Ternopol, Ukraine
January 3, 2003
NgEX! Editor's Note: Lex Talionis: or "the law (lex) of retaliation." The lex talionis is a law of equal and direct retribution: in the words of the Hebrew scriptures, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an arm for an arm, a life for a life." ...more
Introduction:
Whilst one can not for certain attribute the Arabic dictum to “fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it” to any known personage, it is indubitable that it was Nobel prize-winning physicist Albert Einstein who once made the observation that “few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions”.
The former statement is reputed to be so archaic that it might predate recorded history, whereas Einstein’s remarks were made in relatively recent times. However, one might be forgiven the error in judgement in making the assumption that the two statements were made recently especially in view of contemporary local and global events vis-à-vis the threat of another war in the Middle East; the so-called crusade against the threat posed by terrorism post-September 11, 2001; our own Shari’ah and “Isioma-ThisDay-gate” scandals with the subsequent reactions from different quarters etc.
On one hand, for those who see themselves as allies of Western culture and the modernity that comes with it, the new vogue appears to be Islam-bashing and unqualified support for the actions of the gung ho politicians at the head of the “anti-terrorist crusade”.
On the other hand most Muslims, either in reaction to this or in an attempt to fend off what they perceive as an encroachment on their turf, have adopted the ‘defend-ours-no-matter-what’ attitude, gaining for themselves such epithets as ‘fundamentalists’ , ‘terrorists’ etc. to boot.
The soi-disant leader of the free world, President George Bush of the United States in what has become known as the “Axis of Evil” speech drew the line when he declared that it is either we supported them in their crusade, or would be perceived to be against them. On his part, Bush’s main adversary, Osama Bin Laden, declared just before the beginning of the American campaign in Afghanistan that the world was now split into two camps - the believers and unbelievers.
Apart from their both being privileged with being born and raised in proverbial silver-spoon surroundings thus attaining their present statuses largely by accident of birth, this ‘black and white’ world-view may be the only thing these two men have in common. Yet they both seem intent in forcing it down our throats and, judging by subsequent events, it appears they are making some headway.
The misguided and ignorant Muslims in some of our cities who were reported to have celebrated in the wake of the September 11 World Trade Centre terrorist attacks and then the retaliatory demonstrations in support of the United States’ crusade by other equally ignorant and misguided elements in other cities could at least be taken as proof of such an assertion.
In the contribution that follows I shall attempt to demonstrate that both extreme poles of this continuum are erroneous.
To fellow Muslims who, for one reason or another, do not seem to be seeing with their own eyes or listening with their own ears, l shall attempt to present the danger of complacency in the face of an extremist minority who by their actions expose the faith and its adherents to ridicule, unjust and unnecessary criticism.
To our non-Muslim brethren I can only hope it serves as tool in a genuine quest for truth and understanding, for I share in the belief that it is only through objective dialogue that we can learn to live together in peace and harmony, values without which our continued co-existence and collective progress will forever remain elusive.
Of “Jihad” and “Mujahideens”
Largely due to the efforts of the media, if one was to ask the common man in the street for a definition of ‘jihad’, the most probable answer would be that of a “holy war”. This misconception can be traced to early-day orientalists and the theory has been brought forward for their misconstruction of this concept as a reflection of the Christian use of the term "Holy War" to refer to the Crusades of Christendom, a series of military campaigns which began in 1095 and ended in the late 13th century.
The term ‘crusade’ was originally applied solely to European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem. It was later used to designate any military effort by Europeans against non-Christians. Thus as a result of a lack of understanding of Arabic linguistics and the abundantly abused media usage of the term, the image that has ensconced itself in the minds of most is the particularly negative one of fanatical “believers” in a quest to kill all “infidels”.
Literally, ‘jihad’ means ‘struggle’, the Arabic words for ‘war’ which are found in the Qur'an and Hadith are ‘harb’ or ‘qital’.
