The recent martyrdom operation (suicide bombing) in Iraq has led the White House to condemn it as an act of "cowardice". A coward is the o­ne who runs way from the battlefield in fear of his life, rather then sacrificing himself. Such sacrifice is the exact opposite of cowardice.

Perhaps the White House assesses "cowardice" by referring to the actions of its own chicken hawks who have avoided the various drafts for previous wars and then called for war against defenceless nations, demonstrating their bravado while insulated in their bunkers!

(Defence Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld congratulated his armed forces, who are nothing but cowards. They resorted to flattening an area with high altitude bombings (B52), and Cruise missiles, with total disregard for civilian casualties.

Now that their soldiers are shooting unarmed civilians. Are these the examples of bravery the White House is referring to? Surely this is the height of cowardice!

Similarly, betrayal from the Iraqi Baath party or its republican elite forces is now emerging through the 'fog of war'. If they did not have the courage or intention to fight the invaders, then why the charade?

Why were defenceless civilians allowed to face the most well equipped army in the world? Would it not have been better to simply let Saddam along with his Baath party go into exile, which surely would have prevented the carnage?

It is the ordinary Iraqi civilians who have been the real brave souls in this war. Their courageous defiance to resist the occupiers and outright rejection of the degenerate 'Jerry Springer' culture has been the real source of humiliation for these neo-Mongol invaders.

Failure of the Baathist ideology and Arab nationalism is self-evident and there is a growing power vacuum in the Iraq, not in terms of whom, but what will govern her.