-Caveat Lector-

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/print.asp?ArticleID=66344

A game of chess with many lives at stake
Athens | By Linda Heard | 22/10/2002

As Washington does a soft shoe shuffle to appease its detractors in the United Nations
Security Council and agrees to changes in the wording of the proposed new Iraq 
resolution,
American President George W. Bush considers an Israeli proposal to destroy Iraqi 
missiles
in Iraq's western desert.

The proposal involves a joint U.S.-Israel mission whereby American Special Forces would
be used, backed by Israeli intelligence, and is said to have been put to the U.S.
administration by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during his recent visit to the 
American
leader in Washington.

Israel is actively encouraging the U.S. to invade Iraq and has threatened to retaliate 
should
it be the recipient of Iraqi missiles as it was in the 1991 Gulf War. But, unlike his 
father,
who managed to restrain the Israeli government of the day, Bush junior appears to have
given Sharon the green light to enter the fray.

At the same time, Bush has approved the training by the U.S. military of 5,000 would-be
combatants selected from Iraqi opposition groups, an exercise expected to run to the 
tune
of $92 million. This could indicate that the Pentagon is contemplating a similar model 
for
warfare as the one used in Afghanistan where the Pentagon used the Northern Alliance as
a proxy army.

Congressional resolution

On October 16, the American President signed a Congressional resolution, which 
sanctions
his authority to use any necessary force to dismantle Iraq's suspected weapons of mass
destruction. Said Bush soon after: "This nation will not live at the mercy of any 
foreign
power or plot".

These aggressive measures by Washington are hardly conducive to optimism that peace
will win through. Will the U.S. back off from its stated intentions to effect a regime 
change
even if the UN Weapons inspectors return to Baghdad? Will it allow itself to be guided 
by
the restraining hand of the UN member states?

Both George Bush and U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have said repeatedly that
America will not shy away from a unilateral approach if it deems that Iraq still poses 
a
threat to its interests.

Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, has urged Baghdad to cooperate fully
with the UN and warned America that any strike on Iraq would be likely to ignite 
Mid-East
public opinion, which is already angry and frustrated.

The ubiquitous Arab street is infuriated at seeing Palestinian children being gunned 
down in
the West Bank and Gaza on a daily basis; angered by the attacks on Islam and the 
Prophet
by U.S. television evangelists, such as Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, not to 
mention
being outraged at the racial profiling targeted at Arabs entering the U.S.

Starting this month, most Arab visitors to the U.S. will be fingerprinted, 
photographed and
even interrogated by immigration officials at U.S. airports and border crossings. Saudi
Arabia seems to have decided that enough is enough and has introduced a reciprocal 
policy
applicable to Americans entering Saudi, as well as to those already resident in the 
kingdom.

Jordan doesn't appear to be putting much stock in the return of the inspectors 
dissipating
the clouds of war, and believes that conflict may still be on the cards. King Abdullah 
told the
German magazine Der Spiegel that while peace has a chance, Jordan is taking steps to
protect itself from exposure to chemical and biological weapons.

Wedged between Israel on the one side and Iraq on the other, Jordan is in a precarious
position. If the U.S. were to go it alone, Jordan would no doubt face a huge influx of 
Iraqi
refugees fleeing the conflict along with anti-U.S. demonstrations in the streets of 
its capital.

There is also the scenario that Ariel Sharon could use any U.S.-Iraq conflict to 
further his
long time dream of a greater Israel and force the West Bank Palestinians across the 
Jordan
River, under the pretext that as allies of Saddam Hussain, they posed a threat to 
Israel's
security.

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt believes that the United States would be better 
employed
working on ways to stop Israeli aggression in the Occupied Territories than preparing 
to
attack Iraq.

Mubarak faces the spectre of dwindling tourists, a worsening economy and growing anti-
Western feeling among his people if an attack were to take place. Such an unhealthy 
set of
circumstances could represent a breeding ground for religious extremism, which the
Egyptian government has been fighting for decades.

Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa, the Prime Minister of Bahrain, has urged the Arab
world to hold an emergency summit, saying that suggestions that Iraq poses a threat are
'mere exaggerations". Sheikh Khalifa represents the view of most of the Gulf States, 
with
the possible exceptions of Kuwait and Qatar.

