Muslim force: after all, why?

The hallmark of recent US diplomacy is to avoid the simple, straightforward questions and engage the world opinion in discussing ideas and frameworks which might not even be necessary if the focus remains on the core issue.

During Powell’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, the CIA-man, Iyad Allawi, and the sycophant House of Saud made to call on Arab and Muslim nations to join a force of Muslim troops in Iraq.

The simple questions which Muslim states need to consider before any suicide commitment are:

1). Since, the US wanted to “go it alone,” does it not deserve to face and live it alone? Remember Powell’s proud declaration: “US prepared to act alone” (Jan. 26, 2003)? [1] Remember Bush’s chief policy advisor, Richard Perle, declaring even a year before that the US “is ready to go it alone.” [2] Remember Bush, threatening the UN to stand by the US in attacking Iraq or risk becoming "irrelevant." [3] Muslim states must ask: Were it Arab and Muslim nations who pleaded the US to invade Iraq? If not, why then rush to join a war they did not approve in the first place?

2). Even if we exonerate Muslim states for their not acting before the US attack on Iraq and also agree that they would now be going in only to help Iraqis, the question that remains unanswered is: Will the US forces also remain stationed in Iraq while Muslim troops are there? If they remain, it means they will definitely have the overall control and Muslim forces would be thrown in the dying cities to face the wrath of a people pushed against the wall for 14 years. Muslim armies will have to crush resistance to occupation. It means while Muslims are at each others’ throat, the US troops would rest and consolidate their 14 under construction military bases in Iraq for other future adventures in the region. [4] Muslims will continue to pay the price for these megalomaniac designs both as occupiers and occupied.

3). Is not consolidating the US imposed Iraqi regime akin to supporting the Soviet’s installed Najibullah’s regime after the Soviet withdrawal? The US did not recognize Najibullah’s government. [5] On the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan many of the Mujahideen forces returned to their homes. This meant that they did not seek to develop the war into a war, but Najib’s government was not acceptable to Washington.

According to Norm Dixon, the consensus held by the US, its allies and the capitalist media commentators was that the Najib’s government would fall to the mujaheddin within months, if not weeks, of the withdrawal of Soviet troops. [6]

Washington and its loyal scribes had come to believe their own propaganda -” that Najibullah’s government was a “Soviet puppet.” In reality, the PDPA had taken power in 1978 on its own initiative and had far greater support and deeper social roots in Afghan society than it was given credit for, especially in the cities. [7]

Compare that to the proposed Muslim government’s military support to Iyad Allawi’s regime. In this case, no one even talks about the US withdrawal, let alone supporting and trashing a post occupation puppet regime. In any proposed elections under the continued US occupation, only puppets will continue to rule and, at best, only faces will change. Puppets will remain.

4). Before promising support to sustaining the results of an unjust war, did anyone think: Who should be held accountable for the lies and what should be the mode of accountability as the perpetrators have admitted their main justification for their war as “wrong?” Why should Muslims help the US win a war, knowing full well that no one will be held accountable for the lies that led to this war.

5). Have the invaders been forgiven for their lies that Muslims should now shed their blood for implementing war lords plans? Muslim states must not forget that the world is taking the US and UK’s post-lies-lying -” that it was an “intelligence failure” -” very lightly. But these lies upon lies are not as simple as pushing someone aside by mistake and excuse yourself. In this case a sovereign state is invaded and occupied. Besides collateral damage, thousands of innocent civilians have lost their lives and scores continue to die every week. The cause is occupation, not Islamic ideology, as the 9/11 collaborators would like us to believe. This does not make any sense on the part of Allawi to declare: "This is a global war. These are forces of evil who are acting against us-¦[therefore] I call upon the leaders of the Islamic countries and the Arab countries to close ranks."

6). Where were the so-declared “forces of evil” in Iraq when Saddam Hussain was in power? Did Iraqis consider Saddam a lesser evil than the US, or was he more powerful than the US and its allies that these “evil” forces?

7). Why did Muslim states not offer sending a delegation of Muslim diplomats to Washington and Iraq to resolve the issue peacefully than sending Muslim troops to kill Muslims to resolve the issue by force? Why should Muslim states give Washington a chance to stage a public relations coup against non-Muslim states -” Philippines, Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras -” who preferred to stay home rather than killing their loved ones for Washington’s lies?

8). Feelings of Adal al-Jubair, a top Saudi government foreign policy adviser, are understandable when he says; the kingdom wants "to help the Iraqi people reclaim their sovereignty as quickly as possible, because there is a tremendous desire in the Arab and Muslim worlds to help Iraq and because instability in Iraq has a negative impact on Saudi Arabia." The question, however, remains: What mechanism does the Kingdom propose before sending in Muslim troops to guarantee that all US troops will simultaneously withdraw and there will be no military bases in Iraq anymore?

If the Kingdom cannot ensure this, as it could not ensure the same for itself, there is no hope that Iraqis will have true sovereignty in the near future?

No sane Muslim mind will ever recommend deployment of his brothers against his brother for taking over the role of American torturers and killers -” called GIs. This is time for the US administration to taste its grand “National Security Strategy,” which states, “we will never hesitate to act alone.” [8] This proud proclamation still shines at the White House Web site (

The world has not forgotten the arrogance of US analysts, such as Rober Kegan, who declared in the pages of Washington Post: “Americans prefer to act with the sanction and support of other countries if they can. But they’re strong enough to act alone if they must. That combination may prove to be the winning formula in Europe and elsewhere. Maybe it won’t be quite the principled multilateralism Europeans and Kofi Annan prefer. In an age of American hegemony, it will be multilateralism, American style.” [9]

Now that has turned into begging, American style. No one has seen beggars, begging other beggars to beg for them. That’s how Powell is doing it through Allawi and the Saudis. Good job. It is, however, ironic to see an imperial power gone out of steam and resorted to begging in an imperial way right at the beginning of implementing its unilateralists “National Security Strategy.”

Muslim states would do better to tell the assistant beggar, Mr. Allawi: We deeply regret that because of our deep rooted weaknesses and fear, we could not save Iraqis from the US war and your illegitimate rule. Now it is hard for us to convince our soldiers and their family as to which kind of death they will be facing when they come to consolidate occupation and your rule. You better continue with the same “soldiers of god,” who put you in the throne, and who, of course, are far better trained and equipped than our troops which have been under various kinds of sanctions from time to time. By the way, on whose payroll you have been for this long? Aren’t they able to protect you any longer?

Best of luck.

Not yours

Muslim states







[6]. Norm Dixon, “Revolution and counter-revolution in Afghanistan,”Green Left Weekly, December 12, 2001.

[7]. Ibid. Norm Dixon

[8]. David E. Sanger, “Bush’s new military policy: first strikes, unrivaled power U.S. won’t permit another Cold War-style face-off, document says,” New York Times, September 20, 2002. Page A – 1

[9]. Robert Kagan, “Multilateralism, American Style,” The Washington Post, September 13, 2002.