Ask any Arab to translate the words ‘holy war’ back into Arabic and you get "harbun muqaddasatu", a term non-existent in the Islamic lexicon, which makes this continued mistranslation of ‘jihad’ as "holy war" all the more perplexing. It is unfortunate that some translators of Islamic scriptures and other literature as well as some Muslim writers and scholars seem to have adopted this mistranslation due to the influence of centuries-old Western propaganda.
The concept of ‘jihad’ in Islam is very broad, and it encompasses all things in the struggle to obey God's commandments. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), upon returning from a battle, was once reported to have made the remark to his companions that they were returning from the "lesser jihad" of fighting to the "greater jihad" - that of struggling against the evil temptations of the soul.
In another tradition, he was reported to have said that “the best of jihad is a perfect Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah)". Jihad in Islam is therefore striving in the way of Allah by pen, tongue, hand, media and, if inevitable, with arms. It does not include striving for individual or national power, dominance, glory, wealth, prestige or pride.
According to Islamic teachings, it is wrong to instigate or start war; some wars however, are inevitable and justifiable. Allah has said in the Qur'an that He does not love those who create trouble in the Earth. A military campaign in Islam is justifiable for any of three reasons, viz.:
- To defend the Muslim community or allies under their protection against aggression.
- To eliminate an evil, oppressive force.
- To remove any barrier to the free flow of Islamic da'wah (the peaceful propagation of religion).
In execution of a military jihad, the Muslim army is explicitly barred from hurting women, children, innocent people, old people, farmers, the sick, nor is it allowed to harm plants, homes, property or animals.
In the Holy Qur’an chapter 2:190,193 the injunction is to "Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors.....And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against transgressors".
Elsewhere, Muslims are reminded: “Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error." (Qur’an, 2:256). Muslims and even non-Muslims with a basic knowledge of the religion’s tenets know this.
As far back as in 1896, the Christian missionary Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his ‘The Preaching of Islam, a History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith’ wrote :“….of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years.
The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christiandom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of Mohammedan (sic) governments towards them".
James Michener in a piece titled : ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion’ published in the Reader’s Digest of May 1955, pp. 68-70 states: "No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience".
The brutally false distortion of the true, broader meaning of jihad is further perpetuated by a minority of extremists - Muslims who, as a result of being misguided or mostly in serving some selfish or political interests or claim to be “mujahideen” (people involved in jihad). This brings us right at the doorsteps of the impending military conflict in the Middle East - the quest by America and its allies to get rid of an ever increasingly cantankerous Saddam Hussein and the role of religion, if any, in all of this.
After the 1979 Iranian revolution, the United States and its allies in the Middle East were naturally concerned about the destabilizing effects the new government in Teheran might have on their interests in the Persian Gulf. In Saddam Hussein then, they found what they perceived as the perfect tool for indirect intervention.
Iraq had a long standing territorial dispute with Iran over the Shatt al Arab, a waterway that empties into the Persian Gulf and forms the boundary between the two countries. In 1975, a militarily weaker Iraq had by treaty signed over to Iran partial control of the waterway, but after the fall of Iranian monarch Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi and the resultant weakening of Iran's military, which had hitherto enjoyed the support of the allied United States, Saddam seized this opportunity to reclaim the Shatt al Arab in September 1980. He also hoped to seize the western Iranian region of Khuzestan, an area known for its extensive oil fields.
In the ensuing 8 year conflict, there was no questioning on whose side the United States stood. To help Iraq, U.S. Navy vessels appeared and destroyed the Iranian navy. In another incident, which by the way would have served as a classical example of terrorism had the act been perpetrated by another, an Iranian airliner was shot down by U.S. missiles. However, the Iranian resistance proved strong, and by early 1982, Iraqi troops had withdrawn from the occupied portions of Iran.
Nevertheless, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared that Iran would not cease fighting until Saddam's regime was toppled. Iran began a series of offensives, which proved successful enough to cause Saddam to resort to the use of chemical weapons. As long as he was their thug, the U.S. tolerated Saddam Hussein, and not much was made then of the weapons at his disposal or how he chose to use them.
