| |
COMMENTARY
Adieu Saddam: Bring out the next target
By Ehsan Ahrari
Whether he
is dead or still alive in some trench in Iraq hoping to
finish the fight with the United States another day, the
regime of Saddam Hussein is now history. George W Bush
has completed the business of toppling the Iraqi
dictator that his father did not finish for reasons that
were quite appropriate in the 1990s.
The
post-September 11, 2001 strategic environment has
triggered an era of militant US foreign policy - a
characteristic that appeared as a fantasy in prior
decades. Since the terrorist attacks came from the
Middle East, it seems that the US's feud is unending.
The first target was the Islamist nexus of the Taliban
and al-Qaeda. Then came Iraq. Even though the stated
reason for attacking that country was depriving Saddam
of weapons of mass destruction, that turned out to be
just one reason. He was also accused of having ties with
al-Qaeda. Never mind such ties were confirmed neither by
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nor by the
intelligence services of other countries. Part of the
French, German and Russian opposition to the US invasion
of Iraq also was based on the fact that their
intelligence services agreed with the CIA on the lack of
credible evidence of collusion between al-Qaeda and
Saddam.
Now that Washington's invasion is a
fact, all those issues are irrelevant. The US is the new
ruler of Iraq. The major challenge for Washington is to
find a way of ruling Iraq without being perceived as
doing so by the Arab world at large. Washington is busy
developing an information campaign to that effect. That
will be well nigh impossible, because the information
campaign is also being waged from the Arab side with a
vengeance. The US is emphasizing the "liberation"
variable, and the Arab side is fully focused on making a
case of a Western power occupying an Arab and Muslim
land. At the same time, the neoconservatives in
Washington, who were stridently advocating the invasion
of Iraq, are now unabashedly making a case for ruling
Iraq.
But way before the modalities of
governance of Iraq emerge, two developments are being
watched with high interest by the international
community.
First is the continued looting in
Basra, Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, which American
forces initially did nothing to stop. After toppling the
regime that created law and order (even though it was
based on brutality), the business of the foremost
significance for the invading forces is to put their
stamp on law and order. Lives had to be saved, and the
anguish of the ever-suffering Iraqi population had to be
minimized. But that was not to be. Looters showed the
grotesque face of humanity through their actions. No
reason could justify their behavior, no rationale could
soothe the tormented souls that were first brutalized by
Saddam, and then victimized by their own people.
There have been reports that even hospitals were
stripped of beds and other amenities that were direly
needed to take care of the wounded, whose numbers were
rising by the hour. The price of "liberation" can only
be justified by those whose own security and lifestyle
have remained totally unaffected by the bloody forces of
anarchy.
Even the Iraqi museum was
looted or destroyed by the mindless revenge-seekers.
The perpetrators of that crime were, indeed, international
criminals, since they were depriving the entire humanity - not just
their Iraqi brethren - of its ancient and richly unique heritage. Future
historians, free of restrictions of censorship and spin
control, will not be at all kind to the US military and
civilian leadership for not having an elaborate plan to
forestall a tragedy of such an enormous magnitude.
Second is Bush's warning to Syria about its
hiding chemical weapons and giving refuge to senior
Iraqi leaders. Syria denies both charges. In fact, its
spokesman, Imad Moustapha, said on Sunday on NBC's "Meet
the Press" that the US is waging a campaign of
misinformation and disinformation to take the world's
attention off of looting campaigns in Iraqi cities.
In the coming weeks and months, it is worth
paying a lot of attention to see how debates inside
Washington evolve about the role of Syria in the US
invasion of Iraq, and its implications for Syria. Right
now, the usual ready-made "experts" are appearing on the
various 24-hour news and talk shows in Washington and
New York, drawing parallels between Iraq under Saddam
and Syria under Bashar Assad. Needless to say, such
parallels are many, but not in the realm of Syria's
ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, a la Iraq under
Saddam.
But there are other reasons underlying
the palpable antagonism that Washington is manifesting
toward the Ba'ath rulers of Syria. Syria is the chief
protagonist of Israel, which continues to occupy the
Golan Heights that the former lost in the Arab-Israeli
war of 1973. Syria is also an occupying power of
Lebanon, where Hezbollah has remained entangled in
intermittent military skirmishes with the Jewish state
for many years. Moreover, Syria has not shown much
exuberance toward the Arab-Israeli peace process, unless
Israel agrees to a "complete withdrawal for complete
peace".
As many times as former US president
Bill Clinton tried to disaggregate the details of such a
Syrian requirement, he did not succeed in bringing
Damascus and Jerusalem together, and Bush never showed
any enthusiasm in pursuing that aspect of the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
So, under Bush, Syria and
the US have plenty of disagreements and contentious
issues. But none should make Syria a potential target of
an extreme response like regime change. Come to think of
it, less than a year ago, the Bush administration was
similarly struggling to articulate its reasons for
implementing regime change in Iraq. The main reason for
Washington's slow unmasking of its rationale was that it
knew the international community would strongly disagree
with it. In the final analysis, international opposition
did not stop the US in bringing about regime change in
Iraq. Thus, leaders in Syria have plenty to be nervous
about in becoming the next potential target of regime
change.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an
Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic
analyst.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
