(Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire have turned Justice Mute)
Click here for Previous Issues
|
|
|
Iraq: When Will the Aggression Begin? And What Can We Do About It? A Blueprint for a Grassroots Program: An Editorial by the Free Arab Voice IRAQ: WHEN WILL THE AGGRESSION BEGIN? AND WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? Background: It is perhaps but another distinguishing mark of the intransigent arrogance of American foreign policy. The scenario typically goes something like this: American warplanes intrude into the airspace of another country. Then if those planes are fired upon by that country's air defenses, "punitive" strikes are undertaken in accordance with the "rules of engagement". The whole matter is henceforth presented by the American media as revolving around the issue of "protecting American pilots". The more substantial question of whether American warplanes have a legal or a moral right to transgress on another country's boundaries is sidelined into a hazy margin. The victims and the destruction wrought by any potential bombing within the boundaries of the other country are then presented just as a case of "collateral damage". The Security Council watches on in cowardice as leaders of countries hope theirs won't be the next country on the American target list. The exercise of imperial power continues unabashedly as its fig leaf of "international legitimacy" slowly recedes. America: number one! The bastion of democracy! The land of opportunity! The home of the free! Why not?! After all, who is to argue with the graffiti scribbled on American air-to-surface missiles! Whether American policy-makers like it or not, such is the way many people around the world, especially (but not only) within Arab public opinion, view the so-called No-Fly Zones imposed unilaterally over Southern and Northern Iraq by the American and British governments. Twelve years after the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, the continuation of the sanctions on Iraq, just like the No-Fly Zones, has lost most of its few remaining pockets of support worldwide, with the exception of segments of public opinion in the Anglo-Saxon world, as for example in America, Britain, or Australia - Even the Arab regimes that have been traditional tools of U.S. foreign policy do not see eye to eye with the U.S. administration on its Iraq policy anymore. Yet it is precisely in such an unsympathetic environment that the hawks in the present administration of George Bush Jr. are pushing for a massive military strike against Iraq. And it is precisely in such an adverse international and Arab environment that President Bush has been calling openly for a general offensive, WITHOUT the shred of a mandate from the Security Council of the United Nations, to force a "regime change" in Iraq. Just in case anyone missed the lessons of the No-Fly Zones over Iraq, the intransigent arrogance of American foreign policy has decided to move on to the center of the stage of international relations. The new lesson is not missed on American allies either: "we will change those regimes we don't like through direct force if need be without any regard even for the interests of our allies. We want an international state system tailored exactly to our smallest whims and caprices. We don't even want allies anymore. We want all state leaders to be clones of Hamid Karazi. And by God we have the technology to do it: state-of-the-art direct military interventionism worldwide. Let anyone who dares to stand in our way stop us, be they friend or foe". As if quoting a chapter from Ariel Sharon in the West Bank and Gaza, that is what the Bush Administration is effectively saying now. The fact that the Bush Administration is totally oblivious to the potential anti-American backlash this sort of behavior is likely to generate is just another example of the intransigent arrogance of American foreign policy. The disregard for the opinions of allies is meant, and rightly perceived, to be another threatening display of American power in and of itself. America's Arab allies stood shivering with fear. They are no longer to be allowed to do most of what America desires. They have to do ALL that America desires. If before they had had SOMETIMES to take into account internal public opinion pressures in order to maintain a shred of credibility with their people, they are no longer allowed to do so. Hence their very existence is now threatened. Today it's Iraq. Tomorrow it's Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc? But what brought about this new American eagerness to shed the veneer of "international legitimacy" and the support of allies off the objectives of American foreign policy? It is no secret that the September 11th strikes strengthened the hands of hawks within the U.S. administration, for example, policy-makers such as Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney who represent economic and political interests that have been traditionally calling for a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy. Then after the successful invasion of Afghanistan and the installation of a puppet regime there, the American media suddenly began to feature articles and opinion polls on whether the U.S. should go it alone in Iraq. Afghanistan was also attacked without any authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Albeit Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is NOT being accused of having any connection to the September 11th attacks. Paul Wolfowitz, the Undersecretary of Defense, the staunch Zionist, surely had a lot to do with this nuance in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Yet it would be inaccurate to attribute this development