View Point                                                                         Adnan Rahman

THE FUTILITY OF SENDING FORCES TO IRAQ

Ever since they unconstitutionally took the country hostage, the dictator general Musharraf - now self-promoted to the presidency - and his cohorts in the establishment have embarked on an unprecedented spree of "shtrategic" and "in-the-national-interesht" policies that have murdered even the last remaining ounce of sanity and common sense. From the unholy assistance in the barbaric and shameful slaughter of Afghanistan to the unethical decision to recognize the illegitimate, terrorist state of Israel, there is a long list of policies that have not only proven disastrous on the economic scale but have destroyed the very fabric of principles which define Pakistan and lay the foundation for its being. The latest addition to such illogical and unethical marvels is the self-annihilating decision to send forces to Iraq.

To weigh the pros and cons of sending Pakistani forces to Iraq, we will view the issue within the context of the newly carved slogan, "Pakistan first". The slogan of "Pakistan first" demands that the people of Pakistan and its forces should be prevented from getting stuck in any situation from which it cannot get out. In the pre-Musharraf times, national forces had only one hostile front to look after. Now, after the gloomy dawn of Musharrafic revolution, our forces are divided and guarding two hostile fronts. The second front is bestowed upon us as the reward of being accomplices to the US in their slaughter Afghanistan - once a friendly country that would guard the intereshts of Pakistan more than Pakistanis themselves. In the wake of recent Afghani demonstrations against Pakistan, one shivers at the thought of what this may lead to.

On the question of Iraq, another question surfaces: who will incur the cost of sending and maintaining national forces in Iraq? I doubt that USA will pick up the bill. In the final analysis, the bill will be sucked, in one form or another, from the Pakistani people - who are already committing suicides in the national interest due to the ghareeb-mukao policy of strategic importance. This will be hardly in our national interests. This also seems like a good way for US to have us spend our $3 billion handout - well, at least it will not be used to fill the pockets of our bureaucracy.

The unjustified war on Iraq was neither in the interest of Pakistan, nor in the interest of the Arab world. The only ones to truly gain from this war - which now turns out was based on white lies - were the Americans, the Israelis and, to some extent, the Europeans. This reality was realized by the whole world, as was proven by mass demonstrations throughout the globe. And whereas the then-pending Iraqi massacre was strongly condemned throughout the world, even by America's close allies, the Pakistani government was found wandering in the jungles of English vocabulary, shaking with fear of the American anger if too strong a lexicon was utilized to reject what was ostensibly an act of naked terrorism and aggression. Nonetheless, in a murmuring tone, full of fright, the Pakistani government apologized to the Americans for not being able to partake in the Iraqi massacre.

Now that Pakistan is considering sending forces to Iraq, a very logical question arises: if yesterday it was correct not to partake in the war on Iraq, how is it correct today to send forces to Iraq? We need to realize that the reason for American wish to involve forces other than its own is to use them as shields to safeguard the lives of American soldiers and use non-american forces to carry out their dirty work. This was implied in an article appearing in AFP (July 10): "Internationalization (of forces in Iraq) is increasingly seen as a way of not only defraying the mounting cost of US military operations in Iraq, but stemming the daily attacks US soldiers there have encountered." The simplest way of "defraying the mounting cost of US military operations" is to have the burden shared by other militaries, such as the rich and affluent Pakistani army - raised by the Pakistanis' hard earned taxes. As for "stemming the daily attacks" on US soldiers, one way is to increase the ratio proportion of non-US soldiers in Iraq, thereby, decreasing the chances of US casualties and, reciprocally, increasing the chances of non-US casualties. So it turns out that the Pakistani soldiers will go to Iraq simply to offer their bodies in the hope that the "daily attacks" of Iraqi freedom fighters will blow up the worthless Pakistani soldiers and save the more precious and worthy US lives. But I am sure this will be in the best intereshts of Pakistan.

Although some US officials seem to naively think that "It would be hard for loyalists to deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein 'to sustain attacks on forces wearing NATO or UN patches on their shoulders'"; this is actually a wild fantasy. The freedom fighters of Iraq are neither stupid nor blind. They recognize friend from foe, and liberators from invaders. They will target any and all who help the Americans in their dirty work. AFP reported in the same article, "Republican committee chairman John Warner called the situation in Iraq 'serious,' adding that everybody in the US Senate is 'somewhat concerned' about the level of violence against coalition forces."

Notice that the apprehension concerns "the level of violence against coalition forces"! So the pretext that Iraqi freedom fighters will not attack non-US, Pakistani soldiers, is wrong. Furthermore, does Pakistan really want to get stuck in a situation that even the ambitious, mighty Americans see as serious?

If the US needs other countries to partake against the freedom fighting in Iraq, let it call on its other allies, such as Australia, India, Canada, Israel, etc. There is nothing for Pakistan to gain from this misadventure other than, perhaps, more charity in our begging bowl - something that our government sees as a formidable victory.

In Pakistan, there is only one person who benefits by sending forces to Iraq, and that is our dictator-in-charge. By committing our sons, and maybe our daughters, to the "serious" mess in Iraq, he will get a pat on the back from his guru in Washington. This may serve to strengthen and prolong his unconstitutional, complacent invasion of the country. But this will be at the cost of continued murder of democratic principles, further decay of the already-frail economy, and the loss of valuable Pakistani soldiers. Can we bare the risk?

Ever since its invasion, the Musharraf regime has adopted policies that have lowered our heads in shame. Its ironic to see the chief of armed forces adopting policies that befit only a weakling. Its time for the Pakistani general to act like a real soldier and take some tough decisions. Say no to the futile adventure of sending our forces to Iraq and spare us more humiliation.