Al Jazeera says: "Here are a couple of interesting articles from the Arab network's English language site: a rumored deal between the leader of the Republican Guard and the U.S.; plans to pay Iraqi civil servants in U.S. dollars; destabilizing effects of Iraq war on the Saudi government."
In Alternet: War On Iraq
Saddam wins immunity idol in axis of evil challenge: "U.S. and British forces trying to persuade Iraqis that Saddam Hussein's reign has ended are having a hard time of it thanks to abundant legends about the toppled dictator's mystical powers. Among the most astonishing of these is one which claims Hussein possesses a magical stone which renders him bulletproof. "He has the stone," Jasim Way, a resident of Basra told The Mercury News. "You shoot him and he doesn't die.''"
In Silicon Valley: War Watch Weblog
The fickle finger of fate picks a child to save: "He has only recently surfaced on the radar of domestic media, but for the past few weeks in the international press, the face of Iraqi civilian casualties has belonged to Ali Ismaeel Abbas, a 12-year-old boy who lost both arms and sustained horrific burns in a missile explosion that killed his father, mother and brother early in the war. After suffering through the minimal care that has been available in Baghdad, Ali was airlifted to Kuwait, where he is recovering from the first of many operations. Thanks to publicity, Ali will benefit from charitable funds and receive the best of care. A feel-good story, certainly; may some of that generosity work its way to all those victims whose faces we will never see."
In Silicon Valley: War Watch Weblog
Why We Didn't Remove Saddam: "
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."-- Excerpt from an article in the March 2, 1998 issue of Time Magazine called "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"penned by George Bush and Brent Scowcroft.
"
In Silicon Valley: War Watch Weblog
