Following the operation made to Iraq by the coalition powers, we witnessed various news of speculative nature in the press. Nobody knows where and what the reality is while exaggerations and anti-American publications are all around! It is as if a person named Saddam never lived in this world! Massacres were not made in Iraq! It’s as if some did not die while refugees around five million were fleeing from the country! It’s as if Kuwait was not occupied! It1s as if compulsory migrations and massacres were not imposed on the Turkmen, Kurd and Arab nations! …etc.

It is not possible to answer what the reality is without forgetting all these. However, especially the Iraqi people in exile in the lead, they are trying to come up with an explanation for the existing situation by forgetting the acts of the Saddam regime. If there is a single party bringing freedom to Iraq that is the coalition powers led by US. This is a fact. I know how important freedom is. Freedom comes first for a real person. Unfortunately, the people of Iraq are not aware of the freedom they live. For this reason, it is not very easy to hear explanations supporting freedom from the political actors in Iraq today as they are not used to it! I feel very sorry to express the population, although a small part of if, wants “pressure”. It does not mater whether it’s from right or left! The suggestions made have always been based on restricting the right of “the other”. What lies on the basis of the quarrels is the logic of “How do I get hold of the power of government in Iraq. When this is the case, the shortest way to power is “populism”! It is very difficult to talk about a political methodology in Iraq. Anyhow, the population is apolitical! The settlement of a liberal movement is very difficult or almost impossible in such a political environment. As this was not possible, terrorists started to be called as “boycotters” and murderers as “combatants”! Those attacking the United Nations, hospital, electricity power plant, petroleum pipeline, American troops were called as “boycotters”! Those attacking the Iraqi police, members of foreign companies, truck drivers, ministers of the state and political leaders started to be called a “combatants” and the press led the population to believe in this way! What lies on the basis of this fact is the anti-American trend in the press! Iran and Syria, two countries supporting terrorism are the neighbors of Iraq and this is bad luck for those supporting freedom in Iraq. The terrorists coming from Syria and Iran are supported by the anti-American press-media propaganda and are continuing to destroy Iraq, hence the people of Iraq in the name of religion and nationalism. The terrorists are supported by means of accommodation and moral assistance through the propaganda of the press and they also get monetary support from bandit countries such as Iran and Syria. Well! What do the bandit countries contribute to peace? While Iran develops missiles to hit the Israeli land and challenges the US and Israel, Syria continues to occupy Lebanon! (1) (As far as I can see) nobody tells that the target of these missiles is Israel, and they constitute a threat for the national security of Turkey! To what extent is it true not to see the imperialist ambitions of Iran and Syria? It is not a consequence that both Iran and Syria use the problem of Palestine. Iran uses the problem of Palestine and armaments itself by using the funds provided by the sentimental Muslims living in Europe and rich countries in order to hide its national problems (cased by theological management) and become the leader of the Islamic world. Syria on the other hand, uses the same method to get monetary and moral support from the nationalist Arab world and legitimates the occupation of Lebanon (2) helps and supports terrorists. Syria has helped and supported the terrorists of PKK that has caused a lot of damage for Turkey for many years.

To whose people asking questions such as “Well! What answer will you give for what happened in the Abu- Garip prison? Was this what the American democracy was about?” I will express that I condemn torture and I will tell them to pay attention to the matters indicated below: 1. Of course, the things that have been lived there is a disgrace for humanity, however, to what extent is it true to blame the American management because of the acts of a group of perverted soldiers? 2. Was it not the Western democracy that allowed the photographs of the tortures to be published? In the event that the same event had taken in any Arab country, which Arab channel or newspaper would have the courage to display those photographs? 3. Did you condemn the Saddam regime that has forced the Muslim population to migrate and exterminate them by chemical weapons before condemning the American soldiers? How many demonstrations took place against Saddam? How many suicide attacks were made against the troops of Saddam? I wonder if those that were killed were not Muslims. 4. Was Saddam not doing the same torture? Well the only difference is that Saddam was awarding those soldiers with medals while the American nation is punishing them. 5. America can not bring democracy if the population in Iraq does not want it. America prepares/tries to prepare the conditions necessary for the implementation of democracy. The backbone of this is to destroy the dicta regime of Saddam and to win back the international prestige of the administration in Iraq, which has been lost long ago. It should not be forgotten that democracy is a culture, a way of living.

The current and the future American management knows by heart that:

It is not possible to bring peace to Iraq and Palestine without making a fundamental change in the administration of bandit countries such as Iran and Syria. We should as this question to ourselves: What is it that we are trying to do without freedom? Or did we already forget the lessons we have derived from the 20th century!

