Chakwal Diary: Ever heard of sheep standing up to a wolf?

In victory's wake comes a bandwagon effect, gilding the arms of the winners and tarnishing the cause of the losers.

Bystanders not wishing to be seen on the wrong side of the argument are tempted to climb this bandwagon. They try to convince themselves that they always knew events would turn out like this.

This is happening now in Iraq. The entry of American troops into Baghdad and the collapse of the Saddam regime are drowning questions about the nature of this war, the purposes behind it and why it was started in the first place.

The story for the moment, beamed relentlessly around the world, is about the joyful scenes in Baghdad with the symbols of tyranny being smashed and the 'liberators' being welcomed. Quite forgotten in the din are the 'weapons of mass destruction', the ostensible justification for this war. Where have they gone or is Saddam still hiding them, for a final assault, in some caves in his hometown of Tikrit?

Saddam may have been, was, a tyrant and a butcher. But this war was not about eliminating tyranny and butchery or giving Iraq democracy. It was not about his lavish palaces or the gold and marble in his lavatories. These are just the fig-leaves on a war of aggression which was always about occupying Iraq, getting control of its oil resources and making the Middle East more secure than it already is for the U.S. and Israel.

The inconvenient truth bears repeating. When he served American interests, Saddam was an American favourite. When he fought Iran, no one lost sleep in Washington on account of his butchery and tyranny.

The ideological footprints leading to this war are well documented. Ideologues like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were talking about the necessity of removing Saddam much before September 11.

These friends of Israel were pushing for this war as much as a demonstration of American power as a means of reinforcing Israeli power. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and behind them their perceived backers, Syria and Iran, were all to be dealt with for the sake of Israel.

Syrian and Iranian fears are thus not groundless. In the neo-con think tanks of Washington the need to take care of these countries after Iraq has been openly discussed and advocated. No wonder even as the war on Iraq was on, first Rumsfeld and then Powell fired warning shots in the direction of both Syria and Iran.

So who's next on the American hit list? is not idle propaganda. This question is rooted in the literature of conquest and occupation compiled in the shadowy and twilight world of the friends-of-Israel holding leadership positions in the Bush administration.

Other simpletons have occupied the White House before but perhaps none so dim-witted or with so unsophisticated an understanding of the world as George W. Bush. Hitler was more polished, infinitely more intelligent. He did his own thinking and was no one's cat's paw.

Bush is the front man for a cabal of sinister men weaving a tapestry of dominion more Zionist than American in intent. And we are to believe that all this is for the sake of democracy and liberation.

It takes no Gallup Poll to figure out the mood - a mood compounded of humiliation, helplessness, despair and self-loathing.

In a long roll of dishonour only Syria, Iran and distant Malaysia stand out for at least holding out verbally against this war. And Turkey, or its parliament, for not allowing access to American troops.

As for the people and defenders of Iraq, they have nothing to be ashamed of. Outgunned and outclassed by the most hi-tech military in history, they still held out, with astonishing bravery, for 21 days.

Baghdad was a surprise where resistance melted away quickly. But in the cities of the south the Iraqis - call them Saddam militia, Fedayeen or whatever - put up a stiff fight, at times running circles around the Anglo-American forces. Umm Qasr, Nassiriya (brave Nassiriya), and the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala - their names have resounded across the airwaves.

Lest American valour be dressed in too much war-paint, what kind of a chance did the Iraqi defenders with their meagre arms have against an invading army which could call upon precision-guided air strikes against sniper fire? If in one of the greatest mismatches in history Iraqi fighters still held out at all, all honour to them.

Let's not forget that the Iraqis were defeated and their defences eventually annihilated by superior firepower.

For sheer panache and bravado a special prize must go to the Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed Al Sahaf. Cool and not without humour, he was spitting defiance right until the end.

British and American military spokesmen have lambasted him for carrying denial to new heights. May be so, but his press conferences are likely to be counted amongst the enduring images of this war.

For Pakistanis it should be easier to put things in perspective. None of our wars, and we have fought a few, lasted for more than 17 days, a magic number defining the frontiers of our military prowess. And far from anything like the American military, each time we fought an army very much like our own.

But where do we go from here? What do we learn from all this? The anger across the Muslim world will play itself out in more breast-beating and empty frustration. Walking in America's shadow, and tied to the U.S. in varying degrees of dependence, we have simply no stomach for standing up to the U.S.

Ever heard of sheep standing up to a wolf? In the run-up to the Iraq war, the world of Islam resembled nothing more closely than a herd of sheep.

There's another strange theory holding the Muslim liberal classes in thrall. Pointing to the intellectual and social superiority of the West, they argue that the countries of Islam must reinvigorate themselves before talking of defiance.

Valid point but what happens between now and reinvigoration? Should the world of Islam allow itself to be kicked around for as long as this goal is not achieved?

It took the West 500 years of uninterrupted intellectual and scientific development to be where it is now. From the Renaissance to precision-guided munitions, a smooth and coherent progression. Must defiance or a refusal to be kicked around await the dawn of an Islamic Renaissance? This way the countries now at the receiving end of American imperialism will be waiting forever.

Defiance and progress are not mutually exclusive qualities. If we look closely at history we may see that nations going through fire and blood are the ones that sooner attain the shores of progress. Nations with no heart or spirit in them are good for neither struggle nor progress.