the sake of the Arabs, or in solidarity with the Iraqi people. But such opposition is grounded in the knowledge that the precedent set by this one-sided war transforms the world into a jungle in which China will be able to occupy Taiwan and India impose its settlement of the Kashmir problem. It is a blow to international relations that could set the world back a century. The Palestinian issue will be lost forever as a result of Arab inability to deal with an attack resulting in the loss of Iraqi sovereignty.
