March 28, 2003

IRAQ: WAR IS 'NO CAKEWALK'; MANY SEE U.S. PREPARING FOR 'LONGER BATTLE'

 

KEY FINDINGS

**  Dailies worldwide labeled Iraq's "ferocious" resistance "stronger than expected."

**  Most agreed that while the U.S. will win, "the war will last longer than planned."  

**  Leftist and Arab papers emphasized the "typical arrogance" of the U.S.' "strategic plans."   

**  Many asked if the U.S. can continue to "spare Iraq and its cities" if the war intensifies.

 

MAJOR THEMES

The war is 'no piece of cake'--  Numerous outlets agreed that the conflict is "not at all" the "clean war" that the U.S. allegedly expected.  Spain's centrist La Vanguardia deemed it "evident" that the war was not a "military parade."  Many expressed surprise at how Iraq's "guerrilla warfare" has been "able to inflict painful losses."  India's centrist Navshakti said the coalition cannot "effectively deal with the stiff resistance," while Ukraine's Kievskie Vedomosti bluntly stated:  "The blitzkrieg promised by the Pentagon failed."  Several dailies guessed Saddam "may still have a significant level of popular support."  Arab writers hailed "Iraqi steadfastness" and their "heroic" rejection of any "drink from the cup of humiliation." 

 

More see 'the possibility of a prolonged fight'--  Belgian, Indian, Singaporean and Turkish dailies predicted that the U.S. "will ultimately win the war" but it won't be "easy and painless."  Others joined Brazil's right-of-center O Globo in forecasting a war "much longer, expensive and bloody than originally promised."  Japan's liberal Asahi cited "rising misgivings" over "prospects for an early end," and the rightist Pakistan Observer predicted the "long, drawn-out war" would turn into a "quagmire."  Philippine and Norwegian dailies invoked the "ghost called Vietnam" in warning the U.S. "can also experience defeat."

 

Some call U.S. war plans 'confused' and 'based on bad political judgments'--  Belgian, Israeli and Malaysian dailies criticized the U.S. strategy as "not realistic," accusing the "ultra-conservative institutions that appear to have Bush in their grip" of "typical arrogance."  Arab papers hailed the "great lesson" for the "adventurers of the White House" who thought it would be "easy to reformulate the world."  Algeria's independent Le Matin gloated that "Bush's war strategists are realizing their error."  Senegalese and Philippine dailies opined that "Washington swallowed everything told it" by "certain Iraqi opponents of Saddam."  Bangkok's elite Naew Na praised the resourcefulness of "Saddam's desert fox army," while Russian dailies identified several "shortcomings" in the coalition strategy.  

 

Many wonder if the allies can maintain a 'pinpoint approach'--  Euro dailies praised the "concerted effort to keep Iraqi...casualties low," but wondered if allied "restraint will not change at some point into fury."  Algerian and Australian papers warned that the coalition will have to choose either the "the high coalition casualties of extended street fighting" or "committing a crime against humanity, the bombing of civilian areas" to make taking Baghdad "a certitude." 

EDITOR:  Ben Goldberg

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This analysis is based on 67 reports from 42 countries over 25 - 27 March 2003.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

EUROPE

 

FRANCE:  "Impatience And Restraint"

 

Bruno Frappat commented in Catholic La Croix (3/26):  “If the Baghdad regime did not collapse in the first hours or days of combat, it is essentially for two reasons...the capacity for 'resistance' from certain Iraqi troops [and]...the assailants’ strategy....  It appears that the British and American troops are looking to spare Iraq and its cities....  We can safely believe that the targets are purely military or tied to the regime.  All in all, without going as far as approving this war waged without a mandate and with tragic consequences, it is strange to have to say that those who condemned this war seem to be reproaching the assailants for their slow advance....  Let us continue to hope that this restraint will not change at some point into fury.”

 

“Regret”

 

Serge July noted in left-of-center Liberation (3/26):  “In the span of a year and a half the Bush administration has managed to upset most of America’s alliances....  The consequence is that the U.S. will be paying for the war by itself....  The neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are making the typical mistake of presuming their strength. The military forces in Iraq carry their stamp: a quasi-absolute belief in technology, underestimation of the adversary, hence an insufficient number of troops to take Baghdad....  The battle of Baghdad will be difficult and dangerous.... Military victories are not always political victories, especially for democracies. America’s allies warned of the risks which are taking shape in real time....  A political defeat would mean a renaissance for Arab nationalism....  Anti-American hysteria emanating from this adventure is already putting Saddam and Bush on the same footing, sometimes going as far as inverting the two, making Bush worse than Saddam....  This delirium is rampant in the streets of the Arab world, carrying with it other dangers, like anti-Semitism. The democratic world needs America. America’s political defeat will be, in this globalized world, a defeat for democracy....  If U.S. isolationism replaces unilateralism we will bitterly regret America’s absence from world problems. America’s ideological war was a mistake. If the battles in Iraq confirm this, we will all lose.”

 

GERMANY:  "Too Optimistic" 

 

Center-right tabloid Express of Cologne wrote (3/26):  “The generals were too optimistic.  One week after the beginning of the war, we cannot speak of a ‘walk’ to Baghdad.  Resistance is stiffer than expected, and we do not hear the hoped-for cheers at the liberators. What remains for the invaders is the vague hope for a quick decision in Baghdad.  It is likely that the dictator will not survive this final act, but, nevertheless, he has achieved a victory.  The people in Arabic streets are celebrating the tyrant and criminal as the new hero of the holy war.  It is possible that the revolt will turn into a revolution that can change the entire Mideast.  New wars will not be able to stop this development.  Political engagement and generous economic assistance are now necessary, since poverty and a lack of perspectives have always been the nurturing ground of any kind of extremism.”

 

"Able To Inflict Painful Losses"

 

P. Durm commented on national radio station DeutschlandRadio of Berlin (3/26):  “Before the world, the Iraqis are proving that they fight and that they are able to inflict painful losses on the U.S. high-tech army.  The current course of the war is bad luck for the Americans, but also for the Arab world.  U.S. President Bush must learn how everywhere in the Arab world, millions of people cheer at a man whom they hated a while ago.  Now that Saddam is putting up stiff resistance...the Iraqi ruler is serving the deepest wishes of the Arab soul: the desire not to be beaten any longer but also to strike back, the desire to be freed from the trauma of the many lost battles against Israel, against an all-powerful West which has imposed its will on the Arabs for years.  Of course, Bush will win this war sooner or later, but in the Arab world, he already suffered a disastrous defeat.  Thanks to the U.S. war of aggression, the entire region is now threatened to fall back into the gloomiest times in which the Arabs cheered at their most cruel despots, times in which dull pan-Arab nationalism, a personality cult, and feelings of revenge and hatred of the West moved the masses.  In this war, Saddam cannot make to many things wrong.  If he continues not to use chemical weapons, if he is able to withstand the attack for a while, he has the best chances to turn into a man he always wanted to be:  a hero of the Arab nation.”

