 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Decapitation By Antonio C. Abaya April 2, 2003 Even before the pre-announced Shock and Awe descended on the hapless inhabitants of Baghdad, a decapitation operation was put into play by the Americans. Borrowing from the Israelis, who have refined the tactic into a precise science, the Americans determined from intelligence assets on the ground, probably Israeli, that the Iraqi leadership were having a command conference in a compound just outside Baghdad and forthwith rained down their smart bombs and laser-guided missiles on that specific and precise quadrangle of real estate with deadly accuracy. Although Saddam Hussein seems to have survived that attack, unlike most of the targets of the more methodical Israelis, it is ominous that the first major shots of the Second Gulf War were fired in a decapitation or assassination attempt on the enemy leadership. This may be the first in a series of decapitation attempts inside and outside the volatile region. By this time, many among the millions of anti-war protesters around the world, in both Muslim and Christian countries, may have come to realize that no matter how often and how angrily they voice their protests, nothing is bound to change anything. The war party in Washington is hell-bent on invading, occupying and pillaging Iraq, even if they do not find any weapons of mass destruction in its territory, even if Saddam Hussein were to suddenly disappear from the scene, one way or another, and even if the entire population of Iraq were to somehow suddenly convert to George W. Bush� Southern Baptist born-again fundamentalist brand of Christianity. The die has been cast. There is no longer any turning back. It is only a matter of weeks before the Iraqi military and paramilitary units are degraded beyond repair, before they run out of food and water and ammunition in the face of the overwhelming force brought to bear on them by the Crusaders of the 21st century, before endless bouts of street-fighting in and around Baghdad wear them out to exhaustion and surrender. Without any hope of succor from other countries, how long can the Iraqis hope to maintain their struggle against the foreign invaders? Despite claims of 4,000 volunteers marching in from other Muslim countries to help in the defense of Baghdad, they are clearly not enough to turn the tide of battle. It is in the contemplation of what looks like impending military defeat that some among the frustrated millions of anti-war protesters may come to the realization that the only hope of making a significant difference may be to engineer some decapitation of their own. After all, in the macabre calculus of endless war, if one side feels morally free to engage in decapitation, so should the other. Two or more should be able to play the decapitation game as well as one. ***** I wrote in my article titled �2003: Best and Worst Scenarios� (Jan. 2, 2003) that there were at least ten predominantly Muslim countries where the leadership were pro-American but the lumpen population scathingly anti, and which were therefore vulnerable to leadership assassination (or decapitation) if war were to break out in the region. Turkey has to be removed from that list after the Turkish government and parliament managed to skilfully diddle the Americans from using Turkish territory from which to open a second front in northern Iraq with 62,000 troops. It was more high-pressure arm-twisting than haggling in Istanbul�s souks, but in the end the Turks emerged with their honor and sovereignty intact even in the face a brazen $26 billion bribe offer from the Americans. As in Turkey, the leadership in Egypt is no longer out of step with the prevailing public opinion on Cairo�s streets. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has warned the Americans that the war in Iraq will inflame the public in the Muslim world and �instead of one Osama bin Laden, we will have a hundred Osama bin Ladens.� While Egypt presumably will continue to receive its yearly $2 billion aid package from the US (in exchange for US use of Egyptian air bases in case Israel is attacked by a third country), there is little danger now that the Egyptian leadership will face a revolt from the masses. Of the eight other countries in my list, Jordan and Saudi Arabia would be the most vulnerable to decapitation. Not only because of their overt and covert collaboration with the Americans but also because decapitation in either or both countries would be most injurious to American interests in the region, thus making either or both prime targets for would-be decapitators. More than half the population of Jordan are displaced Palestinians, among whom there is genuine sympathy for Saddam Hussein and his Iraq. Saddam had been giving $25,000 checks to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, a gesture that will not be lost to Jordan�s Palestinian community any time soon. Decapitation in Jordan would open Israel�s eastern borders wide open to both Palestinian and Iraqi infiltration and attacks. Saudi Arabia is also vulnerable to decapitation since it is home to the Wahhabi fundamentalists of Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda. In