Who Are The
Terrorists?
By Muslehuddin
Ahmad
The
Daily Star
21 November, 2003
About
a dozen American soldiers in Baghdad kick-opened a family door at dead
of night and grabbed a young woman by her night dress from shoulder
top while she was screaming and running to the other room amid terrifying
situation where other elderly women and children were crying helplessly.
This is what one could see in BBC TV screen during its World News in
the night of November 13 (Bangladesh Time). Similar Gestapo-Israeli
style of searches for so-called terrorists under US "Operation
Iron Hammer" in Iraq were seen before also. But certainly this
was another worst kind of action by the American forces when Bush and
Blair were claiming to have liberated Iraqi people. Let the conscious
world be a witness to this worst type of violation of human rights,
which indeed amounts to terrorism against the helpless women and children.
The occupying power
is terming the Iraqi resistance forces as terrorists, but these resistance
forces obviously see the American forces as terrorists on their soil.
Indeed, in several open interviews by the BBC and CNN, ordinary Iraqis
openly asked American forces to leave Iraq immediately. As far as we
know, under any international law and also under the law of Almighty
God revealed through His Scriptures -- Tourat (Tora) through Prophet
Moses, Ingeel (original Bible) through Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ) and
the Qu'oran through Prophet Mohammad, any occupation of someone's legitimate
home by some illegal and illegitimate elements is wrong and obviously
must be resisted. This is the legitimate right of the occupied one to
fight back till he recovers his Home. Whether one calls it a Jihad or
occupation resistance, it matters very little. The fact remains that
the fight would certainly go on until the occupiers are thrown out.
This is what is going on in Iraq. But the occupiers would obviously
call such resistance forces as terrorists, but the world should accept
what is right and lawful.
In the name of so-called democracy one cannot go and occupy somebody
else's home. Who has given the right to a country or countries to go
and forcibly impose its/their democracy on other people? The occupier's
democracy may be totally unacceptable and indeed unsuitable for those
who are under occupation as they might be belonging to different culture
and environment. There is no particular set of democracy that all people
of the world uniformly follow. Each country follows its own brand based
on its constitution. The whole world does not follow American brand
of democracy where the president is finally declared elected by the
court! What is important is whether the people of that country enjoy
the freedom that is legitimate and necessary to lead their ordinary
life (to enjoy the freedom to have gay marriage and appoint openly gay
Bishop is no freedom at all and cannot fall under any democratic norm
in many countries and societies around the world). If not, the people
themselves shall have the right and the option to bring in necessary
changes. The others, if necessary, may render help in a civilized way,
but not the way Bush-Blair have done it in Iraq.
Time has come to look seriously into these anomalies while some countries
try to promote their own brand of democracy in others' territories.
When the occupying country itself suffers from serious anomalies while
practicing democracy what right does it have to teach democracy to another
people and that also by destroying a country and snatching away its
sovereignty. One gets baffled to even imagine that such a disastrous
thing could be carried out by one of the most democratic countries of
the world in the 21st century.
President Bush Said
Saddam was a dangerous man and so he had to be dealt with. Interestingly,
London mayor Ken Livingstone called Bush " the most dangerous man
on the planet.." One does not know who would deal with Bush. Obviously,
it should be the people of the United States. It's not far off. So far
as Saddam is concerned he had been quiet for about 12 long years. He
had no connection with 9/11 (ref Condoleezza Rice's statement in CNN.).
He had no weapons of mass destruction. Hundreds of weapons experts from
the US and the UK ploughed Iraqi desert for months but found nothing.
Therefore, the American people and many in the US Congress were right
in saying that Bush lied to the American people. If Saddam had no connection
with 9/11, no WMD, then how was he a dangerous man? Saddam's earlier
"danger" was taken care of by Bush Sr. After the Gulf war
Saddam was left in his place for very good reasons. But Bush Jr fell
into Cheney-Rumsfeld axis for different reasons -- oil, Israel and American
supremacy etc. American supremacy is a given fact in the present day
world. America does not have to go on telling the world about it as
Regan said -- we stand tall. The world sees the "tall man"
, he does not have to remind the world about it. More he reminds, dwarf
he becomes to the people.
President Bush said
he wanted to make America safe and secure. This is undoubtedly his primary
duty as the president of the USA. But has he been able to do so? The
facts on the ground say the opposite. Nine/eleven led to the death of
thousands of Afghans. But Bin Laden is still alive and reportedly directing
attacks against America. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed but Saddam is
still alive and reportedly asking Iraqis to fight back and they are
really fighting back. Full scale guerilla war is on. Some of us warned
about the guerilla war even before the Iraq invasion was undertaken.
American soldiers are being killed everyday. Three blackhawk helicopters
were brought down within a week by Iraqi hostile fire killing 39 Americans.
Even Rumsfeld now says the situation is now dangerous there. Both American
and Italians have been mourning the dead. President Bush said these
lives were sacrificed for the cause of freedom. These words really gave
no comfort to the victims' families; they have lost their loved ones.
Bush Administration was forced to change its strategy on Iraq and agreed
to hand over power by June next year. Presidential candidate Wesley
Clark said -- 'no need to wait till June, power should be transferred
tomorrow.' But it is not going to happen. The result would be that America
would have to count more dead.
The honourable and
meaningful exit strategy for American Administration is to hand over
Iraq to the UN. This is what we suggested before. Once the occupying
forces leave Iraq and the UN peacekeepers take over under full UN mandate,
relative calm is likely to return soon. Thereafter the UN may form the
interim government under its care through some form of nomination from
different tribal and ethnic groups (ref. my brief proposal given in
my earlier comment) on proportionate basis. Such a government may exercise
the sovereign power and authority.
There is a possibility that the America would have to quit Iraq under
compelling circumstances and also under public pressure from both within
and outside America. If the UN peace keepers are not in place in Iraq,
the resultant vacuum might lead to some sort of civil and tribal war
and reemergence of Saddam and his cronies. This would mean total disaster
not only for America but also for the Iraqis.
Muslehuddin Ahmad, a former Secretary and Ambassador, is presently the
Vice Chancellor of Presidency University.