Nobody is more sceptical of Washington's attempt to mollify members of the UN Security
Council than Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz who said resignedly: "The U.S. will act
unilaterally and not consult with anyone".

In an emotional public acceptance of a new seven-year term of office, shown in its 
entirety
by CNN, the Iraqi President said: "Our friends everywhere. You are facing the U.S. 
policy of
hegemony, which seeks the path of blood and violence as well as the means of
destruction."

Judging by Saddam's recent actions he is likely to be a master chess player. In recent
months he has thwarted every American ploy in his direction by agreeing to almost every
UN demand, showing groups of Western journalists around facilities suspected by
Washington, and hosting a group of U.S. Congressmen.

Further, amid Washington's allegations that the Iraqi people would be delighted with a
regime change, Saddam called a national referendum on his continuing presidency and has
apparently received the full backing of his people to continue for another seven years.

Under intense provocation, the Iraqi leader has managed to refrain from the use of
threatening rhetoric towards the U.S. and has made it clear that although he does not 
relish
the thought of war, he is prepared to face whatever comes.

In a further show of good faith on the part of Iraq, Kuwaiti and Iraqi officials met 
at the
border of their two countries on Saturday, under the auspices of the UN, to organise 
the
return of tonnes of Kuwaiti archives, which were taken from Kuwait during the Gulf War.

In fact, Saddam is beginning to appear positively benign after Sunday's strategic 
release of
most of the prisoners in his jails, including political prisoners. Yet another move 
which pulls
the rug from Bush's personal attacks on the Iraqi leader.

While the American administration's motives for a proposed attack on Iraq are already
suspect, they have been further highlighted by last Friday's announcement by North 
Korea
that it is developing nuclear weapons, despite an earlier agreement not to do so, 
brokered
by ex-President Jimmy Carter.

While perturbed by the North Korean statement, both Condoleezza Rice, US National
Security Adviser, and Rumsfeld have seemingly shrugged off the North Korean threat,
preferring to keep any response on the backburner while still focusing on Iraq.

Rumsfeld went as far as saying that North Korea only has two or three (nuclear 
missiles) in
a tone implying that these were a mere drop in the ocean and hardly worth worrying 
about.
The Defence Secretary is also strangely comfortable with Israel's 300 or so nuclear
warheads even though the region is highly volatile.

Since North Korea also forms part of Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil" it is surely 
surprising
that the US considers the invasion of Iraq, which is now intent on cooperating with UN
demands, as its highest priority. Simply put, why is Iraq a greater threat to world 
peace
and security than North Korea?

When it comes to North Korea, the U.S. administration is quick to point out that 
problems
with North Korea's nuclear proliferation can be sorted out diplomatically - an option, 
which
it is reluctant to offer Baghdad.

Right on the button

In this light, perhaps Sheikh Khalifa was right on the button when he recently said: 
"The
continuous threats to wage war in this vital region are not intended to enforce the 
return of
the UN weapons inspectors to Iraq but to dominate this Arab country".

The bottom line is Saddam is not a threat to world peace or American lives but to
America's ambitions.

A report, compiled by the Baker Institute for Public Policy and commissioned by 
American
Vice President Dick Cheney, who also heads the White House Energy Policy Development
Group, lends transparency to the true intentions of Washington's Hawks.

The report, entitled Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, 
concludes:
"The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma... Saddam Hussain has also
demonstrated a willingness to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to
manipulate oil markets.

"Therefore, the US should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including
military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments".

Bush's earlier statements of wishing to democratise Iraq and free the Iraqi people from
their "evil dictator" ring hollow too, since America's plan for Iraq after Saddam was 
leaked.

Confirmed by Colin Powell as one of the options on the table is the insertion of an 
American
military government in Iraq with someone like Brigadier General Tommy Franks,
Commander in Chief of the US Central Command, at its head.

In this lengthy game of chess with people's lives as the pawns, Saddam is currently
emerging as the victor. World opinion is on the side of the Iraqi people.

On the other hand, if the United States engineers an invasion of Iraq, the black 
'knight' will
have moved and the entire world checkmated.

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs.


© Al Nisr Publishing LLC - Gulf News Online

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A<>E<>R
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; I don't believe everything I read or send
(but that doesn't stop me from considering it; obviously SOMEBODY thinks it's 
important)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without  
charge
or
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of 
information  for
non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth
shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/
 <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to