A person, acting independently, can bring about a significant alteration in the course of history. It happens more often than is generally realised. The person may not be at all unusual, but then, of course, the person may also be completely insane.
Saddam Hussein is at the head of a large country, a country with a sizeable population and with significant oil and gas reserves. He is a military man, given to military action. He has used his position, and the power it gives him, in such manner as to bring threats of war from the United States. Much effort has been expended to fully characterise him as a threat to the civilised world, and much of this effort has been wasted, simply because Saddam has caused no one harm recently, at least outside Iraq, so far as it is possible to determine. However, he has been known to be rash, and he might be stampeded into an irresponsible reaction.
He is characterised as a demon, one that must be removed from power as soon as possible, otherwise he may cause incalculable harm through use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The characterisation sounds hopelessly hollow, simply because no one has produced any tangible or credible evidence that he still possesses such weapons, intends to manufacture or purchase them, or intends to deliver them to another country.
What is credible, is the fact that Iraq was provided such weapons by the Western powers, principally the United States, during the war with Iran. He also used SCUD missiles against Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during the Gulf War. It is not clear if he used chemicals or biological weapons at that time, and the lack of concrete evidence that he did so, bleeds credibility from the charges being directed against him.
Saddam has been a not-so-quiet dictator for the last ten years or so, and the most that can be charged against his foreign policy is that he actively opposes the mistreatment of Palestinians by Israel. No one faults him for this, as the whole world has also had enough of it. He has generously provided funds to partially compensate the families of suicide bombers whose houses have been destroyed in irrational attempts at retribution by Israel. The sum, while substantial, can neither repay the cost of reconstruction nor compensate for the loss of a life. Israel considers Saddam's act a threat, considering it "a major source of income" for the Palestinians.
Seen at a distance, Saddam does not appear much of a threat to anyone. He is just another power-drunk dictator, and thus no one's model of an Islamic leader. If he is a threat to anyone at all, it is to Israel. Fifty plus years of Zionist aggression is certainly enough. It is Israel's perceived undercover machinations, and the concerted efforts of overseas landsmen, that is bringing the world to the brink of war. For this, the Israeli's have much to answer, both now and in the future. Is there an Israeli, is there a supportive Jew, anywhere in the world, other than Ariel Sharon, who can gaze steadily into the eyes of the world, head held honourably high?
Among numerous others who also have a craw full of the Israeli land grab, is Osama bin Laden, the revered idol of over a hundred million youths, not all Muslims or male. He has declared himself and his closest associates to be active belligerents in a war to aid the Palestinians. Osama has announced his list of enemies, and it includes the United States, because the United States is the major source of Israeli funds and military hardware. The bond between Israel and the US is so close today they cannot be told apart, and Sharon is considered the de facto American President. His frequent visits to Washington are seen as planning sessions to coordinate strategy.
Saddam and Osama have nothing in common beyond support for the Palestinian cause. Both see Israel as the common enemy, because Israel has created a Jews-only racist state on Palestinian land, over the protests of the native Palestinians. Israel cannot acknowledge the injustice done to the Palestinians, refuses to allow the Palestinians the right to return to their homes and property, will not pay compensation, and has established permanent settlements on Palestinian land occupied after the 1967 conflict. The US admits to nothing of this. The US says the war is caused solely by hate, "they hate us, hate our freedoms, our democracy." To this the world yawns and says, "That so? Tell me more ..."
Osama is held responsible for destroying the World Trade Center, and the US offers a $25 million reward for information leading to his hideout. In its pursuit of Osama, the US has altered its laws, committed acts against non-citizens that are permanent scars on its history of defending the rule of law. The national megaphone sounds tinny now, after the abolition of cherished individual rights and freedoms. Although the United States carefully and repeatedly says its war on terrorism is NOT a war against Islam, every observer notes that the terrorists are always Muslims. The terrorist organisations are Islamic organisations, and anti-terrorist activities are directed against Muslims. This tends to elevate Osama to the position of a new Saladin, defender of Islam against invasions of the non-Muslim infidel.
As the war on terrorism slowly expands across the world of Islam, Muslims increasingly find themselves targets of suspicion, receiving special treatment by the US and its allies. When Muslim organisations are named as terrorist organisations, all its members immediately become terrorist suspects, whether any basis for such a charge exists or not. There is such paranoia in the US that some organisations are listed that do not in fact exist, a creation of police intrigue, political chicanery, and excited imagination. The alleged members are subject to arrest without representation, charge or trial, and may be imprisoned indefinitely. Muslims bristle at this unjust treatment, and an inward determination to oppose the oppression, albeit silently, becomes ingrained. The child whose father is taken away today is the warrior of tomorrow. Islam has slept for a time, but now it is wakening.
