It is a known fact that criminal psychopaths (serial rapists, murderers, etc) tend to commit their crimes in certain peculiar to them ways. For example one serial killer might kill his victims always by striking them from behind with a blunt instrument, while another one by a lethal injection using a hypodermic syringe, and still another by strangling them and hiding their bodies under floor boards. The police uses these patterns of behaviour to track down such criminals.
The reason for such repetitive use of the same technique is that initially a potential criminal feels hesitant and insecure, but once he succeeds the first time, his confidence grows. He starts believing in his technique. And with each successful strike his confidence in his technique grows, until it turns into a belief in his own invincibility.
But, one day the magic method, suddenly fails and the chain of crimes finishes in jail or on the Electric Chair (or with a Lethal Injection).
Similar behaviour patterns can be detected in politics — that socially acceptable form of crime, which often involves serial murders, but on a much larger scale, than can ever be achieved by private criminals.
The motivation both in the case of psychopathic murderers and politicians is the same — feeling of power over the victims. And behind this thirst for power usually lies a very strong feeling of inferiority.
The current American War on Terror has given us an excellent opportunity to observe such criminal behaviour patterns exhibited by the politicians heading this campaign.
At the start of the Afghan war there was some hesitation over the attack on Afghanistan, and a UN approval was sought and easily obtained.
Then there was some hesitation over the use of large scale bombing of the Afghan cities, so it was justified by vilifying the Taliban government — which was accepted by “the world community” (to the great shame of Mankind).
The other problem that caused initial American hesitation was the memories of Vietnam, and the effect the American body bags can have on the American public opinion. The American body bag problem was overcome by use of high‐altitude bombings and of local ethnic rivalries, which provided non‐American combatants to do the dirty ground work.
Militarily the Afghan war succeeded, and the pattern was established:
Having discovered the above magic conquest recipe, and having code‐named it “democratization”, the way to world domination has become a cake‐walk. And a US Foreign Policy document was published by the US government to give this pattern a “theoretical basis”. The way for a next war was “all clear”, and the target victim was chosen to be Iraq.
Once a psychopathic criminal establishes the initial pattern, a sudden change in the situation can lead to a panic behaviour on his part and a possible failure as a result of capture by the police or being overpowered by the victim. But, in case of politicians, there is no police, because they are above the law, but there is something called “the Public Opinion” which could mess up their carefully rehearsed plans.
Now, let us see, how the Americans‐Blair coalition were applying the Afghan war pattern to the Iraq war and with what results.
|Application of the Afghan War Patterns to the Iraq War|
|Pattern Step||Success?||Actual Step||Results|
|1||Get a UN rubber‐stamp approval for war.||Fail.||Go for war without it.||Public disapproval and protests.|
|2||Woo the Public Opinion by vilifying the government of the victim country.||Fail.||Start war.||Starting the war has resulted in an increase of public support in the US and Britain due to the “our‐boys factor”, but increased opposition to the war and hostile feelings to the US and Britain in the rest of the world.|
|3||Mobilize local ethnic rivalries.||Fail.||Increase propaganda and involve the Kurds in the North.||Strong resistance from the Iraqis to the invasion. The involvement of the Kurds is still in preparatory stages.|
|4||Bomb the cities||Fail||Bombing has been not as massive as in Afghanistan due to the massive public opposition to the war.||Iraqi civilian casualties increase the opposition to the invading forces from the Iraqis and increase the opposition to the war in the rest of the world.|
|5||Let the local rivals do the dirty ground work.||Fail.||Propaganda calling on the Iraqis to rise up against their government and to support the Invading Forces. And propaganda targeted at the domestic and world public opinion suggesting that the Iraqis are resisting because they are afraid of Saddam Hussain.||Strong resistance to the Invading Forces from the Iraqis. The resistance appears to be motivated by hatred of the Invading Forces, rather than by fear of Saddam Hussain.|
|6||Install a puppet government.||Not there yet.||To be seen.||To be seen.|
|7||Shout victory.||Not there yet, but shouting that victory is inevitable, no matter how long it takes.||To be seen.||To be seen.|
|8||Consolidate by a girls'‐school‐in‐Kabul to overcome the argument that it was not right to devastate a country to catch one man.||To be seen.||To be seen.||To be seen.|
The cake‐walk conquest war pattern developed by the Americans in Afghanistan has failed in Iraq.
The reasons for the failure are:
Saddam Hussain, dead or alive, will go into history as a great Arab leader, who has either defeated America, or died as a brave martyr in opposing it. Even if the Americans succeed in destroying the Iraqi armed forces, which they can only do at the cost of razing Baghdad to the ground — a crime which not only the Arabs, but the whole world will never forgive them, they will never be able to control Iraq. They will be faced with a prolonged partisan war in Iraq in addition to the one they already have in Afghanistan. And with two partisan wars on their hands, what will they do next?
To pursue their global strategy, drafted for them by Benjamin Netanyahu, they would need to proceed to “democratize” other countries: Iran, Syria, etc. Will they still have the will to do so, having burnt their fingers in Iraq? And, if not, then what have their conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq given them? Two endless partisan wars? Was the whole thing really worth it? How did they get the whole idea of “War on Terror” in the first place?
But there were other options for the US global strategy:
Would that not result in greater peace and security in the world?
Even now it is not too late to stop the imbecility of the war against Iraq, scrap the War on Terror, and start acting in a sensible way.
All one has to do is to swallow one's pride and admit that one was wrong.
Will G.W. Bush rise up to the occasion? Or is it too much to expect?