COUNTDOWN TO CHAOS by The Cosmic Messenger

This month was supposed to commemorate the first anniversary of the United State's triumphant removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Jubilant Iraqi citizens along with representatives of the Governing Council would be interviewed by the American corporate media soliciting for opinions to broadcast globally, extolling the success of the reform initiatives begun by President Bush and coinciding perfectly with his intended June 30 withdrawal date. However, as the first week of April unfolded, black smoke could be seen billowing from the suburbs of Baghdad and Fallujah in a country appeared destined for anarchy. As fighting escalated between occupation and Muslim forces, the prevailing state of confusion was in danger of jeopardizing the provisional peace attained prior to the onset of the latest hostilities. If the grievances responsible for this recent aggression aren't properly addressed by Bush, Muslim actions may be agitated to extremes previously not encountered by Western nations and needlessly increasing the anxiety levels of the families of coalition soldiers.

At last count, over 50 American service personnel had died since April 2 in a US offensive to punish Muslim strongholds such as Fallujah where four contractors lost their lives to a small group of extremists. From the clash of opposing forces, two stories began to emerge in contrast to one another. The US press featured stories portraying Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as the principal instigator of the latest cycle of turbulent fury. They cited quotes from Bush attributing the violence to, "one person" against democracy and US Iraqi administrator, Paul Bremer labeling Sadr an, "outlaw," to create a biased impression in the public's perception of events.

While the western press was villainizing another Muslim cleric, the Arab media conveyed a different perspective. Al-Jazeera, the primary Arab news source reported on the reactions of grief stricken Iraqis to the Fallujah combat which has taken the lives of an estimated 600 civilians to date. Baghdad correspondent, May Ying Welsh, interviewed several area residents who conclude the latest offensive is the culmination of many abuses by the American military since invading the country a year ago.

"What help are they giving us?" one mother said. "They are destroying us, not helping us."
Another Iraqi woman reflects on life before the war.

"Before, my life was sweet," says Umm Zena. "There was no war and my husband was alive. What more could I have wanted? Now, all I see is fear. Fear and horror. There is no security."

While the carnage of the Fallujah engagement was being broadcast nightly into homes worldwide, citizens could only sit and speculate what went wrong with a volatile situation thought to be secured and in transition to a democratic form of government. The answer to their conjecture lies in several events foregoing the newest antagonistic engagements. Last month on March 22, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had Hamas Shiek, Ahmed Yassin assassinated, an action widely perceived within the Muslim world as being approved by Washington. This incident was followed on the 28th by American forces closing a newspaper sponsored by Iraqi Shiite cleric Sadr because military commanders alleged it was printing misleading information.

In what is seen by observers as a vindictive response from followers of Sadr to both disturbances, four American security contractors were murdered three days later in Fallujah. A US offensive against the city was begun April 2 to avenge the death of the contractors.

The consequences of the circumstances occurring the past three weeks have yet to be fully determined. However, the recent acts by both Israeli and American governments mirror one another in their belligerence and inflame Arab, Muslim fears about imperialistic designs of Western leaders. While President Bush talks about democratizing Middle East countries, Muslim clerics suspect his intention is to marginalize the influence of Islamic beliefs in their lives. The transitional Governing Council and Constitution devised by Paul Bremer is viewed as an attempt to secularize Iraq, serving as a precedent for neighboring geographical regions. The country's most influential Muslim clergyman, Grand Ayatollah Sistani believes the proposed plan could destabilize Iraq.

This constitution that gives the presidency in Iraq to a three-member council, a Kurd, a Sunni Arab and a Shiite Arab, enshrines sectarianism and ethnicity in the future political system in the country,'' Sistani wrote in a March 19 letter to UN negotiator, Lakhdar Brahimi.

Nevertheless, Sistani's concern appears diminished by what the Constitutional charter realistically states.

"Islam will be the official religion of the state and will be considered a source of legislation. The law will respect the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantee the freedom of religious belief and practice," according to a BBC summary of the document.