in particular, or U.S. foreign policy in general, merely to Zionist influences within the present Bush, or any other previous American, administration. U.S. long-term colonial interests in the Arab World have traditionally included access to oil, oil revenues, consumer markets, geo-political control of the region, and the prevention of the emergence of Arab unity which would constitute a potential rival and a threat to maritime, aerial, and land routes to the semi-colonies in Africa and Asia. In this regard the existence of "Israel" caters to these colonial interests as much as the U.S. seems to cater to "Israel's" every whim. In effect, U.S. policies in the Arab World can only be viewed within the spectrum of its policies to affect hegemony worldwide. [For an analysis on how the Zionist movement has turned from an arm of imperialism into a full-fledged partner in the administration of the New World Order, but not the sole administrator of the system, please Click Here The point here, however, is not to analyze the nature of the relationship between the U.S. and "Israel". The point is that the new more aggressive methods of conducting American foreign policy are symptomatic of an escalating imbalance in the international power structure in the favor of the U.S. ruling elites. This imbalance is certainly exacerbated by the influence of Zionist power, objectives, and policy tools. But the latter remains the secondary, not the primary, factor. Therefore, the people of the Third World, including the Arab and Muslim people, should not for a second fool themselves into thinking that the U.S. government could have been their friend had it not been for the influence of the Zionist movement. The Zionist movement is successful because its strategic objectives intersect with those of imperialism, not because of smart public relations as some officials of Arab-American and Muslim-American organizations in Washington, D.C., think. The U.S. government represents strategic interests that are intrinsically hostile to the Arab and Muslim people, and no amount of public relations can bridge that gap. [Appealing to the American PEOPLE, as part of an overall strategy of liberation, is of course a totally different story]. Either way, it is precisely the imbalance in international relations in the favor of the U.S. government that has allowed the internal contradictions and nascent political tendencies within the U.S. to have such worldwide ramifications. For example, if the hawks in the U.S. administration wield more influence, the whole world suffers for it. If the Federal Reserve (the U.S. Central Bank) decides to change interest rates by a fraction, the world economy is affected. Similarly, the reverberations of internal "Israeli" politics on the political landscape of the Arab World is merely another example of a serious imbalance in the regional political structure in "Israel's" favor, an imbalance befitting of a colonial relationship. Thus, to determine the timing of the U.S. strike against Iraq, one has to watch two crucial factors very closely: 1) whether U.S. hawks succeed in garnering enough support within American public opinion for a strike on Iraq without the support of the U.N. Security Council or America's allies. Opinion polls may not reflect accurately the wishes of the American people, as many critics of the media like to point out. However, once we start seeing real or manufactured opinion polls indicating that a good majority of Americans support a unilateral strike on Iraq, we can probably foretell that a strike is looming near. Note in this regard that 52% of Britons indicated in a recent poll that they oppose, where 57% of Americans allegedly support, a strike on Iraq. But as positive as this news item from Britain may be, we should keep in mind that it is American, not British, internal political contradictions that weigh more heavily in the New World Order. 2) whether the international and regional countervailing forces to American power put up a valiant resistance to American methods or not. For example, if Russia, China, and Western European countries voice a timid objection to the aggression on Iraq, that would be equivalent to encouraging that aggression. Similarly, if Arab and Muslim states just issue condemnations or remain silent in the face of an aggression that is likely to hit some of them next, that is not going to be much of a deterrence to the U.S. government. On the other hand, if these international and regional forces recognize the American aggression on Iraq for what it is as an attempt to create an environment more friendly to U.S. hegemony AT THEIR EXPENSE, and if they act accordingly by threatening to collectively punish the U.S. government diplomatically and economically for its intransigence if it transgresses on Iraq, that would be a totally different story. Such collective will would not only help deter the U.S., but would also strengthen those elements within American public opinion and the U.S. administration who either do not want to attack Iraq, or who do not want to attack it this way. What Can Be Done to Prevent or Thwart an attack on Iraq? Most observers in the Arab World realize that American calls for "a regime change" in Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg. The real aims of the U.S. include the partition of Iraq into at least three parts, most probably into a large number of protectorates which will of course lack any notion of sovereignty. For more on this, please see the reference to the report in the International Herald Tribune on May 16, 2002, on the partition of Iraq into three parts under the guise of a federal Iraq on the following link: http://www.freearabvoice.org/issues/modifiedSanctions.htm#2 If