-- How Bush and Blair fulfilled Osama’s Iraq agenda --
Rewind to the 21st day of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Coming from Baghdad, the footages of Iraqis celebrating the fall of Saddam Hussein ultimately lent some life to the plastic grins of Bush and Blair. The western channels went as hysterical, seeking symbolism even in rampant looting. But what was it really that the free world of the Bushes and the Blairs was flaunting as the vindication of their cause?
Granted, looting is natural in wartime. But when cameras caught a large gathering of what the Western news channels described as Shiite men shouting the glory of God, even the earnest anchors of BBC and CNN didn’t realise that they were rejoicing at a mob of Islamist hardliners cheering the end of the secular Iraq. The BBC anchor even bothered to translate the mood and the chants for us: "They have reopened mosques shut down by the regime, they are shouting there is only one God, they are shouting God is great" etc etc.
That was just the beginning. Last Tuesday, Shiites took to Baghdad’s roads in hundreds to commemorate the death of Imam Hussein, prophet Mohammed’s cousin. This weekend, thousands of them started marching towards Kerbala _ one of their holiest shrines. No wonder that liberal Iraqis are apprehensive that underground Shiite groups like the Dawa Party can emerge quickly in any power vaccuum, tapping religious sentiments evident in the capital and elsewhere. Some reports in the Western media suggest that even Sunnis have organised religious movements with the help of economic and tribal interests groups and are expected to compete for authority in the post-war chaos.
Now didn’t Bush tell us this war was part of his fabled anti-terror drive to protect pax Americana _ the free, secular and democratic world? And didn’t he want us to hear between his teeth that terror usually emanates from Islamic fundamentalism? And still he is happy to have Shiite hardliners star in the most-cherished promos of the American brand of freedom. For once, Uncle Sam looks trapped.
Irony apart, the Iraq potboiler yields many losers. The biggest among them is secular liberalism. For months, Bush administration desperately wanted to convince us of Saddam’s Al Qaeda links. But if the allied war is for Iraqi freedom, it is as much for the American oil empire and, tragically, for Al Qaeda. Warned William O. Beeman, director of Middle East Studies at Brown University, before the war: "The Bush administration’s assessment of Al Qaeda’s relationship with Saddam Hussein remains seriously flawed. If it is not rethought, America may win the war in Iraq _ for Osama bin Laden."
In the ‘70s, when the Baath Party kept religion out of political life and sought a Arab nationalist identity, the veil was an uncommon sight in Baghdad, bars flourished in many neighbourhoods and the government was known to arrest people solely on the grounds of regular visits to mosques.
Sustained US threat gradually weakened the Baath Party’s secular stand since Gulf War I and the same government has shuttered bars along Abu Nawas Street, an avenue named after a medieval poet fond of wine and women. Saddam himself reconciled to praying five times a day to seek legitimacy through Islam. According to a pre-war Washington Post report, religious leaders estimate that over the past decade, more than 100 mosques have been constructed in Baghdad. God is great was emblazoned on the Iraqi flag. At Baghdad University, few, if any, women covered their hair till the ’80s. Today, a majority do so. At a meeting of the Federation of Iraqi Women a couple of months back, once a symbol of the rights the Baath Party bestowed on women, all the women in attendance were veiled.
As the fear of America grew in Iraq, so did the power of Muslim clerics who had little clout only a few years back. People turned to faith, desperate for relief from the woes of war and more than a decade of sanctions. Saddam poured religious rhetoric into his speeches, linking defence of Iraq to jehad. Despite a resource crunch, his government was building two of the world’s largest mosques in Baghdad and lavished patronage on Shiite Muslim shrines. But Saddam’s original secular image survived and made him an Al Qaeda target.
The liberal Iraqis fear the future more than the war. After the hardline celebrations in Baghdad suburbs, it seems whatever comes next will not be tolerant. Do they see Al Qaeda lurking in the shadow waiting for the regime to fall? Perhaps.
Notes Alex Standish, editor of Jane’s Intelligence Digest: "I can’t see any reason why Saddam, coming from a Arab nationalist, fairly secular background, would have any interest in supporting or promoting an extremist and militant religious ideology that would ultimately be opposed to everything he has ever stood for."
Similarly, Osama bin Laden is opposed to all secular leaders in the Arab world. A month before the war began, Osama released a tape on February 11 asserting that "socialists and communists are unbelievers" and labelling Saddam an apostate of Islam, an infidel. "A crusade concerns the Muslim nation, regardless of whether the socialist party and Saddam remain or go," the tape said.