The US presently controls the capital of Afghanistan, and designs to control the whole country with its geo-political importance. There are attractive oil resources in the adjacent Caspian Sea Basin. The expense of a permanent occupation force for Afghanistan and its surrounding region adds significantly to the growing national debt of the US. As the debt burden increases, Osama scores impressive gains in his battle to overburden what he considers the Evil American Empire. As the war spreads, the expense mounts. It is difficult to assess the relative success of the combatants, because new recruits are added to terrorist ranks faster than they can be captured and transported to concentration camps. For every terrorist captured, another hundred thousand Muslim youths are sufficiently radicalised to adopt a future quasi-belligerent stance.
Each time another government declares itself an ally in the war against terrorism, its costs of effective internal security outweigh its national budget. One relatively inexpensive bomb is sufficient to paralyse the economy of a new anti-terrorist government. There is a natural tendency for Muslim governments to announce active opposition to the war on terrorism, encouraged by US allegations that there are active terrorists within its borders. Consider the case of Indonesia after the Bali bombing. There is no evidence that the bombers are Indonesians, yet the Indonesian legal system is threatened with radical right-wing revision that constricts the constitutional rights of all Indonesians. This over-reaction plays into Osama's hands, and the terrorist side gains twenty million or more recruits inside Indonesia, and unknown millions more in other Muslim countries. Australians are the major victims, and this is because Australia has not publicly opposed the US plan to invade Iraq, and continues to support the US war on terrorism.
Saddam and Osama have permanently changed the world, each making his continuous contribution, but it is not so clear that the Washington sniper makes a similar dent in history. As I write, the sniper is still at large, capable of putting the crosshairs on a victim anywhere in the Virginia tidewater region of the US. The message is clear; it is impossible to win a guerrilla war depending primarily on superiority in military hardware and technology, no matter how advanced. With only one inexpensive rifle, one person has terrorised a major population center; one that includes the nation's capital and the Commander-in-Chief. The police forces of cities and counties in adjoining states are on alert. Federal agencies have been mobilised, as have the military. The sniper is undaunted, taunting them all.
Oddly, the lone gunman seems able to maintain the initiative, control the offensive, and hold tens of millions of citizens in house bound terror. There is not even a claim to be a participant in the war on terrorism. In consequence, or perhaps in deference to the possibility the sniper is a product of the local culture, the media does not refer to the sniper as a 'terrorist.' Attempts are made to connect the sniper to Osama's al-Qa'ida organisation, complete with assertions that various manuals and videos used to teach the handling of sniper rifles were captured in Afghanistan. That sort of connection is considered sufficient evidence to arrest anyone these days.
Is the sniper a combatant, or just a common criminal? If the sniper is deemed a combatant, a participant in the war on terrorism, is the status to be that of a legal combatant or an illegal one? Either way, criminal or combatant, the sniper presents a complex challenge to the American legal system. The preferred arrest warrant may simply specify shoot-to-kill, or perhaps only give strong hints to only bring in a dead sniper. It needs to be soon. The sniper is shooting holes in US claims of battlefield preparedness. If one man can elude capture for three weeks, killing more than ten people, what might a hundred snipers do, scattered across the US and around the world? Others are sure to see the same weakness.
The US Marines have a training facility at nearby Quantico, Virginia where snipers are trained, and a competition is held each year to pit the aim of one shooter against all others. Sniper targets are not the familiar concentric circles, they are silhouettes of humans. The US trains snipers to kill people. This year the event was cancelled because it was felt to be "inappropriate," considering the success of the freelance sniper competing nearby. It is also possible there was apprehension the sniper might take the gold medal from the trained troops in uniform. It would be ironic if the sniper were trained at the Marine base.
The sniper has changed history. This individual, by whatever label, has forestalled the invasion of Iraq. What ally can believe the US is prepared to tackle Iraq, when a lone gunman has pinned down the whole area of the Washington Central Command, along with the surrounding suburbs. Israel is re-evaluating the strength of its ally, and begins thinking that now is perhaps a good time to offer a withdrawal from the occupied territories. They are even willing to consider diplomacy, hinting at a final peace. This sanity is certainly something new, and comes from a completely unexpected source. One lone individual, with a little peashooter of a gun, has accomplished what great armies, suicide bombers, and assorted terrorist tactics could not achieve. Saddam and Osama must be splitting their sides with laughter.
The url of this page is: https://harunrmy0.tripod.com/16Sniper.html