Sunday 22 May 2005

Are there some peace-loving people still waiting for the US withdrawal and the end of wars and occupations? If there are, let it be known to everyone that their desire will remain a dream for as long as the most corrupt and tyrannical system of governance survives in the US and allied states.

Now that the lies about weapons of mass destruction have been officially admitted, and the situation in Afghanistan is far worse than it ever was under the Taliban, the single most important motivator that led the US into these adventures is being publicly acknowledged.

Before discussing the real motivators, let us look at the war lords’ liberal mouth pices and see how they are trying to give us a different ruse for permanent war.

In its January 13, 2005 editorial, "Bulletin: No W.M.D. Found," the New York Times writes: "The 1,200 military men and women who were assigned to his search team are now fighting Iraqi insurgents. We hope they succeed. If they do not, large swaths of Iraq could become a no man's land, where terrorists will be free to work on W.M.D. projects and United Nations weapons inspectors cannot go to thwart them."

The question is where were the terrorists and insurgents before the US invasion? In the final analysis we will see how the New York Times ruse for the war leads to addressing the same objective as the chief terrorists have set for themselves.

The war lord, Thomas Friedman, also repeated the same mantra the same day in the New York Times under the title: "Ballots and Boycotts." He concluded: "we have a much greater chance of producing a decent outcome in Iraq by appealing to the self-interest of the Kurds and the Shiites to be magnanimous in victory, than we do of getting the fascist insurgents to be magnanimous in defeat."

So the task is now reduced to defeating "fascist insurgents." But are they just insurgents? Where were they before the US invaded Iraq on the basis of lies?

The day after the lies were officially admitted, the Washington Post was totally silent. Washington Time (Jan 13) was silent as well but to promote the permanent ruse, it published an article, "Stay the Course," by Congressman George Allen, who promoted the same ruse in these words:

"These attacks are being carried out by vicious terrorists who detest freedom and aim to push back not just the election, but to keep democratic elections from ever taking place in Iraq. Their ultimate goal and victory would be to return Iraq to a repressive state or an intolerant theocracy."
Los Angeles Times was also silent on January 13. However there was an article, The Truth Shall se you back," by Margaret Carlson which on the one hand admitted that "in the Bush administration, you lose your job not for lying but for telling the truth," but on the other habd favored the Iraq invasion and demanded more troops: "Bush gives those medals to people who keep their mouths shut, like L. Paul Bremer III, who got one for not saying until he retired that Bush hadn't sent enough troops to Iraq."

The real objective for the totalitarian nihilists’ going to war was openly discussed by General Abizaid a few weeks before the US public acknowledgement of lies. Gen. John Abizaid, whom the Washington Post Editor, David Ignatius, could not pump any more than he did in his December 26, 2004 column, is like any of the doomed commanders in history – busy dreaming conquering the world and achieving the impossible for their masters.

For each Abizaid of the past there were many Ignatius to keep them reminding that they command "the most potent military force in history." However, all those potent forces melted like wax in their respective ages when they undertook "Long War" that Abizaid is keenly looking forward to keep fighting for decades.

Ignatius’s description of Abizaid’s field of action clearly shows the real motive and the target area for the 21st century crusades. Besides the title: "Achieving Real Victory Could Take Decades," the language used for such descriptions further smells of a new, indefinite crusade.

After spending some time in Abizaid’s company, Ignatius describes the battlefield as "the jagged crescent of the Middle East, from Egypt to Pakistan" in a world where "if there is a modern Imperium Americanum, Abizaid is its field general.

No one denies that. The question, however, is about the real motives and the real enemy. David Ignatius asks: "For all of America's military might, the Long War that has begun in the Middle East poses some tough strategic questions. What is the nature of the enemy?" In the very next question he identifies the enemy: "What will victory look like, in Iraq and elsewhere in the Islamic world?"

Although the war lords identify "Islamic" world as the enemy, but it is actually the Islam-less Muslim world, which is the target. The motive is to hold it from becoming Islamic in the real sense.

