- Note - This is the first story to point in the direction
of possible/probable answers to a number of key questions about the US-UK
zionist subjugation of Iraq. When the Iraqis failed to blow a single bridge
- a classic and mandatory defensive military strategy - suspicions arose
immediately. Aside from a handful of oil well-head fires in the South,
there was no effort to torch Iraq's oil assets by Saddam. The repeated
deployment of the regular Iraqi army and the Guard into exposed areas in
the desert - and certain death by total US and UK airpower and carpet bombing
- is also equally bizarre in a military sense. What happened to the deadly
Russian Kornet wire-guided antitank missiles which surprised the 'Coalition'
in the South? And now the 'obliteration' of Saddam and sons can only be
'confirmed' by 'dna' on the word of possibly a single person in a lab somewhere...how
potentially convenient. And then there is the remarkably and surprising
ease with which Baghdad was taken. There are many things to ponder in the
weeks ahead, and high-level collusion is certainly at the top of list.
This article begins the search for possible answers. Nothing much is
as it seems. -ed
- Almost 10 days ago, there was a halt in U.S.-British
operations in Iraq. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
the chief of the U.S. Central Command, General Tommy Franks, in their interviews
with the media never elaborated on the issue, but instead tried to mislead
world public opinion in order to hide a greater secret decision from them.
- Suspicions rose on the same day when U.S. troops, that
had been stopped at the Euphrates, immediately were able to advance toward
the heart of Baghdad without any significant resistance by Iraqi forces.
Nobody asked why Tikrit, that was once called the ideological heart of
Saddam's government and the last possible trench of the Iraqi army, was
never targeted by U.S. and British bombs and missiles. Or why when the
elite Iraqi forces arrived in eastern Iraq from Tikrit, the pace of the
invaders advancing toward central Baghdad immediately increased. Also,
it has been reported that over the past 24 hours, a plane was authorized
to leave Iraq bound for Russia. Who was aboard this plane?
- All these ambiguities, the contradictory reports about
Saddam's situation, and the fact that the highest-ranking Iraqi officials
were all represented by a single individual -- Iraqi Information Minister
Mohammed al-Sahhaf -- and the easy fall of Baghdad shows that the center
of collusion had been Tikrit, where Saddam, his aides, and lieutenants
from the Baath Party had been waiting for al-Sahhaf to join them so that
they could receive the required guarantees to leave the country in a secret
compromise with coalition forces.
- This possibility was confirmed by the Al-Jazeera network,
which quoted a Russian intelligence official as saying that the Iraqi forces
and the invaders had made a deal. The Russian official told Al-Jazeera
that the Iraqi leaders had agreed to show no serious resistance against
the U.S.-British troops in return for a guarantee that Saddam and his close
relatives could leave Iraq unharmed.
- The question now is whether the U.S. would prefer Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein to be dead or wants him alive to be tried. There
may even be a third alternative that the White House is looking far. It
seems that U.S. officials would welcome a solution where Saddam was found,
either dead or alive.
- First of all, the White House hawks and U.S. President
George W. Bush would definitely not be saddened to hear that reports claiming
that Saddam was killed, which were highlighted by the U.S. media on Tuesday
after a missile attack on an underground restaurant in Baghdad, have been
- This is because they do not want the Iraqi people to
ever find out about the secrets of the clandestine political cooperation
between the U.S. and Iraq. On the other hand, Saddam's death would mean
that the weak Iraqi regime has been completely defeated, and this may to
some extent satisfy Washington's feeling of militarism.
- However, an inactive, defeated, and exiled dictator can
definitely be beneficial to the White House, provided that he is under
Washington's control. Look at what happened to Mullah Muhammad Omar and
Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Is there any sign that the U.S. is interested
in finding them and wiping them out? One should know that these two, as
U.S. henchmen over the past decade, provided enough pretexts for the White
House to dominate Afghanistan, even though they are still at large. This
automatically justifies the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
- Therefore, Washington benefits from its inability to
find the Taleban and Al-Qaeda leaders. The same holds true with Saddam,
and the U.S. failure to find Saddam, or Washington's efforts to withhold
news of his death, provide the best pretext to stay in Iraq.
- Secondly, in the event that Saddam survives the U.S.-British
attacks on Iraq, the White House will have to devise new policies and approaches
to make the best use of this. There is no doubt that Saddam knows many
of the secrets of U.S. strategy in the region over the past three decades.
If he were put on trial in an international and open court, he might reveal
much evil about the U.S. that would expose the real image of the White
House hawks to the world. This is the reason why the Fox news network has
taken the lead in reminding the world that an international tribunal would
lack the authority to put the Iraqi president on trial, given that neither
Iraq nor the U.S. have joined the International Criminal Court. Fox has
thus proposed three alternatives to deal with Saddam in case he saves his
skin in the U.S.-led attacks: living underground, changing his identity,
or travelling to the beautiful beaches of Guantanamo!! Needless to say
these alternatives will make Saddam harmless for the White House, even
if he is not of any use to the U.S.
- These stances clarify the fact that the rumor on the
possibility of Saddam seeking political asylum in Syria is only a red herring
because any attempt by the Iraqi president to flee the country without
coordinating with the U.S. is absolutely impossible. Therefore, if there
had been any kind of compromise between the U.S. and Saddam, the Iraqi
president would take refuge wherever the White House ordered him to.
- Even dictators have to respect a hierarchy. A minor dictator
like Saddam is like a puppet that has danced for a lifetime to the tune
of a certain major dictator like the U.S. and cannot act on his own. Saddam
did whatever the White House wanted him to do for years. Therefore, the
simple answer to the question "Where is Saddam?" is nothing but
"Wherever the U.S. desires!"