this plan succeeds, the same fate will await the neighboring countries - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria - which will be severely weakened, morally and otherwise, by a U.S. victory against Iraq. Civil wars and internal havoc will be the natural outcome of such a state of affairs. Moreover, if such a victory comes to pass, it will represent a severe blow to the Palestinian struggle as the regional balance of power tilts further in "Israel's" favor. In short, what is at stake here is not just U.S. control over Iraq, but the subjugation of the entire world under the heel of U.S. imperialism. It is noteworthy that Wolfowitz had written a policy paper in this spirit ten years ago. For an article referring to the Wolfowitz text, and what a new Iraq war would mean for Europe, please Click Here Consequently, it follows that a lot of work needs to be done on the grass-roots level internationally, but especially in the Arab and Muslim Worlds. Grass-roots pressure must be applied on the governments of the world to force them to take stronger positions in the face of American threats to invade Iraq. A list of possible grass-roots demands in that regard could include the threat of an economic boycott of American goods and services, or a demand to expel and close down U.S. embassies should the U.S. attack Iraq. In the Arab and Muslims worlds in particular, we are not asking the regimes to butt heads directly with American forces on the battlefield, despite the fact that they are directly threatened by the U.S. incursion into Iraq. We are only asking them NOT to stand in the way of volunteers who might want to go fight alongside the Iraqis (as they do in the case of Palestine), NOT to crush pro-Iraq demonstrations that call for severing all political and economic relations with the U.S., and NOT to prevent the flow of arms, supplies, and what have you through their borders with Iraq. This call is being specifically addressed to the regimes in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, which stand to lose a lot if an American puppet regime is installed along their long borders with Iraq. Mind you, we are not asking these regimes to get directly involved in any of the militant efforts that will naturally arise on popular initiative as a reaction to an American aggression on Iraq. All they have to do is simply signal the U.S. that they will not be able to impede these popular efforts along their long borders with Iraq if the U.S. attacks. That, in and of itself, will be a means of political pressure on the Bush administration to ponder the question of the attack again It is crucial to point out to some Arab-Americans who might think that this kind of talk interferes with their "shrewd" political efforts to "win over" the U.S. administration through public relations that unlike the foreign policies of Arab regimes, American foreign policy is motivated by strategic and long-term considerations first and foremost. The Zionist public relations machine only accelerates the system. It does not create it from scratch. The best chance for the success of the anti-sanctions and anti-war effort in America is afforded by the emergence of solid resistance to American foreign policy by its victims. Only if the costs of American foreign policy increase will there be deterrence. These costs may be political and economic. They need not be military. However, only if these costs increase will American public opinion seriously reconsider any support it may lend to its government's aggression on Iraq. Example: Vietnam. In either case, aside from the efforts to directly help Iraq, public pressure within Arab and Muslim states should concentrate politically on the demand that their respective states draft and submit a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly condemning in the strongest possible terms the continued aggression against Iraq in all its forms, whether military, economic, or political. All Arab and Islamic states should be pressured from the grass roots to declare individually AND through the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Countries that they will consider a direct military aggression against Iraq, and any attempt to change its regime, an American declaration of war against the Arab and Islamic World. Such a declaration should include clauses warning the U.S. government that these Arab and Islamic states will take all the necessary measures to repeal this aggression, including, but not limited to, severing all diplomatic and trade relations, as well as all military and security cooperation, with the aggressors. Oil exports to all states that support the aggression should be brought to an immediate halt. U.S. Embassies across the Arab and Islamic World should be closed down. American companies should be denied access. Etc. As far-fetched as these demands may seem at the moment, they are not impossible to achieve if the Arab and Islamic street manages to impose its united opinion on its governments. After all, the people can have the upper hand if they choose to take a stand. The political demands above are just a banner around which we suggest people can gather. What is to be Done in Iraq? Despite the fact that independent reports from within Iraq indicate that the Iraqi people are generally not sympathetic to U.S. plans to invade their country in order to install a puppet regime there, and despite indications that morale in the face of U.S. government threats is high as evidenced by the numbers of people who have been volunteering to train on the use of weapons, a lot remains to be done within Iraq to prepare for the impending attack. We are fully aware that the U.S. media has been using the pretext of establishing "democracy" in