 

ITALY:  “The Changed Plans”

 

Vittorio Zucconi wrote in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (3/27):  “On the seventh day, ‘everything is going according to plans, ‘ President Bush tells us.  But there is a problem: we don’t know the plans and right now the new password is ‘flexibility.’...  They have not yet found the  ‘smoking gun’....  the Pentagon admits that some missiles may have missed their target....  the fancy ‘shock and awe’ doctrine slows down....  In the latest 48 hours he delivered two solemn speeches before the military, one at the Pentagon and the other at Central Command in Florida to say that ‘there is no doubt we will win,’ as in Afghanistan. If he has no doubts, why does he keep repeating it?”

 

“Negotiations”

 

Lucio Caracciolo remarked in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (3/26):  "America is now fighting a guerilla warfare, its historical Achilles’ heel.  Its huge strategic superiority doesn’t allow alternatives to the outcome of the conflict.  However, before giving way to its full strength...the U.S. giant prefers to slow down....  President Bush’s best way out remains a secret negotiation with Saddam’s people to convince them to abandon a ‘lost cause’ by provoking a collapse of the regime from the inside.  However, time is running out.  The United States only has a few more weeks.  And after that, the impasse would be considered a political defeat, unredeemable even by a (final) military victory.”

 

“’I Don’t Know How Long It Will Last, I Know How It Will End’”

 

Maurizio Molinari said in centrist, influential La Stampa (3/26):  “Regarding the duration of the (war) campaign, Bush--especially in light of the ground developments in the last 72 hours--chooses to be cautious: ‘I can’t tell you when the war will end.” The prospect of a ‘swift and successful’ war, which was suggested many times on the eve of the attack, seems to have vanished: coalition forces are encountering resistance and are suffering losses....  President Bush...outlined the war scenario:  'We are now fighting an enemy who does not respect the rules, who is dressed in civilian clothing....  The reference to the enemy in ‘civilian clothing’ was intended to explain to the American public that the war has entered a new phase: guerrilla warfare, with the risk that American soldiers may have to open fire on enemies without uniform....  But there is not only the Iraq front. Another 5 billion dollars are in fact destined to countries on the front line in the fight against terrorism even in other echelons: next to Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Israel--everyone in the Mideast--Pakistan, Afghanistan, Philippines and Columbia will receive aid as well. Bush wants to send a clear message: even though the U.S. is fighting in Iraq, he will not forget the other fronts on terrorism.”

 

RUSSIA:  "Too Early To Speak Of Errors"

 

Mikhail Khodaryonok held in in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (3/27):  "While it is too early to speak of major mistakes made by the command of the U.S.-British forces in the course of the operation, some shortcomings in the tactics are apparent.  The Iraqis' resistance has proved far stronger than expected.  Washington and London hoped for a massive surrender of the Iraqi troops.  They were wrong in that, too.   Clearly, there is a shortage of ground troops, and the advancing forces have problems with supplies.   Also, the number of casualties is more than the Americans and British bargained for." 

 

"Poor Intelligence"

 

Sergey Ptichkin declared in official government-run Rossiyskaya Gazeta (3/26):  "Incredibly, the coalition, primarily the Americans, are losing war at the level of intelligence services.   With a fiasco in assessing Iraq's military and political potential and in planning its own tactical operation, U.S. intelligence thought it best to blame the coalition's military setbacks on two Russian companies, one in Tula and the other near Moscow.   This is more proof that the Pentagon's view of the situation in the area of the military conflict it started itself is rather distorted."

 

AUSTRIA:  "This Is Not The Time for Gloating"

 

Stefan Galoppi commented in mass-circulation Kurier (3/26):  "This is not the time to gloat over the coalition forces' setbacks in Iraq:  The more successful the Iraqi resistance, the more massive and aggressive the allied attacks, and the more devastating the consequences for the Iraqi people.  It is alarming that the town of Basra has been declared a 'military target' by British forces. Up to now, the allied troops went for a pinpoint approach in order to preserve the country's infrastructure....  Should the U.S.--after a grueling campaign--be forced to withdraw from Iraq, the Iraqi dictator would triumph and become an Arab super hero....  The situation in the politically highly instable Middle East could get completely out of hand."

 

BELGIUM:  “Can Saddam Win The War?”

 

Luc Van der Kelen stated in conservative Het Laatste Nieuws (3/27):  "This is not at all the quick ‘clean’ war without many victims that the belligerent regime in Washington had predicted.  Bush never mentioned that the Euphrates River would be colored red by American blood....  If Bush sends more soldiers and equipment he will ultimately win the war.  The question, however, is: how long can he continue the operation if there are many casualties among his own troops and among the civilian population, and if the offensive comes to a standstill at the gates of Baghdad.  A war in the field appears to be something totally different from the strategic plans designed by the ultra-conservative institutions that appear to have Bush in their grip.”

 

"Optimistic Expectations"

 

Marc Van de Weyer opined in conservative Christian-Democrat Het Belang van Limburg (3/26):  "The impression was given that Saddam’s regime would disintegrate very quickly, that there would be massive desertions, and that the Iraqis would welcome the invading troops with cheers and flowers.  Defense Secretary Rumsfeld may deny now that he ever sparked such optimistic expectations, but it is a fact that there were initial statements that Saddam’s army was no match for America’s supremacy.  That may still be the case, but the Americans, too, must admit today that the condemned regime is playing its last cards in a shrewd manner.”

 

CZECH REPUBLIC:  "The First Week: The U.S. Is Winning Slowly, But Surely"

 

Radek Honzak wrote in centre-right Lidove noviny (3/27):  "The war in Iraq enters its second week. Whoever expected that by now the coalition's attack on Iraq would reach its final stages was mistaken. The hardest battles are still ahead of the anti-Saddam coalition.  Apart from several surprising happenings on the tactical level, it can be said that the first seven days of the conflict ran according to strategic plans prepared by both the allies, and Iraq. Front line coalition units reached Baghdad in record time, and heavily defended cities and areas in Iraq were surrounded by second wave units. With the start of the second week the war enters its second stage. The allies stand before Baghdad and can concentrate on their goal: the change of the Iraqi regime. It mean in the first phase to overcome the defence of the capital and in the second phase to eliminate the vast structure which keeps Saddam's dictatorship in power."