The stalemate in the long war, which claimed over a million lives and has been described as one of the most destructive wars of the 20th century, ended in a truce with Iran in August 1988. Saddam Hussein’s venture to acquire Iran’s resources had thus failed.
Enver Masud had opined that: “Nations make war, as they have throughout history, to acquire resources, to acquire markets, and to acquire allies who will aid in acquiring resources or markets”. As if to prove this, exactly two years later another attempt was made at acquiring the resources of a different neighbour. This time Saddam’s sights fell on the tiny kingdom of Kuwait, which Iraq had long claimed was one of its provinces.
The British, whose protectorate Kuwait was until 1961, left the country under the Al-Sabah royal family, who were long time allies of both the British Crown and business interests, notably British Petroleum. Saddam found his casus belli in overproduction of oil by Kuwait, which had cost Iraq over $14 million when oil prices fell. For added emphasis, he also accused Kuwait of illegally pumping oil from Iraq's Rumaila oil field.
So on August 2, 1990 Saddam’s troops invaded and annexed Kuwait. The reaction in the Arab countries and the world over was one of shock. The U.S. and its allies on the other hand, were flabbergasted. By this singular act, Saddam Hussein appeared to have declared his independence. He was no longer their thug, and Washington began to get worried.
The UN Security Council rightfully called for Iraq to withdraw and subsequently embargoed most trade with Iraq.
On November 29, the UN set January 15, 1991 as the deadline for a peaceful withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. But Saddam would not budge; and as a military solution was appearing inevitable with every passing day, the U.S. and Britain were thrown into a quagmire. They could not unilaterally attack Saddam without the fear of international opprobrium and possibly, repercussions. They had to somehow make the impending military conflict look like a venture with international, preferably Arab, support.
The Saudis who might have been next in Saddam’s expansionist plans were not difficult to convince, in fact they may not have needed any convincing at all. Others had to be cajoled or induced somehow. So Egypt got two-thirds of its debts to the West forgiven, Syria reportedly got paid $1 billion, Turkey got $3 billion and before Saddam could blink, he was faced with a formidable “coalition” of 32 nations.
This was obviously more than he bargained for, but Saddam the man is one of those who hold themselves infallible and was certainly not one to back down. Besides, he still had a few aces up his sleeves, or at least that was what he thought.
So the stage was set and Operation Desert Storm under the leadership of U.S. (naturally) General Norman Schwarzkopf was launched on January 18, 1991.
The coalition then began a massive air war to destroy Iraq's forces and military and civil infrastructure. Within a few days, Saddam’s military prowess was brought to nought. The time was now ripe to use what he thought were his hidden cards. He declared a “jihad” and called for terrorist attacks against the coalition.
When it became apparent that none were forthcoming, he launched a couple of Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel in what seemed an unsuccessful attempt to widen the war and break up the coalition. Being an old fox in political intrigues, Saddam knew that some parts of the Muslim world might just be gullible enough to get baited if he played this ‘religion card’. The gamble partly paid off and so it came to pass that some Muslims, notably Palestinians led by Yasser Arafat (who probably misinterpreted this as a unique opportunity in the protracted struggle to get rid of Israel), somehow chose to forget the issues at stake in throwing their weight behind Saddam.
Since he was now a “mujahid”, Muslims were expected to conveniently forget Saddam’s previous record and more importantly, the catalyst in the current crisis - the rapine invasion of a Muslim neighbour that could not in any way fall into any of the criteria of defence from an aggressor, elimination of an evil aggressive force or removal of a barrier to free proselytisation.
In any case, the war did not last long enough for this ad hominem ploy to make any reasonable headway. The main coalition forces invaded Kuwait and Southern Iraq on February 24 and, over the next four days, encircled and defeated the Iraqis and liberated Kuwait.
