Iraqi Letters

Letter to Congress - Iraq Options

2006-11-15T16:31:00.000+03:00

[I have been asked by several American friends to write a letter that they could forward to newly elected members of Congress. Encouraged by the recent changes, I did. I am posting that letter with the aim of encouraging discussion of some of the options available to America in Iraq.]

November, 2006

Honorable Member of Congress,

Congratulations on your election to the US Congress.

I am writing this message to you as a leader who has the power to influence political decisions in America that may have enormous consequences on my country, Iraq. Please forgive me for being rather blunt. I don't think we can afford to be otherwise.

Iraqi and American blood is flowing every day. Millions of innocent people are suffering every single hour. My country is literally devastated. It saddens me to see the worst in my country being the dominant visible feature. It is also true that the worst in your country has been the dominant visible feature in the eyes of the world.

There is little doubt now that the major factor responsible for the present state of chaos and turmoil in Iraq was the course of action taken by the Administration. It has also been responsible for the loss of American blood and treasure and the reduced standing of the US in the eyes of the world.

Arguments of good intentions are refuted by facts on the ground and by results. Even if the forces now devastating Iraq were not intentionally created by the US intervention, an environment was created by that intervention that was extremely favorable for those forces to thrive and become more powerful.

America is therefore responsible for the current failed state of Iraq. The realization and admission of this responsibility is an important prerequisite for any progress towards any solution. Only then can steps be taken to rectify the situation.

I realize that the foreign policy of the US is mostly the domain of the Administration and that it is influenced by several major forces from within and from outside the Establishment. I also realize the difficulty any decent American politician faces and the various forces at play that have to be considered: human aspects, economic issues including the security of oil supplies, immediate and long term security concerns as well as the pressures that can be exerted by special-interest groups. I realize all that.

Within Iraq too, the array of forces present is truly astounding: in addition to patriotic or nationalistic forces, the forces of sectarianism, corruption, decay, crime and violence are predominant. Regional countries are pouring funds to allies and cronies.

The solution to all these problems cannot be easy. At present, I can see no painless solution to the 'Iraqi problem'. Whichever direction I turn, I can only see rivers of blood, instability and destruction. This is the present dilemma. There is no easy solution. Yet, a start can be made.

For the longer term:

Many of the forces that are fighting the States in Iraq are fuelled by animosity stemming in part from the way the campaign was conducted, but mostly from a deep sense of mistrust of US policies. That mistrust was confirmed by the post-invasion performance. And that widespread popular sentiment is a fertile breeding ground.

Most ordinary Iraqis now believe that America is determined to subdue Iraq, control its oil and fragment it into warring cantons. You may find this utterly groundless. They don't. This view is shared by hundreds of millions of people around the world. And as long as there are millions of people convinced that America is an invading country and an enemy, America will be resisted and fought fiercely.

The formidable task is to convince ordinary Iraqis that America is not an enemy. Given the long heritage of mistrust, this is not an easy task! It requires a firm, and a clear stand. And it requires drastic measures. It cannot be rectified by spending money on public relations campaigns or through rhetoric.

Practical steps in that direction may include: a clear statement of admission of errors and mistakes; admission that America is occupying Iraq; a clear strategy; a clear statement of the intention to withdraw and clear plans in that direction; a clear statement of having no intentions to have any permanent bases in Iraq; a clear statement of intentions regarding control of Iraqi oil. A tall order indeed!

Only a visible change of direction may be the first step in the right direction.

For the shorter term:

The political process in Iraq was born dead. It was based on sectarianism. No modern country can be built on sectarianism. Although ancient and complex, Iraq was and still is constantly portrayed as Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. The country is far more than that. In the early days after the invasion and while the people were still in disarray and in a state of shock, Iraqis were presented with mainly ethnic and sectarian blocs as their representatives.

A "White" party, a "Black" party, a Catholic party or a Jewish party would be ridiculous propositions in American politics. A party that is supported by a foreign power would be found repulsive by the American public. Why have similar things been allowed in the democracy tailored by the American administration of Iraq?

The other, nominally secular groups packaged and presented to Iraqis were led by a few 'imported' gentlemen including a convicted felon, a CIA asset described by his own controller as a thug and a tired, uncharismatic old man. They had little credit with the people. They were also out of touch with the country for more than three decades during which the country and society were subjected to, and distorted by, enormous stressful forces that included a harsh tyranny, three major wars and years of strenuous sanctions.

The indigenous Iraqi voices were choked. There were other forces of reason, moderation and reconciliation in Iraq. But, in that prevailing climate with the overwhelming strength of those divisive forces and lack of organization, funds and support, those forces of reason and construction did not have a fair fighting chance.

In the early days, my belief was that power should have been quickly given to local people (who, as elsewhere, are moderate, peace-loving and reasonable) and democracy built from the bottom up. However, that approach was not appealing to the Administration or to the Iraqi forces in favor at the time. They knew what was best! In any case, this is no longer immediately possible as the well funded and well organized fanatics of various colors have infiltrated deeply into the grassroots.

Free-flowing funding was allowed to the sectarian and religious parties and war lords from regional and international sponsors. Those parties have now entrenched. They engineered an election process and wrote a constitution to maintain this status quo.

The irony is that some of the most powerful political and armed segments that emerged under the American administration of Iraq are enemies of the United States or close allies of countries that are declared enemies of the United States. I fail to see how any American can see this as anything but total failure.

Suggested Options

"Staying the course" is not a realistic option. It has already led to failure. Applying 'cosmetics' to that course can only make matters worse. In this context, partitioning Iraq is a recipe for certain disaster. Several forces have already been attempting to do just that since the invasion. The results are already visible. Iraq has been a single country for more than 40 centuries. If such a scenario is forced, strife in Iraq would last for many decades and would certainly engulf the region, with unpredictable results.

What is needed is a fundamental change of course.

If America decides on a gradual withdrawal, then the approach has to be a political one. Only a clear recognition of the fact that the present political process is dead and a brave effort to rectify that process may save some democracy in Iraq.

Possible drastic measures: Political parties should be based on politics, not race or creed. All parties have to demonstrate a variety of the Iraqi spectrum in their composition and leadership. All parties that have received support form external sources should be handicapped. All parties that are not truly democratic in their own constitution should be curtailed. Mechanisms should be sought to empower indigenous political forces, even those seen at the moment as adversarial to the US. Politically this may be a most difficult task, perhaps even unthinkable. Yet it is a necessary one if a political route is sought.

Failing that, America should entrust the new political process to a council of international, respected elders to start afresh.

If all fails, then I'm afraid the only route available to America will be to withdraw.

If that happens, then there will be chaos and violence as the various forces fight it out. Countries of the region will continue to pour money and arms and personnel into Iraq. Criminals will go on unchecked, as they are doing now. This means years of strife.

However, I have to conclude with a heavy heart that this route is preferable to the present one as it may bring the end of this ordeal nearer. Knowing the Iraqi people and their long history, I believe that they will ultimately prevail. This option may also be appealing to many segments in the States as it will cut short the American losses of blood and treasure. Consequences to the region, to the US and to the world are also less dangerous than the present course.

America was made great, among other things, by leaders with vision, integrity and wisdom. America was turned into an ugly bully by men and forces ignorant of history and driven by greed, arrogance and short-term outlook. The trajectory towards disaster can only be changed by true statesmen and women of courage and vision who are prepared to prescribe and, if necessary, take bitter medicine.

US Midterms and Rummy and Iraq

2006-11-08T22:42:00.000+03:00

I wasn't particularly jubilant earlier today! I didn't even follow the election results as closely as I should have: Bush was adamant to 'stay the course', the Democrats did not have a clear policy on Iraq. Some of them were even advocating the break-up of the country – a recipe for disaster...

But less than an hour ago this evening, and for the first time in more than a year, I listened carefully to what George Bush, the de-facto President of Iraq, had to say! It brought an unfamiliar warmth to my old heart to see that man, who brought so much death and destruction to my country, broken. He couldn't hide that. It was written all over him!

Another of the President's Men going down? Rummy, who had the President's full confidence? Arrogant, murderous, contemptuous Rummy?

I am not a Democrat. But those two items made my day.

Can an Iraqi hope now? Perhaps a little.
Time for accountability? Dare we hope? Perhaps too soon for that.
The beginning o the end of a mad era? Perhaps too soon for that too.

To Americans I say: to see the man who has done so much damage to your country in that position in that press conference… I only have one word: Congratulations!

Your democracy may have many illnesses; you have a long way yet to go… but tonight many of you have shown the rest of the world that It and you are not dead yet.

In parting, I would just like to quote an American friend who wrote to me earlier today: " There’s hope at this juncture, for a sane approach to assisting you Iraqi’s with the hideous mess we created for you. We aren’t all crazy over here … There are huge numbers of intelligent (non-hawk-whack-jobs) who agonize over what we’ve done to you."

No analysis this time! That is good enough for me… for now!

The War in Lebanon: Iraqi Perspective

2006-07-24T22:51:00.000+04:00

This blog is mostly about Iraq. It is basically an Iraqi perspective. The comments section of the previous post drifted into the question of the recent conflict in Lebanon. Some people wondered how Iraqis saw things and whether they were interested in the first place. This is how I see it from Iraq.

I have a soft spot for Lebanon. There was a time when many Iraqis spent their summer holidays In Lebanon. I was 13 when I first visited the country and immediately fell in love with it. I was struck by the friendliness of the people, their openness towards strangers and the wonderful lifestyle. The picturesque country and its pleasant cultural and geographic variety are also unique in the region: It is one of the few countries I know where you can move from warmth of sunny sandy beaches to the fresh coolness of mountain air in less than half an hour. I went back to Lebanon many times. I have fond memories of the country and its people.

Some people have indicated that most Iraqis are too busy with their own misfortunes to follow what is happening in Palestine and Lebanon. This is not true. Despite their own misery and preoccupations, most Iraqis are following those developments very closely.

Sunnis mostly do not look at Hezbollah as a ‘Shiite’ movement. The sectarian polarization, bad as it is, has not gone that far in Iraq… yet. In this respect, most Iraqis are united. Most ‘Shiite’ and ‘Sunni’ pro- and anti-Occupation political and insurgency groups declared their solidarity with Hezbollah and Lebanon and their outrage at Israel! Even the puppets and the stooges, have expressed their displeasure! Notable exceptions are the Kurdish ‘leadership’ and the Qaeda people.

Furthermore, these people almost unanimously believe that the root cause of all that is taking place is America, not Syria and Iran! Odd? Not really!

America and Israel keep saying that Hezbollah’s weaponry comes from Iran. What most people here see is that Israel’s superior weaponry that was killing innocent civilians comes from the US.

There is a lot of anger at America and the way the administration is implicitly condoning those criminal acts and giving the Israeli war machine political and diplomatic cover until they have finished their business.

No sir, no hearts and minds won here either!!

What is the matter with these ungrateful people?

Similarities

I find the similarities in tactics used by the American and Israeli war machines in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon eerie.

Motives: self-defense, eradicating terrorism. Changing declared reasons: freeing soldiers; eradicating terror; no quarrel with the people, strengthening the government. Means: ‘surgical’ bombing followed by ground invasion. Result: Total devastation of civil life, innocents homeless and suffering, numerous children killed and mutilated, ruined civilian infrastructure; destruction of the tools and elements of government rendering the countries ungovernable; and… hatred, popular resentment, vengefulness and more hatred.

Air and fire superiority coupled with bombing ‘incompetence’ (!) resulting in enormous “collateral damage” (meaning murdered and injured innocent civilians) and a high proportion of children as well as devastation of civilian infrastructure, including power stations, water plants, roads, bridges and almost anything of value.

They are doing it again, I thought! It reminded me of the US ‘surgical’ bombings in 1991 to evict Saddam from Kuwait and later, during and after the invasion of Iraq: they bombed schools, bridges, cement factories, powder milk factories, an assortment of other factories, grain silos, civilian air-raid shelters, water treatment and pumping plants, power plants… and hundreds of other targets, unrelated to the war machine, that were hundreds of miles away from the “theatre of operations” for more than 40 days in order to expel Saddam from Kuwait.

Other similarities of note:

The percentage of the population supporting the military action (around 80%)!
The claim that they were doing the bombarded country a favor and that the people should be grateful.
The claim that they were doing it in self defense
Even the signing of bombs, this time by smiling, small children signing on death gadgets likely to hit similarly young children across the border!

Conclusion: The governing powers in America and Israel are two faces of the same coin. I doubt that anyone can debate that. The debate is whether the coin is good or bad.

Another conclusion: Fanatics always, always go too far. This ultimately leads to their own demise… but they can cause a lot of damage in the process.

Hezbollah

Regardless of what people (including me) think of their doctrine, Hezbollah is a popular movement and not just a group of terrorists. They have representatives freely and democratically elected into Parliament and Office!! They haven’t done anything that the US and Israel haven’t done!

Very few people seem to remember that Hezbollah, as a movement, was born out of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in 1982 – also allegedly done in ‘self defense’. In fact, they managed to expel Israel from Lebanon; hence their clout in the Arab World!

Nobody mentions that Hezbollah did what it did (attacking and capturing those two unfortunate Israeli soldiers) in an attempt to release their own, held by Israel from the time that it occupied Lebanon. It still holds them six years after it left the country. Why didn’t they negotiate to swap prisoners? No negotiations with terrorists? But they did it before!

Labnana or Arqana?

During the early days of the sectarian polarization under the auspices of the American occupation, numerous people started warning about the “Labnana” (Lebanonization) of the internal conflict in Iraq.

During the first and second weeks of the Israeli assault on Lebanon, several times I heard analysts and politicians warning against the “Arqana” (Iraqization) of the situation in Lebanon.

Perhaps “Amraka” (Americanization) of the conflict would be a better description.

Neocons again?

I had some time ago declared the neocon empire defunct. Perhaps I was hasty. Secretary Condoleezza Rice used the term “Pangs of birth” to describe the present carnage. This is so reminiscent of neocon thinking and terminology. She should have used the term “Creative Destruction” the neocons are more fond of. One would have thought that they would not take the next step in the direction of the ‘new Middle East’ until they were successful in Iraq. Perhaps they are, as far as their objectives are concerned!

Media coverage

There was a time when the international media was literally ‘owned’ by Israel. I can’t help remembering the previous wars between Israel and her neighbors. The media bias was astounding. The other point of view was virtually non-existent!

This time, there was live coverage from Arab and other media channels, dozens of channels. The declared claims of avoiding civilian casualties, acting in self defense, helping the Lebanese government etc. etc. simply could not hold!

This time, Prime Minister Olmert complained about the media’s unbalanced reporting.

It seems that Israel did things with a mentality that assumed that they were going to get away with things like previous times. That was a major error.

As the battles unfolded, the declared objectives of the Israeli campaign were ‘reduced’ several times, clearly indicating that things were not going as planned.

A major casualty in this war was Israel's image of invincibility. It was literally shattered! Yes, Israel had air and fire-power superiority. In more than 2,400 sorties and precision bombings, they killed many children but could not make a noticeable dent in Hezbollah’s primitive armor. When ground skirmishes started, those fighters gave the Israelis a good run for their money. Much of it was reported almost immediately. The impressive Israeli war machine looked clumsy and almost pathetic! Also gone is the image of small country fighting against all odds for survival.

Where to next?

Peace treaties? Normalizations? They will not work. Look at Egypt. Normalization with Israel has officially been consolidated for more than 30 years. Can an Israeli safely walk the streets of Cairo? Can their businesses operate openly?

Nothing, nothing will work until the root causes of the injustice and the terror are addressed.

Meanwhile, to millions of people, it seems that only Militant Religion offers the solution to address these injustices. This is why it has become stronger. To many people, it seems to be the only force capable of striking back. There are more than a billion of these people growing more militant by the day and with every new atrocity. What will they do? Eradicate them all to remove that cancer?

This analogy was in fact used by Israel’s ambassador to the UN:

"When you operate on a cancerous growth you do not stop in the middle, sew the patient up and tell him keep living with that growth until it kills you. You make sure it is totally removed."

If it is a cancer, how are they going to eradicate it? By killing children? Possibly… because some of those children will grow up full of hate and revenge! So, do you eradicate a cancer by increasing cancerous cells? By this reasoning, you will have to kill all children. Is Israel also incompetent?

Is it possible that they are addressing the wrong tissue?

America in Iraq: Evil or Incompetence?

2006-06-05T16:56:00.000+04:00

Have the chaos that followed the American invasion of Iraq, the subsequent breakdown of the country and the spread of senseless violence been largely due to totally unforeseen factors or were they due to incompetence?

If it was incompetence, was it incompetence at the planning / administration level or at the execution level?

Is such a level of incompetence possible?

Or… was it due to evil intentions at the planning level that created conditions leading to incompetence at the execution level?

An Open Thread

2006-05-08T16:27:00.000+04:00

I was told by friends that the previous post was too heavy with comments and took a long time to load.

This post is to keep in touch.

Road to Anti-Americanism

2005-12-19T12:51:00.000+03:00

In my early writings on this blog, I was careful to distinguish between the American people and the American administration when I criticized US policies in Iraq. Attack after attack came from American super-patriots. I started calling them American Saddamists because they could not distinguish between country and ‘leader’. However, more recently I started using the word America, just like them… and just like many other millions across the world to refer to the whole of the USA.

I wrote this post with a heavy heart, fully aware of the existence of millions of Americans who do not fit the gloomy picture the post portrays… but sometimes it may be more useful in the long run to face ugly conclusions.

I know that decent people, due to their very nature, will understand.

***

Fifth Americans are vocal again! They kept a relatively low profile during the recent ‘scandal’ episodes of Libby, white phosphorous and torture… These days, with the ‘successful’ elections in Iraq, they are up again - hailing the administration’s wisdom, foresight and steadfastness. They are full of praise, not only for themselves but also for the Iraqi people. They are also on the attack. Super-patriotic Americans are quite fond of labeling their adversaries “anti-American”. They simply cannot understand why anybody could be anti-American.

I have attempted to answer this question, from an Iraqi perspective. In other words: Is it possible for a rational Iraqi to view America as an enemy state?

How dare I do that even before the election results are out? The answer to that can be found in my previous post. I have deliberately chosen to do so in these days where pro-administration Americans are euphoric, in order to remind those Americans who suffer from the short-memory syndrome that seems to be prevalent in America that world history is somewhat longer than that their attention span.

However, the essay is too long for this blog. I have therefore posted it elsewhere. This post is merely a pointer to that essay.

I expressed the view from a relatively mild, secular, generally pro-western point of view in the hope that some Americans may see some of the reasons for the birth of a new wave of “Anti-Americanism” in the making.

The sad conclusion is that America can be justifiably seen as an enemy of Iraq. I say America, meaning the United States of America, because this includes the three American components that can be seen responsible for the devastation of Iraq:

1. The successive American administrations, in charge of the American government. They have a decades-long history of policies and acts of aggression against the people of Iraq.

2. The American army that has been the tool through which the American administrations have implemented their policies in Iraq.

3. The American public who, through ignorance, indifference, acquiescence or active support, was ultimately responsible for it all.

Americans are invited to reflect honestly on the idea that if a mild outlook can lead to such a dim view of America, then what conclusions would a fierce nationalist, a deeply religious Muslim or a person with violent inclinations may reach?

Iraqi Elections II

2005-12-11T19:44:00.000+03:00

Bremer’s appointed Iraq Governing Council set the tone, defined the major players in the political arena and defined the rules of the game through the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).

The previous elections in January of this year took place in that environment and resulted in a highly polarized, ethnic and sectarian assembly. Not surprisingly, two major forces emerged: Shiite religious fundamentalist parties and an ethnic Kurdish bloc dominated by the two larger parties, run by war lords. Both blocs are a far cry from the political parties one desires for a modern state.

The “Shiite” religious alliance parties are the most vocal against sectarianism. Yet, they did more than anybody else to promote sectarianism, except perhaps for Mr. Zarqawi and the US administration. The two Kurdish parties cry out loudly against ‘backward’ Arab Nationalism. Yet, the cornerstone of their existence, drive and policies is Kurdish Nationalism. In any case, they have maintained their grip on Kurdistani politics, apart from the rebellious Kurdistan Islamic Union and a few other small fish. I would have thought democracy is all about choice!

