In Focus: Moment of truth Mesopotamia resists its modern invaders as the United States fails to learn lessons from its own, more recent, past, writes Galal Nassar "Tomorrow will be the moment of truth," President George W Bush said at a press conference with prime ministers Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar four days before United States troops invaded Iraq. He was warning Saddam Hussein that he had three days to abdicate, or else. Bush succeeded in invading Iraq, perhaps even faster than some military experts predicted. But he made no use of the experiences of earlier US administrations in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Guatemala, Chile, and Lebanon. He overlooked the laws of history that governed the political scene in Mesopotamia for over 5,000 years. Iraq is not the kind of country to tolerate invaders or welcome occupiers. This is what Bush forgot to take into account. The US president wanted Iraq to be a stepping stone, a key to Middle East oil, a gateway to world domination. How mistaken can one be? By 10 April 2003, the signs of resistance were already in the air. Since then, history followed its predictable course. The resistance escalated and with it the countdown for occupation. One cannot tolerate the terrorist attacks against Iraqi Sunnis and Shias, for those are not acts of resistance. But the writing was on the wall: Iraqis wanted their country back. Resistance has taught Bush a lesson. In a recent television interview, the US president admitted the similarities between his current ordeal and that of President Lyndon Johnson during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, conceding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." But he still argued that victory is possible, that a new Middle East can be created, and that "extremism" had to be weeded out. In October, over 100 US soldiers were killed in Iraq. As the death toll mounted, so did criticism of US policy at home. A Colorado University professor said that history is repeating itself in Iraq and that the similarities with Vietnam are too evident to ignore. Even US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted that the situation in Iraq is critical, but he still refused to set a timetable for withdrawal. Alberto Fernandez, chief of public diplomacy at the Middle East desk of the State Department, described US policy as "stupid and arrogant". He told Al-Jazeera that the US should show more humility about a policy that is "full of errors". Jimmy Carter has joined the chorus of opposition. During a visit to New Delhi, where he was taking part in a project to build homes for the poor, the former president said he personally wished US soldiers would leave Iraq. David Sutterfield, a senior State Department diplomat, recently disclosed that the US administration was in touch with the Iraqi resistance in the hope of bringing the violence to an end. The British government wants to withdraw its troops from Iraq within a year. And an unidentified US official said that the British government feared that its troops in Iraq were at the point of collapse. Observers believe that the British may be preparing their own timetable for withdrawal. Although no precise count exists on the death toll among Iraqis, estimates put the figure at anywhere between 400,000 and 800,000. The death rate in Iraq has risen from 5.5 per 1,000 before the occupation to 13.3 afterwards. And corruption has been rampant in the country. According to CBS news, up to $500 million had been stolen by defence officials in the former transitional government. The project for the new American century hasn't turned out as well as US strategists had planned. All the while, the US president still denies defeat. But his recent remarks are in sharp contrast with those he made right before the war. Mesopotamia has once again proved a stumbling block for invaders.