By February 28, when then U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared a cease-fire, most of the Iraqi forces in Kuwait had either surrendered or fled. The widespread expectation was that the icing on the cake would be the coalition’s termination of the Saddam regime in. Alas, for reasons that to this day lack cogent explanations, the U.S. and its allies backed down and instead negotiated peace terms with Iraq, including sanctions on the importation of certain goods, “no-fly” zones and UN weapons inspections.
In 1993 the United States, France, and Britain launched several air and cruise-missile strikes against Iraq in response to Saddam’s provocations, including an alleged Iraqi plan to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush.
An Iraqi troop build-up near Kuwait in 1994 led the United States to send forces to Kuwait and nearby areas. Continued resistance to weapons inspections led to a U.S. military build-up in the Persian Gulf. U.S. and British bombing raids against Iraq began again in November 1998, and continued into 1999.
These bombardments have continued on and off to this day and the sanctions have been brutal for a country that at one point reportedly had the largest middle class in the Middle East.
The Iraqi people, through no fault of their own, live under a dictatorship controlled by a bloodthirsty tyrant. But America and its allies always knew who Saddam was. It was when he became an independent thug that he became a problem.
White House propagandists would want the outside world to believe that Iraq consists of but one person, Saddam Hussein, and that only he is the target of their aggression. It is the responsibility of the Muslim world to point out that Iraq is populated by over 23 million people and that our sympathy lies with them and not with Saddam.
The cases of Salvador Gossens Allende of Chile, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Patrice Lumumba of Congo and arguably our own Murtala Muhammed amongst a host of others have amply demonstrated that the West has other means of disposing of those who do not share the same worldview. One wonders what crime the poor people of Iraq have committed in their eyes to justify the sufferings they are currently undergoing.
Of human rights and “humanitarians”, war and warmongers
Where a military campaign is justified by Islamic standards, the targeting of innocent civilians, wanton destruction of property and resources is not sanctioned. Yet it seems that the expectation is for Muslims to apologise for all attacks carried out over the globe by people who claim to be executing their campaigns in the name of Islam. However, it just takes a simple turning of the tables to expose the double standards of the West towards the rest of the world.
No apologies have been forthcoming for the shameful criminal history of Western governments in relation to the rest of us, especially in what they refer to as the ‘Third World’ - the slave trade, imperialism, their connivance with our corrupt and tyrannical rulers to loot these countries’ resources and lately the ideology of ‘globalisation’ and its colonialist worldview.
Will apologies now be forthcoming to tens of thousands of civilians killed by weapons of mass destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to the families of over a million children in Iraq who have died under a brutal sanctions regime, or to the thousands of innocents who have died under American bombardments in Afghanistan, or indeed to any of the peoples of 23 countries that have been on the receiving end of American bombs since the Second World War?
Historian Howard Zinn, Boston University professor and former Second World War bomber pilot, helps us to understand the issue in his new book, ‘Howard Zinn on War’. He writes that the attack on the twin towers in New York has a moral relation to American and Israeli attacks on the Arab Middle East. He further opines that since the actions of the West's official enemies receive enormous attention as terrorist atrocities while the terrorist atrocities of the U.S. and its allies and clients are starved of political and press attention, it is impossible to make a balanced moral judgement or to find solutions to the cycle of revenge/reprisal and to address the underlying issue of global economic inequality and oppression.
Human rights activists and organizations are appalled when the fruits of their labour - exposing abuses in places like Iraq, are repeated by the bellicose wallahs in the White House and Pentagon as sob stories in trying to justify their actions. Secretary General of Amnesty International, Irene Kahn made the apt observation that “this selective attention to human rights is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists".
In a Time magazine interview Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector turned anti-war crusader was asked to describe what he had seen as one of the few outsiders to have visited a notorious children's prison in Iraq. He refused, because in his own words: "what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace".
One of the oft-repeated lies by these promoters of war is that world opinion is with them. One begins to wonder whose opinion they had sought or even in what world they are living. For one finds that the countries induced one way or the other to participate in the first adventure do not seem as enthusiastic this time around.