Both blocs have little regard for democracy beyond lip service. Both blocs have now entrenched. However, both are destined to have fewer seats in the coming Parliament. On the other hand much of what they wanted to accomplish was already done.

It is the end of yet another phase in this unfolding ugly drama. It is more serious this time: a new phase of democracy. This is no longer an “interim government” or “interim assembly”. This will be a fully fledged Legislative and Government that are meant to last for 4 years. Cronycracy Phase III?

Differences and Similarities

The major difference is that Iraq is no longer a single electoral district. The new Elections Law divides Iraq into 18 provinces. Provinces are assigned a number of seats each, which is an improvement. The number of assigned seats is not totally fair, but it is nevertheless a major improvement.

Those major players allowed it because they probably feel that they can now hold their own under such a system. The resistance to making the country into the 275 districts needed to elect the 275 members of the parliament was at one time baffling, given that the country is already administratively divided into those districts. It is no longer so. Now we all know. Perhaps this will be done when those parties have entrenched further and feel that they can secure winning at the local level after they have entrenched further.

In these coming elections, some things are the same, namely, the major players and their rather vague agenda; their true agenda being somewhat different from their declared policies.

As before, we are told that the number of candidates is around 7000. Again, it is only with some difficulty that anyone can find out the names of those candidates! Those interested can find some details at the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq website. Also, the number of slates is not much less. In Baghdad for example, the number is 106, as opposed to something like 112 in the last elections. And there are no secret candidates this time. I only detected one such case. Nevertheless, it is still extremely difficult to know more about most of those candidates or what they stand for.

A notable difference this time is that the competition between the various political parties is much fiercer than last time. Venomous accusations of wrongdoing and corruption are rife. There has also been some campaigning violence.

Shifting Players in Shifting Sands

A few interesting features of this election differ from the last one in terms of the team players.

Sistani: There were several ‘semi-official’ reports a few weeks ago that Sistani encouraged people to participate in these elections and to support “strong religious parties”. That could only mean one thing: the Shiite slate… and consequently sectarian polarization. A few days ago however, new reports started to emerge that the old man was taking a completely impartial stand. The position is still ambiguous. Opposing sides are claiming different things. The Shiite slate people are saying the slate was “formed” under the supervision and the blessing of Sistani. He would have to make a clear statement of his position in the next few days if he wants his position to be unambiguous.

Muqtada al Sadr has now officially joined the fundamentalist Shiite parties. That slate is no longer just Shiite, but religious Shiite. He had actually joined the same slate in the previous elections after the intervention of Sistani following the Najaf confrontation and secured and was given 21 seats in the present assembly and a couple of ministries. However, that was done very quietly since that change of stance was too sudden for most of his followers. This time it is out in the open. Personally, this has been a major disappointment. Although his followers come from Shiite slum areas, he managed for more than a year to distant himself from sectarian groups. On the contrary, he stood firm with Fallujah in assault I of April, 2004 and had considerable connections with “Sunni rejectionists”. Much of that change was Sistani’s doing.

It is interesting that Mr. Chalabi, the neocons’ man in Iraq and who played an important role in forming that religious fundamentalist Shiite bloc, has now left them to run on his own. The “official” reason given is that Chalabi wanted more seats than the other parties were willing to give him. Incidentally, he was joined by the monarchists!!

Many of the rejectionist “Sunnis” are now taking part. As I can see, there are two main slates representing these:

The major player for those “Sunnis’ seems to be Islamic Party coalition (who boycotted the last elections after their demand for a postponement was not met) which has a “Sunni” stance and colors. They do seem to have a favorable electorate in mixed areas and in the western provinces. This will lead to further sectarian polarization of Iraqi politics. In fact, with them being part of the process, the ethnic and sectarian polarization of politics will be complete.

Another emerging player is Saleh Mutlag, a man who made a name for himself by fiercely opposing the Constitution draft… to the extent that ‘the other side’ vetoed his participation of the ‘reconciliatory’ conference in Cairo held under the auspices of the Arab League. He seems to have some following.

But the man of the hour so far seems to be Allawi. He has managed to reshape his alliances by inviting minor ‘secular’ players who did not do well in the previous elections, but he is making it perfectly clear who is running the show. TV campaigning is heavily “personalized” portraying him as the needed strong, charismatic leader. His slate is simply known as the Allawi slate.

His list certainly makes interesting reading. The names cover the whole spectrum from Communists to staunch capitalists, but they have two characteristics in common: secularism and a pro-occupation stance.

Allawi, a Shiite himself, has also cast his lot strongly against the “Shiite” parties. He went as far as saying that these people were doing worse things than Saddam. [They made their own opinion of him perfectly clear on his canvassing visit to Najaf recently. Protestors stoned him and threw tomatoes at him. He claimed it was an assassination attempt.]

The two Kurdish parties naturally look favorably at him. He is already a signatory to the issues that they deem most important: Secularism, the Constitution and the particular Federal system of government that they want. In addition, they know that he is the American favorite. They can do business with him.

But the important thing is that many ordinary people, Sunni and Shiite, are looking favorably at him. He is posing as the “secular” politician. I am constantly surprised by the number of people, ordinary Iraqis from all walks of life, in Baghdad, the mixed areas and the western provinces who are supporting him - far more than during the last elections. They see him as the only one capable of standing up to the “Shiite” religious, pro- Islamic Iran fundamentalists, who has a chance of having a say in forming the next Parliament and the next government. Many people have already forgotten, or chosen to forget, that it was he who sanctioned the bombing of Fallujah II and Najaf; that his interim government saw the introduction of corruption to an unprecedented level; and that he is self-confessed CIA man. We have a saying that reflects this mood and that we hear repeatedly these days. It says something like: “He who sees death accepts fever”.

With something like $40 million in US backing, he managed to secure around 40 seats last time. I have no idea of the financial backing he is receiving now (he seems to have no shortage of funds)… however, he is expected to have much better fortunes this time around.

That was the arena, and these are the players.

Conspicuously absent from the arena (again) is one Jwad al Khalisi, a Shiite scholar of some standing, but who is strong in his opposition to sectarianism and the occupation. Although quite active, he is given very little exposure in the media! The other major figure absent is Ayatollah Ahmed al Baghdadi, a senior Shiite cleric who is strongly critical of the occupation. On the Sunni side, the influential Association of Muslim Clerics is also absent. All are against the elections as a matter of principle, maintaining that no elections can be free under occupation.

And the winner is…

Within the internal US rivalry, it should be clear by now that the CIA / State Department coalition has beaten the Neocon / DoD alliance... or so it seems so far. This has been true for some time.

Within that race itself, I don’t know who the “winner” will be, whether Talabani will be President, whether Allawi will form the government, whether Chalabi will keep his Ministry of Oil for the Neocons or whether Solagh will keep his Ministry of the Interior… but I already know two of the losers: Iraq… and America.

This may be a strange thing to say with the strong march of “Democracy” gaining a foothold in the country, but Iraq has been proved to be a strange, perhaps even bizarre, place for many people… particularly those who have difficulty learning.

Saddam Trial

2005-12-07T14:13:00.000+03:00

The Theater

This is one trial where everybody knows the verdict! So, the process itself is what becomes of interest to most people.

I never liked theatricals. I followed the fiasco of the first and second hearings. They gave a very poor impression of the court and the judge. They both lacked what one would have liked to see in terms of dignity, class and firm fairness. However, content-wise things began to improve with the third sitting. There was more concrete business to conduct.

The prosecution’s performance was visibly shabby and professionally sub-standard. We had repeatedly heard and read about 12 tons of documents, large teams of investigators collecting evidence and preparing the case over months of hard work. But to see the end result of all that huge effort (and no doubt, huge sums spent) was more than disappointing. To see them take what should be a water-tight case and make a mess of it makes me wonder what will happen when other, more controversial issues are examined.

The defense’s performance also appeared to be clumsy. Perhaps they intentionally gave the floor to the defendants to cross-examine witnesses. They also managed to effectively score a number of legal points concerning the legitimacy of the court itself. The court’s defense of itself and its own legitimacy was rather weak. That brought home the question of legitimacy of political and legal proceedings while the country was still under occupation.

But I began to have more respect for the judge’s tolerance and handling of transactions within the court, though he still lacked the required authority and firmness to control proceedings. The atmosphere nevertheless looked more like a tribal arbitration sitting than a formal court. That judge would make a good tribal sheikh.

Some people didn’t like that. I felt it gave the whole thing an ‘Iraqi’ flavor! And why not? People like theatricals and show business stuff! The fact that what should be a grave and somber occasion, a trial of an episode of history, was turned into a circus must be of secondary importance. People must be entertained.

Then and now

I followed the first prosecution witness closely. He talked a lot, but little of what he said was new to me. I must have heard similar first hand accounts dozens – no, hundreds – of times in the past two decades. That witness’s account was not out of the ordinary.

I also happened to pass close by the town of Dujail on numerous occasions in that critical period. I had purchased a few pieces of farm machinery from a government establishment in that region. Some of them had to be repaired locally before being transported. I can say that I was witness to the bulldozing of those lovely date palm tree orchards. I still clearly remember thinking that that was exactly what Israel was doing in Palestine. We also heard many stories. Later, even the name of the district itself was changed to al Fariss – the Knight (obviously a reference to Saddam)!

But what I kept thinking about throughout the narrative was that those horrible things that witness was recounting (which I do not doubt for a minute) have also been taking place in Iraq since the invasion. Similar, and sometimes worse, atrocities are taking place and up to this minute.

It is better to prevent than to punish later, much later. We can do little now about Saddam’s atrocities. They are indeed history that left behind the suffering of people affected by them. Let Saddam get whatever he deserves. He is certainly getting a better deal than he gave any of his opponents. But isn’t there something that we can do about atrocities being committed now?

Will those atrocities be brought to justice, ever?

Perhaps in another 20 years… when they have become mostly forgotten history to most people except, of course, those who had to endure their trauma.

Public Platform

Right from the start, the judge allowed a few political points to be scored wittingly and unwittingly! For example, during the first hearing, one of the defendants - the judge who passed the death sentence on some 148 people for their attempt on Saddam’s life - was asked for his identity by the judge. The man replied that at that moment he had no identity because his igal (head band) was removed from his head before going into the court. The good, but simple, Kurdish judge ordered his igal to be brought to him. There was a delay of a few moments while that was done.

This little episode may have looked innocent enough. It wasn’t! With that little ploy, that man scored a very important point with millions of viewers in Iraq and elsewhere. The significance of the igal as a sign of pride and dignity to millions of people from a certain cultural background cannot be overestimated! I have already written that knocking someone’s igal, or even insulting it, may carry the penalty equivalent to murder in Iraqi tribal code. This may sound incredible to some people, but it is nevertheless true. Very few people remembered that that man never wore an igal when he was in office!

A few days later, I mentioned that incident to a friend, a man who was raised in Baghdad and who has spent three decades abroad. He failed to see any significance in the event. The judge acted decently and compassionately, he said; the man wanted his igal, the good judge gave him his igal; what was the harm in that? I can’t say I blame him for missing a point he was not even aware of. The thing is that the point was scored with people who knew the significance of the little incident. [Incidentally, that same friend called a fortnight later to express his displeasure with the judge’s performance!]

Saddam was always a man of cameras and TV. He thrives under the lights. He himself also scored a few points. On the face of it, he was talking to the judge; but really he was addressing people outside the courtroom. He was given a platform to address many millions and he made the best of it.

Sectarianism again?

Another significant point brought out in those proceedings is the ever-present sectarian issue. Dujail lies in what has become known as the ‘Sunni Triangle’. But I knew that Dujail was a mixed town. However, in almost all news broadcasts in almost all channels, pro- and anti-war, the city was described as ‘Shiite’. That infuriated me!

During his account, that first witness mentioned name after name of people who were ‘detained’ tortured or executed and they were thoroughly mixed Sunnis and Shiites. He did not utter a single word about the Sunni-Shiite issue. Later on, it was also evident that that witness, although obviously a devout Shiite, was himself mixed. His mother who was imprisoned was a Sunni, originally from Fallujah. When the witness mentioned the help given by decent man from Ramadi during the ordeal, Saddam sarcastically remarked “A Sunni?” The man snapped back something like “Sunnis are my maternal uncles… and that honors me!”

Yet, the media keeps insisting about circulating the sectarian issue. Take this excerpt from Associated Press, written by someone with an Iraqi name:

“The Tuesday hearing began after a dramatic, often chaotic day Monday when for the first time, Shiite victims of a 1982 crackdown confronted the former leader and his lieutenants. They are on trial for the killing of more than 140 Shiites in the town of Dujail north of Baghdad and could be executed by hanging if convicted.

“Despite the sometimes free-for-all atmosphere Monday, the trial's first witnesses offered chilling accounts of killings and torture using electric shocks and a grinder during a 1982 crackdown against Shiites.”

This is not just clumsy reporting. It is factually wrong. Why is this insistence? I cannot help feeling that it is intentional.

Changes in US policy in Iraq?

2005-11-30T00:42:00.000+03:00

The problem with most politicians is that they rarely declare their true objectives, particularly their ultimate objectives. This has unfortunately become a fact of life in today’s world. Smokescreens and curtains of secrecy are frequently used – allegedly to protect the interests of the State. These curtains prevent us from seeing their intentions and evaluating them objectively. We can only evaluate results – usually after it is too late.

My own personal view of this process, practicalities of life notwithstanding, is rather dismal, I’m afraid; Leaders of nations should be people of principle and honest statesmen. But I am realistic enough to know that that cannot be.

***

There have been many signals coming out of America lately. There is definitely a change of mood in political America. But the nagging question was: will there be a change of policy?

The US administration has suffered some setbacks and criticisms recently. Popular approval rates for the war effort in Iraq have been steadily declining since “Mission Accomplished”. The scandals of the white phosphorous and the ‘sudden’ discovery of torture houses run by US-trained Iraqi forces that so far have been the pride and joy of this administration, have raised a few eyebrows. There has been some sharp disapproval cries in Congress; there have even been some calls for immediate withdrawal; one hasty call to this effect was put to the vote in Congress recently.

Yet, there has been no official indication of a major shift in policy towards Iraq.

We have been treated to the same dull, repetitive noises about "Freedom and Democracy" and "War on Terror" again and again, regardless of realities on the ground. We have heard hints here and there from US policy makers that some troops will be withdrawn soon. Those statements were seen by some people to mean one of two things:

• Political ploys designed to appease American public opinion by obliquely addressing the anxiety of Americans concerned about their loved ones in Iraq… particularly that the original declared reasons for their presence in Iraq in the first place have been demonstrated to be less than truthful.

• Another possibility, aired by a few observers, was that the US administration was adopting a new approach of relying on air strikes to support Iraqi ground forces in crushing the insurgency.

But does that signify a change of policy?

The declared objective is to have a sufficient number of US-trained Iraqi forces to do the job. But what forces? The same forces that have been committing atrocities that are worse than those committed by those infamous bad American apples? The same forces infested and infiltrated by sectarian pro-Iran militias, crooks, thugs and criminals that have been causing havoc in the country, abducting people and arresting then killing them for a variety of known and unknown reasons?

What will that achieve? Only more sectarian strife, more lawlessness and more chaos. And in the unlikely event that they will succeed, we will only have an obnoxious police state.

That policy would be as subtle and as ‘thoughtful’ as the bygone policy of winning the hearts and minds of people while humiliating, torturing and killing them and devastating their country. It has about the same chances of success.

It doesn’t make sense… unless, of course, the objective remains to “bomb the living daylight out of them”.

Meanwhile, the administration kept making the familiar threatening noises against Iran and, more viciously, against Syria as if nothing had changed.

Furthermore, following the Cairo agreement reached recently between several factions of Iraqi politicians (who agreed, among other things, to distinguish between terrorists and nationalistic resistance) General Casey quickly responded by saying that the US forces were in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government. So anybody who attacked the US forces must be a terrorist. In effect, there was no resistance – only terrorists.

So, it seemed that, after all, the administration is “staying the course”… but at lower profile.

At Last something tangible!

Today, Ambassador Khalilzad gave three clues:

First:

“[He] is to hold the first high-level talks for decades with officials from Iran… with a narrow mandate to focus only on Iraq”

"There will be meetings, and that's also a departure and an adjustment," he said.

And…

“The US is also seeking to open negotiations with some of the insurgent groups involved in the violence that has plagued Iraq since the invasion in 2003, Mr Khalilzad says”.

[Doesn’t Mr. Khalilzad know what General Casey said only last week?]

And, even more significantly…

"I believe you cannot win the kind of conflict we are facing by military means alone... You need to have an integrated approach that wins populations over."

I find these statements extremely significant, if they turn out not to be more smokescreens.

Is this administration finally realizing that they have been wasting American blood and treasure in an effort that is going to produce results that are exactly the opposite of their declared objectives? Or is it that they have lost hope in achieving their undeclared objectives?

When will these people admit that they were wrong on both counts? And what price will they pay when they do? We all know the price America paid. Some of us even know the price Iraq paid.

The Five Americans

2005-11-16T20:49:00.000+03:00

Some of the tides are turning. A steadily increasing number of Americans seem to be aware of some the lies that they have been fed and some of the deceit they have been subjected to. It may be time to assess the new developments on the soil of the American public, and perhaps to venture into the question of what to expect from them as a result.

A Crude Analysis of American Public – An Iraq War Perspective

The crude tagging of America into ‘red’ and ‘blue’ does not do people justice. It is a ‘binary’ approach probably necessitated, among other things, by the two-party political system. But as far as the war in Iraq is concerned, that model is not sufficient to form a picture of the American people.

It is simply not possible to compartment a country the size of a continent into a few (or even a few dozen) slots accurately. But this approach is not unusual. Thanks to the media, most of the world was convinced to reduce my own complex country, which is 30 times as old as America, into three words: Kurd, Shiite and Sunni! I have come myself to form my own rough-and-ready categorization of the American public. It is perhaps not as coarse as the red-blue model, but it is still crude nevertheless. It cannot be seen as a general approach. It is an Iraqi perspective: Looking at Americans looking at the war in Iraq

I have come to put adult Americans into five categories. I call them the Five Americans. Each roughly represents a segment of the American public that is by no means uniform; each category probably has its own ‘normal distribution’; I cannot claim that they all have the same size; there are no sharp cut-off lines between them. The categorization attempted here is with regards to foreign policy and the war on Iraq in particular.

The First American: The group represented by this American covers a wide spectrum that is by no means uniform, but they were all against this war all the time. Many of these people, some 20% of Americans, have been against this war right from the start - many even before the war started. No doubt some of those people were against this particular far-right, religiously oriented Administration as a matter of principle. But many of these people knew that this was a morally wrong adventure and were dead set against it. They include Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

The Second American: This American is generally liberal, is inclined to vote Democrat, also believes in the political process in America and generally has an open mind. The group includes many of the ‘blue’ people of America. This is a mainstream-media following crowd that is significantly influenced by that media.

The Third American: This is the ‘grey’ American, suffering from a chronic case of apathy. For a variety of reasons (lack of interest, lack of time, poverty, disillusionment, cynicism, etc.) people in this group are simply not interested. Most will not vote, they will not debate politics, they will not read newspaper articles. Many do have their own views about things, but they are unlikely to do anything about them.

The Fourth American: This one is quite similar to the second American, but on the other, red, side of the mean line and the grey area occupied by the third American. Many of these people are conservative-leaning, probably with religious inclinations. Many have a firm belief that America is basically ‘good’ and have considerable faith in the present political system and traditional social values. Some of them have an open mind, but they are generally resistant to change and definitely resistant to dramatic changes of opinion. These Americans are also a mainstream-media following crowd.

The Fifth American: Personally, this particular American has been a source of fascination for me over the past two years! These Americans are dead set on supporting this administration no matter what! They will not listen; they will not consider; they will not budge; full stop. No amount of reason, debate or argument, will produce any change of position. Not even facts will incite any prospect of reconsideration. I personally have given up trying to address them. They are mainly an American problem, but they have also indirectly done much damage to the world. This group includes the super-religious, the super-patriots, the super-haters, bigots and the super-dead-set! Even today, with the lies being slowly uncovered, massacres in Iraq being exposed, torture scandals exposed for all the world to see, “war on terror” being demonstrated to have been a disaster… these people refuse to acknowledge any of these things. With ready-made excuses, some of them incredibly flimsy, they will simply attack, attack and then attack any view point that they don’t agree with.

