An Iraqi Constitution for Ossama Bin Laden?

(24-8-2005)

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis, Orientalist

(http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-24-2005-75355.asp)

Why disoriented and confused voices rise all over the world and threaten to further damage the American plans and hopes for a so-called Free and Democratic Iraq, we have good reasons to believe that, if the Bush Administration does not wake up from its lethargic bewilderment and does not address its dramatic lack of understanding, the long awaited 'New Iraqi Constitution' will be the most wonderful present the West could make to the murderous bogus-Muslim terrorist Ossama bin Laden.

A last moment of reflection

The American administration must offer itself a moment of reflection, which will probably be its last before a nightmare expected to come soon in Iraq. Quite interestingly, the former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently published an alarming warning (Lessons for an Exit Strategy, The Washington Post, August 12, 2005) that offered a dramatic comparison with the Vietnam US traumatic experience. It seems that very few are able to understand in Washington that a failure at the perception level leads mathematically to failure at the material, military – political, level.

Continuous errors and genuine impossibility to assess the historical realities of Mesopotamia, which hinge on the earlier adjusted (on Ottoman territories) colonial policies of France and England, are not permissible to the US, a power that strives for Freedom and Democracy in that land. Yet, misconceptions can be met anywhere.

The New York Times insult the tyrannized people of Mesopotamia.

The New York Times editorial of August 12th 2005 is quite indicative; under the title 'An Iraqi Constitution' we read the following: 'It should be nonsectarian Saddam Hussein ran Iraq for the benefit of his own Sunni Arab minority. Shiites and Kurds were discriminated against, terrorized and worse. Now the tables have turned. The current government is dominated by pro-Iranian Shiite religious parties and Kurds inclined toward separatism'.

This constitutes provocative ignorance and absolute naivety, being probably due to heavily ideologized approaches that tend to bring the US close to the edge of failure in Iraq. Someone should say to these irrelevant editors and journalists that they cannot depict the recent change in Iraq as a governmental change in Italy or in Greece. Saddam Hussein and his gang had the quasi-totality of Iraq's Sunni Arabic speaking minority involved in the administration, the army and the multileveled police of that dictatorship. It was normal for such an ethnic dictatorship to exist, and consequently it is not permissible to any editor of an American mass media establishment to present that ethnically imposed tyranny as a normal situation.

When one is confronted with an abominable and cruel dictatorship that was based on an ethnic group's totalitarian control of the totality of a country's national resources, one cannot present a new situation that involves majority rule as just a structural modification. The text should state explicitly that the earlier situation was normal, acceptable and human, whereas the current situation is. This is the real difference.

We have therefore every reason to consider the New York Times editorial of August 12th 2005 as a genuine insult against all the tyrannized people of Mesopotamia.

In an article published at the beginning of the year (The 27 Key Points for US Success in Iraq; http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-10-2005-63962.asp), we stressed the need for serious historical approach to, and conception of, the problems of Mesopotamia. We said: "The only chance for America to obtain a success in Mesopotamia is to diffuse unbiased, non-colonial History, Culture, and Education throughout that land, and make it be reflected at the social and political levels". Any other way will lead to a deterioration compared to which the Vietnam case will look ideal and desirable.

It seems that the present American administration strives for a 'happy end' in Iraq. This is a ridiculous effort for 'happy end' exists only in movies, and not in all of them. Even worse, the American administration, politicians and mass media establishments fail to understand what William Blake stipulated before 200 years already:

One Law for the Lion and Ox is Oppression (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, 78)

How did it become 'important' for the American administration and media that the criminal gangs of Sunni Arabic speaking people participate in the formation of the New Iraqi Constitution? This is an aberration! It is as if in the aftermath of WW II the Allied Forces called upon the Nazis to 'participate' in the formation of the postwar Bundesrepublik!

To what extent did the Americans examine the conditions of the Sunni ruling minority in Saddam's 'Iraq'? Did the Americans get sufficient information about the percentage of Sunni opposed to Saddam's criminal and murderous regime? Is it higher than 10%? This would be a joke! The Americans after dethroning Saddam got enough info so that they surely know that the quasi-totality of the Sunni population – not only supported but also – was fully committed and involved in the Saddam's outrageous regime.

Liberating the country of the Twin Rivers, the Americans should know that only Punishment would guarantee a really free and democratic country. Punishment is not Punishment if applied only to Mr. Saddam Hussein! This sort of 'punishment' will punish only America! It is idiotic, mean, miserable and provocatively unjust.

In the same way the Nazi regime was dismantled, and Nazi criminals have been sought here and there for decades, the entire group on which Saddam founded his murderous ethnic tyranny must be punished. Almost the entire Sunni population had manned the totalitarian state of 'Iraq', so almost all the Sunnis will have to pay.

If we only add to this the recent upsurge that has been mostly fueled by the 'deposed' Sunni thugs of Saddam, we realize that any American policy trying to make of these criminals ' a group among others' constitutes the best guarantee of failure. The highly uncultured and totally uneducated Sunni thugs of Saddam will not become 'friends' with any American administration, even not with the one that would offer them any means of presence within the political environment to be. They will use anything they are bestowed upon, and gracelessly they will attack their idiotic and naļve donors or benefactors. Ignoring this is ignoring basics in the Middle East.

All the groups must participate, except the Sunnis!

The American mistake becomes therefore double; not only do they try to have the murderous Sunni thugs involved into the formation of a Constitution but they also exclude other groups.

By offering powers to the Shia, the Kurds and the Sunnis only, the Americans worked consciously against the perspective of a free, democratic, multicultural and post-colonial country in the area of Mesopotamia. There will be no peace, if the Christian Aramaean (either called Syriacs or 'Assyrians' and 'Chaldaeans'), the Turkmen, the Yazidi Kurdish, the Mandaean Aramaean, the Armenian, and the Persian representatives are not fully accredited to shape a country, a federation, a confederation or many small free countries, as in the area of the former Yugoslavia. There will be an absolute chaos of which the best profit will be taken by Ossama Bin Laden.

If the Sunni thugs of Saddam are not punished and excluded from any discussion of constitutional character, then all the ignorant, analphabetic and fanaticized masses of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria and Sudan will deduce that it is permissible to be murderous, inhuman, antihuman, and go unpunished. Then contrarily to the extinction of Nazis in postwar Germany, we will attest the rise of the Islamic Terrorist State after the American humiliating exit.