4 - 9 October 2003

Compiled by Kathleen Ridolfo

Sana'a's "Yemen Times" (4 October): The daily argues in an editorial titled "Might Is NOT Always Right" that the United States has yet to win the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis.

     The commentary says the United States remains in a vulnerable situation in Iraq, despite its military strength. "The might of the U.S.A. was helpful in ending the war militarily, yet on the other side, there are human feelings among Iraqis that were not taken into consideration. U.S. soldiers can be seen humiliating Iraqi citizens when arresting them. I even saw an American soldier stepping on an Iraqi who was supposedly caught red-handed in a resistance attack." The daily asks, "Doesn't this remind us of another occupation somewhere else in the region?"

     The editorial further argues that the United States "may have applied the wrong means in dealing with postwar Iraq. Clearly, more emphasis should have been put on human values, respect to others, and basic civil services in the postwar period.

     "Time is running out for the U.S. administration," the editorial concludes.

Jedda's "Arab News" (4 October): The daily discusses the Iraq Survey Group report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and argues in an editorial titled "The Kay Report" that the United States' justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom was not valid.

     The editorial states that although lead U.S. weapons inspector David Kay's report did not disclose the discovery of any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the Iraq Survey Group may, in fact, find such weapons in the future. "Moreover, the report does not say that Iraq is innocent. On the contrary, it provides evidence that Iraq was working to develop WMD. Nonetheless, it blasts a gaping hole in the Bush administration's credibility, and is bound to have domestic consequences," the editorial argues. "The U.S. went to war claiming that Iraq already possessed such weapons. It did not invade on the grounds that it might be a danger at some point in the future," the editorial asserts. The piece concludes that since the U.S. weapons inspectors did not find a "smoking gun" in Iraq, and sent its youth to war in Iraq, the president will have to contend with criticism from the Democratic Party "all the way to next year's presidential elections."

Cairo's "Al-Ahram" (6 October): In an editorial titled "The Lesson To Be Learned From the David Kay Report," the weekly discusses the U.S. inspector's report on weapons of mass destruction and claims that American and British assessments on the WMD threat were not compatible with UN data on Iraqi WMD programs.

     "There is a general realization in the region and in the world that the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and British alliance was unrelated to Iraq's possession or nonpossession of weapons of mass destruction," the weekly writes. There is another realization "that the war on Iraq was linked, from its very beginning, with broader goals pertaining to the Iraqi regime and the Middle East in general. Nevertheless, the question of weapons of mass destruction constituted the major declared reason for the war on Iraq."

     The piece further argues that it was not possible for the coalition to justify the war without the manipulation of the issue of WMD.

     "The lesson that should be learned from all this is that we should not manipulate information or use it for political purposes. Nor should we take the risk of reaching definite conclusions on matters that involve the sovereignty of states and the security of the region."

Dubai's "Gulf News" (7 October): The daily argues in an editorial titled "U.S. Is Yet To Come to Terms With Iraq" that, while it is acceptable for the U.S.-led coalition to seek the help of other countries for peacekeeping efforts in Iraq, it is unwise of the coalition to allow Iraq's neighbors onto Iraqi soil, particularly Turkey.

     The article contends that Turkey has "political intentions" for both its own Kurdish population, and the Kurds living in northern Iraq. "Turkey has worked to destabilize the Kurdish opposition to Saddam [in the past], the very people who are now the political leaders of Kurdish Iraq."

     The article continues: "Ankara would love to have a say in the shaping of a new Iraq and to seek its advantage from that process, but this may not be to the benefit of the Iraqi Kurds. And it is just not the Kurds who feel uneasy about a Turkish military presence in Iraq. The Iraqi leadership shares the Kurdish suspicions as to Ankara's real motives."

      The piece argues that there appears to be "little sense in sending Turkish troops to Iraq, adding, "None of Iraq's neighbors should be used since they all have their own interests in how Iraq will develop."

      It concludes, "Too many suspicions remain, but the most telling point is that Washington has not grasped the politics of the region."

London's "Al-Hayat" (8 October): In an editorial titled "Uncle Tom and the Falseness of Anti-Americanism," Jihad al-Khazen criticizes a recent article by U.S.-based Lebanese scholar Fouad Ajami that was published in the journal "Foreign Policy."

     Al-Khazen criticizes Ajami's argument that he summarizes as "enmity against the U.S. is enrooted around the world." Al-Khazen counters that "the enmity against the U.S. only grew in [the Arab world] accordingly with the increasing American support to Israel, as they both went in parallel courses: as the support for Israel rose, that for the U.S. dropped until it eventually turned to hostility."

     According to al-Khazen, "Fouad Ajami philosophizes the hatred for America.... He invents all sorts of reasons, but forgets the real one."

     "I admire all aspects of its development and style, as well as its democracy and available opportunities. And yet, I remain an opponent of U.S. policy in the Middle East, as American democracy allows me to do so, even if Fouad Ajami doesn't like this enmity against America."

     Al-Khazen voices his support for a recent report by former U.S. Ambassador Edward Djerejian that states, 'Arabs and Muslims support [U.S.] values, but they feel [U.S.] policy does not represent these values.' "This is the problem," al-Khazen writes.