Although Sistani worries about the role of Islam in any new form of government, of equal relevance is the legitimacy a temporary ruling body would have once the US leaves on June 30.

The Bremer plan calls for regional caucuses to be appointed by the present Governing Council to guide the country until official elections are held no later than January, 2005. Sistani believes by assigning members, the principles of democracy are violated and he advocates the direct election of representatives which would be more evident of the people's wishes.

Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan and a recognized authority on Iraqi Shiite society, offered the following explanation for why Bremer established this type of provisional government in an interview with PBS's Newshour Jim Lehrer last December.

"The problem is that the U.S. does not want to hold popular elections at this stage in the process because it is afraid that those elections will throw up leaders who will down the road become obstacles to progress. This happened in Eastern Europe, in Bosnia after the war there. And it's a bad experience that the U.S. has that the people who can survive a Milosevic or a Saddam are thugs, are radicals, and if they get elected, then they can stop further progress."

Gary Sick, past National Security advisor to three Presidents and teacher of Middle Eastern politics at Columbia University presented to Lehrer a different rationale which concurred with Sistani's concern though.

"The way the situation is now structured is that the governing council that is appointed by the United States will, in fact, have a dominant role in choosing everybody in that initial vote to determine who is going to be in the provisional government and then who is going to write the constitution. It gives the United States a tremendous amount of authority in determining who gets to become a member of the provisional government."

Sistani forsees the temporary successor government and Constitution as threats to Iraq's future and without legitimacy because they weren't decided by a popular vote. Instead, he considers the present system to have been predetermined by people who were appointed by the US military which compromises their loyalty to Iraq. He alleges these same people will be making determinations about the permanent government in January and suspects the US will have undue influence in that process as well. Even though Sistani favors the temporary form of government operating now, he differs on how to preserve the influence of Islam. Sistani feels the most efficient method would be to combine secularism with a judiciary system run by Islamic clerics serving as judges to balance the executive and legislative branches. He worries the US would indirectly veto this type of arrangement through their assigned stalwarts, keeping it from a vote of the people until they got a plan acceptable to them.

There is a growing recognition among world leaders, US Congressional representatives and the citizens of both America and Iraq the present plan for achieving sovereignty in the post Saddam era is flawed and in need of significant alteration if the reality of that ideal is to be achieved.

Some claim more troops are needed while others think this would only further aggravate a worsening situation. Despite this, President Bush sticks to the claim the US will withdraw by June 30 and hand over control of government to the Iraqi people.

HAPPY TALK, Mr. President. You are operating from the playbook of your old friend and ally in the Middle East, Ariel Sharon. His method is to suppress Islam by whatever method, even if it means killing their cleric leaders and labeling them as radical thugs to justify his actions. Now you are doing the same thing by going after Iraq's Sadr with "kill or arrest orders", uniting the Muslim world against you. You maintain you are trying to establish democracy in Iraq but repeatedly violate its precepts by closing newspapers and and using the military to crush Muslim objections if it deviates from your prescribed vision.

Perhaps it's time you explained your definition of democracy to the rest of us. Does it mean freedom and equality for all or rule through corporate tyranny who buy the majority vote to accomplish their objectives ?

The types of aggression Sharon has implemented in the past haven't worked and the Israeli problem remains unresolved after decades of grief. When you took office, you shelved plans to negotiate a permanent resolution between Israel and Palestine, giving Sharon free reign to implement his own strategy. His rules have made him look tough on security issues and consolidated his right wing political base but brought little stability to the area. If that is the scheme you're pursuing in an election year Mr. Bush, let me offer you a word of caution. By refusing to allow direct elections in Iraq, suppressing dissent and attacking Muslim clerics you're courting a Holy War by the nation of Islam that could spread well beyond the borders of Iraq.

That is far from the reason you told the American people we were invading this country a year ago. Although reluctant to admit it publicly, you realize the situation is out of control.

