GROUND ZERO, New York City, Jan. 8-- Every morning I do what every good TerrorHunter journalist is supposed to do--I search the world for Terror.
       The journey is often troubling.  It forces me to face the Beast of Terror in many different shapes and sizes, and to ponder whether I am the Terrorist or the TerrorHunter.  Sometimes I'm not so sure.
        To keep a clear perspective, I read the news from the "Terrorist Nations," or those often or historically allied with "Terrorist" causes.   They include Russia's official news agency, Pravda (once our archenemy), the Arabic News, and North Korea's Central News Agency.  I want to see what "the other side" thinks since I know I have a Western prejudice that must be kept in reasonable check.  (I've included portions of various stories and headlines from each of these news organs below so that readers might get a taste of the views held by them.)
        I also read the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor and any link to other news formats that might offer yet another facet of America's role as the Global Terror Hunter.
        Yesterday(Jan.7), the New York Times headlined a story "A Spiffy Army of Volunteers Parades in Praise of Hussein."  It dealt with how Iraq is massing reserve forces in preparation for war with the U.S.

             The feature photo was of  veiled Iraqi women brandishing a Russian Kalashnikov rifles as they marched in regimented rows in Baquba, Iraq.  The parade was a signal of solidarity among the local people should the U.S. invade Iraq.  "If anyone is tempted to do anything evil, the answer will come not in slogans or words, but through the huge numbers of volunteers like the ones in this parade," said Abdel Baqi al-Sadoun, chief of the Baath Party in the Diyala Province where thousands marched through the provincial capital situated 40 miles northeast from Baghdad. 
       The parade followed a speech by President Hussein celebrating the 82nd anniversary of the founding of the Iraqi army.  In it, Hussein denounced United Nations arms inspectors as spies.  He also issued a warning to Iraqi citizens to prepare for any sacrifice necessary.  
        I was surprised the New York Times editors allowed an inflammatory comment against women militia members, drafted by reporter Neil MacFarquhar, to stand in the article. MacFarquhar stated:  "Women in units of about 100, each with a different uniform, gave the entire first half of the parade the feel of 'The Barbie Collection Meets Lady Muslim Holy Warrior.'"
        I found this comment insulting to the Women Warriors and demeaning to the Time's position as respectable world commentator.  The comment ranked close to the "propaganda" commentaries often found laced in Pravda, the Arabic News and North Korea's news organ.  I took it as a "cheap shot," an underrating of a great potential danger.
        Grim, determined Women Warriors, in my view, should not be cast in the same breath with "Barbie Dolls," neither should they be considered the "scrapings of the barrel" as was the implication made by the "Barbie Doll" analogy.

       In Vietnam, my experience with local Women Warriors elevated them far above men in their ability to fight to the death, and to take as many enemies with them as possible.
      As a veteran of more than 100 combat operations, I am more wary of women in combat than any man.   Women fight with a ferocity equal to ten men, for they fight not just for the cause, but for the safety and security of the children, and the children's children's children.   Their determination to survive is inversely proportional to their ability to kill to protect their “nests."  The more precious the nest, the greater the killing quotient.   Thus, they can kill with abandon and enjoy a relentless ability to survive in the process.

         Little hard facts are known about Women Warriors except by those of us who have fought against them.    In Vietnam, women were commonly in charge of key VC cadres and cells.  They were selected not only for their powers as warriors to defend their country, but also because men tend to discount a woman's ability to fight as Mr. MacFarquhar erred so blatantly in his Barbie comment.  It is within that delusion Women Warriors have the killing edge.   If a man hesitates to fire upon a woman because she is a woman, that momentary flinch or falter gives her a fatal advantage over her enemy.  

        It makes perfect sense that a woman is a much more ferocious warrior than a man.   Nature is the best authority on this subject.   In nature, few male animals hang around after mating.    Mothers care and guard their offspring.   Anyone who has ever crossed the path between a mother bear and its cub knows what I mean.   Mother bears will chase and hunt you down and rip out your guts where a papa bear might just roar until you're gone.  Mother bears don't want you coming back.
       Ducks and geese are also fine example.  Try stealing a goose egg.   Mother goose will flog you to death with her wings, bash and brutalize you so that you never attempt to rob her nest again.
        I didn't scoff at the picture of the Iraqi women armed and grimly determined. The fact they led the parade of men in a show of force represented to me the tip of the sharpened arrow, not its dullness.  The flippant comment by the Times reporter--"The Barbie Collection Meets Lady Muslim Holy Warrior"--suggested a huge oversight on the power of a militia bent on protecting its homeland.
         The picture brought back memories of Women Warriors I would prefer to have not revisited. Women I have fought against and witnessed in battle were as ferocious as the mother bear in defense of her lair.   Not only were they cunning and wily, they were bold and powerful in their defiance of death.  They could lob a grenade with deadly accuracy, and use a BAR with bloody results.  They died as gloriously as their male counterparts.
         In one horrible instance, I witnessed the brutal torture of a V.C. woman suspect. In my memoirs called The Pain Game, I recited the story in detail.   She was beaten ruthlessly for hours by our South Vietnamese interpreters as I stood watching.  Her body, tall, defiant, elegant at first, was glacially turned into a mass of twisted, broken bones from the fists and sticks used to thrash her into submission.   Her once beautiful face was smashed so viciously her right eye popped out from a blow and dangled on her bloody cheek.  Even when she was hung like a piece of meat by ropes over a bamboo beam, she never once uttered a word of pain or information.   I remember vomiting over the scene for I was helpless to intervene. To this day her face looms before me, a reminder of not only war's brutality and senselessness, but of women's courage and fortitude in battle.
       I saw that same determined countenance on the Iraqi women's faces marching in Baquba.

