By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
March 7, 2003
I watched a debate on C-Span held at the Oxford University Union in Britain the other day which posed the question: Who is the greatest threat to world peace: George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein? The debate followed an opinion poll taken earlier in Britain which supposedly showed Bush and Saddam were tied 45%-45% as to who was the greatest threat to World Peace.
One young man, presumably an Oxford University student from Britain, harshly condemned Bush and STATED that appeasement is preferable to war. He must not be a student of British History and the cost to Britain of Neville Chamberlain appeasing Adolf Hitler at Munich. Other debaters openly expressed a yearning for the return of Bill Clinton.
While we are hearing from Saddam Hussein apologists at Oxford that President Bush is “imperialistic” and is demanding too much, our homegrown critics of President Bush, such as Sen. Tom Daschle, complain that President Bush has been doing too little, “ignoring Al-Qaeda” and “neglecting the war on terrorism by focusing almost exclusively on Iraq.” And, then this week we learn of the stunning capture of Sheikh Khalid Muhammad, the #3 top leader of Al Qaeda who planned and trained both those who attacked America on September 11, and those involved in the 1995 plot to bomb commercial United States airliners flying routes to the United States from Southeast. Khalid Muhammad was indicted in the Southern District of New York in January of 1996.
How embarrassing for the Democrats! Since the American media is largely supportive of the Democrats, not surprisingly, the most complete stories were published in the foreign press. The Pakistan News Service reports: “There are shrill cries of success and sighs of relief surrounding a news report that is being hailed as the biggest catch so far: No.3 man, Sheikh Khalid Muhammad, of the dreaded Al Qaeda is captured, alive! … This is certainly excellent news and both the Pakistani and the American authorities deserve congratulations.”
Copying a British news article, The Gulf Times in Qatar reported “An informant whose tip-off to US intelligence led to the arrest of suspected Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohamed in Pakistan is to receive a reward of £17mn ($27mn), press reports said here. The Sun daily said the informant was an Egyptian father-of-four and a suspected Taliban officer who was tracked down by the CIA and arrested in the Pakistani border town of Quetta on February 14.
“The man was offered a new identity, and had asked to move with his family to the central English town of Leicester, which has a large Muslim population, because a friend lives nearby, The Sun reported.
“The Sun also reported that Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden had now put a £500,000 price on the informer's head. Bin Laden had offered a similar reward to the family of a suicide bomber who kills Mohamed, according to the paper.
“An unnamed source told The Sun that Mohamed ‘knows too much and they want him silenced - fast.’" Other reports claim that the tip-off came from the capture of an Al Qaeda agent to talk. Whatever the real story, there are complaints that America takes “too much credit” for the capture of Khalid Mohamed, which, according to Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, is the “equivalent of the liberation of Paris during the second world war." There also is criticism of how American tax dollars are doled out to countries that do something to stop terrorism.
Pakistan columnist Asim Mughal observed: “Countries from East to West, from Asia to Africa, are requesting that the impact on their local economies be compensated before they will actively participate in the U.S. led war against terrorism,” and asked “Where is Pakistan's share in the compensation pie?”
Of course, Americans might ask where is OUR share of the compensation pie? Traditionally, of course, as was the case when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the compensation would be the spoils of war – or, the annexation of Kuwaiti oil fields to Iraq. Only, we drove Saddam Hussein out, put out the fires he started to destroy the oil wells, and gave them back to the Kuwaitis in operating condition. In appreciation, they did pay some of the costs.
Bill Clinton responded to attacks on America and Americans by rearranging rocks in a hill or two in Afghanistan. bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan, trading foreign policy for campaign contributions and helping North Korea refurbish spent nuclear fuel which has provided enough plutonium to produce four or five new nuclear warheads. This created our biggest challenge: convincing the world that George W. Bush is not Bill Clinton.
Unfortunately, many people and nations still believe America’s foreign policy is for sale, as the vote in Turkey’s Parliament last week indicated.
If the criticism about Bush being “imperialistic” were true, as the world’s only super power we could easily move in and occupy the land we need for a staging area in Turkey. We could also order the troops we already have in Europe to occupy both Berlin and Paris and tell its leaders to be quiet. France’s Chirac, after all, recently told the Eastern European leaders to “be quiet” with no real French army to back his words. We could tell him the same thing and back it up with military might.
Of course, President George W. Bush would not do that, but if he did, just imagine the number of UN resolutions it would generate.
The Turkish parliament seems to want to bargain like a group of rug merchants in a bazaar to squeeze the highest dollar out of an American tourist wanting to purchase a rug. Unfortunately for the Turks, Bush isn’t buying. This caused the Turkish stock market to plummet and many in Turkey to think: How DO we deal with this new American president?
I suggest that nations do not treat the powerful leader of an Imperial nation the way they are treating George W. Bush. What imperial nation ever dickered with another nation for permission to invade, only to have the “victim” nation demand more money before the Imperial Army arrived? They demand money from America because they know in their heart that George W. Bush won’t swat them. However, they are beginning to discover, to their horror, that he just might let them dangle in the wind, unaided by US aid, when they make dumb decisions.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com