***

Battle for America

More than anything else, President Bush’s legacy will be associated with the war on Iraq. Over the past two years of the conflict in Iraq, support for that unfortunate adventure has been steadily declining among the American public. Poll after poll has been confirming this trend.

I was fascinated by this Washington Post / ABC chart plotting President Bush’s approval and disapproval ratings that I found on the BBC website a few days ago. A picture may indeed paint a thousand words.

Some key points are of special significance to the present categorization:

• Soon after President Bush took office in 2001, nearly 3 Americans out of our five approved of him (two of them are definitely the 4th and 5th Americans); two Americans did not (one of them is definitely the 1st American).

• After the 9/11 tragedy, almost all 5 Americans were supportive. This is of extreme significance. Non-Americans sometimes fail to see the significance of that colossal event on the American public’s attitude. Even the 1st and 3rd Americans largely approved of President Bush. I expect it simply means people rallying around their leadership in a time of calamity.

• For more than a year after that (during which time the invasion of Afghanistan took place), President Bush steadily lost the approval of nearly 2 of those Americans – despite the ‘success’ in Afghanistan.

• The amazing feat of the media and the propaganda campaigns over the weapons of mass destruction paranoia, the link to Al Qaeda and the war frenzy… can be seen in the early months of 2003. Four out of 5 Americans (2, 3, 4 and 5) approved. This is truly impressive. Only the worst-case 1st American opposed the war, sometimes quite vocally and actively.

• Since then, in the period following the invasion, President Bush was steadily losing approval. Where did that come from?

It is noteworthy that during the critical period between April and November of 2004 during which the atrocities of Abu Ghraib, Fallujah I, Najaf and Fallujah II took place, there were cries of outrage from decent quarters; however there was no drastic drop in approval rates!! I find that extremely discouraging and disappointing. But, on the other hand, there was no rise in approval rates after the ‘brilliantly successful’ elections in Iraq either. This too is perplexing. Doesn’t what happens in Iraq in terms of the success or failure of the ‘project’ affect the American public?

It therefore appears that they are partly people who have turned against the war for a number of ‘internal American’ reasons that include: mounting losses in the US army, and grief or fear over their loved ones; the mounting expenditure of billions of dollars; the realization they are no more secure following that war; that world terrorism is still a potent and a threatening force; the realization that America is not winning this war; anger at being lied to and misled to support that war…

Reasons of self interest!

There is nothing wrong with that. It is human nature!

This is why I believe the recent dip in approval ratings is self-explanatory with Katrina and all the scandals breaking out…

At the moment it seems that 3 out of 5 Americans disapprove of President Bush’s management. Nearly 2 Americans still approve of him.

And there is no ‘absenteeism’! While early in 2001 (for a very short period after President Bush took office) nearly 20% of Americans did not have a view, now all Americans do, including the apathetic 3rd American!! It does seem to indicate that the whole American nation is now interested… or polarized.

Conclusion

The main point I want to make is that President Bush’s approval rating is extremely unlikely to fall below 20% no matter how badly he does in Iraq, no matter how many Iraqi and American people die, no matter how much money is squandered and no matter how badly America is viewed by the rest of the world. As far as the war in Iraq is concerned, the 5th American, I believe, is a hopeless cause barring another calamity. The fifth American will keep supporting this administration’s venture in Iraq, pursuing “Freedom and Democracy”, or whatever case the administration presents.

The other point is that the American society does seem to be largely self-centered and inward-looking. The issues that matter in their approval or disapproval, except for part of the 1st American, are largely domestically oriented. I cannot ignore the depressingly small effect all those atrocities have had on American public opinion at large. This is not a handicap in itself; many other societies are inward-looking. But for a country that wants to be heavily involved in other people’s affairs and design the New World, it is disturbing. This is probably why successive administrations have had an almost free hand in foreign policy.

The current battle in America, it seems to me, is to win over as many of these people as possible! Democrats, smelling blood, are already onto the quarry. There is no doubt that many will use the war in Iraq as a vehicle for their domestic agenda. It is sad that all the talk is about whether the present administration misled the Congress and the people or not. I have yet to see a clear vision of what they want to do with this war or with the American involvement in Iraq. In this respect, neither the politicians, nor most of the public seem interested.

Finally, it has to be remembered that this crude model does not cater for the fact that elections are usually won or lost by margins of few percentage points… a small fraction indeed of one of those 5 Americans.

The Shortest-lived Empire

2005-11-11T11:51:00.000+03:00

Fallen Office Veterans

It must be one of the shortest-lived empires in the history of mankind.

It was an empire that was fashioned by taking hold of the reigns of an existing empire. America was taken from the inside.

The initial effort was painstakingly made; laying the foundation took several decades of hard work; but the main battle only took a decade or so to overwhelm the American political and military system to force an order based on the “Project of the New American Century”.

They took formal office in 2001. They tried to shape the world to their ambitious master plan. They were certainly quietly (but not secretly) praying for another Pearl Harbor to be able to mobilize the public’s feelings to initiate their scheme.

Providence gave them 9/11.

Large segments of the American public fell for their scheme-in-disguise, either through fear, misguided anger, blind desire for revenge, delusions of grandeur, patriotism, super-patriotism, greed, ignorance or indifference.

The wind was blowing in their direction. They went full speed ahead… and the world was never the same again; Afghanistan, Iraq, scorn for the UN, contempt for “Old Europe” and total disregard for the rest of the world…

As soon as “Mission” was “Accomplished” in May 2003, they went ahead with trying to shape Iraq to neocon design with decree after decree of “economic reform” as if designing a new country on an empty sheet of paper.

It was the height and the Golden Age of that empire.

But soon after, the idols started crumbling. This is amazing. Builders of the new American Century are falling at the peak of their adventure… one by one:

1. Richard Perle, “The Prince of Darkness”, dismissed quietly before the fun even started.

2. Paul Wolfowitz , removed from the MoD where he had so much control over the US army, quietly to the World Bank.

3. Douglas Feith, the man responsible for post-invasion planning among other things, slipped quietly from a position of great influence… into oblivion.

4. Scooter Libby… exposed in disgrace (although technically innocent so far) despite all the sugar-coating and all the smokescreens.

And now the front man himself, God’s Confidante, is seen by a majority of his own people as unethical and incompetent.

His fortunes and those of his top two lieutenants, Cheney and Rumsfeld, will unfold in the coming year or two.

Captains of the New Order falling at the peak of their ‘winning battle’; Odd isn’t it?

These people are a disgrace to empire builders! They should be called “Empire Crumblers”. Well, it was more like a palace coup really!

These people have fallen. More will fall in the coming days.

However, it is sad to reflect, on the American Veterans’ Day, that these office warriors send real soldiers to battle. When real soldiers and captains fall, they pay with their lives and fall into pools of blood. But when these office warriors and initiators of wars fall, they fall out of office into another one or, sometimes, into golf courses.

***

Just to think of the damage they have done to their own country, leading to the death of many of its sons and daughters and the squandering of so much of its wealth and its loss of standing in the eyes of the world… they are really getting off lightly.

But they are American. They were put in their positions of power by the American people through a democratic process. The American people have nobody else to blame.

But what about Iraq? What about all the loss of innocent life and the suffering and the destruction and the devastation of a country that is still going on for more than two years? What about the terrorism that was imported by these people into our country that is now an export business?

All this reminds me of something Michael Ledeen, the neocon guru, once wrote advising George Bush (in April, 2004 urging him to deal harshly with Fallujah, even after that first massacre):

“Remember one of the early dicta of Machiavelli: If you are victorious, everyone will judge your methods to have been appropriate. If you lose, you're a bum.”

Tonight, I watched President Bush defending his policy, attacking Syria and Iran and moving along the same track, as if nothing had happened. What will it take for this Emperor to know?

Raids and Presidents

2005-11-11T01:30:00.000+03:00

Pre-dawn hours are the most dangerous. People, even people who are on high alert are most vulnerable during that period before dawn. With the anticipated approach of morning, people tend to succumb to sleep. All security services know that. All ‘tribal’ raiders know that. I certainly knew that but that did not save me from being caught off guard.

About an hour before dawn some time ago, we woke up to the sound of heavy pounding on our front door. I woke up with quite a start. Almost simultaneously, my wife yelled: “The boys!!!”

[My brother who lives next door was away in Jordan at the time with one of his boys. My two nephews were alone in the house. There is a side access between our two houses. And because the pounding was on the front wooden door and not the outside iron gate, my wife naturally assumed that it must have been the boys and because of the severity and urgency of the pounding, something must have happened to them.]

I rushed to the door, barefooted and, luckily, weaponless. It turned out to be a search party – a dozen armed men, mostly American with some ING soldiers, pointing their guns at me. I was relieved.

It was quite a shock that lasted only a few seconds before reality took over.

My relief was misplaced, but this is not the purpose of this post. What kept coming back to my mind was a video clip of President Bush being hurriedly told that America was under attack on the morning of September 11th, 2001 during a visit to a school.

We probably all know how he sat there in that classroom for several (seven? nine?) minutes sober and obviously thinking.

Very dignified; but is it natural?

What was he thinking about with the little data that he had? I would have thought that someone who was told of a calamity involving his family or his country would jump to find out more: What happened? What was the damage? Who was hurt? Was there more danger? Is there anything I can do? Who did it?... Hundreds of questions would flash through the mind in seconds. But the first thing most people would do is to jump to find out more… and not sit down and think about it. Thinking about such things, ‘analyzing’ them only comes after knowing the facts… not before!

Are Americans a different breed of people?
Does their President come from a different breed?

What?

Sistani Politics

2005-11-08T00:58:00.000+03:00

[Some background information on Sistani can be found in my blog “A Glimpse of Iraq”.]

Sistani’s Post-invasion Positions

Sistani’s positions on the most important issues facing this troubled country have been slightly more than ambiguous.

His first major political stand was a firm insistence on a democratic form of government. His resolute position and the impressive effect of those demonstrations that he incited, are now history.

His second major political stand was about Bremer’s Transitional Administrative Law (TAL). At the time the UN Security Council was drafting Resolution 1546 in June 2004 to lay the legal framework for the indigenous Iraq transition government, he wrote a firm letter to the UN Secretary General demanding TAL’s exclusion from that resolution. He was accommodated at the expense of infuriating the Kurds who were absolutely furious that the UN did not mention the TAL. It was hailed as a big victory for Sistani (by those always in a hurry to pass judgment).

But his greatest coup to my mind was his extremely successful mediation on the Sadr thing. Very quietly, he managed to quickly engineer what seemed to be a reasonable compromise. This was no small feat considering all the bad blood and the bombing of Najaf… everything was pointing to a bloody confrontation in which everybody stood to lose.

However, all these ‘strong’ points turned out later not to be so ‘puritan’ as they appeared to be at the time:

The Elections

Although TAL was not mentioned in that UN Resolution, in practice, Sistani was ignored. TAL remained effectively Iraq’s temporary constitution. The man not only did nothing, but actually endorsed the elections based entirely on TAL!

The Sectarian Slate

My personal disappointment with his Holiness was complete and when he endorsed the ‘Shiite’ slate during the elections of January 2005! That slate did not represent just the ‘Islamist’ religious parties and groups. It included a few ‘secular’ players, most notably the infamous Ahmed Chalabi, the neocon’s man in Iraq and a convicted felon.

There was no common program, no economic orientation, no clear vision of the country people were asked to vote for. There was even no common stance regarding the most volatile issues facing the country.

The slate was presented to the people as a ‘Shiite’ front, pure and simple! At a time when the country was facing so much sectarian stresses, that was wrong! It was part of the foul game of polarizing the elections, and therefore the country, along sectarian and ethnic lines. I believed then, and I still believe now, that that was a wicked scheme. Sistani endorsed it.

Not only that, but he allowed some of his senior associates to be included in that slate, contrary to his repeatedly declared position on this issue. Some of his ‘representatives’ became members of the National Assembly.

He has now changed his position again and decided not to allow them to take part in the coming elections, scheduled for the end of 2005. He has also declared, through a representative, not to give his blessing to any slate. However, this is too late. Those people have already entrenched and secured a powerful base.

Moqtada

For more than a year and a half after the invasion, Moqtada was more associated with the mostly ‘Sunni’ rejectionists of the invasion than with other religious Shiite groups. He made numerous contacts with ‘nationalist’ groups and forged alliances with some of them. He took a firm supportive stand with Fallujah during the April 2004 massacre.

His position culminated in his stand-off with the American army in Sadr City and Najaf. His newspaper was closed and a warrant for his arrest was issued. An armed conflict soon followed in the fall of 2004.

After Sistani’s intervention, the Najaf conflict was resolved. But what was surprising was that Moqtada literally turned ‘docile’ after that deal. He did not oppose the elections, as was expected of him. He grumbled about illegitimate elections being run under occupation… but he allowed his followers to participate in those elections. He was given a share of 21 seats (out of 275) in the National assembly.

Moqtada’s ambiguous stand regarding the referendum was also perplexing.

There was no more any mention of those criminal proceedings against him.

He has now formally joined the “religious Shiite” slate (now given the number 555). In effect, although undeclared yet, his new position is to be part of the political process.

What is more troubling for me is that, his Mehdi army has changed position on the ground regarding the sectarian issue. While in the early days, they were a force to combat sectarianism, they have become a ‘sectarian militia’.
This is an important development in the Sectarian Assault on Iraq. In several recent incidents in mixed areas east and south of Baghdad, the Mehdi Army has been a part in sectarian confrontations, on the side of the Badr Brigade. This is rather bewildering considering that only a few months ago there were bloody confrontations between the two.

To me all these changes indicate one thing: Sistani’s intervention in the Sadr affair was to forge a unity of the ‘Shiite’ front. Come to think of it, that shouldn’t be surprising. The man is the leader of the Shiite faith.

The Referendum on the Constitution

Friday, October 14, 2005, a day before the referendum: it was now official. During the Friday sermon, Sistani’s representative in Kerbala clearly and categorically stated the leading cleric’s position: he encourages all Iraqis to take part in the referendum. He advises them to say “yes” to the draft.

We had been hearing reports of his position for the past several days, but that somehow did not diminish my resentment: He knew that the country was deeply divided on that draft. He should not have taken that position. He could have encouraged people to vote, but should not have stated such a strong position in support of that draft, not if he wanted unity in the country.

I am afraid that, after this position, his break with large segments of the community… was final! That cannot be good for the country.

Sistani and the Political Arena

Most of Sistani’s power naturally comes from his seat, as I have outlined in other posts. Part of his ‘extra’ power stems from his declared position not to seek earthly power. He maintained categorically that the clergy should not have a say in how the government is run. He had also given his clergy followers strict orders not to meddle in government affairs. He completely rejects Khomeini's doctrine of “Wilayet al Faqeeh” – Rule of the Supreme Clergy.

This, to me at least, explains much! Many people (particularly local leaders in towns and in the countryside in the south and people who regard themselves as "secular Shiites") do not feel that their power (or prospect of power) is threatened by him. He has no militia to ‘help’ them run their lives, he does not infringe on their territory or power zone. Other religious Shiite movements such as SCIRI, Da’wa (who actually want a religious state) or Sadr's (who are seen to be simply after political and economic power) are regarded as a threat by many of these people.

I must say that those religious Shiite parties played that Sistani game rather well. They paid every possible respect to Sistani, they never crossed with him; they frequently consulted with him on some issues; and they got him to endorse every major political move they made. While safe from the American administration, having declared their total acceptance of the political process, they were able to keep their militias and they went on to control life on the ground. With money to spend, they could pay followers. In two years, those forces had almost total control of much of the south of Iraq. Seculars were left out dazed in the dust of their trail!

He remains a most important, even if slightly mysterious, player on the Iraqi political and religious arena. However, I can at the moment hear murmurs of discontent (and sometimes outright criticism) from ‘Shiite’ (including some religious) quarters; Moqtada’s people, the Mehdi army, being the most outspoken. His status in the eyes of many has been impaired. And this… is significant!

His latest positions may be seen as an effort to rectify that damage.

[An extended article about Sistani, which includes a translation of a critical poem by one of Moqtada’s followers, can be found at “Iraqi Articles”.]

America - Behind the Curtain

2005-10-30T21:49:00.000+03:00

Libby and American Political Justice

Like many other people, I was closely following the ‘Plamegate’ affair in America: the investigation, the indictment, the spinning, the speculation… and the anticipation.

It is only natural. Libby and the likes of him have devastated my already ruined country. Anything that exposes these people for what they are must bring some gratification.

But…

I keep thinking back to other cover-ups and other indictments… and I find something common to most of them: they were not initiated by the great harm some of those villains did to innocent people around the world or even to Americans or to America. Those scandals blew up because those people attacked Establishments of the American System.

This may sound unfair, but please bear with me.

Nixon was brought down for doing something immoral and illegal against the Democratic Party. That was what started it and brought all those ugly worms out of the can. Yes, there was an avalanche of events and a lot of soul-searching in America. But what started it were not the crimes against humanity committed, but using the ‘government’ to spy on the other party. The original injured party that sparked the investigation was the Democratic Party.

This is so similar to the Plame affair. The fuss and the investigation and the indictment were originally about exposing a CIA operative. The CIA was the injured party.

The slow, but reliable judicial system in America will no doubt grind its way through the maze of secrecy, lies and deceit. Other nasty worms will probably come out… but we all should remember that what started it all was not the act of murdering innocent people… but the act of exposing one CIA operative.

I cannot help thinking that justice was done only because there were powerful bodies, inside America who wanted that justice to be done… and fought for it.

In millions of other case, no one defended the injured party… whether they were foreign nationals, Americans… or even America itself.

The fact remains that the act of ‘exposing’ Plame was performed to harm her husband who exposed one of the lies used to justify a war to the American people – a war in which people (many thousands of American and Iraqi people) were, and are still being killed and injured. But that is only a secondary issue, and may have to wait.

Plame is being avenged. So, who will defend all those suffering innocent people? And who will avenge all those dead people, Iraqi and American? This can only be done by the American people, not by the American political justice system. But why isn’t this happening now? Is America evil? Are Americans so insensitive? The answer is: no!

It has to do with a curtain that surrounds America.

Behind the Image Curtain

For decades, people were so fond of Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” description of the Soviet Union and its allies. There was a great deal of truth in that description. In the Soviet Union, as in all totalitarian systems, iron curtains were possible. When that Union collapsed, the curtain was hurriedly demolished.

In America, and in other democracies, iron curtains are not possible. Because of the vision and decency of those who originally designed the political system in America (perhaps even because of the nature of America itself) darkness and iron curtains are simply not possible. They are incompatible with the very concept of the system.

However, in America there is another curtain that is more difficult to demolish… because it is not ‘solid’.

Imagine a huge room full of light and noise, called the United States of America.
People in that room are free to come and go as they please. They are free to talk, to listen, to say yes or no. But they are not totally free to know.

The room is surrounded by huge, white velvet curtains. On those curtains are projected images of what goes on in America and in the rest of the world; a lively, noisy, entertaining world of images.

There are numerous screens projecting on those curtains. The numerous larger ones are all owned by only a few big corporations, and consequently follow the bidding of a handful of individuals. These screens project images of the real world and of reality that does not always reflect that reality truthfully. The images pass through a number of selective filters.

There are many other, smaller screens, but few people bother to watch them. They strain the eye, are usually full of unpleasant images and are generally thought to be less reliable.

There also numerous holes in those curtains. Anybody in America is absolutely free to have a peek at the real world through those holes. But not more than 10% of adult Americans actually do: scholars, academics, the inquisitive and the discontented. Some of those choose to or are paid to retain the filters they are accustomed to when having a look. For the bulk of the population, those holes are not even visible from the living room couch.

People are also free to come and go across those curtains. Few people bother. Some of those who do, take little projections of the screens they are used to with them.