 

FINLAND:  "Surprises"

 

Social Democratic Demari commented (3/27):  "The population of Iraq was expected to receive American 'liberators' with flowers and cheers.  Iraqi soldiers have not capitulated en masse.  Instead, they continue to fight an overwhelming war machine. That is what Finns did during their war, although enemy soldiers had been led to expect something else."

 

GEORGIA:  “Battles Closer To Baghdad Become More and More Fierce”

 

Melor Sturia contributed to Georgia’s left-of-center pro-opposition 24 Hours (3/26):  “American army, that official sources preferably refer to as allied forces are advancing on Baghdad....  American command is blaming the enemy of breaking the rules of war.  Like in Umah Iraqi soldiers resumed hostilities dressed in civilian clothes and used cars instead of armored vehicles....  How come the state equipped with up-to-date arms can drop missiles from a safe distance to scorch cities of the country that can only afford to resist with ‘Kalashnikovs’ only.  Meanwhile, the latter country cannot sneak to the enemy’s ship in a fisherman’s boat to blow it up? How come the first is right for  Geneva and the second is not as a terrorist act? ”

 

IRELAND:  "Allied Battle Plan Has Not Survived Contact With Underestimated Enemy"

 

The center-left Irish Times carried a comment by Deaglán de Bréadún stating (3/26):  "The Allied message that they are not being invaded but, rather, liberated from an oppressive dictator, does not seem to have come across to them as yet....  There are hints...that the Coalition may be tempted to recruit Kurdish guerrillas into active service against Saddam, with potentially grave implications for US-Turkish relations....  The Iraqi regime's strategy has been to delay the Allied takeover of the country and inflict as many casualties as possible....  President Bush warned at the start of hostilities that it would not be as easy as some expected....  It is also evident that there was overconfidence in the military benefits of 'shock and awe' bombing....  Iraq is not meant to be an enemy country. The propaganda 'spin' has been that an unpopular regime would implode due to a combination of internal contradictions and military force....  Despite his appalling human rights record, it appears that Saddam may still have a significant level of popular support....  The balance of probability must remain that the Allies can, as it were, crunch their way through to victory. But the glad confident morning of a liberated Iraq may prove a pipedream. Instead it looks more like we will have a sullen, subdued population, resentful of the foreigners' presence and unimpressed by their protestations of good intent....  The hope that some of his own would turn against Saddam, as the military screw tightened, currently looks over-optimistic."

 

NORWAY:  “The Ghost Of Vietnam”

 

Bjarte Botnen declared in Christian Democratic Vaart Land (3/26):  "As the American soldiers move forward toward Baghdad, the march together with a ghost called Vietnam, and which is also a stinging reminder that the U.S. can also experience defeat....  Vietnam is also evidence that a poor land can win against the world’s mightiest.”

 

SPAIN:  "Politics And Pacifism"

 

Centrist La Vanguardia said (3/27):  "Questioning the strategy of the war when only one week has passed since the beginning of hostilities is reckless and risky, but it seems evident that we're not talking about a military parade anymore."

 

TURKEY:  "The Collapse Of The American Strategy"

 

Fatih Altayli argued in mass appeal Hurriyet (3/27):  "Given the mistakes made by the American hawks, the US deterrent role has been seriously damaged.  Scenes from the war prove that Iraq, despite the12-year embargo and other problems, is not going to be a piece of cake for the American troops.  The course of the war is directly affecting the future of American policy regarding the new world order.  The winner of this war, no matter what happens in the meantime, is going to be the United States.  It will not, however, be a real 'win' for the US, as it will most likely result in another 'war' on the US domestic political front....  The US national security strategy, which was declared last September, has already collapsed. It requires a series of important changes.  The US is on the cusp of a process of internal challenge."

 

"The U.S. In Iraq:  An Invader Or Savior?"

 

Mehmet Barlas argued in mass-appeal Sabah (3/26):  "Currently the people of Iraq, regardless of their being pro-Saddam or not, consider the US army as an invader.  The psychology is much different from that of the days of Desert Storm.  Iraqis were well aware of their mistake in invading Kuwait. Therefore the Desert Storm operation did not experience any resistance on the Iraqi side....  However, the situation is not the same at present.  The US seems to be fighting to capturing Iraq after toppling Saddam.  The  Iraqis are fighting against the power, who invades their motherland.  In the eyes of Iraqi people, to be saved from Saddam cannot be an excuse for being invaded by the US.   It is clear that once the war is over with American victory, the US identity in Iraq will be 'occupying force' not 'savior.'....  The wise step at this point for Washington policy makers would be to realize the two following facts: This war will last longer than planned.  And the invasion must be kept shorter than planned."

 

UKRAINE:  "Bloody Iraq Conflict"

 

Tabloid oligarch-controlled Kievskie Vedomosti observed (3/25):  "It is now clear that the blitzkrieg promised by the Pentagon failed....  Iraqis managed to capture several enemy soldiers. Military prey--POW and bodies--were immediately shown on TV.  This tactical move by Baghdad caused enormous rage in the White House. This is not surprising, since common Americans are very sensitive to military casualties, if they are casualties in their own army.  Public anger can cause a backlash against Bush in general and his military doctrine in particular. Political rhetoric was immediately employed.  The White House even remembered that international law exists, in particular, the Geneva Convention.  Washington pretended if forgot that just a day earlier CNN broadcasted a Pentagon exclusive: Iraqi soldiers that surrendered and were walking, in a picturesque column, towards the adversary's positions."

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

ISRAEL:  "A War Of The Early 1900s"

 

Meron Benvenisti contended in independent, left-leaning Ha’aretz (3/27): “Democracy, enlightened rule based on a Western model and under Western supervision, and concern for a backward and starving population were and still are -- how ironic -- the slogans issued by the imperialist powers in 1922, when they set up the Iraqi state, and are also the slogans they are issuing now, in 2003, when they resolved to disband the state.... Those who initiated the war against Iraq assumed with typical arrogance that there is no such thing as Iraqi patriotism, only an assemblage of feuding tribal and religious identities  ... and the Iraqi state is being held together only thanks to the devilish, despotic and murderous Saddam regime.... To their astonishment, the Americans are now discovering that the Iraqis are not greeting them with flowers, as liberators, but are treating them as occupiers violating the homeland.... All of the electronic devices and smart bombings cannot conceal the character of this war--it is a colonial war whose conceptual outlook is drawn straight from the early 20th century.  Those who wage an anachronistic war should not be surprised by its outcome.”