Argues Peter Bergen, author of Holy War Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden: "Osama bin Laden is an Islamist zealot who despises secular fascists such as Saddam. I heard from Bin Laden himself that he is no fan of Saddam. When I met with the Saudi exile in Afghanistan five years ago, he volunteered that he thought the Iraqi dictator was a 'bad Muslim'. For Bin Laden, that's as bad as it gets."
For Al Qaeda, Saddam is irrelevant. Far from opposing the war, Osama appreciates it as a chance to humiliate the Americans on the battlefield, and as an opportunity to establish an Islamic regime in West Asia’s only secular island. So, in the hills and caves of the Zagros mountain on Iraq’s eastern borders, Al Qaeda guerrillas are waiting for Saddam’s secular army to be eliminated by General Tommy Franks’ brigades. They are in no hurry. Once the allied forces prepare the ground for a fundamentalist resurgence, Osama’s gang will descend to strike in the name of revolutionary Islam.
Meanwhile, Bush can feel smug about Iraqi freedom.
ALL ON ONE THURSDAY
-- Ever wondered just how reckless the news media
can get? Sample what it put out on a single day.--
When you are in the business of news, it makes sense to compete. On Thursday morning (March 13), all four English dailies I buy were in agreement about the day's lead: Vajpayee breaking India's official silence on the Iraq crisis. Then, the 'national leader' stumped me. It was right there, above the fold, with the lead. An innocuous "comment" that went like this: "It's good to know that not only does Atalji read our editorials but also acts on them. As he's done this time to the suggestion yesterday that Parliamentary opposition should be voiced to unilateral action on Iraq." Completely foxed, I read again. And again.
The yesterday in question was March 12, when the 'national leader' carried a full-fledged comment (read editorial) titled "Vote for the UN". As the Times of India's edits come highlighted (to show solidarity with the Men in Blue, I suppose), it's difficult to miss the key point: "There is a good case for passing a parliamentary resolution that unambiguously clarifies India's stand on this war." I read their lead again. There was no mention about Parliament passing any resolution that even ambiguously clarified anything on the Iraq-US tangle.
Now on the same March 12, two other major English dailies that I follow had come out with editorials on the same issue. Titled "India in a new world", the Hindustan Times noted that "India's experience from its non-aligned days may help it to do some tightrope walking in this context, but it still has to make up its mind on crucial issues like the future of the UN." The Hindu, in its edit titled "Dangerous drift", observed that "the pusillanimity displayed by New Delhi in its refusal to stake out a position against a war on Iraq is inexcusable. Vajpayee ought to have acceded to the Opposition's demand and taken a position that reflected the strong sentiment against war shared by many people across the country."
The Indian Express had taken up the issue even earlier. On March 10, its editorial "Inching toward War" noted: "For us in India, the challenge is that the principles that we have traditionally upheld have come into some tension with our key interests. It is necessary to reassert these principles, like the importance of peaceful resolution of the Iraqi situation, and the critical need for UN legitimacy of any action."
Thinking it over, I felt confident as a professional. There is no reason to doubt the 'national leader', which was claiming on page one that our Prime Minister needs media prodding even to take an almost regulation stand. Then, I felt miserable. Though every publication that matters took up the issue in their editorials, I should have known that the nation's leader would naturally rely only on the 'national leader'. Finally, I felt stumped. Only business acumen of a most refined advertorial order can use the Prime Minister as a super model and educate the miserable millions like me on the special bonds between leaders. We must raise jugs of champagne to cheer that feat.
From now on, I'll be wary of the 13th even on Thursdays. My morning was already made but then I flipped to page three of the Hindustan Times. Under the 'Terrorists moving out of Delhi', I encountered this gem: "...police have definite information that these terrorists have found safe havens in the towns of Western UP. A large number of Kashmiri youths have been seen in these towns. These have either joined educational institutes or work in factories." These hapless men from the Valley, reduced to daily wager away from their trouble-torn home, already have hands full looking for jobs and even finding accommodation. If one of them is lynched tomorrow by a paranoid mob, I bet this reporter will be callous enough not to notice the blood on his/her keyboard.
Morning shows the day, and clichés reassert themselves on days like this. Back home from work at night and the NDTV blurted out that a bomb had just gone off in a crowded Mumbai local. After reporters from Mumbai had put in their early inputs, the celebrity news anchor ushered in an upcoming crime reporter from Delhi. All excitement, she went on to inform us that Delhi police is on high alert and they are particularly watching establishments like the railway station and ISBT because "all Muslim fundamentalist organizations will be targeting these to cause maximum damage." Minutes after the Mumbai Police Commissioner said that the motive and the nature of the terrorist strike was still being investigated, the reporter served us our pet conclusion on a platter: If it's terror, it got to involve Muslim fundamentalists. Period.