Iraq, among other things, to justify American colonial policy objectives there (and elsewhere). Nevertheless, in the interest of countering the aggression on Iraq, and from our historical position within the pro-Iraq camp, it is crucial that we voice our opinion at this juncture: The Iraqi leadership needs to follow a more open and tolerant policy internally towards all those who should be won over from the other side, just like it has been doing recently with Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and just like it tried to do before with some Kurdish factions. All legitimate opposition forces - nationalist, leftist, Islamist - whose commitment to an independent Iraq is not in doubt should be given the opportunity to help in resisting the aggressor and should have their democratic rights guaranteed. This is because the cohesion of the internal Iraqi front is indispensable to fend off the aggression successfully. Needless to say, we are NOT suggesting that the Iraqi government should make concessions or even talk to any party, Iraqi or non-Iraqi, which is in shape or form connected to imperialist plans to attack Iraq. But the truth of the matter is that not all those who oppose the Iraqi government are agents of the West or are affiliated with U.S. plans. In fact, there are many Islamists, Arab nationalists, leftists, and independents who are just as opposed to U.S. designs on Iraq as anyone in the Iraqi government is. Thus it only makes sense to try to reach out and to build bridges of understanding with those, just like there have been [successful] attempts in the same vein towards the government of Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent that of Kuwait. Indeed, the principle of all strategy is enlarge one's camp with as many allies as possible, to isolate the enemy from as many allies as possible, and to try to be on neutral terms with those who cannot be allies wherever possible. [All this without sacrificing your main strategic objectives of course, which is a caveat that many Palestinian and Arab activists seem to forget unfortunately]. Thus, the operating principle in this concrete situation becomes: any party which will not cooperate with American plans to invade Iraq should be approached as a potential ally, even if that was on a temporary basis. Otherwise, those who choose to cooperate with the aggression on Iraq are fair game. After all, treason is NOT just another opinion. Those who choose to be informers, traitors, and saboteurs cannot claim any rights, which is a given for any people on this planet. In order to prepare for resisting the aggression militarily, Iraq should take into account the lessons of the war in 1991. One cannot face an enemy that is superior in technological, financial, logistical, and conventional terms by relying solely on conventional methods of war. The lessons of the war in South Lebanon, as well as in the Second Intifada, suggest that a superior enemy can only be defeated using non-conventional means. Guerilla warfare, human bombs, and resistance under siege, not direct conventional confrontation, are the key to increasing enemy losses and undermining its morale. Decentralized decision-making, under the auspices of trusted local leaders, is the heart and soul of guerilla warfare. Thus, besides the conventional hierarchy of the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Army, a parallel resistance network made up of local militias should be set in place to help with the resistance and to work behind enemy lines should any part of the Iraq fall under occupation. In short, besides the policy of rapprochement towards previously antagonistic Arab regimes, Iraq needs to: 1) follow a policy of reconciliation internally with all Iraqis who are opposed to the U.S. aggression, and 2) arm, and not just train, the Iraqi people. What is to Be Done in Iran? Bush has openly announced that Iran is part of the "axis of evil" to be targeted by U.S. foreign policy. In the meantime, some American policy-makers have suggested that the Iranian regime should be toppled before any attack on Iraq, so Iran won't try to take advantage of a potential power vacuum in the region. The message was not lost on the Iranian government who made sure to counter with official announcements that Iran was not an easy prey. In fact, if an American puppet regime is installed in Iraq, Iran would be in a much weaker strategic position as it is squeezed between Afghanistan in the east and Iraq in the west. Thus, the position that serves the strategic interest of the Iranian regime the most is to oppose an American invasion of Iraq without any qualifications. Still, it seems that SOME Iranian officials remain intent on trying to take advantage of the American attack on Iraq to install a pro-Iranian regime there. Baker al Hakim, the head of the pro-Iranian Higher Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has been keeping in touch through aides with American plans to invade Iraq. He has been sending delegates to meet with "Iraqi opposition" conferences organized by the CIA as media reports indicate, and has spoken openly in the defense of this move. His declarations that he would support an American invasion of Iraq provided the current regime is replaced by Iraqis (meaning himself) does not reveal a great deal of strategic brilliance. The implication is that he somehow believes that the U.S. government is going to go through all the trouble of invading Iraq in order to hand it over to Iran on a platter of silver!! This is the same mistaken assumption that the Iranian government made in Iraq in 1991, and then again in Afghanistan in 2001. In 1991, thousands of Iranians and Iranian-backed Iraqi dissidents infiltrated through