 

ALGERIA:  "Iraqi Quagmire"

 

Independent, French-language Liberte editorialized (3/27):  “Unlike the predictions of American strategists, the Iraqis have not welcomed the GIs with dates and milk.  Progress towards Baghdad will not be easy and taking the capital is no longer a certitude unless thousands of Iraqis are killed because they are accused of defending their country.  Instead of the clean war promised by Bush, who wanted to impose a model of democracy despite international opinion and law, we are ending up with the violation of the rights of peoples to live in their country. This war is producing its first victims and Tomahawks are no longer targeting military bases but information organizations such as the Ministry of Information and Iraqi TV.”

 

"A Battle For Dignity"

 

French-language independent Le Matin editorialized (3/26):  “Bush and his counselors have gotten involved in the wrong war. The age of conquest is over and no objective however noble can justify colonialist action. They were wrong who bet on a massive surrender of the Iraqi people, considered sufficiently ‘masochistic’ to welcome the occupiers with flowers. The Iraqis have surprised and are still surprising those who think they are more intelligent. Bush and his hawks are no longer confident about the rapidity and precision of strikes against the Iraqi regime. Bush’s war strategists are realizing their error. They are trying to adapt their strategy to developments of the situation in the field, which has not been easy for the US soldiers. The resistance of the Iraqi people is a heroic act that cannot be compared with the rescue of a regime or with the veneration of a dictator. It is a battle for dignity, a rejection of injustice. The Algerian people really know the meaning of these words because of what they have had to cope with in recent years.”

 

EGYPT:  “Words”

 

Aggressive pro-government Al Akhbar columnist Mahmoud Abdel Moneim Mourad maintained (3/27):  “Iraq has seven million strong fighters who are ready to continue the fighting for thirteen years continuously. God be with them.”

 

“America’s Plans Are Stumbling”

 

Hazem Abdel Rahman opined in leading pro-government Al Ahram (3/26):  “Apparently, the American-British military campaign on Iraq is facing obstacles, largely because of the Iraqi army and public resistance.  American and British military plans seemed confused due to unexpected resistance....  Iraqis--with limited equipment--deliberately foiled American plans to challenge the invading troops in open desert...and preferred to remain in civilian areas which shackled the operation of planes and missiles in fear of dramatic casualties The most serious weak point in the American military campaign is that it rushed into Baghdad...leaving dangerous weak points in the hands of Iraqi troops....  We are witnessing a real war....  Who can deny Iraqis such heroism?”

 

“Shame On You, Bush”

 

Leading pro-government Al Ahram columnist Salama Ahmed Salama noted (3/26):  “Unexpected surprises are pouring on the American and British war proceedings, on the one hand proving the wrong American estimation of the Iraqi people’s welcoming the invading troops, and on the other confirming that the unwarranted American war is about to incur defeat on the Bush Administration. Americans faced stubborn resistance from the army...and the people....  As a natural outcome, the image of American POWs appearing on television screens increased the resentment of the American people against Bush’s policies.  Famous documentary film director Michael Moor took the Oscar ceremony as a chance to launch harsh accusations against Bush....  The most ironic surprise came when Boucher said showing the pictures of American POWs violates the Geneva Conventions....  It is known that American authorities did not admit their violations of the Geneva Conventions in its war in Afghanistan and the capture of prisoners in Guantanamo without trial....  The regrettable surprise was when Jordan responded to American pressures by expelling Iraqi diplomats....  It is not strange, thus, that the British defense secretary declares the intention of using cluster bombs, the most fatal of weapons of mass destruction, against Iraqis.”

 

“The Will Of Nations Is Always Victorious”

 

Aggressive pro-government Al Akhbar declared (3/26):  “The Iraqi army and resistance achieved a recognizable victory...to which Powell testified....  As the Iraqi army knew before invading Kuwait that the invasion was unjust and unwarranted, American and British troops now believe the same, that the matter is not easy because of Iraqi resistance....  The second main reason that the invading troops did not achieve any progress in Iraq, is the lack of international support....  If the unjust forces win, this will be temporary; but the greater political aim that the evil power [the U.S.] seeks will never be achieved...because the will of nations remains unchanged and is always victorious.”

 

“Separating Lines”

 

Small circulation pro-government Al Gomhouriya Editor-in-chief Samir Ragab said (3/26):  “American and British statements have taken a strange twist.  Accusations of terrorism have started to pour on Iraqis, who resisted courageously in defense of Umm Qasr and are still are toiling to prevent the invaders from entering Basra.  Those who made those provocative statements have forgotten that there is nothing like one’s homeland and the soil of one’s country is the most precious treasure in the world.” 

 

LEBANON:  "(Iraq) Is Not Ripe And Not Ready To Be Harvested"

 

Joseph Samaha held in Arab nationalist As-Safir (3/25):  "Who are these civilians...who planned the war on Iraq?  First, let us begin with President Bush who never served in the army; then Vice President Cheney who also avoided service in the army during the sixties 'because he had other priorities', Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld used to drive military airplanes between the two wars in Korea and Vietnam, but he never witnessed one single battle....  Paul Wolfowitz, Peter Rodman, and Richard Perle were more interested in academic issues and never cared about serving in the army; as for Eliot Abrams, responsible for the Middle East at the National Security Council, he was able to avoid service in the army for health reasons, similarly John Bolton who is known for calling on using nuclear weapons....  All above people, who were the real force behind going to war, said that the Iraqis will meet the U.S. 'freedom' Army with roses....  They thought that they can remove the Arab identity of Iraq and transform it into a base to launch attacks on Iran, Syria, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia.  They thought that the war will be a promenade and that it will be easy to reformulate the world....  This cultural/political atmosphere had a real impact on U.S. plans.  People like Secretary Powell did their best to modify this plan but did not succeed....  The military plan which is being implemented in Iraq is indeed facing difficulties because it was influenced by the above cultural-political plan which was originally based on bad political judgments....  The first conclusion we have reached is that not withstanding the results of the war, Iraq will never be a friendly territory to American occupation."