Despite occupying two countries for the last few years and killing around 150,000 people, including Americans, the terrorist in chief, General Abizaid, "believes that the Long War is only in its early stages." Imagine the advanced stages when the objective will be achieved with "modernization of the Islamic world" and its "accommodation with the [capitalist] global economy." (the Washington Post, December 26, 2004, page B01).

It shows the enemy was not Saddam, nor were the WMD a threat. Like Galloway, many are reminding the war lords that there was no Iraq connection to 9/11; there were no WMD; Saddam was not a threat and so on. Others are pleading naively to end the occupation and bring back the troops.

Terrorist minds have a different view and different real objectives. General Abizaid has been clearly telling that his forces are out there to crush those who "try to re-create what they imagine was the pure and perfect Islamic government of the era of the prophet Muhammad."

To the 21st century crusaders, invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan are just Iraq "the early stages" of a "long war" in the "loose network of like-minded individuals who use 21st century-technology to spread their vision of a 7th-century paradise."

Is it now clear enough for those who want their kids back from Iraq? It was not a war on WMD or Saddam or a mission for democracy and freedom in the first palce. It is a war on "7th century paradise."

Abizaid's historical analogies to Bolshevik leaders or revolutionary Europe in 1848 are totally misleading. Through the distorted lens of history, contemporary problems are presented in a way to justify the never ending wars. There is enormous difference between the 19th-century anarchist Prince Peter Kropotkin, who wanted to use revolutionary violence to purge what he viewed as a corrupt order, and those who are working to pave the way for Muslims’ living by Islam today.
If the revolutionary leaders in the Muslim world are against the corrupt order and tyrants like Islam Karimov, General Musharraf and the kins and sheikhs; if there is a change process underway, why does that bother the US? What is it trying to protect or impose?

Why is the US after the revolutionaries? Why does it want to "kill or capture them"? Is the corrupt order in the Muslim world somehow sustaining the modern Imperium Americanum?
What kind of modernization is this that has taken lives of more than 120,000 Iraqis so far?

We know that none of the Iraqi’s went on a suicidal mission to kill fellow Iraqis before the arrival of modern day barbarians in Iraq. What made the Iraqis do so: their desire for a "7th century paradise" or their reaction to the 21st century tyranny?

All these 120,000 Iraqis were not "salafist Jihadists" or revolutionaries. If this is the count for a couple of years, what if the indefinite crusade continues for decades as envisaged by the war lords?

The new ruses are coming from the "liberal" mouth pieces of the war lords because there is no doubt remaining on the baselessness of earlier justifications for war. No one uttered a single word about denying Muslims the right to live by Islam at the time when the air in Washington was full of lies and everyone was busy in inventing more lies to somehow make the "initial stages" of the crusade possible. We didn’t see Abizaid coming out, as we do now, to declare: "No need to lie. We are heading for a long war for 'modernization’ of the modern day 'Bolsheviks’?"

The reason is that the war lords in the US wanted to launch the war and they cared less if they had to brazenly lie for that. Now that their earlier lies are exposed, they are clearly saying that the threat is the Muslims desire to live by Islam. They also add that it is not wise to leave the mess behind. In their view things will be in order when there is no aspiration among Muslims left to live by Islam.

There are two pertinent questions: Is it possible? And how long would it take? The answer to the first question is: absolutely not. The answer to the second question is that the war will continue till the war lords realize that their "modern Imperium Americanum" has slipped from their hands for ever.

The question that no one among the American war lords is considering is about the cost. They believe the proportion of 1,500 to 120,000 is worth defeating what Abizaid calls "the most despicable enemy I've ever seen."

Keeping in mind the early miscalculations about wining their ideological war, one can safely predict that the worst war of human history is unfolding before our eyes. Allowing the American totalitarians to finish their job amounts to granting them a license to wipe out, at least, one quarter of the human population.

There will never be anything like what the chief terrorist, General Abizaid, promises the world: "One day you'll wake up and there will be more food, more security, more stability." We have all these things now. What is missing is the lack of will on the part of the nihilists in Washington to let others live the way the have to live. Otherwise, the future generations would consider us worse than those who supported Nazis and other fascists in similar adventures.