---------------------------------------

1. Heading of the ŞALOM newspaper with number 2851, year 55 18 AUGUST.004.
2. When the decisions adopted lately by the American congress are about this matter are reviewed, it is understood that decisions are taken to punish Syria for occupying Lebanon

Many of the persons having followed up political sociology are aware of the fact that the I-II World Wars were wars of sharing. The super powers of that time have started a process of sharing “with the motive of state”. The power shall determine the discharges after the end of big wars and then the main actors shall either become eve more powerful or they will be defeated, worn out and they will withdraw (just like the example of Russia). In this manner, we observe that in time, the geographical borders change. During the end of 80’s and the beginning of 90’s, we all witnessed the collapse of one of the biggest actors of the old era. It is not possible to talk about a bipolar world anymore. The competition has ended with the victory of liberal democracy. The collapse and division of Russia caught the interest of businessmen in the developed countries of the world. They directed their attention to the Central Asian Republics (the brother republics). The world then started to have a more peaceful vision for the future with the hope of revival. The US forgot about while global peace while it spent all its energy to prevent global war. In the opinion of Pentagon strategists, to the extent that they were related with the matters, the status of America, having the only super power army of the world was not something to be operated; rather it was something to be preserved and hence the future was something unknown, they presumed that they had to be protected against all possible futures and all possibilities. When they presumed that certain big enemies could have emerged in the long run, they decided that the best policy for America would be to wait and see what would happen.

This was better than consuming valuable resources for controlling the world. The big strategy was to avoid big strategies. I know it could seem unbelievable but many people were presuming that various “big plans” were pursued by US. However, what is amazing is that, we run after a vision to replace what America had fought for so many years to stand against the Soviet Power. Until 9/11, the concepts adopted by Pentagon for the perception of the world in a detailed manner were “anarchy” and “uncertainty” pursuing the impossibility to have a perspective opinion about the world in the potential future. Until 9/11, we had at least an enemy to whom we could connect all this “anarchy” and “uncertainty”. This was at least no somebody created in absolute meaning, it was an enemy that still permitted us to define and assume terrible futures that had to be prevented.(1)

After the tragedy of 9/11, which took the lives of more than 2,800 people, the signals for the beginning of World War II were observed. The bandit countries were determined and a new concept against “Terrorism” was constituted (2). You can now find the enemy at your home! And this enemy is not a country, it’s a way of thinking – way of life! This was briefly named as the Islamic terror or the Islamist Terror. Yes, this is a conflict of new value systems in a way. Let’s read how Samuel P. Huntington expresses this conflict:

The basic problem for the west is not Islamic fundamentalism. This problem is Islam itself, in other words, it is a different civilization in which its population is persuaded about the superiority of their culture and has transformed their lack of power into an obsession. The problem of Islam on the other hand is not CIA or the US Ministry of Defense, but it’s the West itself; they believe in the universality of their culture, which is true and they believe that their superior power, Which has become somewhat weaker in time, imposes on the obligation to spread this culture to the World. These are the basic factors lying behind the conflict of Islam and the West (3 ).

Terrorism has gained a new global dimension. The states on the other hand are trying to prevent mass destruction weapons and threats of global terrorism in a more careful manner and with more serious budgets. The biggest indicator of this is the mission assumed by the military coalition of NATO to respond and prevent the threats of mass destruction weapons (4). Well!

Will all these measures taken be able to prevent the terror that is much likely to be seen? I don’t think so. This is because of the fact that the source and focus of point of terrorism are civil persons. In other words, those that make terrorist attacks are comprised of civil persons (and specifically persons that have been trained in the West. The main question that should be asked is: which factors push these well educated people into the network of international terrorism? Before copying the answer provided by Samuel P. Huntington let us review the reasons that lie behind that change of methods of attacks? For instance, why were the same or similar methods not adopted during the Cold War Era if the problem lay with Islam? For instance, I cannot understand by Bin Ladin, fighting against the Russians in Afghanistan did not attack Kremilin by airplanes! Islam represents a religious value system and just like other religions, it shall incorporate in itself its self protection mechanisms such as (holy war in case of danger). What is it that transforms this mechanism into a global threat? Or is this a type of “Ladinism”?

Yes, at least the first thing that comes to one’s mind when people say airplane attacks shall be Bin – Ladin. Well! What kinds of measures should be taken against the concepts that I address as “Ladinizm”? It shall be possible to answer this question by developing human rights while taking cultural diversity into consideration the, determining the boundaries of freedom of dialogue and cooperation between People-Security forces. Finally, Islam and Ladinismm should be separated from each other We should not forget that Ladinism is a perverted perception nourishing itself from Islamic religious resources.

*Dedicated in the memory of all those having lost their lives in terrorist attacks an especially to the victims of 9/11.

1. Thomas P.M.BARNETT, The Pentagon’s New Map, War and Pease ın The twenty – fırst century.2004.Putnam. page : 1-2
2. Ahmet Emin DAĞ, Dictionary of International Relations Diplomacy, Anka press, 2004, page 395.
3. Samuel P. Huntington, translated by Mehmet Turhan, Y.Z. Cem Soydemir, Clash of Civilizations and the establishment of a new world order,3rd edition, Okyanus press,2004,page.322.
4. See: NATO in the 21st century, NATO Office Of Information and Pres/ Bruxelles. page 18

Replies to this comment

A very interesting set of posts. (Posted by Doug at 2005-04-20)