         Despite the "Barbie" comment, I understand the power of Women Warriors, especially when they are driven to protect their nests.  I know they will fight with a ferocity beyond anyone's expectations, and will take as many lives as possible of those who invade their homeland.
         War's cruelty will turn them into Beasts of Terror, as it will and historically has all caught in its vice.  War releases primal angers and hatreds against invaders, and inspires a willingness to sacrifice far beyond what any mind can fathom in terms of pain and suffering.
         Unfortunately, the fortitude of the militia is often greater than that of the invaders because the militia members are defending their homes, families and children and the invaders are trying to conquer control.  
         The Germans found the power of the militia when they attacked Stalingrad in World War II.  In what one would expect to be a cakewalk, the Germans ended up against a brick wall of women, old men, even children fighting for their homes, inspired not by any particular leader of philosophy, but by dogged determination not to be conquered by outside forces.
         It is this equation that bothers me most as America positions itself to invade Baghdad, or plans to assault North Korea, or, in any shape or form structures its policy to take command and control of any foreign land to change its politics from the outside in.
         Strategically, we often forget that societies and peoples of lands we think are eater for regime change are used to weathering the storms of internal conflict.    For eons the average citizen in any nation has learned to adjust to its changing leadership.   In Russia, the people revolted against the rich and crumbled them during the Bolshevik Revolution, only to fall victim to Stalin's cruel leadership under communism.   While they may not agree with the internal politics of their nation, they chose to fight outside intervention to the death, preferring to sail their own ships of destiny rather than have foreign navigators do it for them.  America shifts its leadership every four to eight years.   People adjust and brace themselves for change from within, but revolt against change from without.
         The foreign news from these nations (listed below) bark out this message.   In each of them, America is denounced as a foreign aggressor.   The rhetoric used by each slaps at the face of America's might being imposed upon the sovereignty of each of the nation/states being threatened by physical and economic force.  America becomes the "alien invader."  A mother who may disagree with Saddam Hussein's or Kim's policies, may feel American intervention is far worse.
          I do not necessarily agree with the politics of the nations we have singled out as "evil axis" of Terrorism.   And, I don't agree we should sit back and let rouge nations build weapons of mass destruction at will and use them as bargaining tools to Terrorize others.    The U.S. Marine in me wants to rush into each of these nations in full battle gear and wipe out the leadership of the country, then stand guard so that future tyrants can't take command and start the process all over again

        But to do that, I know you have to fight an entire nation.  I know I would have to kill a lot of moms and dads and maybe even their children to get to the palace where the bad guy was holed up.   I know a lot of those I would kill along the way were not in support of the bad guy or his politics, but fought to the death not because they believed their leader was right, but rather because they refused to accept my right as an invader to tell them how to live their lives and bring up their children.   I would be an outsider reaching into their cub's den.   It wouldn't matter how right I was, or how morally correct, or how justified I was in the bigger scope of things.  I would just be a "child robber," another tyrant seeking to dominate their lives, and not even of their faith or culture.
         The women who will fight in Iraq will not be dressed up Barbie's in Muslim clothing.   They will be ferocious mother bears, angry lionesses, cunning mother wolverines who will stalk and kill all who threaten their homes and children with such alacrity and skill that our warriors will be caught by surprise, befuddled, confused at their tenacity and ferocity.   

         No one can tell them what to expect and come close to the reality they will face when the women bear arms against them.   But it won't be just women they will be fighting.  It will be Mothers of Vigilance they will be up against.  They will be fighting those women who seek to protect their children, their grandchildren, their brothers and sisters, their cousins, aunts.    These women won't be fighting for Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi flag, they will be fighting for their homes, for the safety of their children from the "foreign aggressors."   Politics will melt away and real estate will be the issue--a person's home will be the prize, and it will not be given over easily.
         Vigilance is about mustering the Courage, Conviction and taking the Right Actions to protect the children's children's children.    The women who fight in Iraq, just as those who fought in Vietnam, or those in Stalingrad, or women who have defended their "nests" anywhere in the world throughout history, will prove a horrendous and worthy force to whomever treads near or on their lairs.
          They will have the Courage of all mothers before them, the Conviction of all the Wombs of Vigilance that have ever been, and will take what they consider the Right Actions in defense of their homes--to kill as many as brutality as possible to drive the invaders away.
           I do not want to think about the blood that will be spent if this happens. I've seen more than my share of it already.

        So when you read the news articles below, as I do, be cautious not to discount them as propaganda or simply national fodder railing against the U.S.   I believe the words written below are geared toward the mothers of the nations.   They are words that present the United States as a Beast of Terror en route to capture and take the children of other nations under their wings--to steal them from the arms of their mothers, grandmothers, guardians.
         These are words not geared to Barbie.  They are words aimed at the Amazons of Vigilance, the women of nations who, in the final analysis, will form a shield over their children, and fight to the last breath for their safety.
          I wish this wasn't true, but I know it is.
          If anyone in the Western World isn't sure of the power of women to lead the warriors to victory or death, then I suggest they view one of the Western World's most famous paintings illustrating what I have just described.  It is Eugene Delacroix's famous 1830 painting illustrating the French Revolution called " Liberty Leading the People."   There is a reason a woman leads the men.   She is the Mother of Vigilance. 
          Despite what many think, there are Mothers of Vigilance in both Iraq and North Korea.  They are ready to fight just as fiercely as Delacroix's Liberty.

RUSSIA'S PRAVDA NEWS VIEWPOINTS

ARABICNEWS.COM'S VIEWPOINTS