 

"The Shi'a In Iraq Change The Course Of American Plans"

 

Ibrahim Bayram stated in moderate, anti-Syrian An-Nahar (3/26):  "The U.S. was surprised that there was no Shi'a uprising in south Iraq as they expected....  They believed that the Shi'a in South Iraq would immediately join the U.S.-British coalition and support it because of their historic enmity with the regime of Saddam Hussein....  U.S. analysts did not realize that deep down, the Shi'a in Iraq would be patriots, Arabists, and most importantly Islamists in their way of thinking....  Some believe that the Shi'a in Iraq were greatly influenced by the Fatwa that was issued by the Lebanese Allamah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, who decreed that 'dealing with the Americans and the British is prohibited and their presence in Iraq is considered occupation'....  The Shi'a in Iraq were also influenced by the positions taken by Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, who was the first to call for a reconciliation between the Iraqi regime and the opposition through an Iraqi Ta'if agreement....  As for the Shi'a Iraqi opposition which is present in Beirut...it seems that they do not care about establishing a Shi'a regime in Iraq, but their target is to establish a democratic regime in Iraq where the Shi'a would have a basic role."

 

MOROCCO:  "Clean War"

 

Editor-in-chief Driss Aissaoui commented in semi-official, Arabic-language Assahara (3/26):  "The strike on Iraq has not met the expectations reiterated by the White House hawks and other military planners. War against Iraq started to move gradually to the ugliest of what humanity has created in its degraded phases with the beginning of the Third Millennium. The war has moved towards a society of confrontation and oppression that have made this war far from being a clean war as promised by Bush and his allies."

 

"Shock And Awe Among The U.S.-British Coalition"

 

Fatima Belarbi declared in pro-government, French-language L’Opinion (3/26):  "Iraqi resistance has thwarted the forecast and expectations of all Iraq's specialists.  We remember Wolfowitz, who said that the Southern Iraqi population would welcome U.S. forces.  We have seen that they were greeted with bullets and a firm determination to reject the U.S. invasion.  This is a great lesson for the adventurers of the White House, who started this savage war with the firm certainty they would win it over several days. A reality that the White House refuses to see as it is blinded by its military power and thinks that as superpower it has all the rights. First it was Palestine, then Iraq, what Arab country is next on the list?"

 

SAUDI ARABIA:  "Current Events Prove The Saudi Stance"

 

Abha’s moderate Al-Watan opined (3/27):  "Long before the war started and the Anglo American coalition got trapped in the marshes and deserts of the black land, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia realized the magnitude of the consequences and the danger such war would have on international peace and security. That is why it (the Saudi Kingdom) insisted on resolving the Iraqi conflicts by peaceful methods, utilizing international legislative tools. But those who suffer from Power Madness and who declared that they are going to liberate Iraq in 4 days refused to listen and insisted on following their own evil instincts. They did not pay attention to their real friends and strategic allies....  The Council of Ministers call for an immediate cease-fire the day before yesterday stemmed from its belief that the war on Iraq was going to create dramatic outcomes for Iraqi people, the region and the world.  Saudi policies and solid principals have been proven right day after day. Coalition forces have failed to achieve their targets and the international organizations failed to enforce their values. For the first time since 1991, current political conditions are creating an environment for the return of a super power’s struggle." 

 

"A War Of Freedom To The World"

 

London's pan-Arab Al-Hayat carried a commentary by Dawood Al-Shiryan saying (3/26):  "The Iraqi popular resistance is not only defending the independence of Iraq, but is also defending the independence of the Arab region, international resolve and the reputation of the U.S., its people and its culture from tendencies of hegemony."

 

"Question Of Will"

 

English-language pro-government Saudi Gazette editorialized (3/26):  "The so-called neo-conservatives, or Christian fundamentalists, in league with Zionists, may have their plans about this region, but just to have a plan does not also mean it can be effectively implemented.  The US war strategy for Iraq is turning out to be not as effective as Americans initially thought.  They said the war would be short.  Now they are talking about weeks rather than days.  Their postwar plans for the Mid-east may also be defeated, but only if the Arab governments have the will."

 

SYRIA:  "All Hail The Iraqi Steadfastness"

 

Mohamed Khair Jamali commented in government-owned Al-Thawra (3/27):  "The strategy of invasion based on the 'shock and awe' principle...and designating a military governor on Iraq, either Tommy Franks, or the Americanized general who has turned his back on his Arab origin, John Abizaid; all this is being carried under the big lie of 'liberating Iraq.'"

 

TUNISIA:  "Iraqi Message To Bush And Blair"

 

Senior editor Mohamed Tawir said in independent Arabic-language As-Sabah (3/26):  "Whatever the final result of the Iraqi war is, it is possible to say from now and without fear of falling into exaggeration, that this war will be a failure for the U.S. and to the Great Britain....  We should note that with the escalation of confrontations and the first human losses among the American-British forces, the military operations have started to target the Iraqi civilians by using all kind of munitions, including cluster bombs that are internationally forbidden. This has increased the number of dead and injured among the unarmed civilian Iraqis. Iraqis have realized from the beginning that what is happening is a colonization of the Iraqis and not a 'Liberation' as was promised by the American-British propaganda. It is likely this Iraqi feeling that pushed, two days ago, the Iraqi refugees in Jordan to come back to Iraq...to fight for their country's 'independence and sovereignty', despite the fact that many of them consider themselves opponents of the current regime....  Washington and London could never move the Afghan model to Iraq....  Yes, the U.S. and Great Britain may invade Iraq despite the heroic resistance of the Iraqi people, but they will eventually be forced to run away from the Iraqi 'quagmire'."

 

UAE:  "The Casualties Of War"

 

Dubai-based English-language Gulf News editorialized (3/26):  "Yet some days later, pockets of resistance are still being met and countered with great difficulty.  Expectations of hordes of gleeful Iraqis welcoming the 'liberating troops' with bouquets and sweetmeats have failed to materialise, as have the so-called weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by the Iraqis."

 

"Most Wonderful Option"

 

Mariam Abdullah wrote in government-owned financial Al-Bayan (3/26):  "Iraq's acceptance of the challenge (of the war) was the greatest and most wonderful option that helped to restore part of our wounded dignity and allowed us a rare opportunity to see a vital part of our (Arab) entity resisting, face the aggressors, and reject a drink from the cup of humiliation."

 

ASIA-PACIFIC

 

AUSTRALIA:  “When We Become The Bad Guys”

 

Guy Rundle declared in the liberal Age (3/27):  "Now that the first flush of enthusiasm is over, it is clear the Iraq war will not be a walkover for the United States-led coalition....  Some of the war's central myths are coming under pressure....  Indeed, if resistance continues and grows, many members of the public may find themselves in a curious situation--they will understand that they would do what the Iraqis are doing if they were under similar attack from outside.  How then does one think about troops from one's own country, sent, ostensibly, in our name?....  And how will we feel about them when the battle comes to Baghdad and the coalition faces an inevitable choice--between bearing the high coalition casualties of extended street fighting or committing a crime against humanity, the bombing of civilian areas?"