Sending more troops might be a good selling point for your GOP colleagues to convince their constituents at home it's a guarantee of freedom for the Iraq people and a reason to send them back to Congress. It may even reinforce the self-profile you've sought to develop as a tough, talking cowboy unwilling to compromise. Ask yourself this question though.

Do I truly want peace in the countries of the Middle East or a state of perpetual disorder like the Sharon model which he uses as a political means to reelect himself, impling he's the only person capable of keeping Israel secure from terrorism ?

While deliberating, consider better ideas of clarifying your intentions to the Muslims of Iraq.

Work with their leaders to seek mutual solutions, ones which they share in formulating. Above all else, don't employ techniques which alienate their Islamic beliefs. You may claim the present governing plan accounts for these anxieties but the past several weeks indicates the Iraq people aren't convinced. A member of the Iraqi Governing Council stated last week, "violence cannot be fought with more violence." He realizes the military isn't the solution but open and honest dialogue is the essential key. Why can't you ?

MAN OF PEACE ? ... by The Cosmic Messenger

The whirl of chopper blades shattered the early morning stillness of a street outside a mosque in Gaza City on March 22. American made helicopters had been sent there to carry out a mission ordered by Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. The wait was brief as an elderly quadriplegic man emerged from the house of worship in a wheel chair flanked by bodyguards and his son-in-law.

Immediately, the subjects were locked in the lethal crosshairs of a WMD rocket and moments later a thumb reflex reduced the targets to tiny pieces of smoldering flesh. When the gunships departed, more than just fractured human remains were left in their wake. As news of the event moved instantaneously across the electronic frontier, the global village shuddered and considered whether this action might shatter the tenuous peace opposing Middle Eastern factions abide by while igniting an irreversible proliferation of mortal violence throughout the Muslim, Arab worlds.

It would be easy to dismiss the incident as unimportant and characteristic of the type of recurring retributions which have plagued Israeli-Palestinian relations for close to 56 years. The two have been terrorizing one another's communities with bombings and assassinations since the creation of the Jewish state. What distinguishes this instance, is it occurred at a time when both an Arab consortium of nations and the United States were working hard to win acceptance of competing plans to serve as a roadmap for Middle East security.

One can only speculate why Sharon requested the surprise attack but allegations by Israel, Yassin was terminated because he was the leader of a radical organization employing deadly violence, appear to be a cover story for a hidden agenda. Sharon, described as, "a man of peace" by President Bush, has been anything but that towards the Palestine community in his 54 years of military/political service to Israel.

A BBC profile of Sharon depicts a man whose career began in the military during the 1950's, rising in status to the rank of brigadier general based primarily on his brutal, tactical successes against the Palestinians the ensuing 23 years. As general, he first began to implement the kinds of identifiable methods associated with his latest action which have been the source of violent contention since.

"Sharon commanded a division during the Six Day war of June 1967 in which Israel captured East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The harsh occupation measures that he enforced there gave many Palestinians their first taste of a man who has become their sworn enemy," the BBC reports.

In 1973, Sharon began a political career, serving in various Israeli Cabinet posts culminating with his election to Prime Minister in 2001. His appeal is based principally on his military record. He's delineated as "Papa Security" and uses the reputation to sustain unwavering loyalty from the political right. By decreeing the hit on Yassin, critics theorize the prime minister may have been under Conservative pressure to respond to Islamic assertions his planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip wasn't forced by their actions. Additionally, it's hypothesized Sharon was eager to reaffirm he wasn't soft on terror to sustain his endorsement by present Israeli generals.
Sharon has offered little explaination for the killing since the attack was carried out but in a rare public statement recorded by the Associated Press stated its purpose was to combat terrorism.

"The war against terror has not ended and will continue day after day, everywhere. ... This is a difficult struggle that all the countries of the enlightened world must participate in. It is the natural right of the Jewish people, like that of all nations in the world that love life, to hunt down those who rise to destroy it."

A representative of the Israeli political opposition party disputes Sharon's contention and warns Muslims would interpret this as provocative aggression against Islam.