the present situation, it would be counter-productive for the Al-Qaeda, even assuming it still has the capability, to launch terrorist attacks against civilian targets in the US and the UK. That would just alienate the many anti-war protesters in those countries and strengthen the hand (or claws) of the hawks in power there. Objectively speaking, the Al-Qaeda would be optimizing its possibly degraded capabilities if it were to concentrate them instead in the decapitation of Saudi Arabia�s leadership. Certainly they would have the advantage of knowing both the territory and the people as they would be operating in their own front yards and backyards. In the present situation, decapitation in Riyadh would have a far more explosive impact than a poison gas attack on Manhattan�s subways or a radiological or dirty bomb detonation in Southampton port. ***** APRIL 10 UPDATE. Unless they choose to make a last stand in Tikrit, Iraqi resistance has evaporated rather than collapsed. The anticipated urban street fighting did not materialize. There has been no Battle of Berlin or Stalingrad or Hue in Baghdad. With some exceptions, notably at Nasiriyah and the International Airport, the much vaunted Special Republican Guards and Saddam Fedayeen did not stand their ground for long; they apparently just melted away and threw off their weapons and uniforms, perhaps to re-emerge later as jubilant crowds dancing in the streets, happy not so much that Saddam has fallen as that they had managed to stay alive. There has also not been any last throw of the dice with weapons of mass destruction, perhaps because there aren�t any, in which case the main rationale for the war, to disarm Saddam of his WMD, has been rendered unduly alarmist, at best, or artificially contrived, at worst. Neither has there been any retaliatory strikes, in Iraq or elsewhere, by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups with which the Saddam regime was supposed to be allied with or supportive of. (In a recent poll, an astonishing 51% of the American public believe that Saddam Hussein was the principal architect of 9/11.) ***** The bulk of this article appears in the April 12, 2003 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Decapitation� I SHARE YOUR views that the current leadership of Saudi Arabia is in great danger. I have reproduced below an email I wrote to a friend (and AFP General last March 11, 2003) regarding this matter. I would like to share this with you. Best regards, Laurence Go [email protected] April 12, 2003 .................................................................................... March 11, 2003 Dear Sir, After spending a considerable time thinking through why the US is pushing very hard to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq despite the risk and opposition it is facing, I have come to this conclusion. The primary reason why the US wants Saddam out of Iraq is that the US needs Iraq as a counter-weight and an insurance against Saudi Arabia as its primary supplier of oil. More and more, it seems that the leadership of Saudi Arabia is tottering, and appears increasingly frail and in danger of falling into the hands of Muslim extremist. The US will simply not allow a situation where almost 2/3 of the world's proven oil reserve are in the hands of hostile regimes. Despite US's pronouncement to this effect, I do not believe that Saddam and Al-Quaeda are in bed together. These two in fact are sworn enemies and would soon be slashing each other's throat if left to themselves. The US therefore is in no immediate danger from Saddam Hussein as a supplier of WMD to Al-Quaeda. But the danger of Saudi Arabia collapsing like a deck of cards is very real. Most of the terrorist planning and financial support for Al Quaeda and the 9-11 attack were provided by Saudis from Saudi Arabia. The fissures and pressure from within Saudi Arabia are becoming more intense, and it is this same internal domestic pressure that is forcing the House of Saud to hold back support to the US despite intense pressure to do so. Just as the US vigorously went to war against Iraq to recover Kuwait and to protect Saudi Arabia in the early 90s, the same strategic motivation is what prompts the US to vigorously push to unseat Saddam. With Saddam out, and the Iraqis hopefully "liberated", the US surely expects an Iraq that would be very friendly with the US. The US would clearly expect Iraq to fall well within its sphere of influence and protectorate. This is most specially true with the Iraqi Army demolished and its once mortal enemy and neighbor, Iran, now possibly acquiring a nuclear capability within 2 years (unless stopped by Israel or the US). I find it difficult to understand how this issue is not being brought up in many of the forums that are studying the current crisis. Yet, this appears to me as the single most strategic reason as to why the US wants Saddam out. Just my few few cents worth of ideas and thoughts. Best regards, Larry MY REPLY. You might be interested in my article �2003 � Best and Worst Scenarios� (January 3, 2003) in which I commented on the future of the House of Saud. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |