An attack on us all The preparations for a war on Iraq are moving inexorably forward, despite UN intervention, formal and popular opposition, and Iraqi ingenuity and compliance. The real motives for this projected attack, despite a plethora of public pronouncements, remain confusing and mysterious. Many Arabs see in it a variety of sinister plots involving control over their oil, neo-colonialism in their region and the machinations of a hegemonic Israel. Much of this has been ascribed to the Arab obsession with conspiracy theories, and yet there is an anti- Arab theme running through the debate over Iraq. A deep and unconscious racism imbues every aspect of Western conduct towards Iraq - and by extension the Arabs in general.Ever since the first Gulf war, America and its Western allies have portrayed the conflict as a fight with one man, Saddam Hussein, apparently existing in a void in which the 22 million Iraqi inhabitants do not feature. Even the name of the 1991 military campaign against Iraq! - Desert Storm - helped reinforce this concept of an empty land. The Iraqi leader is always referred to by his first name, not in endearment of course but, in the Arab view, to denigrate his status; no other president of a sovereign state is addressed in this way. Arabs call him Saddam as well, but the reasons are quite different. As an Arabic personal name, it is al most unique and hence could be a surname. This implies no disrespect, as in the West. The epithets applied to the Iraqi leader are so virulent as to demonise him beyond reason. All sense of who he really is, a petty local chieftain, albeit a brutal and ruthless one, and third world dictator in the mould of many others before him, has long vanished from the debate. No wonder that in this scenario, the Iraqi people - the real victims of the West's sanctions against President Saddam - have been ignored. Their feelings go unremarked, except when it has been politically expedient to adopt one or other group among them - the Marsh Arabs, the Shia community in southern Iraq, the Kurds. Under the latest UN security council resolution (1441), Iraqi scientists and their "immediate families" can be moved out of Iraq for interrogation, like so many inanimate objects. This ignores both the rights and wishes of the people concerned but also the crucial fact that Arab families are traditionally extended. The immediate members make up a fraction of a much larger whole, and all are important. No Iraqi would submit to any procedure that might endanger this extended family. To Arabs, resolution 1441 evokes nothing less than the image of a sadistic UN schoolmaster flogging an errant Iraqi pupil. At the same time, strenuous Western efforts have been made to groom Iraqi opposition groups for government - though they are notorious for being unstable - without the slightest concern for their legitimacy in Iraq or their acceptability to the Iraqi people. Undeterred, the US backed a major Iraqi opposition conference in London to elaborate a future post-war strategy for Iraq. Reports spoke of petty squabbling and rivalry among the 50 or so groups there, while the US envoy was making "the real decisions" in private meetings. Likewise, the planning of the war on Iraq and its aftermath is callously unconcerned with the human consequences. Arab states considered necessary for launching the war have been coerced into acquiescence with the American plan, irrespective of the effects on their populations and governments. Iraq's history under British rule in the 1920s, when popular opposition was crushed by military force, including the use of mustard gas, is a vivid reminder of such attitudes. In 1921 Winston Churchill, then colonial secretary, wrote in an official communication: "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas on uncivilised tribes." Later, he added that the gas used against the Iraqi rebels had "excellent moral effects". America's intention to wage an unprovoked war on Iraq is redolent of this earlier colonialist tradition. The racism underlying this emanates from an anti-Arab culture in the US that gained strength after September 11, though it was well established before. Hollywood made several overtly anti-Arab films long before September 11, notably True Lies in 1994, which depicted Arab terrorists bombing American cities. The mass media and countless cartoons now depict Arabs in overtly racist ways and go unpunished; Arabs are being harassed and intimidated, and 2,000 are currently being held without trial in US jails. I recall that a similar culture prevailed in the UK during the 1956 Suez crisis and the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, when Nasser was the arch-villain and all Arabs were crudely targeted. Today, in Britain, such overt anti-Arabness is unacceptable, so it takes subtler forms. Saddam-bashing, a sport officially sanctioned since 1991, has made him the perfect surrogate for anti-Arab abuse. It is tragic that the Arabs themselves - those who are providing facilities for this war - should have colluded with an enterprise so irrational, destructive and demeaning. Ghada Karmi is former president of the Palestinian Community Association in Britain The Guardian Weekly