"This had nothing to do with security, nothing to do with protecting Israeli citizens. It's all about politics and public opinion," said lawmaker Yossi Sarid of the Yahad Party.

World reaction to Sharon's premeditated act was nearly unanimous in its condemnation of the death of Hamas's spiritual leader and varied from UN leader Kofi Annan saying "such actions are contrary to international law" while British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw concluded "it is very unlikely to achieve its objectives."

More significant than these commentaries was the cancellation of the Arab League summit meeting which had been scheduled to start March 29. It's aim was to reexamine and alter if necessary, a peace declaration made in 2002 to Israel at the Beirut summit proposing a resolution to their conflict with Palestine. The plan was conceived by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and "offered Israel peace, recognition and normal relations in return for Israeli withdrawal from Arab territories, the establishment of a Palestinian state and a solution for Palestinian refugees." The suggested arrangement appeared to have the near unanimous support of Arab League members who have claimed in the past a solution for peace in the Middle East must begin by settling this dispute. Besides discussing the Saudi initiative, it was anticipated members would devise an alternative to President Bush's ambition of modernizing Arab society. Position papers had been written by five countries. Syria, in conjunction with various Palestinian factions were the primary dissenters who disapproved of reforms considered detrimental to Arab regimes and objected to accepting Libya's renunciation of WMD's.

Sharon's action preempted the Arab conference for an obvious reason. The Saudi plan required Israel to relinquish all the territory which he had acquired in the 1967 invasion. This went far beyond Sharon's announced intention of vacating the Gaza strip. Yassin's removal could be construed as a diversion from negotiating further land concessions and the need for extinguishing opposition to preserve existing boundaries.

Not easily perceptible is whether the directive came from Washington. Official denials have been issued by Administration officials but with Yassin eliminated Bush's Middle East Peace Plan is unlikely to encounter the type of militant, Palestinian opposition Hamas represented. The other major organization, Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, is moderate to a greater extent. Even though the PA has several violent factions, they're considered more susceptible to a negotiable solution. The Bush vision for peace also requires Israel to cede far less of their dominion than what the Arabs were expected to present for consideration.

What has emerged from the latest chapter of the perpetual drama associated with this conflict are undisputable parallels between Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush.

a Both men derive political power from the conservative, political right of their Parties

a Each recites the need to defend their citizens from terroristic threats

a Both leaders employ the psychological threat of FEAR as a motivational tool

a The two men constantly remind the public of their desire to keep them secure

a Each man believes deterrence can be achieved by shooting first and asking questions later

a Currently, both Bush and Sharon have a growing credibility problem

Despite these similarities, the major difference has to be in their approach to achieving peace.

Columnist Patrick Seale of The Daily Star in Lebanon, implies Sharon's willingness to withdraw from Gaza may have been due to his perception the Israeli departure would have led to an internal civil war between opposing Palestinian factions for control of the vacated area. The ensuing chaos would require the Prime Minister to return and restore order, an action that would solidify Sharon's political power base. Too, all talk of his political corruption might vanquish. However, his tactic of divide and conquer Palestine from within might have been detrimental to Bush's desire for fostering stability beyond the Israeli question.

Enter President Bush's reform plan for the Middle East at this point. Under political pressure himself, Bush needs to prove he has a workable solution to improve his reelection chances. In June, Bush will host an international summit off the coast of Georgia to sell his initiative but during the interim a lot of groundwork must be placed to assure success. Nemesising distractions have to be removed from the equation as an example to Middle East leaders whose dissent won't be tolerated. Mysteriously, the Israeli Foreign Ambassador appears in Washington the weekend before the Hamas Sheik was hit. Was he reminded of the financial support and amount of military equipment the United States provides to Israel ? After the incident, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice surfaces publically to assure the world the United States had no knowledge of the slaying and everyone should remain calm.

THE WORLD HOPES YOU'RE TELLING THE TRUTH, MS. RICE !