Iraq's southern border to instigate a so-called uprising, just as the American army was closing in, in an attempt to replace the current Iraqi regime with a pro-Iranian one. Combined with the Kurdish insurrection in the north at the time, the pro-Iranian incursion in the south left the present Iraqi regime with only four out of the eighteen provinces in the country. The result was effectively to foil Iraqi efforts to resist the American invasion, as it now focused on reclaiming the provinces of the southern Iraq from Iranian-backed groups. In the long-run, Iran's strategic position got worse as a result of increasing U.S. military presence in the Arabian Gulf region. In Afghanistan, the Iranian government played the same hand, only more openly. It supported the American invasion of Afghanistan openly, and through its supporters in the Hazara ethnic minority, it directly participated in the so-called Northern Alliance which advanced under the umbrella of U.S. bombing. Then when Iran tried, after the downfall of Taliban, to influence Afghanistan's new government in its favor, it was stopped cold in its tracks by American warnings not to interfere in Afghanistan's internal affairs, and by accusations of supporting "terrorism" with all the implied threats. In the long-run, Iran's strategic position got worse as a result of increasing U.S. military presence on Iran's eastern flank. It goes without saying that Iran is not just a historical neighbor of the Arab World, but a key Islamic state and a potentially great ally with many shared strategic interests. Yet those policy-makers in Iran who have been contemplating taking advantage of the American invasion of Iraq to reap the benefits where the Bush administration has sown, and luckily those do not represent yet the main faction in the Iranian government, need to think again. The American attack is going to turn to them next, if not first. The Iranian people is a great Muslim people whose long-term interests lie with Arabs and Muslims, not with the U.S. invasion. It is certain, furthermore, that the Iranian people will not take cooperation with American designs on the region very lightly, especially that they stand to lose just as much as the Arab people will if the American invasion succeeds. Hence, it is highly possible that the Iranian street would exert as much pressure on the Iranian government to resist the American invasion as is probably going to be the case in the Arab states bordering Iraq, which is another factor emanating from internal Iranian politics that the Bush administration might want to consider. Luckily, Baker Al Hakim and his likes do not represent the position of Shiites in the region. According to newswires, "Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussain Fadlallah, the highest Shiite religious authority in Lebanon, has issued a fatwa (religious edict) on August 12, 2002, which bans Muslims from collaborating with America in any military strike against Iraq". For more on this, please Click Here What is to Be Done in Palestine? Escalate human bombs and attacks on "Israelis" NOW. This is not just because the Zionist movement is one of the main locomotives urging an attack on Iraq, but also because an attack on Iraq will not be feasible before the RESISTANCE (and not necessarily Zionist action) calms down considerably on the Palestinian front. Jenin was not just protecting Jenin. It was also protecting Baghdad. This formula was clear enough for Iraq, adding political fuel to the unlimited Iraqi support for the Intifada to begin with. American policy-makers might have become more oblivious to international and regional pressures. But they still have enough sense to not push Arab public opinion beyond the threshold with a simultaneous escalation on both the Palestinian and Iraqi fronts. Just in case there is any misunderstanding here: most Arab public opinion, even in official Arab regime newspapers, holds the U.S. government directly responsible for what Zionists are allowed to get away with in Palestine. One Last Note: Overall, an American attack on Iraqi presents as many opportunities as it does dangers. If, as is possible, the Iraqi armed forces resist seriously the attack and inflict large casualties on US forces, the US will be in a very difficult position. A war effort that lasts more than a few weeks and which causes heavy casualties could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Such an outcome is what we should all be looking forward to, and fight for in every conceivable way. In short, preventing or thwarting an American invasion of Iraq is possible, and the above is just a blueprint of a program to achieve that objective. The Free Arab Voice ################################################ ################################################ The Free Arab Voice is an alternative newsletter that comes out only in cyberspace. For other FAV issues, please visit: http://www.freearabvoice.org/favPrevIssues.htm Sign a real right of return petition at: http://www.freearabvoice.org/A-RealRightOfReturnPetition.htm Check out a special slide show on Palestine at: http://www.freearabvoice.org/RememberPalestine.htm Read the In Response to Defeatist Thought series at: http://www.freearabvoice.org/InResponseToDefeatistThought0.htm To read on Arab contributions to civilization, click on: http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabCivilMain.htm For Palestinian Poems in English, go to: http://www.freearabvoice.org/rhythmsOfTheStorm.htm The Free Arab Voice welcomes your comments, suggestions, and submissions. If you do not wish to be on FAV's mailing list, please indicate as much by writing to us.
FAV Home Page - > Please click on the logo above, and we'll FAV you there :)
|