Question is not whether but when US will attack Iraq

LONDON – Here I am in London and the city is agog with the news prompting hundreds of thousands from different nationalities marched the streets in protest of President Bush’s threat to attack Iraq. Protest rallies of this sort are contentious when it comes to figures with the police deflating and the organizers inflating the numbers. Whatever the more accurate numbers are, the fact is central London was closed to traffic because there was a sizeable crowd in the streets. Friends told me it was not just about Iraq but also a show of hands in support of the Palestinians. Then there are also those who could not get away from local politics and marched against Prime Minister Tony Blair for his supine following of President Bush’s line that "if you are not with us, you are against us". But the way things are going here and what I read in the editorial columns of newspapers, it may be that only Bush and Blair will be together against the world. More moderate critics of American policy however are straining to make it clear they are not anti-American, just anti-war.

* * *

Almost all those who have dared to predict when America might strike Iraq say it will be earlier than later. Military and diplomatic sources in Washington said military commanders are being warned that a US-led attack on Iraq could begin by the Thanksgiving holiday on November 28 .This is based on observations that the new UN resolution would be merely used to serve as a pretext for war. According to this theory, President George Bush may be merely "engineering a breakdown in diplomatic negotiations ahead of an early strike on Baghdad." Those who are watching developments keenly say the new resolution as suggested by the British and Americans on the return of inspectors was "so aggressive that it was designed to be rejected". They cite the following provisions in the draft resolution : It obliges President Saddam Hussein to allow inspectors to go anywhere they like at any time; it ends previously agreed restrictions on UN visits to presidential palaces and other sites that the Iraqis have claimed as off-limits." Early information says this would be rejected by the Iraqis. Taha Yasin Ramadan, an Iraqi vice president, said such requirements will not be accepted.

* * *

To quote one Washington source, "it will be the equivalent of UN inspectors arriving at Buckingham Palace at 2 am and inviting the Queen to show them her cellars." The Americans know that by making unreasonable demands, Saddam will just tell them to go to hell and that is what will justify an attack. According to the same sources, "The draft gives Baghdad up to 30 days to provide a full final and complete declaration of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and authorizes all necessary means to enforce compliance." What is does is grant Washington permission to go to war if Saddam is found to have lied or if he attempts to obstruct inspectors. Those who understand what is behind the language of communiqués in such situation predict that weapons inspectors would never go back to Baghdad. "Either the UN security council would try to weaken the draft to the point where it became unacceptable to Washington, the official said, "or the resolution would require a degree of cooperation that Saddam could never accept."

* * *

On the way out of Speaker Joe de Venecia’s dinner in honor of Chinese leader Li Peng at the Manila Hotel, I met former Vice President Salvador Laurel who claimed an impeccable source told him ‘Bush will definitely attack, the speculation is only on when. I suspect that the source was a former classmate at Yale Law School but it could be from the military as well where war fever has intensified. At the Pentagon planners are reportedly fine-tuning what many military experts are predicting to be a high speed, high-intensity deployment of forces ready to advance into Iraqi soil "within three weeks of an order from Bush". The diplomatic attempts to persuade France, Russia and China to endorse a strong resolution have instead put Bush’s advisers on the defensive "that the longer the inspections issue drags on, the harder it will be to justify an attack," the same sources said..

* * *

Readers of this column will remember that I reprinted a poem written by then Saudi Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Ghazi Al-Algosaibi. The poem became a cause celebre in the Arab world but it also made things awkward for the Saudi ambassador to continue in his diplomatic post. He has since been eased up and given the position of Minister of Water. This is an important and crucial post but those who knew Mr. Algosaibi’s trenchant pen think the poem An Ode to a Suicide Bomber is more to blame for the re-assignment. I met him personally during his campaign for the post of Director General of UNESCO. I thought then as I do now that a man like him would have done well for better understanding between Muslims and Christians. His novels and essays show an open and even liberal intelligence. He would have been a valuable channel to get at the heart of Islam.

* * *

I was shocked to hear stories of Filipinas working here who have strayed the path of moral rectitude while claiming that this is freedom. My friend, Lebanese journalist Baria Alammudin, tells me it has become pervasive. She is told by some of those who have worked for her that there were Filipinas, some of them old enough to be grandmothers taking on boyfriends for casual sex for a fee or for kicks. There was one who even boasted that she would drink and sleep with any man for a fee. Because Ms. Alammudin genuinely cares for Filipinas, some of whom have worked with her, she is concerned that these loose morals are harming the women not only individually but the entire community. "This is a new development. Filipinas were known to be Church-going and devoted to their families but this has changed. Some of them have become wild, they really need help," said Ms. Alammuddin.

* * *

My e-mail address: [email protected].