 

CHINA (HONG KONG & MACAU SARS):  "War Protracted; Economic Outlook Must Be Reassessed"

 

Pro-PRC Chinese-language Ta Kung Pao opined (3/26):  "Despite their advantages in military strength and equipment, U.S. troops have not made headway in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriya.  Coalition efforts to occupy Baghdad will not be smooth.  Even if Coalition forces enter Baghdad, what can they do?  Will their arrival herald the end of the war?  Judging from the developments of the past few days, the Iraqi people and military are avoiding head-on confrontations in favor of luring the enemy deep into the city.  After Coalition forces enter Baghdad, they may face an even more difficult situation.  Although U.S. troops previously had claimed to occupy Basra and Mosul, battles are still raging for control of those cities, and U.S. troops continue to bomb them.  Despite the Coalition's edge, the fighting is at an impasse.  The Iraqis have clearly chosen the proper strategy."

 

"U.S. Troops Start To Encounter Difficulties"

 

Pro-PRC Chinese-language Macau Daily News remarked (3/25):  "U.S. military setbacks in Najaf and their failure to make progress are enough to demonstrate that the Iraqi strategy is succeeding.  The closer U.S. troops get to Baghdad, the more difficult the fighting will be....  The war is undergoing some changes.  President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have toned down their rhetoric and admitted that the difficult fight has only begun.  Anti-war sentiment in the U.S. is on the rise....  If U.S. troops continue to suffer setbacks and their casualties increase, the administration will confront even greater anti-war pressure.  If broad war-weariness breaks out among U.S. soldiers, the Bush administration will have a big headache."

 

JAPAN:  "Risk Of Shrinking The World"

 

Liberal Asahi editorialized (3/27):  "Exactly one week into the start of U.S./UK action against Iraq, the prospects for an early end to the Iraq war appear to be dimming.  Rising misgivings (about a prolonged war) may well dash optimistic views of economists and market players....  This war could have a negative impact on the world by disrupting trade, investment and tourism for a long time."

 

MALAYSIA:  "Suffering Of Iraqi People Continues To Grow."

 

Government-influenced Malay-language daily Berita Harian stated (3/27):  "After a week of the Iraqi war, the campaign to ‘shock and awe’ seems to have turned against the U.S. and its allies.  More lies from President George W. Bush and his war generals have been revealed.  Now they see that they have to prepare for a longer battle because their original idea of seizing control of Iraq in 48 hours is not realistic."

 

PHILIPPINES:  "Ferocious Resistance"

 

Dan Mariano observed in the independent Today (3/27):  "The international media are often heard remarking in surprise at the 'ferocious resistance' Iraqi troops have put up against invading American, British and Australian forces....  The apparent basis for this expectation was the performance of the Iraqi army, which was quickly driven out of Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War.  Kuwaiti was...a steppingstone for Saddam...as he pursued...a new Babylonian empire.  It was a dream most his troops obviously did not share, which was why they quickly melted away as soon as...multinational troops launched their campaign to liberate the Kuwaitis. Now the Iraqis are fighting on their homeland--and for their homeland....  As far as the Iraqis--and not just Saddam--are concerned, this conflict is a fight for the survival of their nation.  What stronger motive is there to put up ferocious resistance?"

 

"Iraq And A Hard Place"

 

Jojo Robles contended in the independent Manila Standard (3/26):  "Saddam Hussein and his Republican Army remain firmly entrenched, mocking the invaders from wherever they are in the trackless desert.  Once again, the attackers are caught between Iraq and a hard place....  More than the war waged on the same land by Bush Senior 12 years ago, the current incursions evokes memories of Vietnam, and is starting to look just as pointless and unmanageable.  Further back, it's beginning to look like a lot like Hitler and his Panzers in Russia, or Napoleon and his French Army, both laid low by 'General Winter.'"

 

"New Viet Cong?"

 

Max Soliven remarked in the independent Philippine Star (3/26):  "Victory...may still not be assured in the long term even if powerful coalition armor, air superiority, and mechanized infantry gain the upper hand. It has already become evident that 'Viet Cong-type' Iraqi guerrillas, called 'Fedayeen Saddam,' are in the field....  The Americans, if they look back on their own history (indeed, their own 'imperial' history of the past) ought to know better. This is how the Filipinos fought them after they thought their superior artillery, their better armed and equipped land forces had overwhelmed Filipino resistance....  This unrelenting guerrilla war bled the U.S. occupation forces mightily....  Beware of the Fedayeen--who can hit back painfully even in an 'occupied' Iraq."

 

"Surprised"

 

Jesus Sison observed in anti-administration Malaya (3/26):  "The coalition forces were surprised when Iraqi troops fought back against American and British forces, who thought that they had already captured the city of Umm Qasr. Earlier, I wrote about the possibility of Iraqi forces setting a trap for the allied troops. This was confirmed by the news that the allied forces were allowed to enter by 'welcoming civilians' only to find out later that the civilians were actually Iraqi soldiers. They began shooting at the American and British soldiers as soon as they passed by resulting in deaths and injuries to a number of allied troops....  It is also possible that Iraqi troops are playing possum to show that the war in Iraq is one-sided in favor of the U.S.-led forces. In other words, the Iraqis want to appear as the underdogs in the war to gain world sympathy, especially from anti-war advocates. For all we know, if Saddam Hussein and his followers gain world sympathy, they could petition or demand for cease-fire. These would certainly benefit Saddam who would still stay in power in case of a cease-fire.  As they barrel to Baghdad, Americans should beware of a bloody guerrilla war like that waged by Filipinos in 1898."

 

"Fierce Resistance"

 

Willie Ng wrote in the conservative Manila Bulletin (3/26):  "America, refusing to learn from the Bay of Pigs, believes today that its troops would be welcomed by Iraqis whom it says are sick of Saddam Hussein's dictatorial ways.  In one town, the coalition troops stopped at the gates to wait for welcomers. That welcome did not come. Instead, they met fierce resistance.  The coalition, which started out with expectations of a walk-over, is now admitting to heavy casualties.  It believed there would be massive defections. The defections were not massive.  Two nights ago, Iraqi television spent nearly an hour showing Iraqis firing their guns into the Tigris River where they believed that some American pilots had fallen....  Speedboats went up and down the river searching for the lost pilots.  Such was the anger against the American invaders.  My country right or wrong. Washington has forgotten that.  As seen by America, Saddam has violated all democratic principles. For the masses in Iraq, Saddam is their man.  Washington swallowed everything told it by Iraqi oppositionists living outside Iraq."