Those who venture out without their little screens or filters and have a good look at the real world, come back in disgust and start yelling like madmen… but no one listens to madmen in that bustling room. They, as well as the people on the other side of that image curtain… remain unheard.

I sometimes find myself looking at some of the misery caused by American policies in the world and wondering: are Americans so evil to be so insensitive to the harm their country has done and is doing to innocent people? The answer is a definite no!

They simply cannot see the real world from behind that image curtain.

Modern day politicians in America have naturally taken to that wonderful system. Politics in America has now become mostly not about substance and view… but about ‘image’. This is probably why actors have been doing so well in politics.

The internet, an American invention, is bringing some change. It has introduced a few more holes in that curtain. But we have a long way to go. Most are still too small for people sitting on those couches. We will have to wait for those velvet curtains to have enough holes in them, to become more like lace curtains… for the other side to be seen from the couch.

It is only then that America and the rest of the world will live in the same world… hopefully in peace.

Iran and Iraq: War and Politics

2005-10-24T02:17:00.000+03:00

[I have posted some background material to the subject in my other blog “A Glimpse of Iraq. An extended version of both essays combined can be found here]

Some Background

When Iraq was ‘liberated’ from the Ottomans by the British during WWI and became a ‘free country’… and Iran was also a ‘free country’ under considerable influence from Britain, there were numerous outstanding issues of conflict regarding their common borders. There was also the problem of Arabistan (Ahvaz or Ahwaz) - the region in Persia next to Iraq occupied by Arabs who saw themselves as part of Iraq to the extent that the notorious Shaikh Khaszal of Mohammra (Khoramshahar) was one of the major contenders to the Iraqi throne. That region was on the other shore of the oil-rich Gulf.

Those border issues, particularly at Shat al Arab, the combined flow of Iraq’s two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, later became a major ‘official’ excuse of the Iran-Iraq war that started in 1980 and lasted for 8 years.

Most people still find Saddam’s attack on Iran almost immediately after Khoeini’s Islamic revolution rather perplexing. Many Iraqis find good explanation in conspiracy theories. The vast majority of people I know in Iraq firmly believe that Saddam was doing America’s bidding. However, I believe that there were some tangible ‘incentives’ for him to jump into that unfortunate venture.

Saddam had made a number of territorial concessions to the Shah of Iran in 1975 to encourage the Shah to stop his support for the Kurdish insurgency. There was much resentment, even within his party. Someone close to him wrote a book later in exile about that time and he stated that he cried when he knew of the details of Saddam’s deal with the Shah. When the Khomeini revolution came, Iran was in chaos and in turmoil. The clergy purged many of the senior officers and pilots. The mostly inexperienced ‘Islamic Revolutionary guards’ were incompetently running the war machine. Iran was rather weak. Saddam probably saw an opportunity in attacking her. I can find a number of ‘advantages’ from his point of view for that adventure. America of course encouraged him. It is now open knowledge that the late King Hussein of Jordan played a significant role as a go-between.

There is a great deal of mistrust towards Iran in the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia. Most of these rich countries overtly or covertly assisted Iraq during the last war with Iran (1980 – 1988), most evidently Kuwait. In addition to what is seen as Iranian imperial aspirations in the region, there is no doubt that the sizeable Shiite communities in the oil-rich eastern bank of the Gulf were, and still are, on most of those people’s minds. Militant Islamist Shiism that is inspired by Iran was not welcome.
The recent harsh words coming from the Saudi Foreign Minister regarding American policies empowering Iran in Iraq are a case in point. In September he said:

“We fought a war together to keep Iran out of Iraq after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait. Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason.”

The Iraqi Minister of Interior reacted harshly:

"This Iraq is the cradle of civilization that taught humanity reading and writing, and some Bedouin riding a camel wants to teach us. This talk is totally rejected"

Iran and Post-invasion Iraq

During the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the present administration of President George W. Bush made no secret of the fact that their next station was Iran, one of the components of the ‘Axis of Evil’.

Iran’s response to the American invasion of Iraq has been a two-component policy: political and military.

The Military component is quite understandable and straightforward:

The general assumption was, and still is, that the USA would turn to face Iran as soon as things were settled in Iraq. Pro-administration war hawks were jubilant at the beginning of the invasion (before discovering that they were in a quagmire or being aware of the nature of that quagmire!) that Iran’s regime’s days were numbered. In Iranian eyes, this threat is still quite real.

The main obstacle preventing that threat from materializing is America’s entanglement in Iraq. It only makes sense for the Iranians to help bog down the Americans in the Iraqi quagmire. I am certain that Iranian policy-makers believe that they are doing it in self-defense. They are probably correct!

Iran had been actively doing that through supplying several factions of the insurgency. Secretary Rumsfeld recently announced something about Iranian explosives being used against the American army, explosives that the insurgents didn’t have before. This claim has been echoed by the British in Basra.

The other activity was more vicious. There are numerous pieces of evidence (including CIA reports) to suggest that Iran has its own violent covert operations in Iraq. Some reports suggested the presence of 17 separate covert combat units operating in Iraq. The idea seems to be to produce maximum chaos and instability in Iraq, making the American occupation as difficult as possible. Some of the senseless acts of violence as well as some acts of violence of sectarian nature have been attributed to Iran.

The political approach had the aim of gaining as much influence as possible on the political arena in Iraq.

They had considerable influence on several of the ‘Shiite’ forces opposing Saddam’s regime. They had supported them considerably during their struggle against that regime. There were two major such parties: The Da’wa party and the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

The Da’wa party (currently represented by Prime Minister Ja’afari) was friendly but not totally ‘owned’. The reason is that the movement was born inside Iraq and fought its battles on the inside most of the time. Its members were severely punished for that and paid a hefty price for it, including the death penalty to their founder and philosopher… another Sadr, usually known as the ‘First’ Sadr (to distinguish him from his cousin, Moqtada’s father) The attack started during the Iraq-Iran war and was rather vicious and persistent.

SCIRI, on the other hand, was born and nurtured in Iran, again mainly during that war. A militia, now known as the “Badr Brigade’ was wholly constructed in Iran, mainly from Iraqi defectors or PoW’s during that war. It was totally financed by the Iranian regime. Some of its elements actually took part in battles against the Iraqi army during that war; something that would have been unthinkable to many of the Da’wa people.

That distinction is most important. It explains a lot of the differences between the positions of the two parties after the invasion of Iraq.

After the invasion, both parties accepted the political game as defined by the American administration and played it with zeal and enthusiasm. But to the surprise of many Iraqis, there was a great deal of difference between the attitudes (and methods) of the two parties. Da’wa turned out to be the more ‘political and philosophical’ of the two! Much of their agenda were ‘Iraqi’ in essence and spirit. SCIRI was something else.

During the elections, both parties entered into a coalition and joined the same slate (under the tacit blessing of Sistani). After those elections, the Da’wa was given the ineffective post of Prime Minister (because he had little control over his ministers!) and SCIRI took the Ministry of Interior, primarily in charge of the police. Now, Badr people have taken almost complete control of the police force.

In the simplest possible terms, I cannot understand the following: Iran is a declared enemy of America. America invades Iraq. America consistently strengthens the hand of pro-Iranian political parties and their influence on the future shape of Iraq!

The latest source of amusement is that both the US administration and the regime in Iran are enthusiastic supporters of the new draft constitution.

There are too many murmurs coming from the Iraqi politicians taking part in the political process that Iran has too much influence on Iraqi politics… to ignore!

An Illustration!

Perhaps no single issue illustrates the extent of the (suspected) Iranian machinations in Iraq at present more than the plight of retired Iraqi army officers and fighter pilots.

Over the past two years, some unknown force literally went on a killing and an assassination spree that included former senior army officers and, almost inexplicably, former fighter pilots who took part in the Iraq-Iran war. Some of those people were old and retired.

Their plight was discussed in the National Assembly: A lady member of the National Assembly once raised the plight of those people during a parliamentary session last August and said that, up that moment, more than 30 of those people had been killed and asked for an investigation. Another member coldly replied that it was ‘dangerous’ for the lady to address such issues and make those insinuations! Nothing was done.

Then they took their case to the President: In mid-October, those unfortunate people, about 1000 retired army officers, went to see their president. They complained that they were being targeted and killed systematically, particularly the pilots who took part in the Iraq Iran war.

The President invited those unfortunate people to go to Iraqi Kurdistan and live in Arbil or Suleimaniya where they would be safer!!!

Iraqi Constitution

2005-09-02T00:12:00.000+04:00

The story of the birth of Iraq’s second ‘democratic’ Constitution

The main tasks of the elected National Assembly following the Iraqi elections of January 2005 were to form a new government and then draft a constitution by August 15th to be presented to the Iraqi people through a referendum by October 15th.

The government was formed after about three months of horse-trading and political haggling. It was a bad government by any standard; corruption, incompetence and ineffectiveness to an unprecedented level. It failed miserably… and continues to fail.

The Assembly’s next task was drafting the constitution.

They formed a committee for that purpose. They had every right to form that committee exclusively from elected members of the Assembly. But there was a problem; there were large segments of the Iraqi people not represented in that Assembly.

[Propagandists had always maintained that that Assembly represented the Iraqi people. Those large segments that did not take part in those elections (that I wrote so much about at the time) were totally ignored by pro-administration rosy-picture painters. It is now clear that was a minor concern for domestic US political considerations… or so it was thought! Again and again it was stressed that the administration was brilliantly successful in carrying out elections in Iraq, to their own timetable… regardless of facts on the ground.

It was a major weakness of the ‘design’ of those elections. Yet, those elections were regarded as total success. The administration had delivered!

The simple solution that there should be an elected representative for each of the 275 electoral districts of Iraq (who could join the elected assembly when conditions permitted) was totally ignored in favor of a system that made the whole country a single electoral district. The simpler requirement that elections were postponed to allow volatile regions to take part, were equally ignored.]

Yet people on the ground (including most members of the elected assembly) knew that they could not govern the country or form a government, or write a constitution, without participation of those ‘absent segments’.

So, the Assembly went through a long-drawn process to select people to represent those ‘absent’ segments. The process was blatantly undemocratic, but it was the only available route!

They were first appointed as ‘consulting’ members. They refused. They insisted on full membership of the committee. They were granted that wish. They preferred to call themselves representatives of the ‘absent segment’. But, through the persistence of the media, they became generally know as representatives of the ‘Sunni Arabs’.

The National Assembly then agreed to forge the new constitution through consensus, including consensus among members of the committee entrusted with drafting the constitution.

Then the political dance began.

Hollywood Drama

It was more like a second rate American movie or TV series complete with deadlines that have to be met… and a ticking clock. Seven days to go… 24 hours to go… 2 hours to go!!

When the dials reached zero with the task still unfinished, the rules of the game, as laid out by the sacred TAL, were amended, unanimously. The law was changed to give them 7 more days, and the clock started ticking again. The new deadline was missed; then… the law and the deadlines were all simply and unceremoniously ignored!

Hollywood would have been furious. There was no respect to time limits anymore, no regard for revered traditions!

They broke their own laws!

The process was painful and intricate. There were many compromises. To be fair, the American administration, acting through Ambassador Khalilzad, tried hard to pressure all groups concerned to reach agreement.

But there was ‘nothing doing’ as Americans would say! There were so many ‘red lines’ by various factions. The visions of the very nature of the country different parties had were so diverse. Horse traders cannot build or rebuild nations.

During that process, and 4 days before the deadline, Mr. Abdul Aziz al Hakeem, head of the pro-Iran Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) quite suddenly proposed a (Shiite) autonomous, federal region similar to the Kurdish one to be composed of the central and southern provinces of Iraq. There was uproar from many ‘Shiite’ quarters (including some SCIRI coalition partners). There was much resentment in the so-called ‘Shiite’ street. Mr. Hakeem quietly backed down! That ploy was largely seen as an Iranian bargaining bid for power in Iraq.

Many people were now convinced that the undeclared objective was not a federal country but a loose confederacy as a step towards the disintegration of the country.

When there was deadlock, the Drafting Committee itself was by-passed and compromises were forged by the ‘leaders of the main political blocs’.

The ‘political’ draft was handed to the Drafting Committee. There were objections from members of that committee.

The requirement of ‘consensus’ was ignored. The draft was passed on to the Assembly with written reservations of some of the members.

The draft was then ‘passed’ from the Assembly without putting it to a vote! According to the chairman of the Drafting Committee, the reason was that if the Assembly voted on the draft that would turn it into law!!

‘Representatives’ of the ‘absent’ component of the Iraqi people were furious.

Thus Iraq’s second ‘democratic’ constitution within a hundred years was half-baked. All the seeds of chaos and instability are there! But these are all secondary concerns. The Bush Administration has, yet again, delivered: Iraq now has a draft of a constitution painstakingly drawn by a democratically elected parliament and the Iraqi people will have their say on it in a democratic referendum.

What’s wrong with it?

Well, to be fair, not much in terms of words! It is the fear behind those few offending words that are the focus of bitter differences.

If you read through the document itself, you will find many high ideals and many good concepts. I personally found more than 80% of it quite acceptable, even desirable. Incidentally, those items were not much different from Saddam’s Constitution!

[An English translation of the full text of the document can be found at... ]

My own opinion is that the document (being born out of hurried political bargaining) lacks unity of substance and has some inherent built-in contradictions in addition to quite a few linguistic errors and obvious legal ambiguities. I must add that these are mostly rectifiable. I also have other reservations about the political design of the parliamentary system and its effectiveness in firmly leading the country in the turbulent times ahead. I feel that a strong presidency would be more effective. But these are personal preferences and views.

America was appeased with one major clause denouncing the development of weapons of mass destruction.

The main complaints however are about the design of the political structure of the country! Many people feel that, as written, the concept of federal government would lead to the disintegration of the country.

So, why will it not work?

The answer is simple: all indications are that large segments of the population are dead-set against this document.

This in fact is quite dangerous in principle. This is not some law that needs a simple majority to pass; it is a constitution - a contract between the people of Iraq that defines the shape of the country they, their children and their children’s children will want to live in. Iraq cannot afford much controversy about it. There needs to be some form of general consensus about it. Unfortunately, this is lacking at the moment.

Many groups are going to resist it through the referendum (and outside it).

Will it pass the referendum? Possibly. There are several factors that may influence the outcome in favor of the draft in a manner very similar to what happened during the elections: large (ethnic and sectarians) forces behind it, a super-power of occupation with a political desire to look successful in the eyes of its own people (and the rest of the world), funding and propaganda and the ever-present mysterious element called Sistani. Furthermore, there will be the feeling that if the draft is rejected, the whole game will be back to square one – the Assembly will be dissolved, the elections re-run and the whole ordeal will have to gone through all over again. Many people are simply too tired for all that. It may just go through.

The problem is that many people (and believe me, many people) will feel quite bitter about it; People who will see it as a Constitution that sows the seeds of the ethnic and sectarian divisions being enshrined in a document that was drawn under the auspices and the supervision of a hostile occupation.

So, to my mind, if the referendum comes out in favor of this draft through a 51 or even a 60% vote, that will be a death blow to it… and to future stability. Imagine 40% of the population denying the legitimacy of their own constitution. Many will not concede ‘democratic’ defeat peacefully.

Add to that the significant number of people who will not vote. Now these people are not similar to those people who do not go to the polls in a stable democracy and who do not count. Many of those will not participate through rejection of the legitimacy of the whole process. It is already felt by many that if they cast their choice at the boxes, then that means an implicit endorsement of the process, which would mean that they would have to accept the result. So, many of those people will simply boycott the whole process and keep their belief that the whole thing was illegitimate.

And that is the seed of future turmoil.

Is there a solution?

Of course! Oddly, I believe that the solution is through the very vehicles that produced this gloomy outlook: Democracy and Federalism!

This may sound contradictory… but it isn’t really.

We have had elections but they did not produce a democracy. Consequently, they did not result in security or stability. Elections that yield 275 members who represent 275 districts are not really that difficult to implement, are they?!

If, for example, Fallujah is not ready to conduct elections, then it can do so in its own time, when conditions permit. Its seat in the Assembly will be reserved. If people in Shiite Nassiriyyah down south are presented with a number of candidates who are all Shiites, people will not be asked to vote Shiite! Perhaps they may start considering economic and other political issues to choose between candidates. The same will be true in Kurdish Suleimaniya up north. All candidates will naturally be Kurds. All candidates in Sunni Haditha in the west will be Sunnis. All sects and ethnicities will be represented without making it the only issue of the elections.

The resulting elected assembly will be far from homogeneous… but more representative of the country. Then let that odd, democratic mixture fight it out in parliament with words… and not in our cities with bombs and bullets!

Federalism is possible through more power to the 18 provinces of Iraq – a de-centralized form of government (with the components not likely to cede from the country)… not through a loose Confederacy that many people feel would, in time lead to the breakdown of the country along ethnic and sectarian lines.

It is those people who came to power on those sectarian and ethnic elections who designed this monstrous political system. It is only natural that they would design the future of the country along the same lines.

Democracy was not the problem. It was the electoral system used that was!

Federalism is not the problem. It was the use of the term as a recipe for destroying our country as we know it that was!

There are already some voices, mainly outside the Assembly, calling for the Assembly to be dissolved since, according to TAL, this assembly has failed to deliver the draft of the constitution as requested by that law on the time specified.

Any chance of that happening? Not really. There is little chance at the moment of the electoral system being changed to affect a true representation of the country.

[The assembly is at the moment discussing a draft of a new election law. Grudgingly, they are examining the proposal to make Iraq 18 electoral districts instead of one; a small improvement… but not enough.

Following the discussions in the Assembly, I was shocked to find that the proposals seem to include setting aside some seats for small religious and ethnic minorities! On the face of it, this sounds like a fair proposal. In fact it is a disaster as far as building a modern state is concerned. If one thinks about this proposal carefully, one would find a system breading an ‘improvement’ of its own kind. Are these people evil? No, they are only ‘ordinary’ politicians, horse traders and war lords entrenching and clutching to a system that gives them advantage in the quest for power.]

Another, more realistic alternative, is to give the process more time (and to hell with TAL’s deadlines and time limits) and force the politicians involved to hammer out those differences to reach a better consensus before going to the country with the draft. There is some hope there; a few says ago Ambassador Khalilzad hinted that some changes ‘can’ be made to the draft. That sentiment was echoed by a few members of the Assembly.

Is the American administration beginning to have more respect for popular feedback than the elected neo-Iraqi politicians?

Pit of Despair

2005-07-17T17:03:00.000+04:00

London Blasts

I have not written about the London Blasts. I not only wanted the dust to settle, but I also wanted to unravel my own feelings first.

Loss of life is always that… a loss, a grave loss. It is sad. The feeling of sadness is always enhanced when the loss includes innocent life. But to be honest, while following the unfolding news from London on the BBC, I did not feel shock. I did not feel the shock and repulsion that I felt on 9/11.

This has become just like any other day in Iraq. Regular news. You don’t get shocked by regular news.

I felt anger, but it was an anger of another kind.

What angered me most was that I have somehow found out that I had less compassion than I should for those people who suffered or lost their lives. Have I lost part of my humanity and capacity for compassion… or the ability to feel for the suffering of other people?

It is a loss indeed. But it is also my loss… of part of my soul.

***

The following excerpt is from an email I received from an American gentleman about that particular tragedy.

“Last week I was watching NIGHTLINE on ABC with Ted Koeppel , it was the
evening of the day of the London bombings. He had three guests. One was a former terrorist from Ireland who had served prison time for his crimes…

“… Koeppel starts by asking the former terrorist about the causes of terrorism.

“The man patiently and eloquently answers and says essentially that policies that make life difficult for a certain group of people, can create a “pit of despair”. The population of this pit grows as the dignity and needs of the group are continually ignored.”

***

The words ‘pit of despair’ kept resonating in my mind. They reminded me of something I wrote somewhere.

Satan is called Shaitan in Arabic. Another word frequently used for the Devil is “Ibleess”. I once traced that word and found that it derives from something that means "extreme sadness caused by total despair."

***

To the British:

I am sorry for your loss. But you have to be patient. This is part of the war against terror. Your government never stops telling you that they will prevail. I am telling you that they will not; not along this path.

Be patient. Be strong. It may happen again.

What happened on that Thursday in London was horrible, wasn’t it? Well, it is an almost daily occurrence in my country.

These people have found the ultimate weapon and the ultimate motivation. How can you defend yourself against people who are so bitter and angry that they are not only prepared to die in the process of killing you… but actually look forward to it? The vehicle? Faith! For these people, Faith has been effectively used to stun their own self-preservation mechanisms. Add to that the fact that there are numerous other people who are not willing to die themselves, but nevertheless equally angry to the extent that they are prepared to assist in whatever financial or logistical way that they can.

Frankly I do not see much difference between those people and the people who bomb cities full of innocent people. In fact the latter group is worse… because they are acting in that violently criminal manner from outside that ‘pit of despair’.

You cannot fight faith, anger and despair using tanks and bombs. They tend to make them stronger. Yet this is exactly what your government has been helping the present US administration to try and achieve.

You cannot fight it by spreading ‘Freedom and Democracy’ the way the US administration has been trying to in Iraq. Britain is already free and democratic.

Nothing can be done unless the soil that produces these off shoots is tackled. Favorable conditions have to be altered.

But this is all premature at the moment. Perhaps after enough death, carnage and suffering, when your own self-preservation mechanisms, not irrational fear-induced anger, are triggered and the lives of your loved ones are at stake… we can start thinking about alternative approaches.

How many lives have to be lost between now and then? How much innocent blood has to flow?

But don’t listen to me; I may have a vested interest or an ulterior motive or my judgment may be impaired by my own suffering or the suffering of my country. Listen to others, Americans and British, who have a different perspective… just in case they are right.

***

Iraq’s G4

They all had excellent excuses: defending nations and values, spreading freedom and democracy… or defending country and religion.

But the result was always the same. Over the past three decades, these different people killed many, many thousands of innocent Iraqis:

1. Saddam Hussein
2. Islamic Republic of Iran
3. United States of America
4. International terrorists

Iraq’s Gang of Four: Members of this club since 1979, 1988, 1991 and 2003 in that order. The first lured the second and the third. The third lured the fourth.

In killing innocent people in Iraq…

They all think they are right.
They all think they have that right.
They all think they have God on their side.

The Kurdish Question in Iraq

2005-07-04T01:12:00.000+04:00

[I have posted some background information on Kurds in Iraq in my other blog “A Glimpse of Iraq” for readers interested in some more details.]

Prologue

In a private communication, one astute reader sometime ago made the observation about Kurdish and other Iraqi bloggers ‘not talking to each other’! That is largely true. It is perhaps driven by a conscious or an unconscious desire not to confront each other at this stage… and wait and see how things develop. Kurds do want their independent state but do not want to go to war over the issue yet. I think they know that, practically, this is almost impossible at this stage.

Post-Invasion Politics

Kurdistan has not been devastated during the past two years because it was not “liberated” through an invasion; it was already an autonomous ‘safe-haven’! There has been little violence or disruption of life. Animosity towards the Americans is therefore almost non-existent.

Kurds are generally happy with and hold strongly to their autonomy.

This has been reflected by the Kurdish politicians’ position over the past two years. While America is around, they are trying to get as much as they can while paying lip service to the ‘territorial integrity of Iraq’. They have certainly firmly established a few things through TAL (the Transitional Administrative Law) particularly the concept of a Federal Iraq and the veto (which ironically the ‘Sunni’ provinces can now use). Both Barazani and Talabani were quick to write a letter to President Bush when UN resolution 1546 was being drafted. They were furious about the prospect of not mentioning the TAL in the resolution. In the end, Sistani was appeased by not mentioning that law specifically… but the Kurds won as it was that law that formed the basis of the interim government… and represents our “constitution” up to this minute.

Most Iraqis have been angered by some of the Kurdish demands during the process of forming the present, post-election government. Most saw those demands as impossible to meet. Some of those demands seemed to me to be more like conditions of a ceasefire between a victor and a loser than haggling between politicians of the same country. There were compromises later.

Both Barazani and Talabani are basically warlords. They have headed their respective parties for decades. They still do. However, they have both decided to play within the rules of a democracy that secures their dominance over Kurdish politics. Other Kurdish parties are bitter about their dominance over Kurdish politics.

Barazani is more of a traditionalist. Talabani is secular. Sulleimaneyya (Talabani’s capital) is much more ‘westernized’, while Barazani’s Arbil is much more ‘Muslim’ and traditional in façade. Talabani originally ceded from Barazani’s party sometime in the 70’s. Barazani is also more ‘tribal’. His father struggled long and hard against central governments for decades (and was played by all sides: Iran, America, Israel and Soviet Russia).

Aspirations and Limitations

Generally, the Kurds have had a very raw deal and suffered much for most of the past century. But their problem was mainly with governments and not with ordinary people. I think this is important.

I must add that Iraq is so old, it may be difficult for many people to understand the subtlety of some of the finer issues. Kurds are Indo-European in origin and not Semites. Kirkuk is contested. But Arbil, which lies north of Kirkuk has an ancient Semitic name (Arb= arba’a= four… il=God… city of the four Gods!!). Barazani is now trying to change that ancient name, which I find sad really. That name predates the Assyrians.

I can understand Kurdish national aspirations. I sympathize with them. Any fair-minded person should. Even Arab Nationalists should, if they want to be fair and honest! Just as they feel that Iraq is a severed part of the Arab world, Iraqi Kurdistan is part of the Greater Kurdistan. The important difference is that all the various segments of Kurdistan are swallowed by other countries!

Any Arab Nationalist who does not concede the right of the Kurds to National aspirations is not true to his own beliefs, unless they stem from subduing other nations! (People who see themselves as Iraqis first are another story; they simply will not concede to carving up Iraq.)

I believe that this Nationalistic aspiration is the real (frequently undeclared) conflict behind all this talk about federalism. Otherwise people would have been discussing de-centralization instead!

Most Kurds would like to cede from Iraq. But I’m afraid it is not possible for them to cede without causing much damage to themselves and to the rest of Iraq.

There are two main problems:

1. Surrounding countries:

Turkey, Syria and Iran all have Kurdish minorities. Turkey has made its displeasure quite clear. The position of Turkey on the question of an independent Kurdistan was summarized quite bluntly by their foreign minister about a year ago. Following some pressure from America (or Israel) he said that they were being given a choice between important friendships… and survival!

2. Kirkuk

If a province of Iraqi Kurdistan emerges from the present chaos and if, as would be natural to assume, the Kurds would want Kirkuk, if not for historical reasons, then definitely for economic ones: Iraqi Kurdistan could never survive economically without Kirkuk.

But…Facts must always come first!

• Kirkuk is contested!
• Kirkuk has Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen living in it, now! Even statistics used by all parties, agree that all those people were there for I don’t know how long. They only differ on percentages.
• I cannot see the Arabs or the Turkmen giving up what most feel to be their homes without a fight.

Remember, some of them lived there long before Saddam! If they had contested that land, they wouldn’t have been friends and allies against the foreign Ottomans. There has rarely been popular strife between them.

The Turkmen who have had a raw deal on the political arena in the past two years are likely to align themselves with the Arabs in any conflict in Kirkuk.

In this simplistic summary, I see all the elements of bloody strife, killing and suffering.

But basically, we all know that Arabs and Kurds don’t really have a problem of co-existence as people! They have been doing it for many centuries.

It is all a question of national aspirations!

There has been forced displacement of people from Kirkuk under Saddam. Come to think of it, there has been so much injustice and suffering, everyone had his share! Including, and believe me, even many of those unfortunate Baathists. I don’t think starting a new conflict between Iraqis at this stage would put things right or lead to any advantage to anyone!

When we have a good system of government and a decent judicial system, then, and only then can some of those injustices, forced displacements and statistics be addressed…the process could take years! During those years, it seems to me to be more rational to work together for a better country for all than killing each other!

Is There a Solution?

My personal belief is that there is!

The major source of anguish among Arabs and neighboring countries centers around one word: Federalism. If Iraqi Kurdistan is constructed following the present model, most non-Kurds believe it to be a recipe for ceding from Iraq. The Kurdish politicians’ insistence on redrawing inter governorate borders adds to that suspicion.

The new entity will be resisted, overtly or covertly, by all countries surrounding the northern half of Iraq (Turkey, Iran and Syria). Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq stand to suffer. At this point in history we simply cannot afford that.

The simple alternative is a federal state that has not just two regions (Arab and Kurd) but 18 – the present number of provinces (or governorates) of Iraq.

If each province is given a high degree of autonomy, but relies for income on the central federal government and if the army remains federally controlled, this has the advantages of
• meeting the nationalist aspirations of Kurds (language, culture, self-government, etc) in their three provinces…

• and yet appeasing other Iraqis and neighboring countries, since each of these provinces cannot unilaterally cede from the country.

Those provinces can, at a later date when conditions permit, form the coveted region.

There are numerous ways of addressing the grievances of displaced people in Kirkuk and elsewhere equitably within Iraq or through international legal bodies or organizations. Many people in Iraq, not just people in Kirkuk, have many grievances that have to be addresses and rectified. We cannot hinge everything on sorting out Kirkuk, risking the stability of the whole country in the process.

I must add that this scheme does not seem to appeal to most of my own Kurdish friends. They want their Kurdistan in one piece, now!!

Mr. President, You are Immoral

2005-06-29T16:42:00.000+04:00

I usually try not to post when I am angry. I didn’t wait up last night to hear Mr. Bush’s speech. I followed it this morning. I wish I didn’t.

A few excerpts from President Bush’s speech on 28th June, 2005:

After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.

There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.

The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country.

Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others.

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

… I could not follow the rest of that historic speech. I did not have the stomach!

Mr. Bush, you are immoral.

This is my country you are talking about.

We had a tyrant but we had no terrorists before you decided to make my country a battleground against international terrorism.

You gloat about killing “hundreds” of terrorists in a battle that is killing many thousands of innocent Iraqis, whom you pay some pathetic lip service. But how can I blame you? You did not bother count. People are still debating whether 20,000 or 200,000 were killed.

Are the lives of Iraqis so cheap in your eyes? Is this your understanding of friendship?

Mr. President, you are immoral! Any Congress that does not impeach somebody who utters these words within a week is also immoral. Any American who agrees with you on this is also immoral.

You keep linking Iraq and 9/11 (5 times in a single speech)… and yet so many of your parrots keep repeating (even on this very blog) that you didn’t. Mr. President, you and your parrots are all so immoral. What has Iraq ever had anything to do with 9/11? I feel sorry for America.

You are also wicked… still playing on primitive feelings of fear, revenge and selfishness of some of your countrymen. Presumably you believe that there are sufficient numbers of those. Perhaps you are right!

But what if you are wrong in your confidence in winning against those for whom “there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take”? Our population is unfortunately limited. All those innocent lives are dear to their families and friends. Oh, but they are not American. They do not count. Besides, you cannot be wrong; when have you ever been wrong before?

And you and those Americans who support you have the audacity to want us to be grateful, for ridding us of Saddam, because he was killing Iraqis. That was none of your business anyway. Don’t tell me you did it for our eyes… to save Iraqi lives. Hypocrites!

America was an ardent supporter in the 1980’s while he was fighting Iran… and killing Iraqis. You made him stronger. How would you have liked it if some Iraqis had decided to take the battle to your cities to fight the source of support he was receiving… to make Saddam weaker? Would that have made any sense to you? Would that have been justifiable? Or is America largely deprived of people capable of projecting themselves into other people’s positions?

On top of everything, you are not weakening international terrorism. You are making it stronger. Listen to your own CIA. Listen to anybody else in the world that is not a puppet or a parrot. You are also adding to it hatred from people who have nothing to do with terrorism. Hatred that will last for generations. Or is your country immune to hatred?

One decent American I had been in communication with a while ago wrote:

“… It represents for me a parable of our time. It causes me to peer into the sky, shake my head and wonder how long, how long before we see that too much innocent blood is being poured out in our name? Too many people who are not enemies are being killed. And too many more are being inoculated against ever being our friends.”

Not everybody in America agrees with you. But you do seem to have a sufficient number of followers both in Congress and elsewhere in America.

What I would really like to know most is how many Americans were outraged by the immorality of the President’s presentation of his case!!

How should Iraqis look at your army that is intentionally making their homes, towns and villages a battlefront to fight it out with your enemies? Have the Iraqis been asked if they agree to make so many sacrifices to protect your country? Sacrificing the safety of their own children to protect yours? Or was it taken for granted that they would agree… because they suffered before?

But there was one truth in your speech:

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate.

You are so right on this one!

8. Other Theories

2005-06-28T14:31:00.000+04:00

Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq

This series has been running long enough! In this post, I will list readers’ additions to undeclared motives very briefly to complete the main line of this series to give readers a chance to debate them. I hope that I have managed to retain the intended message but I also added a link to the original reader’s post. They are listed in no particular order. I leave it to readers to assess the strengths and weaknesses of these different theories.

1. Military-Industrial Complex / Personal Gains

The role of the so-called “Military Industrial Complex” in America
Basically, the US military expenditure is enormous. Yet, as we have also seen, the troops on the ground lack basic equipment like body armour and other items. WHERE does all the money GO? Let me put forward the theory that some very powerful movers and shakers in the US Defence industry see it as a positive development for their personal bank balances (and those of their shareholders) for the US to be in constant conflict with other nations.

The reality is that most of the expenses lie in (a) research (b) development (c) maintenance. The condition of perpetual war suits the manufacturers of these weapons very well, and they do not hesitate to prescribe technological weapons solutions for tactical / strategic deficiencies in the field. It is in the manufacturer’s interests to sell the most expensive equipment possible to the US military, and to have a reason (ie wars) for continual re-supply of such equipment. Bruno

2. Eliminate Iraq as a strategic threat to Israel

… by transforming Iraq into an Afghanistan-like American colony. And failing that… Destroy Iraq as a strategic threat to Israel by promoting a debilitating civil war.

It is really difficult outside of the United States to understand how intense the American identification with Israel is. For some Americans it is for racial reasons - helping European Jews such as Sharon exert their supremacy over dark Arab Palestinians such as Arafat. For other Americans it is for religious reasons - the belief that the bible demands that Christians help God bring his prophecy that Jews would control Israel. For most Americans it is a combination of the two - racism reinforcing religious bigotry while religious bigotry reinforces racism. Mr. Democracy

3. Domestic political goals

Re-electing Bush, re-taking control of the senate, expanding control of the house, and removing the fetters of public scrutiny from all federal government agencies.
I am not suggesting that this was THE reason, or even a sole and sufficient reason to invade Iraq. But, every other goal that was or could have been one or more of the motives for the invasion was subordinated to the domestic political agenda. From the timing and manner in which the invasion was ‘rolled out’ for the 2002 midterms, to the ‘Mission Accomplished’ Show, to the capture of Saddam, and on and on and on and on. To the extent that events could be controlled, they were coordinated with the election cycle. To the extent that events were random, they were exploited, by the government and its supporters in the corporate press/media, for purposes of the election. JamesEarl

4. PetroDollar economics

Preventing Saddam from selling substantial quantities of oil for euros instead of for dollars. Such a move by Saddam would have threatened U.S. dollar hegemony, which is currently allowing the U.S. to obtain goods from all around the world essentially for free. (The U.S. pays for everything in dollars, which are the only currency with which anyone can now buy large quantities of oil. To say that the loss of dollar hegemony in oil would be devastating to the U.S. is an understatement. There are other ways in which dollar hegemony could be attacked, but if a major oil-producing country switched to euros, it could be a significant foot in the door for breaking down the dollar system.) Ralph

Another factor that sometimes pops up is the fact that Saddam wanted to start trading oil in Euros and not dollars. Given that the US Dollar is essentially underwritten by oil, that decision by Iraq could have been the start of a domino effect affecting the value of the US currency. I'm not advancing this as a "main" reason, but certainly it could not have made the US very happy. Bruno

5. Establishing military bases in the heart of the Middle East

Establishing permanent bases in the heart of the Middle East, thus allowing the U.S. to threaten or attack any country in the area on very short notice. Since the neocons apparently believe they can maintain U.S. power by threatening devastating military action against non-cooperating nations, establishing such bases is a crucial achievement for them. Ralph

6. Lesson to puppets

Putting the U.S. “client states” (puppet regimes) on notice that they will be dealt with harshly in the event they do anything the U.S. doesn’t like. Ralph

7. Stengthening Najaf’s Clergy to Counter Iran’s Influence

The American mistake had led to a great human Islamic educational crisis: That is the shrinkage of the Islamic moderate thinking on both Islamic sects. On the Sunni’s side, the great Alzhar moderate thinkers lost their leadership to the Wahabees…

On the Shia’s side, The Najaf moderate School’s leadership had weakened. That is because of the blessing by the west to Saddam to crash Shia in Iraq, due to the concerns of expanding the new Iranian revolutionary teachings into Iraqi Shia majority. That gave the idealistic schools of Iran a better opportunity to contain those hurt by Saddam.

Part of what is happening today, might be to correct that big mistake. The democratic Iraq would re establish the identity of the moderate Shia majority of Iraq with all the scholar power of Najaf school . The best place, today, on the planet to fight back the Salafee’s ideology. By: Basim Almustaar - Posted by Anonymous

8. The forever war as a replacement of the Cold War

Much of the administration’s momentum and support is predicated on an indefinite war hysteria. Maintaining the hysteria requires maintaining the war, in terms of enhancing our profile as a target, keeping the disaffected and poor active as a threat to the population but not the state, and keeping the populace appropriately revved up on one hand and frightened on the other.
Part of the framing of the response to the 01 attacks as a “War on Terrorism” fed that end—a war on a military tactic is almost forever by definition—but Al Qaida was not, in my view, a sufficiently abiding threat to keep the pot boiling. Hence the pouring of Iraqi oil on the fire. heraclitus

9. Constant US foreign policy

Controlling the flow of oil was central to the motivation to invade Iraq, but to understand it completely we have to consider it in the context of US policy in that part of the world since the end of WWII and perhaps before.

That policy, or set of policies, was the foundation for a set of options. Invading Iraq was one of those options. Is the question why the US invaded Iraq in 2003? Or is it why the US has been using its military to attempt to control the region over the last fifty years or so? JamesEarl

10. Placing a military force in a Middle Eastern country to unite and draw out terrorist and "insurgent" forces.

Why choose Iraq? Saddam, and the dictator system of government. These are totems which America holds as "evil." If someone says the word "dictator" in reference to a country, the American people instantly believe they are warmongering, power hungry, depraved men who torture others for their own amusement. While they might not all be such men, those are the ones which stand out in the public eye. I'm sure there've been many dictators who lived nice, peaceful lives, and never started a single war. They just don't make headlines. An American Patriot

11. The Bush Family vendetta

George Bush Sr. was once director of the CIA. It is my belief that he had learned something about Saddam Hussein, or perhaps even had personal dealings with him, which created an enmity between them. Junior, following in daddy's footsteps, or perhaps even at his urging, becomes President. At the first possible opportunity, Junior goes after the man who once tried to kill his daddy.

The reason for America choosing Iraq could be no more than an old fashioned redneck family feud. An American Patriot

12. World domination

America became the world superpower with World War II. Staying out of the war that long had nothing to do with it being none of our business. We're American. Everything is our business.

Europe was stabilized, governmental institutions were installed which make it impossible for enough people to get together with the same idea to actually get anything as straightforward as say, trying to take over a neighboring country done in any sort of timely fashion.

Asia's been stabilized. The Japanese ceased trying to take over through force of arms and turned to electronics instead. Some of the smaller countries get antsy from time to time, but with the threat of China looming over them waiting to swallow them whole given the slightest opportunity they're unlikely to make much of a fuss as long as America is occupied in the Middle East and isn't there to bully China.

Africa obviously has nothing to offer any part of the world, or situations like Rwanda would have been seen to much sooner, and DARFUR would be more than just a funny sounding word to the vast majority of the world's populace.

The Middle East is the last bastion of chaos which somehow manages to have resources and industry in the world. It is one of the few places left where major conflicts between neighboring countries still occur that would have an impact on the world economy.

By "Americanizing" the Middle East, America is able to remain the great superpower in the world, because our politicians have the most experience in befuddling their constituents while slowly stealing our freedoms. An American Patriot

13. The “People” Theory

“The search for invasion rationales is very perplexing… I sense the will of Israel in the actions of Wolfowitz. Put him in a room with: Cheney who thinks oil and contracts, Rove who thinks upcoming elections, Rumsfeld who wants to try out his ideas about warfare and GW who thinks that he knows the will of God, and pretty soon it probably made perfect sense.
Groupthink got us here in my opinion, not any one idea. You know what they say about opinions!!”

[I have added this “personal” aspect as I received it through a private communication. It is amusing as it combines several facets based on the ‘character’ of key players! It is more like a personal approach to history which belongs to a well established school of philosophical thought and which of course has its merits!]

7. Leading America into Perpetual Conflict

2005-06-23T00:06:00.000+04:00

Possible Motives for the Invasion of Iraq

Theory of Perpetual War

This theory is another possible explanation for the events in Iraq over the past two years. It is different from, and less ambitious than, the ‘world domination theory’. In this post, I will only give a very brief outline of this theory but will come back to it in future posts to examine it in greater detail and apply it to the US administrations’ performance in Iraq.

This discussion is no more than a proposal of a possible theory and should not be seen as an attempt at any absolute revelation of the truth. It is simply just another attempt to fit sense and logic into what is otherwise seen as irrational, senseless or inexplicable. I may well be wrong on the theory I am proposing in this article. I certainly hope that I am; otherwise we are in for a gloomy future.

The basic premise of the theory is not built around Iraq! It is basically an approach to the long term defense of the United States.

Brief Outline of Theory

Problem:

With the end of the cold war and the crumbling of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, there was no longer an immediate visible threat to America as seen by the lay public.

Due to the resulting public and Congressional mood, and because of the mounting national debts, military expenditure was reduced considerably (during the Clinton administration). Some of the consequences would be that the arms industry will suffer without much influx of capital, arms research will be weaker. The army will be reduced in size and in capability. America will become weaker.

While this is taking place, other nations (some of them strong candidates to be US competitors or adversaries) will be busy building their economic and military strength. This can already be seen taking place at a horrific rate in China. Some observers are already worried about recent trends in Russia. Other countries will soon follow.

Central to all these strategic considerations is oil… the present civilization’s most crucial raw material.

These possibilities cannot be taken lightly by truly concerned patriots. It would be quite irresponsible from a certain patriotic point of view not to be strongly concerned with these potential future dangers.

The long term cost of relaxing the nation’s readiness and military capability can be catastrophic.

Up to this point, the arguments are familiar and have been advocated frequently during most of the 90’s. It is the natural conclusion that follows from these arguments that is the basis of the ‘undeclared’ Perpetual War Theory.

Solution:

In practical terms, there is one solution.

Due to the nature of the US democratic political system, the country cannot be made to increase the defense budgets and maintain the military strength at adequate levels without a visible threat. It cannot be made to fight without a conviction subscribed to by a majority of the population.

People need to feel threatened, and convinced of the immanent nature of that threat, to rally to the call. In this respect, a PNAC document entitled “Rebuilding America's Defenses” published in 2000 actually mentions the positive effect of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” [I am definitely not contending that they had anything to do with 9/11; I am only trying to portray an attitude that may lead to certain conclusions.]

Once that is achieved, the rest of the agenda will be relatively simple to implement: Elected politicians, for the very purpose of getting elected, generally reflect the mood of the people. The required legislation and budget allocations necessary to achieve the major objectives will pass through Congress almost unhindered.

The only possible way to achieve these strategic objectives is for the nation to be kept in a state of constant war or a constant threat of war.

But it would not be prudent or even beneficial to initiate strong confrontational positions with major potential adversaries such as China at present.

The best solution is to engage the nation in a series of continuous small wars (‘good’ wars fought on US terms) and not wait for the other sides to start it when they are ready.

Therefore, to achieve the objective of putting the nation in conflict and hence in a state of alert, a smaller enemy is necessary to start with for a good part of this century. Enemies are therefore needed (there certainly is no shortage of these, but the American public has to believe those enemies pose an eminent threat to the US). A war in which the US would quickly prevail due to its superior power is not good enough. This was clearly demonstrated by the relaxed public mood that followed the first Gulf War. The war (or series of wars) has to be a long-term one… preferably continuous.

***

Although the doctrines of ‘The Project for the New American Century’ (PNAC) and the related neo-conservative school of thought are important corner stones to understanding this theory, it is not limited to them!

Several political observers have wondered like Seymour Hersh how a small ‘cultist’ group of people could totally hijack the foreign policy of a thriving democracy in the world’s major superpower. The answer is simple: it is not a small cultist group. The ideals of these people can be seen as part of larger, ‘more subtle’ currents in the United States that began to take root immediately after the end of the cold war and reached similar conclusions regarding the need for America’s military readiness.

This is not seen as an evil scheme by its subscribers! Some (perhaps many) of the people who hold this vision believe that America’s political system is the most humane and its economic system the most efficient. It is built around individual rights and freedoms. Human dignity is almost sacred and is enshrined in the constitution. Democracy is central to government structure. Open government is a guaranteed by various checks and balances built wisely into the system. The American model, when applied to other countries such as Japan or Germany among others has led to thriving countries and just, non-aggressive societies. From a patriotic American viewpoint, such ‘dominance’ is good for the country and good for the world as a whole. It can be subscribed to by people with moderate views and mild dispositions!

From this brief outline, it may not be difficult to realize the extent of the influential forces in the States that may subscribe to this undeclared agenda. The neocons are only the publicly visible, ‘intellectual’, active, outspoken (and perhaps fanatic) advocates of the extreme version of this vision. They also happen to hold the reigns of power in America. And some of them, for example John Bolton, have been accredited of getting the religious fundamentalist movements of America on the bandwagon.

***

In coming posts, I will go into this theory in some detail to include the need to defend the conventional American values of freedom, democracy and religious faith.

I will then hope to apply this theory to the war in Iraq to offer explanation of events that seem so far inexplicable unless one assume an unbelievable degree of poor planning and total incompetence. I also find this theory capable of explaining the ferocity of the antagonistic attitude towards ‘old Europe’ and the UN as well as the evident apathy to American and other casualties and expenditure.

***

A motive to invade Iraq? Iraq just happened to be the best, almost ideal, candidate!

According to this theory, what has been happening in Iraq is the plan! It would not have been sufficient for the US army to prevail, institute a solid democracy in a stable country… and leave soon afterwards. The motive in this case is the conflict itself that may result in log-term strategic gains, not short-term profits, to America… at a minimum level of losses.

6. Intentional Devastation of Iraq

2005-06-18T00:05:00.000+04:00

Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq

More Iraqis than people in the West may imagine subscribe to this belief. They range from illiterate peasants to university professors. This is by far the most ‘popular’ theory in Iraq (outside Kurdistan) and has been so for more than a year. It borders on conspiracy theory but please bear with me a little to see things the way most Iraqis have been seeing them for the past two years!

To many people ‘intentional devastation’ offers the only plausible explanation to what has been happening in Iraq over the past two years. A sample of the criticisms felt by many Iraqis:

1. No sane Iraqi would accept the story about Saddam posing a threat to the United States. A good portion of them believe that he was for a long time an American stooge. (There’s a conspiracy theory for those seeking one!)

2. None would accept the excuses offered for securing only the Oil Ministry and letting all those looters on the loose rampaging all their institutions. No one can accept the excuse that the Ministry of Oil was protected by coincidence or because the Americans believed that it held records of the country’s wealth. People’s civic records, hospitals, municipalities, service departments, the country’s irrigation network are also important! Report after report came in that the US boys were actually encouraging the looters and forcing doors open for them. I personally witnessed one such incident.

3. The looting, criminal gangs on the loose, rapes, kidnappings and lawlessness! Any third-rate third-world general knows that for a change of regime to cause minimum disruption and chaos, a curfew for a few days needs to be imposed. In Iraq itself, that was done several times in the past century. Was it that difficult for the American administration to plan for? People had already made provisions at home for the invasion itself. We all remember Rumsfeld’s dismissive remarks on the issue: How do you think Iraqis felt when, in the days of the looting of Baghdad, they heard the U.S. Defense Secretary saying that looting “isn't something that someone allows or doesn't allow. It's something that happens.”… Or that “freedom is messy”?

4. Few people realize the amount of damage that was incurred on Iraq’s (the world’s, really) cultural treasures during that mass and afterwards: It has been estimated that one million books, 10 million documents, and 14,000 archaeological artifacts have been lost… the biggest cultural disaster since the descendants of Genghis Khan destroyed Baghdad in 1258. Parts of Babylon's ancient ruins were destroyed (by the army!) Some of those books and documents lost or destroyed were immensely valuable human heritage. … and all this despite clear warnings (before the invasion) from UNESCO, the UN, the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute and the former head of the U.S. president's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property, Martin Sullivan. In the words of Venezuelan writer Fernando Baez: “It is a paradox: the inventors of the electronic book returned to Mesopotamia, where books, history and civilization were born, to destroy it.”

5. No one in his right mind would accept the reasons given to disband the army on the grounds that it was Baathist. There were so many defectors over the previous years that the US administration must have had a fair idea of the amount of discontent with the regime in the army. Indeed, they used some of those defectors to build and promote their case for the invasion! All military cadets were forced to become Baathists. Yet, many were only Baathists in name. Most saw themselves as patriots first. They felt angry, like almost everybody else, at what the regime was doing to their country. Was it so inconceivable for the Americans to send them home with a promise of monthly pay while waiting to re-organize the army? Most military units knew who the nasty characters were. Those would not show up anyway. Besides, the America neocons were yelling that the Iraqis will welcome them with roses. Therefore they must have anticipated the amount of discontent with the previous regime that existed in the country. Cost? $100 per month on average for 400, 000 people = $40 million/ month which is so small in terms of the war budget… and it could have been paid from Iraqi oil money! This of course would not have prevented those terrorists from pouring across the wide open borders. It would not have prevented the die-hard Saddam supporters from doing some damage… but I believe the bulk of the nationalistic resistance (widely ignored by the mass media but its effect no doubt felt by the US army) came from regular army personnel. The vast majority of those people were only Baathist in name, believe me! They outnumber Saddam’s people at least 20 to 1. Remember that many of these were seasoned warriors (some of them with long war experience) and most saw themselves as patriots. Many of their officers knew where the ammunition depots were. They included staff planners. So the US administration almost willfully created a deadly enemy… that operated in a supportive environment.

6. Why was the police force disbanded? Iraq had several uniformed police services. The traffic police had nothing to do with politics or oppression. Most of those on the street now are the same ones of the previous regime, re-employed. So why were they disbanded? There was also the anti-Crime police who knew many of the criminals and could have been useful in combating them. (Some people even took it upon themselves to take their records home to preserve them.) There was the non-political Border Guard Corps, etc. etc.

7. There was the insensitive behavior of American soldiers. They certainly acted like a conquering army which made the case for winning the hearts and minds of people or having the welfare of Iraqis at the heart of the campaign… extremely unconvincing to the average Iraqi. Even today, two years after the invasion, the American patrols are avoided by ordinary people like the plague! They are seen as dangerous as those forces of darkness killing people at random.

8. The laughable efforts made to restore services (minimum basic services like electricity water and refuse collection) and the unbelievable excuses made to explain the failure in doing so (to this date) are simply seen as pathetic. As far as I know, no insurgent or terrorist organization has taken it upon itself to attack refuse, yet nobody seems willing to collect it. There was plenty of money spent pretending to do that though!

9. The ongoing “liquidation” of Iraqi academics and professionals. University professors from almost all disciplines (from Accounting to Zoology) belonging to all denominations (Arab, Kurd, Muslim, Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Atheist) and all political orientations (Baathists, Communists, Islamists, Secularists…) have been intentionally targeted and killed systematically over the past two years. There has been no sectarian or political pattern whatsoever. In most cases no ransom was involved, as these people are mostly not well off. Specialist doctors have also been targeted, sometimes for money and sometimes without apparent reason. Many have been explicitly instructed to leave the country. This has created so much public ill-feeling towards the American management of Iraq. The absence of any clear group to blame for these systematic killings only adds fuel to conspiracy theories. The only reason people find is the intentional devastation of the country.

10. There was also the reliance of the administration on totally corrupt so-called ‘imported’ politicians. Some of those were already convicted on criminal charges. The US administration surely knew about them! In fact, they ‘promoted’ the most corrupt among them. These people led to a new wave of corruption to an unprecedented level. Those people were also entrusted with designing the political process and guide the country to a new age of Democracy! We can all see the results of that.

11. Most ‘indigenous’ Iraqis have come to believe that the democratic process was designed to enhance sectarianism and ethnicity. The result was that people were made to vote for lists that were Kurdish, Shiite or Sunni. This was seen as a wicked effort to divide the country and encourage civil war. In the darkest of Saddam’s years there was not so much sectarian polarization of the country. The sectarian militias of various groups have been allowed to maintain their identities and paramilitary structure… outside the new Iraqi armed forces!

[A few days ago, I saw a news clip from the guesthouse of a tribal leader in the so-called Shiite heartland in the south. The man had gathered quite a large assembly of southern tribal chiefs and was saying: “What is all this Sunni Shiite talk? We know what has been happening… but we are just being patient. I’m warning those people playing on the sectarian tune!” The significance is that that gentleman is the grandson of the man who first ignited the 1920 revolution against British occupation of Iraq.

“…the first spark took place when the authorities arrested a local tribal chief, Shalaan Abul Choan. While he was being taken away by the British soldiers, Shalaan yelled at one of his companions: "These people may deport me to Baghdad. Send me 10 good gold coins tonight". That night, ten warriors of his tribe attacked the jail he was held in and freed him. That was the spark the southern areas needed!”]

The sectarian polarization is seen by most ordinary people as yet another assault that aims to devastate the country as a first step towards disintegration, media reports notwithstanding!

12. The administration’s repeated assertions that the US army will stay until security is restored and their adamant refusal even to consider discussing a timetable for withdrawal are only seen as an excuse since their presence was the main cause of insecurity.
…

The list could go on… and the items and grievances would not be exhausted. Personally, this essay has been one of the most difficult for me to write objectively and concisely!

Talk of poor planning and incompetence is simply dismissed. No reasonable person would believe that the American planners could be so stupid. Few people believe that the US army, the most powerful in the world, would be so incompetent.

There have been numerous counter-arguments and excuses put forward over the past two years to these items. These arguments and excuses may or may not have been convincing to the American public… but please remember that in this essay, I am looking at things from a purely Iraqi perspective. All those arguments have not been convincing to Iraqis in the slightest. And, from what I read, the rest of the world doesn’t seem to think much of them either. It simply doesn’t do!

It did not make sense for a country that prided itself for planning for everything in great detail and had the resources and the awe inspiring technology and expertise to repair a spacecraft way out in the solar system to be so short sighted and incompetent!

It did not make sense to most Iraqis then. It does not make sense now!

In many Iraqis’ minds, there is no doubt (not little doubt) that the devastation of their country has been intentional. No amount of propaganda can alter that. Results perhaps could. But so far, there are very few of those! Everything that has been taking place, including the so-called democracy, freedom, etc. only confirms this conviction. Yet, even now, senior US administration people keep assuring us that they did and are still doing the right things!

The question is: why? Why would America, the superpower of the world, go to such lengths and incur so much loss of blood and money to damage Iraq, a comparatively small country that was never a threat and was never likely to be one. It is almost unbelievable! This is where conspiracy theorists have a field day!

The most frequent answer you would hear is that Iraq is devastated as a first step to dominate the Arab (and the Muslim) world and to gain total control over the oil, etc.

The other most frequent reason given for that intentional devastation gives is: Israel. This was all done to ensure the security of ‘Likudite’ Israel, Iraq being the only remaining Arab country in the region that may pose a real threat to Israel in the future.

People holding that belief got their ‘proof’ in the new design of the national flag that was proposed by the Bremer-installed Iraq Governing Council, soon after its own inception. Of all the colors of all the flags in the world, they only chose a design and colors that resembled those of Israel!! In fact, the Israeli fingerprints were detected, rightly or wrongly, in quite a number of measures, including the ‘process’ along which elections were conducted. Persistent reports about talks of an oil pipeline to Haifa did not help! Neither did reports of the presence of Israeli personnel during the Abu Ghraib atrocities.

The intentional-devastation theory based on the interests of Israel is hard to accept. It is hard to accept (no matter how influential the pro-Likud lobby in America is or how much control it has over American politicians) that the US administration would spill so much American blood and money just to protect Israel.

Those Israeli fingerprints? Well, there is a simple explanation: We know that there are exceptionally strong ties between this administration and Sharon’s. The neocon links are particularly profound. Israel has a great deal more experience with countries of the region. It is therefore extremely likely that this administration relied heavily on Israel’s advice. Israel’s agenda is public knowledge. Conclusions are obvious!

Some people agree to this but they add that advice was deliberately engineered to cause these catastrophic results not only to devastate Iraq but also to create a wedge of trust between Iraqis and Americans that is hard to bridge. Any form of lasting friendship between Iraq and America is seen as detrimental to hard-line Israel. I don’t know! But it is certain that as things are at the moment, it would be a long time before Iraqis can trust America again

There are a number of other weaknesses in the ‘intentional’ devastation theory: The US administration has asked for, and Congress approved, the allocation of large sums of its own tax payers’ money for the reconstruction of Iraq; the administration has also quite evidently put its weight and influence to pressure a number of countries to reduce or totally forego much of Iraq’s foreign debts. Furthermore, it is hard to see how creating a failed state could serve any purpose for this administration. A state of chaos usually leads to unpredictable results. There is also the considerable damage done to the US image (and prestige) around the world. The oppressed people of any country that the US would think of ‘liberating’ through an invasion would be the first to resist its efforts!

It doesn’t make sense! Total criminal incompetence again?

Conclusion: I can believe that, like other by-products of the campaign, the domination of the Middle East and the removal of a potential threat to Likudite Israel… can be seen as useful, but it is hard to see the intentional devastation of Iraq as the prime motive for the invasion. Yet, this devastation is exactly what has been taking place on the ground in Iraq. No amount of propaganda can change that.

5. Eliminating Saddam’s Long-term Threat

2005-06-14T22:29:00.000+04:00

Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq

The best case for this possible motive for the invasion was brought to my attention by a regular reader: “That [Saddam’s] threat was long term, not short term, and it rested nearly completely on Saddam's long held nuclear ambitions. The case is set forth at great length in the linked review of Kenneth Pollack’s, "The Threatening Storm." ”

The general idea was that sanctions would not work in the long term. Saddam could play a cat-and-mouse game with the USA indefinitely. Given his past record, he would be likely to acquire a stockpile of WMD, particularly nuclear weapons that could threaten other countries in the region…as well as the USA. Pollack (and no doubt many others) could not see “another viable alternative” to invasion.

Fair enough. This is certainly a reasonable argument. But there is a problem with this hypothesis: if this was indeed the motive – a long term threat – then what was the hurry? Saddam was in no position in March 2003 to threaten any regional country or the United States. Could the administration have given itself a little bit more time to plan the campaign?

There is almost universal agreement now that the post-invasion phase was poorly planned. The reason most people accept for that poor planning was that haste! But why was there so much haste? Lack of proper preparation, lack of proper planning, disasters that led to the loss of countless lives, Iraqi and America; chaos, lawlessness, poor decisions that led to America being viewed as an enemy by ordinary people…

What would have happened if the invasion was delayed for some six months, or even a year to prepare better? Wouldn’t this have led to some life saving? If all those criminal mistakes were not made, couldn’t that have possibly led to the success in this campaign instead of resulting in a humiliating failure?

Even the plans put forward by the numerous committees set up by the State Department were hurriedly and unceremoniously discarded! Why?

This theory does not explain the great urgency with which the campaign was conducted or the great incompetence in its implementation. If long term dangers were the main motive, then surely the long term effects of chaos in Iraq and the already-volatile region would also be equally threatening to the USA and to world peace… and would have warranted some consideration?

