By Salama A. Salama While Arab eyes were riveted on the Arafat saga US forces -- up to 15,000 in some estimates -- backed by UK troops launched a large-scale campaign in Falluja. Using planes, tanks and heavy weapons, these forces pummelled the city with immense fire power, citing as their excuse the need to liquidate pockets of Abu Mosaab Al- Zarqawi-led resistance. The timing of the offensive must have been fixed during the recent foreign tour of US-backed Iyad Allawi, perhaps during his meeting with President George Bush. Buoyed by election victory Bush is intent on resolving the Iraqi problem in whatever ways he thinks best. Eliminating the stiff resistance that is ongoing in the Sunni triangle, and reaching an agreement with the Shia resistance in Najaf, will, we are told, set the stage for elections in January. The Arafat saga provided a timely diversion. While the Arabs were immersed following the news of Arafat's illness, the accusations made by his wife Suha, then the death, the funeral and the search for a successor, Falluja was being torn to pieces. There is little doubt that the death toll among Falluja's civilian population will be high. Al-Zarqawi and his followers have apparently disappeared, assuming of course that Al- Zarqawi exists. For all we know Al-Zarqawi could be a figment of the US intelligence imagination, a convenient ploy used to justify the offensive. According to the British medical journal The Lancet about 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since the US invaded the country. If this is true the death toll is inching close to that of the entire Saddam Hussein era. Think of that figure. And think, too, of what is happening in Falluja, where the fighting is said to be as brutal as that in Vietnam. US forces may succeed in controlling Falluja. They may even eradicate pockets of resistance. But in doing so they will destroy whatever trust remains. This is perhaps what prompted UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to warn the US, the UK and the Iraqi interim government that the use of excessive force would intensify hatred of the US occupation and fuel suspicions that the US intends the occupation to last indefinitely. The declaration of a state of emergency is a further proof that Iraq is still far from the democracy the US has promised. Annan's fears are justified. At least one Iraqi group, Ahl Al- Sunna, has pulled out of the Allawi government and instructed its followers to boycott the elections. The discussions preceding the Sharm El- Sheikh conference and the draft statement of the summit throw some light on US intentions. The Americans have rejected the French proposal, refusing to declare a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. Washington even objected to a sentence denouncing "violence" against civilians. Not surprising, considering that US troops are firing randomly at the Falluja populace. It is hard to see how the Sharm El-Sheikh conference -- to be hosted by Egypt and attended by the Arab League, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and other Arab parties -- can come up with anything useful. The conference is unlikely to persuade the Americans to end military operations, or make them pledge to withdraw by a given date. This being the case, the gathering is unlikely to achieve much beyond providing a smokescree n for US policy.