As the proliferation of ready-to-print/air media junk continues, cub reporters and seasoned editors alike are grappling, often at the cost of ethics and responsibility, to stay atop the clutter. We understand honest mistakes, but are we at all serious about getting the news right or we would rather be fine just making a splash?
Time, we came clear.
can get? Sample what it put out on a single day.--
When you are in the business of news, it makes sense to compete. On Thursday morning (March 13), all four English dailies I buy were in agreement about the day's lead: Vajpayee breaking India's official silence on the Iraq crisis. Then, the 'national leader' stumped me. It was right there, above the fold, with the lead. An innocuous "comment" that went like this: "It's good to know that not only does Atalji read our editorials but also acts on them. As he's done this time to the suggestion yesterday that Parliamentary opposition should be voiced to unilateral action on Iraq." Completely foxed, I read again. And again.
The yesterday in question was March 12, when the 'national leader' carried a full-fledged comment (read editorial) titled "Vote for the UN". As the Times of India's edits come highlighted (to show solidarity with the Men in Blue, I suppose), it's difficult to miss the key point: "There is a good case for passing a parliamentary resolution that unambiguously clarifies India's stand on this war." I read their lead again. There was no mention about Parliament passing any resolution that even ambiguously clarified anything on the Iraq-US tangle.
Now on the same March 12, two other major English dailies that I follow had come out with editorials on the same issue. Titled "India in a new world", the Hindustan Times noted that "India's experience from its non-aligned days may help it to do some tightrope walking in this context, but it still has to make up its mind on crucial issues like the future of the UN." The Hindu, in its edit titled "Dangerous drift", observed that "the pusillanimity displayed by New Delhi in its refusal to stake out a position against a war on Iraq is inexcusable. Vajpayee ought to have acceded to the Opposition's demand and taken a position that reflected the strong sentiment against war shared by many people across the country."
The Indian Express had taken up the issue even earlier. On March 10, its editorial "Inching toward War" noted: "For us in India, the challenge is that the principles that we have traditionally upheld have come into some tension with our key interests. It is necessary to reassert these principles, like the importance of peaceful resolution of the Iraqi situation, and the critical need for UN legitimacy of any action."
Thinking it over, I felt confident as a professional. There is no reason to doubt the 'national leader', which was claiming on page one that our Prime Minister needs media prodding even to take an almost regulation stand. Then, I felt miserable. Though every publication that matters took up the issue in their editorials, I should have known that the nation's leader would naturally rely only on the 'national leader'. Finally, I felt stumped. Only business acumen of a most refined advertorial order can use the Prime Minister as a super model and educate the miserable millions like me on the special bonds between leaders. We must raise jugs of champagne to cheer that feat.
From now on, I'll be wary of the 13th even on Thursdays. My morning was already made but then I flipped to page three of the Hindustan Times. Under the 'Terrorists moving out of Delhi', I encountered this gem: "...police have definite information that these terrorists have found safe havens in the towns of Western UP. A large number of Kashmiri youths have been seen in these towns. These have either joined educational institutes or work in factories." These hapless men from the Valley, reduced to daily wager away from their trouble-torn home, already have hands full looking for jobs and even finding accommodation. If one of them is lynched tomorrow by a paranoid mob, I bet this reporter will be callous enough not to notice the blood on his/her keyboard.
Morning shows the day, and clichés reassert themselves on days like this. Back home from work at night and the NDTV blurted out that a bomb had just gone off in a crowded Mumbai local. After reporters from Mumbai had put in their early inputs, the celebrity news anchor ushered in an upcoming crime reporter from Delhi. All excitement, she went on to inform us that Delhi police is on high alert and they are particularly watching establishments like the railway station and ISBT because "all Muslim fundamentalist organizations will be targeting these to cause maximum damage." Minutes after the Mumbai Police Commissioner said that the motive and the nature of the terrorist strike was still being investigated, the reporter served us our pet conclusion on a platter: If it's terror, it got to involve Muslim fundamentalists. Period.
As the proliferation of ready-to-print/air media junk continues, cub reporters and seasoned editors alike are grappling, often at the cost of ethics and responsibility, to stay atop the clutter. We understand honest mistakes, but are we at all serious about getting the news right or we would rather be fine just making a splash?
Time, we came clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