For Saudi Arabia, Gulf War I was a struggle for survival but Saudi public opinion today is strongly against another war. The Egyptian government is fearful of a popular backlash by its people against a Gulf War II and is now refusing to participate. Turkey is concerned that a war will choke its critical trade with Iraq and possibly bring a huge influx of Kurdish refugees from across the common border with Iraq. The autocratic regime in Damascus has no interest in Gulf War II as it could be the next target and the last thing the Iranian hard-liners would want now is an Iraq with a pro-U.S. government next door.
Of 30 countries surveyed by Gallup International, only in Israel and the United States does a majority of people agree that a military solution is preferable to pursuing justice non-violently through international law, however long this takes. In the words of Howard Zinn: “It is a tribute to the humanity of ordinary people that horrible acts must be camouflaged (with nice words) like security, peace, freedom, democracy, the 'national interest'".
By most accounts George Bush is expected to launch his war against Iraq within the coming weeks or at most months, but according to the National Geographic 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey released in late November, only 15% of Americans 18-24 years of age (the age of those who will do the actual fighting) successfully identified Iraq on a map. Only 17% located Afghanistan, a country invaded and currently under U.S. occupation for over a year. Why from what we have read and heard about ‘Dubya’, one doubts if he himself can locate the two countries on the global map!
The only difference is that while the great majority of GIs deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan have even less comprehension of the real reasons they were sent to war than they have of geography, ‘Dubya’ and his clients do. So do the Russians and Europeans, who certainly are not keen on Iraq becoming part of what has been termed the “Pax Americana”, with all the economic benefits this could entail.
The fact that Russian oil firms hold lucrative contracts with the current Iraqi government explains why the Putin regime in Moscow is such a passionate opponent of another war in what they would have us believe are “humanitarian concerns”.
Meanwhile, the atrocities its own federal troops are committing daily on innocent civilians in the breakaway republic of Chechnya, they expect we should ignore. It is in an attempt to protect their economic interests that we are now beginning to hear them muting the idea of another ‘Primakov alternative’.
We recall that the then Russian foreign minister Yevgeniy Primakov was at the head of frantic eleventh hour shuttle diplomacy in an attempt at averting war just before the beginning of Desert Storm in 1991. This time around what they intend to propose is an offer for Saddam to step down in exchange for a free passage to exile for him and members of his family and inner circle. In doing this, the Russians’ calculation is that then they can get away with their interests intact, the change of government in Iraq notwithstanding.
Those who know Saddam Hussein would attest to the fact that this is an exercise in futility.
The man was reported to have once remarked that the day he is forced to leave power will be the day that no other Iraqi is left standing. His sycophants and hangers-on were quick to point out the “true meaning” of his words. According to them, Saddam means that the Iraqi people would fight to the last man to protect their sovereignty and beloved leader. But the Iraqi people as well as the outside world understood that this was, in essence, a threat - the man would use everything at his disposal to take down anyone and anything with him.
A former Iraqi diplomat living in exile summed up Saddam’s rule for the BBC in one sentence: "Saddam is a dictator who is ready to sacrifice his country, just so long as he can remain on his throne in Baghdad."
The obvious key rationale for the Bush administration’s interest in Iraq is oil.
President Bush, along with a large number of his cabinet members have had or still have extensive personal interests in this sector. It has been estimated that the oil and gas industry has pumped over 50 million dollars to political candidates since the 2000 election. Due to the effect crude oil has on the world’s economy, the U.S. views it as a strategic necessity. Thus the more oil they can lay their hands on, the firmer their hold on the global economy.
As far back as in 1953, the US National Security Council stated that it is their policy “to keep the sources of oil in the Middle East in American hands”. If Bush and his cohorts, in abiding by the spirit of the ‘political correctness’ that is now in vogue, would have us believing otherwise, others are not as charitable.