 

SINGAPORE:  "Winning War And Peace"

 

The pro-government Business Times editorialized (3/26):  "With American and British forces facing stiffer-than-expected Iraqi resistance, the US-led war on Iraq is straying from the script prepared by military planners. However, barring further serious setbacks, the most-likely scenario is still a military victory for the US-led forces. But challenging as that may be, an even greater challenge will come later. America will be under pressure--both domestically and internationally--to prove that it can do for Iraq what it did for Germany and Japan after World War II....  But if--in the face of tough political and financial odds--America can do for Iraq what it did for Germany and Japan, it may yet succeed in vindicating its actions in Iraq among the nations and peoples who have opposed, and continue to oppose, this controversial war. It will also have gone a long way towards denying the likes of Osama bin Laden their raison d'etre. In an important sense, therefore, the US can only be said to have won the war in Iraq if it also wins the peace that comes after."

 

THAILAND:  “Second Vietnam”

 

Kamolsak Tangtamniyom commented in elite, pro-opposition, Thai-language Naew Na (3/27):  “Bush and Blair’s bloodthirsty forces are being trapped by Saddam’s desert fox army at every battleground.  A cruel death is awaiting them at every step.  Cowboy Bush must now be thinking that snatching of oil wells from Iraq is not a piece of cake as he thought.  Rather, he is sending his white-skinned children to hell like when a former U.S. leader sent countless GIs to death in Vietnam....  The longer the Iraq war protracts, the more likely it will be curtains for Bush and Blair."

 

VIETNAM:  "The Opening Shock"

 

Manh Tuong held in in Vietnam People's Army-run Quan Doi Nhan Dan (3/26):  "Iraq's resistance is beyond expectation....  Iraq's counter-insurgency tactic is effective right in Um Qasr, an industrial port with plain terrain, therefore, it must be much more effective when it is employed in the suburbs of Baghdad, where the terrain is much more complex....  In fact, the U.S. scenario of 'fast battle, quick victory' for the opening stages of the war has not been realized.  In the time ahead, the longer the war lasts, the more dead bodies will be transported back to the U.S....  And another thing to worry about, the weather.  In just one month, when winter ends, the harsh summer heat in the Iraqi desert and sand storms may diminish weapon advantages of the U.S.  The opening stages of the war are apparently a shock for Washington and London."

 

INDIA:   "Hassled America"

 

Mumbai-based centrist Marathi-language Navshakti editorialized (3/27):  "America is sure to win the unequal war it has imposed on Iraq, but it isn't going to be an easy and painless win.  However, a week after they launched an attack on Iraq, America and its allies still have not been able to capture a single important city in Iraq nor have they been able to effectively deal with the stiff resistance put up in places like Basra.  The backlash generated by delays in making decisive military progress in Iraq, the capture of some American soldiers, and the growing tide of resentment at home and abroad against the war has put the Bush administration on the defensive and prompted it to look for some scapegoats, and it has found one in Russia, accusing it of supplying arms to Iraq.  America is sure to win the war in the end, but as of now it looks hassled already."

 

PAKISTAN:   "War In Iraq: Shock & Awe & Thereafter"

 

M. Sakhawat Hussain noted in the Islamabad-based rightist English-language Pakistan Observer (3/27):  "The U.S. is in a long drawn-out-war in the Middle East. It has engaged itself directly as never before. If the U.S. administration is to continue the confrontational policy in the Middle East it will lose its national principal of 'equity and justice' and worldwide respect that Americans enjoy as innovative, humane and cultured people.  Unless the U.S. understands and respects the spirit of nationalism, people, the society and the history of the region, it would be difficult for Washington to come out of the quagmire that the only superpower of the world is getting into.  One may not support dictators like Saddam but one cannot remain oblivious to the destruction of an old civilization." 

 

SRI LANKA:  "Save The Civilians"

 

Pro-opposition English-language Island commented (3/26):  "A basic miscalculation made by the Americans and British appears to be that the invading troops would have been welcomed as liberators.  However, despite the atrocities committed by President Saddam Hussein on his people, Arab nationalism and the bonds of the Islamic brotherhood are keeping not only the Iraqis together but have resulted in emphatic expressions of solidarity in other Islamic countries as well....  People...don't like armies of occupation.  If it comes to a choice between their own tyrant and a foreign army, they would prefer their own abomination.  A long time military occupation of Iraq is bound to create severe problems for the Americans and the British."

 

AFRICA

 

GHANA:  “The World Needs Peace”

 

The national, government-owned Evening News stated (3/25):  “The United States-led war in Iraq is in its sixth day today and there is no clear indication that the Iraqis will throw in the towel. Rather, the Iraqis as the underdogs are giving the Americans and the British a hell of a time. It has not been an easy task for the US and British troops with all their sophisticated weapons to dislodge the Iraqis....  We believe that the loss of lives on both sides could have been avoided if President George Bush and Premier Tony Blair had listened to popular opinions worldwide, but they thought otherwise. They want the blood of Saddam Hussein at all cost. There is no doubt that the U.S.-led operation will triumph, but at what cost?  The causalties that will be left behind before the Iraqi soldiers capitulate will be unimaginable. A majority of the world population is calling for an end to the war, which is not likely to end now without the arrest of Saddam Hussein. At this stage of the war, we are urging the Security Council of the United Nations to hold an emergency meeting as to what should be done considering the current situation in Iraq.”

 

KENYA:  "What If Bush Loses The War?"

 

Emmanuel Wandera noted in the pro-opposition KANU-party owned Kenya Times (3/27):  "The coalition forces went to war assured of a resounding victory in no time....  Everybody expected a sweepup of the Iraqi troops, but somehow I am beginning to believe...that going to war with Iraq is no picnic....  The defence forces in the war would employ any means to ensure victory.  With about six coalition soldiers dying daily in the war, the number is likely to increase as the troops approach Baghdad....  There is a looming danger that Iraq would use WMD....  The question is:  what will happen if the most powerful nation on earth loses to the most dangerous nation on earth?"