Surely, to any semi-competent long-term planner, “long term” adverse effects that such an invasion would have on the Arab world, the Muslim world and the rest of the world… would also lead to even more significant long-term threat? Surely those possible, perhaps even potentially more potent, long-term threats should have warranted better planning of the campaign if it were not to produce more grave dangers that it aimed to solve? Or couldn’t the administration handle the concept of more than one threat simultaneously? That would be an absurd proposition.

[Another interesting (probably even amusing) observation that has to be made in this context is that so many people advocating action (including going to war) based on Saddam’s (or other regimes’) record or history, violently reject other people drawing conclusions based on US administrations’ past record and actions!]
This theory may only become reasonable with the aid of one of two assumptions to explain the shortcomings in implementation:

1. The timing was dictated by “short-term” domestic US political considerations, for re-election purposes, which did not leave sufficient time to plan for the campaign properly… and to exploit public sentiment that allowed that ‘thin’ evidence to be sufficient justification for the war;

2. A level of (political and administrative) incompetence that no amount of planning could improve.

The implications, in either case, for the integrity of the administration or its capability to run the affairs of America… are self evidently disastrous!

In summary, there may have been a case for Saddam being regarded as a long-term threat to the USA for that factor to be considered a motive for the invasion. But if that is accepted, then the conclusions of either criminal incompetence or recklessness and lack of sufficient consideration for loss of American (or other) lives or for creating more long-term grave dangers on the part of the administration… must be accepted by advocates of this theory.

4. Creating a Haven for Investment

2005-06-10T21:02:00.000+04:00

Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq

There was certainly no shortage of legislation introduced almost immediately after the invasion to create a haven for foreign (primarily American) investment in Iraq. Almost unrestricted free trade was encouraged by regulations and a negligible amount of rules to regulate investment, to the extent that they were described by The Economist as "the wish list of foreign investors."

Privatization to an unprecedented extent was initiated (but failed). Anyone who was familiar with the extent of state ownership of enterprises in Iraq would have realized the magnitude of ‘economic shock’ that those measures constituted.

[Even to generally ‘right’-leaning people in Iraq, privatizing the ‘ownership’ of the country’s oil is almost unthinkable. Traditionally, oil and (for the past 6000 years) other underground minerals are universally believed to be public property. It makes sense to most people for the government to have revenue from oil for public spending instead of taxing people. This may explain why so many people in Iraq found Bremer’s decrees and the talk to ‘privatize’ oil so offensive… and reacted so violently to them.]

The creation of that haven for foreign investment can be viewed by many well-meaning people as a legitimate means of efficiently rebuilding a ravaged country. Indeed quite a number of sovereign countries go out of their way to lure foreign investment. Russia comes to mind. Dubai is a country being built along these lines.

But this essay is not about the rights or wrongs of such a policy; there is a wide range of well-debated opinions regarding those issues. It is about undeclared motives for the invasion of Iraq.

***

No doubt having priority access to a new market in a rich country in need of almost total renovation (oil drilling, refining infrastructure, power generation, roads, hospitals, schools, houses, etc… … ) and a long-deprived consumer sector with an enormous appetite for almost everything (from cars to consumables, computers, children’s toys etc… …) would certainly be quite appealing to numerous American corporations. A potential market size of some 50 billion dollars annually is quite a significant trophy even for the larger American multinationals.

It would be a strong incentive for most US corporations to support such a venture… but to assume that this was a main motive for the invasion is a different thing. It would depend on the influence these groups have on US foreign policy. People of differing political / economic convictions have sharply contrasting views on this.

But, yet again, instability and chaos are definitely not very encouraging for foreign investment. So, if this was a major motive, it is not compatible with the decisions made at the beginning of the occupation that led to chaos and violence… and cannot be seen by any stretch of the imagination to justify so much disruption and antagonism in the region, in the Muslim world and in the world at large, not to mention heightened feelings of mistrust and hatred towards America… unless, again, total incompetence is assumed!

Therefore, this can only be seen either as a failed objective… or as a long-term desirability. In either case it must have been taken into account as yet another beneficial by-product of the intended campaign. How crucial it was as a factor, remains an open question. The question also remains of how influential those various business and industry corporations are on US foreign policy.

In conclusion: Even if the economic benefits (of creating a new market and a safe haven for investment by American corporations) resulting from the invasion of Iraq were not the prime motive for the invasion… they must have been an important factor in favor of the invasion and ensured the support of most large and small US corporations for that invasion.

3. Invading Iraq to Avenge 9/11

2005-06-07T16:52:00.001+04:00

Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq

We now know that such sentiment existed and still exists in the US.

As already discussed, the main thrust of the drive following 9/11 was the war on world terrorism and, to some extent, Islamic fundamentalism. Despite all claims and half-baked affirmations, neither was present in significant force in Iraq either after 9/11 or immediately before the invasion.

We know now that the tragic events of 9/11 were effectively employed to manipulate American public opinion to support the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 is an important parameter only within this context. It created a mood that made large segments of the US public susceptible to that manipulation!

Americans who held or still hold this sentiment of Iraq being somehow linked to 9/11 have therefore been wickedly manipulated by people or powers with the sole purpose of promoting their agenda. The basis for that manipulation was bigotry and ignorance as well as primitive raw revenge instincts of simple people: The perpetrators of 9/11 were Arab and Muslim; Iraq was mostly Arab and Muslim. That was the simple venomous argument insinuated (not officially I should add)! This is why I have described those manipulators as wicked.

[On the other hand, soon after the invasion, Iraq was declared by President Bush himself to have become a front in the war against terrorism… and indeed it was. It is now, and likely to remain so for a long time to come. This is indeed an epitome of wickedness. As an Iraqi I find it outrageous for terrorists to be lured (and they were literally lured) into my country so that the American army can fight it out with those people in our cities with thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in the process. Those innocent people are being killed by the dozen every day NOW… but that is another story. Another casualty of this ploy was the nationalistic resistance – people fighting to resist what they genuinely believe to be the American occupation of their country. There was no serious attempt to bring those people into the fold of the political process. They were all lumped by US officialdom, most of the mass media and the propaganda machines together with those terrorists. They no longer exist in most people’s minds!]

In any case, the motive for the invasion as a component in the fight against world terrorism was already discussed with the other ‘declared motives’ and was found almost groundless. More significantly, those promoting it knew that it was a “thin case” as manifested by the “Downing Street Memo” discussed earlier.

Even then, why was Iraq chosen for this purpose even before the rise of international terrorism? But back to the undeclared motives for the invasion of Iraq; the facts are straightforward:

Crude vengeance cannot be an objective for governments or part of a strategic vision. Therefore it seems obvious to me that revenge for 9/11 could not have been a major factor in the invasion itself (not for strategic planners) but it was intentionally employed to secure public support for that invasion and for its undeclared agenda.

2. Creating a Country to Neocon Design

2005-06-04T18:20:00.000+04:00

Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq

To my mind, the attempt to create a country to neocon design is the most likely explanation for many of the events that took place during the first year of the invasion. It explains many of the decisions made, many of the ‘mistakes’ and the atrocities committed.

First, we know that neocons openly advocated a war on Iraq as far back as 1996 (in collaboration with Likud’s Netanyahu) and again in a letter to President Clinton in 1998. We also know that those same people (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Bolton, Perle, Khalilzad and James Woolsey) held, and most still hold, extremely important senior executive positions in the present Bush administration before and after the invasion of Iraq.

If one studies the abundant and freely available neocon literature and the PNAC analyses one can find so much compatibility between those decisions and ‘mistakes’ and basic neocon doctrine. However, one has to look beyond the smokescreen of Freedom and Democracy!

Most of the basic elements of the neocon doctrine have been clearly demonstrated during that first year of the Iraq campaign. In addition to the usual economic ‘reforms’ and general political attitude, an observer who is not handicapped by crippling bias will find the darker side of that doctrine operating in full force:

Creative Destruction: "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution”;

Total War: “Total war not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends”;

Violent Change: "Change -- above all violent change -- is the essence of human history";

Civilian Lives: "The sparing of civilian lives cannot be the total war's first priority ... The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people."

etc. etc. etc…

Naomi Klein has so expressively described this as: “Ground Zero - Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia.”

I still think that it is possible to explain the invasion itself and the first year of the occupation in terms of this theory.

***

This line of reasoning leads immediately to the conclusion that this route ultimately led to failure due to the very premises that the doctrine was based on. The major failure being that people (at least most Iraqis) failed to react as predicted by the neocon theory.

This view is supported by what seemed like a definite shift in US policy in May of last year, manifested by:

• Hurriedly discarding Bremer’s regime.
• Discarding the Iraq Governing Council and shifting to the Interim Government concept.
• Discarding the neocon’s man in Iraq Mr. Chalabi who was replaced by Mr. Allawi, the CIA and State Department man.
• Going to the UN and making a few concessions to obtain some international legitimacy through resolution 1546.

We definitely also know that the neocon economic recipe for ‘reform’ has been completely abandoned.

Was the neocon policy a total failure and was therefore discarded?

But this contention does not explain the fate of the major architects of that neocon plan. There was no indication whatsoever that President Bush was cross with those neocons responsible for those errors of judgment that led to criminal failures. Rumsfeld stayed on, Wolfowitz is moving to the better paid and more prestigious World Bank job, Bolton has been nominated to a similarly prestigious UN job in the face (perhaps in disregard or defiance) of World and some American outrage. Only Feith seems to be destined to move out quietly.

If their theory had failed in practice and led to so many adverse results, surely someone would have been blamed, if not publicly, then at least some of those advocates of the neocon approach would have been demoted, at least quietly at the end of that year. If political and election consideration had prevented that in June 2004, then surely that would have been possible after President Bush’s re-election. Nobody was reprimanded and nobody was even officially blamed!

Is it possible that the neocon theory is not seen as a failure yet and is still on course under a different skin? We know that, ‘democracy and elections’ notwithstanding, ‘creative destruction’ is still going at full speed in Iraq. The main difference is that a multitude of ‘Iraqi’ and imported forces are now taking part in the pillage.

Or were those policy-shift decisions only hurriedly drawn up plans to rectify the damage that was done by following the neocon recipe? Were the CIA and the State Department given more say to run the occupation of Iraq under more conventional recipes with the cooperation of the neocons who are still influential in the present US administration?

Regardless of the answers to these questions, may I remind you that the object of this essay is to seek possible motives for the invasion of Iraq.

In this respect, it seems that neocon doctrine and PNAC vision were not only possible, but highly likely motives for the invasion of Iraq. The neocons also had a free hand in the running of the occupation of Iraq during the first year.

1. Control of Iraqi Oil

2005-06-02T01:23:00.000+04:00

Possible Undeclared Motives for the Invasion of Iraq

It may be difficult to over-emphasize the strategic importance of oil in the present and near future world economy and balance of power.

Security of the world’s major sources of oil and the prevention of their domination or control by other powers had certainly been a central, a constant and an openly stated foreign US policy for over 50 years. There is every reason to believe that it still is.

As to the significance of the ‘oil component’ in the invasion of Iraq, much has been written about this subject, especially outside the USA. There certainly is a strong case for the USA to gain some control over the sources of finite and indispensable world oil. This is different from simply trying to steal Iraq’s oil money as some people have been suggesting. It is noteworthy that the word ‘steal’ is used more frequently by pro-administration war advocates in an obvious attempt to trivialize the issues involved.

Millions of people around the world seem to believe that oil is the prime reason for the invasion of Iraq. “No Blood for Oil” has been their motto.

This thesis is substantiated by the US army securing only the Iraqi Ministry of Oil immediately after the fall of Baghdad and leaving all other public departments and ministries to the mob and to looters.

It is also supported by many of the decrees and regulations of Ambassador Paul Bremer during the first year of the invasion.

On the other hand, it is not compatible with the policies that ‘encouraged’ and provided fuel to chaos and to the insurgency (unless of course we assume total, gross and criminal incompetence): disbanding the army and the police, leaving the borders open, alienating and antagonizing the Iraqi people, etc. The insurgency and the associated chaos are not conductive to restoring and running the oil business quietly and smoothly; not in the short term anyway.

It can therefore be concluded that this factor must have been present in the minds of strategic US planners (and there is every reason to believe that it was) mainly as a longer term objective. But the relative importance of this particular motive (i.e. whether it was a prime motive or a useful by-product) is unknown at this stage.

Hence, long term control of the Iraqi oil fields was one of the undeclared motives of the invasion of Iraq.

In that case, it would not be incompatible with ‘short term’ instability and lack of security.

Invasion of Iraq: Undeclared Motives - Introduction

2005-05-31T20:10:00.000+04:00

America in Iraq: why, where and where to (3)

I hope that we have by now established through the previous discussion that the present US administration invaded Iraq on flimsy evidence and had more or less an unconvincing case. The ‘declared motives’ were rather weak to say the least.

We are therefore left really in the dark. One has to find the most logical explanation in terms of events on the ground. These are murky waters. There is considerable danger of slipping into unsubstantiated, conspiracy-oriented explanations.

Numerous reasons for the true aims of the invasion of Iraq have been proposed. None has been, nor likely ever to be, publicly admitted! Some of these are evident (as will be seen from the discussion) but one cannot be certain which the most prominent reason is.

It is likely that the actual reasons are more than one; hence a number of forces within the US establishment could be seen to act in collaboration or in competition. For example there have been: Reports of conflict between the Pentagon and the State and CIA; Reports of conflict between the professional military people and the civilian (neocons) leadership of the Pentagon; Reports of conflict between the oil industry and the neocon approach; And there is of course always the ever present, yet almost invisible shadow of Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” as well as many other semi-phantom powers and special-interest entities.

All these should not confuse us. But they do seem to indicate that there was no overwhelming consensus within the US government establishment on the post-invasion plans. Some of these forces were not the ones initiating the policy. They probably fought over details or control of the implementation or to realize their own visions with the broadly defined objective.

***

Since we are operating in murky waters here, the logical approach would be to consider all possible options (which we may not know all of) and apply our known observation of what happened actually on the ground to those theses to find out which ones are likely to fit!

One problem is that there is a possibility of the existence of more than one objective and more than one force operating.

And there have been mistakes and errors which confuse the issue. In this case, it is always useful to go back to the beginning when mistakes and input from other parties have not yet confused the issues.

On top of that, there may have been not only tactical changes of US policy but possibly strategic changes due to discovered facts, changes on the ground and / or later discovered limitations to the original objectives. These may not be known in the short term due to the secrecy that usually shrouds the administration’s deliberations (especially those related to policy, foreign policy and particularly those related to national security).

This is truly a difficult task.

Past experience with the entities being considered may help… or it may be a hindrance! For examples, observers of US foreign policy usually form an opinion of their undeclared intentions from past experience. But we cannot do that if we want to convince an unbiased observer.

A possible criticism that may be expected is that it is not ethical to base an argument around speculation and guessing in the absence of concrete proof. Based on my previous arguments, particularly regarding the ‘evidence’ used to go to war I ask: is it acceptable to go to war on the basis of guessing and hints but not to attack war on the same bases?

The proposed tentative arguments have some quite strong points on their side that should encourage this pursuit: People are dead and dying everyday! Ordinary Iraqis whose country is being devastated and whose lives have been shattered, Americans who are losing sons and daughters everyday and the rest of the world, whose future is probably being shaped to some extent in Iraq today… all have a right to know. At least they have the right to inquire further!

There are also strong indications that the process of death and devastation will go on for a number of undetermined years. I cannot yet see any light indicating the end of this tunnel. Even the usual chorus of active rosy picture painters has been rather quiet lately.

In any case, we know that this route has led to disaster… or has it?! Some people may not even agree to this conclusion!

Basic assumption: No nation would go to war and risk the lives of its boys and girls and spend enormous amounts of money without (what are believed to be) good reasons.

Do we have to assume that those who decided to invade Iraq are rational? My personal position is: Yes!

In the following series of posts, I will address the main theories that have been put forward to explain the possible undeclared motives behind the invasion of Iraq:

1. Securing control over a major oil resource
2. Creating a country to neocon design and to “Project for the New American Century” requirements
3. Avenging 9/11
4. Creating a haven for foreign investment in a rich country
5. Eliminating Saddam’s long-term threat
6. Intentional Devastation of Iraq
7. Leading the world into conflict intentionally

Tale of Two Presidents

2005-05-29T14:07:00.000+04:00

Brothers under the Skin

[Another light note for your entertainment before we move on to the depressing subject of examining the undeclared motives of the Iraq war]

The president was elected under dubious procedures.
The other country was much smaller than his.
It had helped his country confront an earlier perceived ‘threat’.
He turned against it.
He invaded it under false pretexts.
He claimed he was freeing its people.
He bombed it and devastated it.
He encouraged looting its treasures and establishments.
He abolished the country’s police and army.
He caused the breakdown of law and order.
He encouraged chaos.
He caused the breakdown of all essential services.
He unleashed forces of darkness on that country.
Many people were killed at random.
Survivors lived in fear and misery.
He received words of gratitude from some of its people.
He instituted a government of cronies.
He tried to control it by force.
He failed.
He claimed victory.
…
Less than a year later, the Iraqi people rose up in arms against him.

The president was elected under dubious procedures.
The other country was much smaller than his.
It had helped his country confront an earlier perceived ‘threat’.
He turned against it.
He invaded it under false pretexts.
He claimed he was freeing its people.
He bombed it and devastated it.
He encouraged looting its treasures and establishments.
He abolished the country’s police and army.
He caused the breakdown of law and order.
He encouraged chaos.
He caused the breakdown of all essential services.
He unleashed forces of darkness on that country.
Many people were killed at random.
Survivors lived in fear and misery.
He received words of gratitude from some of its people.
He instituted a government of cronies.
He tried to control it by force.
He failed.
He claimed victory.
…
Less than two years later, the American people re-elected him with a higher majority.

Invasion of Iraq: Declared Motives

2005-05-22T08:09:00.000+04:00

America in Iraq – Why, Where and Where to? (2)

During the past two years, there has been much speculation regarding the US administration’s real motives in invading Iraq. In my previous post I categorized possible motives into ‘declared’ and ‘undeclared’ intentions. In this post, I will try and briefly address some of the more important ‘declared’ motives presented to the American and world public.

Original Declared Motives

The US administration’s official case for the invasion of Iraq rested on three main issues: Iraq’s weapon’s of mass destruction, links to international terror and the threat of Saddam’s regime.

What the US and British governments really thought of these claims has been recently revealed by an official document: Less than three weeks ago, on May 1st, The Times of London published a top-level British Government secret memo the authenticity of which is so far undisputed by the British government (and 89 Democratic members of the Congress took this memo seriously enough to write to President Bush asking for an explanation of the damning things it says).

The memo is available at www.downingstreetmemo.com is definitely worth reading in full. Also worth reading: article by Palast, an op-ed column by Krugman in the NY Times and an in-depth article by Juan Cole at Salon.

The memo summarizes a meeting attended by the British Prime Minister and senior cabinet ministers and security advisers eight months before the invasion of Iraq, following a visit by the British MI-6 intelligence chief to Washington. The memo states:

“… Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
…
“… It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action… But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

That was in July 2002, eight months before the war. This is the most damning evidence that has emerged from the British government itself so far.

With this background, it is truly bewildering how the official resolute conviction was presented to the American public. In March 2003, only a few days before the invasion, President Bush went so far as to say:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

These words portray so much confidence in that ‘intelligence’: “no doubt” (not even “little doubt”) … “some of the most lethal weapons ever devised”?? We now know most of that not-very-intelligent ‘intelligence’. We also know the facts.

The troubling question is: was the gentleman aware of all that effort to ‘fix the intelligence and the facts’? Was he himself misled or was he misleading people? Either way, the answer is not in his favor.

Present Declared Motives

Helping the Iraqi people, Freedom and Democracy definitely seem to be the current trumpeted objective of the Iraq war. We are repeatedly and persistently being told that this is the major objective of this campaign. The latest remarks I am aware of are Condoleezza Rice’s when she made a visit to Iraq last week:

"We are so grateful that there are Americans willing to sacrifice so the Middle East will be whole, and free and democratic and at peace".