Michael O’Hanlon from the Brookings Institute in Washington D.C., testifying before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee in October 2002 stated that “the region that Iraq inhabits is so critical to U.S. interests that we cannot just go in, remove Saddam, and leave the clean-up to others… Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is located in the heartland of Arabia, a region whose stability is a critical U.S. interest”.
In characteristic brusque military fashion, U.S. Brigadier-General William Looney gloated that “they know we own their country…we dictate the way they live and talk. And that’s the great thing about America right now. It’s a good thing, especially when there’s a lot of oil out there we need”.
Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical dictatorship is definitely one the poor people of Iraq would be better off without. This however, does not justify the war which the United States, its allies and clients are bent on waging on their country. The trite explanations of Saddam’s in posse threat to his neighbours, or those of empathy with the Iraqi masses have been proven to be blasé pretexts.
The fact that America and its allies mean no good does not justify the blind support given to Saddam by some Muslims.
The Holy Qur’an (5:9) admonishes: “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety; and fear Allah, for Allah is acquainted with all that ye do”.
Of democracy and democrats, freedom and freedom fighters
One of the most frequent excuses the West gives for unnecessarily interfering in the affairs of others is their defence of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’. History has demonstrated that for a nation that so much honours democracy and freedom, the United States has a nasty habit of embracing foreign dictators when they seem to serve American interests.
When unsavory elements control what they perceive as strategic resources or locations, successive American administrations have proven incapable of resisting the urge to join hands with them.
American support for General Suharto of Indonesia, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines left these countries an unenviable legacy of corruption, crippling debt, violent ethnic conflict and weak institutions. The irony in all of this is the fact that most of the monsters the U.S. thus nurtures later transmogrify to become major headaches for them.
The blind support given to the Shah of Iran, notwithstanding the increasingly diminishing support of the Iranian people was arguably one of the major factors leading to the Iranian revolution of 1979 with the attendant anti-American attitude that to this day persists in that country. The support President Reagan gave to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and the results thereof bears a repeated mention here.
The cheques Washington wrote and the military aid it provided to Pakistan’s General Zia ul-Haq, who in turn backed an American program to arm Muslim guerrillas fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, helped nurture what later became Afghanistan’s Taliban and Ben Laden’s Al-Qaeda.
In 1985, President Ronald Reagan held a reception at the White House for a group described by one journalist as “ferocious-looking, turban-wearing men looking like they came from another century". They were representatives of the Afghan mujahideen who were at that time recipients of U.S. aid in their struggle against the “Evil Empire”.
In an address to the press on that occasion, Reagan referred to his foreign guests as "freedom fighters" and went on further to add that they were “the moral equivalent of (America’s) founding fathers”. Thirteen years later, these very same “freedom fighters” were at the top of America’s hit list.
From decades of such misguided foreign policy the Americans appear to have learnt nothing. This explains why they continue in following the long-established pattern of preaching democracy while tolerating the tyranny of allies.
Washington's long-standing ties to the Saudi, Kuwaiti and other royal families and autocrats in the Gulf have gone a long way in ensuring the steady flow of oil to the West for most of the last 60 years. Ceteris paribus, one should not expect the United States to now start pestering King Fahd, Crown Prince Abdullah or even Kuwait’s Al-Sabahs, with balderdash about democracy.
Yasser Arafat on the other hand, has no such clout so the White House is continuously mounting pressure on the Palestinians to establish democratic institutions while largely condoning other autocratic regimes, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak or Syria's Bashar Al-Assad being not so far-fetched examples.
As it would have been an uphill task to dislodge the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan without the cooperation of Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf, we are urged to pretend the man is what's good for Pakistan. Thus Musharraf is currently cashing in on the West’s boon and is continuously consolidating his hold on power. When and how the inevitable clash comes in his case, only time will tell. Therefore proclamations such as U.S. Vice President Cheney’s recent call to “bring democracy to Iraq” will continue to ring hollow as long as the impression remains that what is good for some ‘geese’ is not same for other ‘gander’.
…../Part II
Guides
