Al Jazeera is perplexed by the failure of the proud Iraqi Arab warriors to repulse the infidel hordes. Must have been some “underhanded deals” made.
The relative ease of these recent victories have only strengthened suspicion that there may have been underhand deals. The US after all had a track record of striking deals for winning over friends to their side.
Of course, these deals might have saved a lot of Iraqi lives. Additionally, the Iraqis might not have had the enthusiasm for a suicidal “jihad” that Arabs in the rear guard have expressed. And then, of course, there’s the overwhelming military capability.
Perhaps, the negotiations did take place and the US troops secured safer passage. By all accounts, this war could have been as much a story of back-room machinations and betrayals as it is of bravery, valor and blood-letting.
Yes, not enough blood-letting. How shameful.
At the very least, this line of reasoning perpetuates the negative stereotype of Arabs being obsessed with conspiracy and convinced that events are guided by a "hidden hand."
But even more disturbing to a student of recent European history is the story's familiar ring.
So the Arabs were stabbed in the back but not beaten in the field. Hmmm . . . what other fascistic nationalist political movement used to make that claim?