|
As the US-led coalition forces press deeper into the Iraqi heartland, there is a prevailing sense that this war is quite different from the one in 1991.
As the Iraqi leaders actively command counterattacks following the "Decapitation Strike" opening salvo aimed at destroying President Saddam Hussein and his top leadership, the coalition commanders are surprised to see their latest offensive, code named "Shock and Awe," failing to live up to its name.
The expected replay of 1991 which saw the rapid collapse of Iraqi resistance has not transpired.
Instead, Iraq remains defiant five days into the massive bombardments launched from air, sea and land.
The resistance the coalition forces have so far encountered on the ground shows that Baghdad has learned the lessons of the 1991 war and changed its tactics.
It would be naive to expect otherwise, given that Baghdad has lived under the recurring threat of war since its last defeat.
But the dissimilarity is not all about military strategies.
Although both wars share a US-claimed commitment to peace and security, they are distinctly different in nature.
Authorized by the United Nations, and backed by the international community, the 1991 war against Iraqi aggression of Kuwait was both legal and just.
The ongoing invasion of Iraq, however, lacks support on both fronts. It goes against the Charter of the United Nations, has derailed international efforts to peacefully implement UN resolutions, threatens the enshrined international security arrangement, and is condemned by many the world over.
The disparate conflicts determine that the adversaries entered into war with a distinct state of mind.
If the Iraqi soldiers fought the 1991 war with a guilty conscience as aggressors in the face of global censure, today they are practicing the "inherent right" of self-defense as bestowed by article 51 of the UN Charter.
That right applies to every member state of the UN. Iraq is no exception.
Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not lose such a right simply because other nations have a dislike of Saddam Hussein and desire to get rid of him.
The war is said to be targeted specifically at Saddam Hussein. But it has obviously imposed a humanitarian disaster upon all innocent Iraqis. Such damage is more than collateral.
Needless to say there are no legal grounds for any country to intrude into another, kill its leader and impose on it a different regime.
Saddam Hussein's forces are bold and assured because the moral imperative is, this time, carried by the US-led intruders. And much of the world is crying out against the US-led war.
(Xinhua News Agency March 25, 2003)
|