 

MOZAMBIQUE:  "The 'Oil Travesty' That Will Bring A New World Order"

 

Independent weekly Zambeze opined (3/27):  "The invasion into Iraq by the United States and its principal ally, Great Britain has already lasted the better part of a week.  Both sides have registered losses, a fact that surprised the Bush administration....  Now, that it's finding itself suffering losses, the U.S. and its right hand are evoking the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, as if it is above the UN.  Are Bush and Blair suffering from amnesia?  Was it not they who decided to wage war without the support of the UN and against the strongest opposition of world public opinion ever?"

 

SENEGAL:  "Misled By Saddam Opponents"

 

Sidy Lamine Niasse noted in independent, pro-Muslim Walfadjri (3/26):  "The U.S. has been misled by certain Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein, who caused U.S. leaders to believe, falsely, that their soldiers would be welcomed as liberators by the Shiite majority in southern Iraq....  In place of flowers and gifts, there are weapons that have welcomed the Americans....  There are rich lessons to be learned from the war, which will have cultural, political, religious and economic effects on the future of the world."

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

CANADA:  Where Angels Fear To Tread”

 

James Travers commented in the liberal Toronto Star (3/25):  “As difficult as the march to Baghdad is proving, the post-war period will be more dangerous. There will be more casualties, crises and conflicts that together will dramatically increase risks far beyond even those now faced by countries that joined the largely illusory U.S. coalition of the willing....  President George W. Bush is promising this war will lead to a renewed peace effort. But it is new suicide attacks that are, sadly, certain. Just as the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia fuelled Osama bin Laden's fanaticism, a surrogate, subordinate government in Baghdad will focus Arab anger. Any lingering, deluded hope that the U.S. would be welcomed as a conquering hero is now vanishing in the smoke over Baghdad and in the willingness of Iraqi troops to die resisting invaders, not defending a dictator. That dynamic, one that makes Iraq impossible for Washington to govern or control, will be exacerbated by the centrifugal forces that traditionally test the cohesiveness of a diverse country created from colonial ignorance and self-interest....  Bush's problem is that any occupier becomes a beckoning target....  As Baghdad crumbles around him, an Arab martyrdom that manifests itself in continued regional resistance to American presence and influence would be a lasting, undeserved reward for a life of unusual brutality. It would be wiser still for Bush to remember that in the cradle of civilization history unfolds not in weeks, months or years but in centuries.”

 

“Iraq Fights Back: Why Be Surprised?”

 

The leading Globe and Mail opined (3/25):  “The news that Iraqi troops are fighting back, that they are inflicting casualties and capturing soldiers, has surprised a lot of people watching the invasion from the comfort of their living rooms. They've also been shocked by the first deaths attributed to ‘friendly fire.’ Gone is some of the confidence that greeted the first precision air assaults on Baghdad and the rapid launch of the ground invasion….  Both the stunning optimism of last week and the deepening pessimism of this week are misplaced. No one should be surprised by what has occurred so far. Wars are always violent, bloody and ugly affairs, full of accidents, mistakes and miscalculations....  Coalition troops have made a concerted effort to keep Iraqi military and civilian casualties low, fighting only when it is considered essential, treating captives with care and avoiding damage to crucial infrastructure. It is vital that the military not be swayed from this policy by the painful pictures of captured or killed U.S. and British soldiers. It is equally important that the public watching this war, practically in real time, not overreact when things get messier.” 

 

BRAZIL:  "Word Of An Expert"

 

Ronaldo Leão held  in right-of-center O Globo (3/27):  "The American and British military and political authorities want more resources for a war much longer, expensive and bloody than originally promised.  Iraq's troops prove to be an adversary far from previous expectations of being unprepared and badly equipped....  A military defeat, even a partial one, is not acceptable to the USG and British governments....  To prevent it they'll resort to all available means, even at the risk of a Pyrrhic victory."

 

"Change Of Strategy In Iraq"

 

Independent Jornal da Tarde editorialized (3/27):  "The commanders of the campaign in Iraq have been surprised by the many pockets of resistance to their invading forces....  Saddam's power structure has not yielded to the massive air raids over Baghdad....  Rumsfeld rejected using overwhelming force to besiege Saddam. He thought that the frightened Iraqi military would be anxious to surrender after Baghdad was bombed....  The Pentagon has underestimated the willingness of the Iraqi regime's militia to fight far from the capital....  Only a few still believe in a quick victory, without excessive bloodshed."

 

"Worst Scenario"

 

Right-of-center O Globo noted (3/26):  "In view of the unexpected resistance of Iraqi troops it would be wise to examine more carefully the possibility of a prolonged fight.  The longer the conflict is, the greater is the possibility of a despairing Dictator Saddam resort to his arsenal of mass destruction--if they're not pure fiction--destroying more oil wells and attacking Israel, thus provoking an unbalanced and catastrophic reaction from Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon....  Only a fast, swift victory would save Bush and the rest for the world from the undesirable effects of a war that, despite all the triumphant propaganda, is tending to be as costly, dirty, bloody and uncertain as any other.  If tomorrow, for reasons of international security the U.N. Security Council decided that Brazil's Amazon needed to be 'defended,' would the Brazilian government accept it?"

 

MEXICO:  “The First Week”

 

Left-of-center La Jornada opined (3/27):  “In the first seven days of the armed aggression against Iraq, one cannot see clear superiority by any of the contenders; this contradicts the plans and versions coming from Washington, a serious reversal for the USG given that American forces are bigger than the Iraqi army....  Today, the credibility of the American mass media has fallen in the face of world public opinion. They have spread false information like the capture of cities, they have made up non-existent revolts, in brief they have knocked down truth and informative independence in a way that reminds us the performance of Soviet Union official newspapers in Stalin’s times, and also the disinformation campaigns organized by Nazi Germany....  Another fact in this first week of hostilities is that with the armed incursion, the political splits among Washington, Paris, Berlin, Moscow and Ankara--just to mention a few countries--have deepened to a point that could have no return. The isolation of the US from the international community is much more evident today than seven days ago.”

 

PERU:  “What If The U.S. Is Defeated?”

 

Serious tabloid Correo editorialized (3/26):  "A scenario...which...no analyst is considering is...the possibility that the war stagnates...something that will represent Bush’s defeat...What if Iraq’s...‘guerrillas’ prevent the U.S.’ victory?  We may see a range of unpredictable scenarios:  Russia and...China taking a political and military role...France and Germany reaffirming their position in the European Union...the Arab world recovering certain degree of unity...Israel suffering the consequences of the U.S. [image] deterioration in the region, and Latin America...either...enjoying...a strengthened alliance between the U.S. and its ‘backyard’ or suffering the consequences of U.S. harshness...as a result of the war. ”

##