Very noble! But was this what the Americans were told in the lead up to the war? The most reliable sources on official policy would be top figures of the administration: [I am grateful to Fast Pete of LSF for the link] So many people now pretend that it was all for Freedom and Democracy of the Iraqi people. However, senior administration policy makers are on record stating otherwise.

Take for example Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of Defense and the man who was in charge of post-invasion planning:

"Would anybody be thinking about using military power in Iraq in order to do a political experiment in Iraq in the hope that it would have positive political spillover effects throughout the region? The answer is no. That's not the kind of thing that leads a country like the United States to commit the kind of military forces that we're committing to this effort....There's no way. What we would be using military power for...would be the goals the President has talked about, particularly the elimination of the chemical and biological weapons, and preventing Iraq from getting nuclear weapons."

Or Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of Defense and one of the strongest advocates for the war on Iraq:

“There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people....The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk.”

Conclusions:

1. The questions of WMD, Terror links and the eminent threat of Saddam’s regime… were only excuses. Furthermore, they were known to be excuses by those who presented them to the people as legitimate and compelling reasons to go to war.

2. People were frequently puzzled how that flimsy evidence was ‘believed’ by those prestigious intelligence agencies. Now we know that it wasn’t! It was intentionally “fixed”.

3. The American public and the world were deliberately misled (on these issues at least).

4. Freedom and Democracy were not primary objectives worth risking American kids’ lives for… but welcome ‘by-products’.

The last point still has a little problem associated with it: Democracy is indeed a noble objective. However, it seems that to some people in the USA the word ‘democracy’ is confused with ‘friendly’ (which is not a bad thing in itself… but quite a different concept). But this is another thing for another day.

Why did America invade Iraq?

2005-05-15T01:11:00.000+04:00

America in Iraq – Why, Where and Where to? (1)

I never addressed the motives for the US invasion of Iraq during the first year of this blog. I only addressed the aftermath, the mistakes and the horrible consequences. In fact, I only started writing after Abu Ghraib and Fallujah I (of April, 2004) and after it was quite evident that the management of this adventure was leading to disaster. But now, for want of a plausible explanation of what happened and what is happening… I repeatedly think of those motives.

There seems to be so much confusion regarding the motives of this war in the minds of most people. Looking back, a wide variety of motives and arguments for justifying the Iraq war have been presented by both pro-war and anti-war camps over the past two years. The spread of ‘declared’ and ‘assumed’ motives is certainly interesting. There also seems to be some shift in the relative ‘importance’ of these motives over time. That shift sometimes indicates an honesty that leaves something to be desired. Let us look at the full spectrum.

There were of course the publicly declared and trumpeted motives:

1. Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction
2. Saddam’s regime was a threat to the USA and to world peace
3. Saddam’s regime had links with international terror groups
4. The war on Iraq was part of the war on international terrorism
5. Freeing the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime
6. Spreading Democracy in the Middle East.

And there were ‘other’ assumed or unspoken motives, usually contested by the opposing camp:

7. Securing control over a major oil resource
8. Creating a country to neocon design and to “Project for the New American Century” requirements
9. Avenging 9/11
10. Creating a haven for American investment in a rich country.

Ordinary people were, and many still are, confused regarding these issues. A major source of confusion is the desire by some people to pinpoint a single motive. One natural question is of course: are these objectives shared by the public, the administration and the special-interest groups within the USA? Has everybody been honest with the American public regarding these objectives? Has the American public, as a body, been honest with itself regarding these objectives?

After so much turmoil and loss of life, isn’t it time yet for some reassessment? Shouldn’t we all aim to be honest about an event that may have an enormous effect on international relations and on the world that we all live in, for a long time to come?

Perhaps one could start to address this question through some nagging and unanswered questions concerning the lead-up to the invasion:

1. Why was such an unconvincing case presented to the American public and to the world?

2. Why did so many Americans accept that unconvincing case so readily and enthusiastically?

3. Why would huge, professional intelligence establishments and powerful governments rely on questionable reports … to lead their countries to war? Reports based on things like: a student’s thesis written 10 years earlier, a vague report by Czech intelligence that a terrorist probably met someone who was probably with the Iraqi intelligence or German intelligence obtained from a drunkard of dubious credentials, code-named curveball, regarding Iraq’s WMD capabilities.

4. Why were the many challenges to those ‘intelligence’ assessments dismissed so lightly, and even attacked so vehemently?

5. Why did so many Americans believe that Iraq was linked to international terrorism… with so little evidence?

6. Why did so many Americans believe that they were avenging 9/11 by attacking Iraq?

7. Why were clear statements by Al Qaeda senior leadership that Saddam was an ‘infidel’ and a declared enemy so readily dismissed?

8. Why was a person like Colin Powell prepared to compromise himself in front of the whole world to present evidence that was ‘unconvincing’ to say the least?

9. Why didn’t America try hard enough to form an international coalition?

10. Why didn’t America care much about what the rest of the world thought about the invasion?

11. Why was there such frenzy in condemning the position of those countries that opposed the invasion, particularly old allies like France and Germany?

12. Why was there such an outrage about Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against his own people and against a neighboring country… more than 12 years after those events? Why was there no similar outrage at the time those atrocities were committed?

13. Why was there such an outrage about Saddam’s brutal oppression of the popular uprising in 1991 after 12 years… while the American, and other, armies were in the vicinity at the time and while those armies were already at war with Iraq? On the contrary, at that time Saddam was given explicit permission to use warplanes to quell that uprising?

14. Why was America in such a hurry… to the extent of jumping into war without proper planning? What was the eminent danger?

***

Other essays on this subject

Declared Motives

Possible Undeclared Motives:

1. Control of Iraqi Oil
2. Creating a Country to Neocon Design
3. Invading Iraq to Avenge 9/11
4. Creating a Haven for Investment
5. Eliminating Saddam’s Long-term Threat
6. Intentional Devastation of Iraq
7. Leading America into Perpetual War
8. Other Theories

All in one long article

Put My Son’s Name on a Bomb (2)

2005-05-03T11:26:00.000+04:00

Dialogue with Super-Patriotic America

This post is a study of some of the debating tactics of misguided (and misguiding) American super-patriots. It stems from the discussion of my previous post. Amid all the noise of a lively debate, the main points of the debate were lost to most. This post is an outline of that debate without the noise… to illustrate those tactics.

Background

Over the past year, I was frequently taken aback by the ferocity of the attacks (and, sometimes the abuse) directed at me when criticizing the policies of the present American administration in Iraq. I was fascinated by those people. I began calling them ‘American Saddamists’ because they cannot distinguish between country and government… or leader.

The Setup and the Case Study

It began when I became aware of the story of a retired policeman who wanted to put the name of his son, who was killed in 9/11, on a bomb going to Iraq.

After confirming the transaction and being convinced of the basic facts, I sent an angry letter to the father, Wilton Sekzer, and copied Gary Gorman, another NYPD retired officer who had forwarded Sekzer’s request to the army. My aim was to let Mr. Sekzer know the disastrous results of his action.

There were some discrepancies. So I published the original transaction, my letter and Mr. Gorman’s response and invited a discussion to find the truth.

The facts were all there. I gave a lead to the search. I wanted to see how people would react. I admit to being slightly “wicked”! But I hope that the ensuing reactions and discussion justified my action. I expected those American Saddamists to attack the story without verifying the facts first. From my limited experience with them, I knew that they blindly attack anything that smells of any criticism of their country, their administration… or even a fellow citizen. I know… because they have been pestering me for months. They did not fail me! The ability to predict is one of the most important criteria of testing a theory!

In the main post, I gave the following lead:

“I did a Google search of the term “put my son’s name on a bomb” and found several links. I followed a few of them to confirm the transaction which troubled me deeply. Please do your own search and follow the links for full details of the exchange of e-mail messages.”

That lead was ignored.

Judgment that the transaction was false or was an urban legend was hastily passed and I was the recipient of generous advice not to jump to hasty conclusions before checking the facts!

I had to give another, more specific lead. That produced similar results and more recrimination!

When, mainly through the efforts of one particular decent American, the story was confirmed to be authentic, there was still no admission of fault, no apology of any kind… but more attacks!!

Unbelievable? Well, it is the truth. The whole exchange is there in the comments section of the previous post. I have also placed a skeleton of the main threads in an appendix at the end of this post. It had the following characteristics:

1. Debate through “assuming and attacking” regardless of the facts: basically attacking the message (and sometimes the messenger) without any evidence… assuming that they can argue their way out of any situation by adapting the appropriate (moral, condescending, superior or patronizing) attitude.

2. Refutation by association: discrediting a story by mentioning other ‘false’ stories put out by the enemy camp.

3. Oblique sense of justice: basically “We are humane, just and compassionate – but that only applies to our own… and to hell with everybody else”. In this case I was fascinated by the blame that was poured on me for sending such a harsh letter to Mr. Sekzer to avenge my friend in response to his sending me a bomb to avenge his son!

4. Never admitting defeat: This is so reminiscent of Saddam. There is no dignity in defeat. Therefore, always claim victory even when you lose miserably. Never admit to defeat.

I have expanded these points in the Appendix for those interested in some detail.

Conclusions:

• If you state anything that super-patriots regard as an attack or even a criticism, they will take an attacking position and strike back, regardless of the facts. If you criticize their lot, you have to be wrong.

• It is an extremely difficult task to convince some American Saddamists of something even if you have irrefutable proof.

• It is unlikely that much of the body of American Saddamists will change their mind even in the face of emerging proofs and unavoidable evidence.

What is this? Tribalism? I happen to be quite familiar with tribalism. This is far worse.

This is so sad! I am increasingly getting the impression that such people do exist in large numbers in the States. What is bad is that they are more vocal than ordinary people. What is worse is that they seem to be quite influential in supporting the course where America is heading, particularly regarding foreign policy. (Whether it is heading where they want or whether they simply applaud where it is heading is an interesting question.)

But of course it is frequently said that these people do not represent America. True!

They only represent the self-centered, self-righteous America that most of the world can see and mistrust. They represent the ugly, incompetent and manipulative America that most Iraqis can see and hate. They represent the America that has devastated my country and killed and maimed many thousands of my people as well as a few thousands of its own… and feels justified in doing so.

A good minority of decent America can see what is happening but there is not much that they can do about it. The rest of America, watches Fox News and waits for developments!

_______________________________________________________________

Appendix:

1. Main Comment Thread:

Some people found it difficult to see the main arguments in that debate through all the noise! Some people intentionally did not want to see either the trees or the forest!

Here is a condensed version of the main thread within that debate. I have corrected linguistic errors and broken down long paragraphs to make the arguments clearer. If you feel that I may have taken the quotes out of context, you can read the original complete transaction in the comment section of the previous post.

All you need is some sense of humor to appreciate the ‘subtleties’ of this ‘debate’.

Brian H: Apparently you were the enthusiastic victim of an urban legend. You believed because you wanted to believe.
Anon: Don't follow the "urban legend" thought. If Gorman's reply is genuine, the basic facts of the story are confirmed…

Abu Khaleel: I probably believed because many other similar bombs killed many innocent people.

Brian H: … To start with, the bomb fell in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Which is, you may recall, where the Taliban and Al Quaeda were in charge? So the Iraqi's outrage is totally out to lunch, because he believed a "legendized" version of the story which transplanted the bomb to Iraq. Got it yet?

[Brian H disappeared without further notice after this authoritative interjection.]

Lynn in the US: Urban legends go both ways here's another:

[… quite a long post relating some silly, unbelievable story, to put it on the same footing as the case in hand]

Lynn in the US: Abu Khaleel, I did a Google search on this as well. Google came up with 5 different links all originating from the same site http://www.albasrah.net/ ...
Hardly an unbiased news agency.

Don't be so quick to believe everything that you read.

Abu Khaleel: … I gave you a lead for an investigation. You saw albasrah.net and made important conclusions. BTW my Google gives not 5 but 59 links….

Here is another lead: the BBC documentary “Why we fight” interviewed the retired police officer. Please let me know if you need some more help.

Lynn in the US: Abu Khaleel, … you believe and get upset by something that that website, albasrah.net put out for that very purpose.

I'm not saying that a version of it was not true but it was put out by that website intentionally to get your rage up just as that other thing that I had posted was put out in order to incite hatred for Arabs living in this country.

[still obsessed with that wretched website..]

Of course Google came up with more than just five hits. But the majority of them were only related because they contained the words son or bomb or name…

[Obviously Lynn did not Google the “phrase” (“put my son’s name on a bomb”) but the string (put my son’s name on a bomb) in which case Google gives about 100, 000 results… yet Lynn manages to look through them and finds only 5 links all pointing to albasrah.net… Still making conclusions based upon that fact and offering free advice. She still does not bother with the BBC lead I gave.]

[After some verification of the main point is established by other contributors, most notably Bob Griffin…]

Abu Khaleel: So far, I hope that the existence of the main characters, as well as ‘some’ original request letter, have all been established. I hope that we can discard the ‘urban legend’ scenario.

Lynn in the US: I'm sorry Abu Khaleel but it WAS an urban legend. Wasn't it? Urban legends do not have to be totally false in order to be urban legends.

[Almost an irrational insistence on the ‘urban legend’ scenario in the face of damning proof]

It was proven to you that that bomb was not being sent to Iraq but to Afghanistan and Osama.

[ “proven”!!!! I have no idea what constitutes “proof” in pro-war America these days… but something sounds extremely wrong here!]

and then when your friend e-mailed you this "urban legend" version of a factual story you believed it and "Almost immediately I wrote an (extremely) angry message" to this grieving father. Had you been a bit more skeptical about things you might not have worded your letter in such a manner.

[Forgetting that in the original post, a few paragraphs above I clearly stated that I had verified the transaction.]

… You do realize that that kind of temper, judging too quickly and becoming immediately angry, is detrimental to civilized society?

[Based on these profound conclusions… another free lecture about civilized society. I must say I loved this one.]

Bob Griffin: Lynn, It appears based on the various references I found that it wasn't an urban legend, and at the time we were about to go into Iraq and were no longer focusing on Afghanistan.

Have you checked the references I posted? You might take the time to do a Google search on Officer Wilton Seckzer, the man whose idea is being discussed… From one item… http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/04/10/sprj.irq.ny.rally/

NY rallies at Ground Zero for troops…

'Construction worker William Sekzer's son, Jason, died September 11. He attended the rally because he believes the terrorist attack is connected to the war on Iraq.

"What do you want as proof?" Sekzer asked. "Do you want Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Osama bin Laden?"

So Lynn, given the attitude shown by Officer Sekzer in April, 2003, it seems quite likely that Officer Sekzer was happy with the idea of targeting Iraq…

Abu Khaleel: Lynn, In addition to Bob’s links, may I suggest that you follow the link I have already given you. The procedure is quite simple: On Google search [ bbc “why we fight” iraq ] The FIRST item on the list will be:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/fight-contribs.shtml

WHY WE FIGHT: CONTRIBUTORS
KEY PARTICIPANTS
Wilton Sekzer, Retired officer, NYPD

Wilton's son died on 9/11. After George Bush explained that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks, Wilton emailed all branches of the armed forces to ask if his son's name could be written on a bomb to be dropped on Iraq.

May I respectfully ask you again not to be too hasty.

Charles: Why doesn't someone just watch the documentary?

Abu Khaleel: Charles, Thank you for finally getting there! I hope that we have just shown that Mr. Zesker actually asked for the bomb to be dropped on IRAQ. The man is on tape!

Lynn in the US: Abu Khaleel, You ask me not to be too hasty yet that is exactly what I am saying to you.

[No apology, no retraction; just more attacks]

Had YOU researched this story I don't think that you would have sent off that e-mail to the man. My being too hasty did not cause any pain to anyone. Other's hastiness leads to WARS.

[!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]

The link that you gave me for the BBC documentary did not give enough detail about the documentary… I haven't seen this BBC documentary so I will not pass judgment on it. However, just because something is labeled a "documentary" does not automatically make it an unbiased piece of journalism.

[Conveniently forgetting that the issue was not the bias of the documentary but the fact that the gentleman in question was on record saying these things. Is this simple, confused thinking or a sinister nature?]

[… And finally… ]

I am a very skeptical person. I try not to pass judgment until I have clear and absolute evidence and that isn't always an easy thing to find especially on the internet with the number of sites that are so totally one sided.

I do research before I come to conclusions but some things are really not worthy of the time spent researching because it just doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things.

Charles: … touché to Lynn – eh? Abu?

Touché indeed! I am speechless!

2. Refutation by Association

This tactic is basically attempting to discredit a story by mentioning other false stories… and not considering the possibility that the story may be verifiable.

Since I did not give references, these people thought none existed and they were therefore safe. This is hilarious!

Brian H: Apparently you were the enthusiastic victim of an urban legend. You believed because you wanted to believe.

Lynn in the US: Urban legends go both ways here's another: …

Charles: Some of you may recall that snapshot of a US soldier laughing with an Iraqi boy and holding a cardboard sign saying something like: "I bombed your dad, I raped your sister, and look how happy I am..." … Anyway, the pic was a sham. I never did see the original, but he sure didn't write what a clever left wing photoshop editor propagandist wanted us to think he wrote.

Lynn in the US: I'm not saying that a version of it was not true but it was put out by that website intentionally to get your rage up just as that other thing that I had posted … So who do you think it was that put the Iraqi spin on the letter?

[Now that we are certain that there was a spin on the letter. The next questions is whodunit!]

Charles: The only reason I brought it up is because there was a very similar story with picture circulated right after the war showing a grinning GI bragging about murder and rape. That WAS a fake but I know it caused tens/hundreds of thousands of people across the internet to curse those dirty yanks. The image fit right into what they wanted to believe and no one questioned it. Many probably still have the image seared into their minds. Propaganda works.

Mentioning other ‘sham’ stories is regarded as constituting a valid argument against a claimed incident!

3. Patriotic Sense of Justice
Those people were blaming me for sending a harsh “letter” to Mr. Sekzer to avenge my friend in response to his sending me a “bomb” to avenge his son! Such a sharp sense of justice!

Charles: My point was that Gorman forwarded the request from a very upset father whose son had been deliberately murdered by terrorists. It had nothing to do with patriotism. The request is not so surprising. This man was just lashing out irrationally. That often happens when your son gets murdered.

[Do Iraqi fathers have that right too? Would they receive the same understanding if they send bombs to America… given that they would not be misguided about who killed their sons?]

Lynn in the US: That bomb was going where it was going whether that man had asked for his son's name to go on it or not. The name being on it was only symbolic and as the man told you it was aimed at Osama not innocent Iraqis.

Lynn in the US: I wonder what would have happened to that father had he been visiting Iraq when that e-mail was being sent around?

[No concern or even a word about the countless civilians who were killed by the thousands of similar bombs. What if the poor gentleman visited Iraq and people knew what he had done!!]

Lynn in the US: Abu Khaleel, Further research would have shown you that the man has a completely different view now and is upset that he was misled. Therefore, it would have been completely unnecessary for you to send him a scathing letter.

[If one day OBL has a change of heart and shows remorse, it seems that he may have some sympathizers in America]

Mr. Wilton Sekzer

At the end of all this, I have to give credit to the hero of this story, Mr. Wilton Sekzer, who seemed to regret having asked for his son's name to be on a bomb.

Unfortunately, he was one of the ones who fell for the Iraq War = Al Qaeda-fight reasoning.. but when they interviewed him, at the end of the documentary he seemed pretty irate with Bush for lying about the war. He was disillusioned and felt that the government "exploited my feelings of patriotism for the death of my son."

I must add that I do not regret sending the poor fellow that rather harsh letter. Having one’s innocent son killed does not give one the right to kill other people’s innocent sons… on misguided suspicions.

His regret did not bring those sons who were killed by similar bombs back to their grieving fathers. I want him to fully realize the results of that action. I want him to be even angrier at the people who misled him.

Would it have been possible for your administration to drop more than 3000 bombs in a single day on a city of more than million people and get away with it were it not for a supportive American “misinformed” public like poor Mr. Sekzer?

Would it have been possible to drop 2, 000 lb. bombs on a congested urban areas in Fallujah and elsewhere (more than a year after the end of “major operations”) to target “suspected” terrorists when it was certain that the place was full of innocent civilians (including women and children), without such public apathy?

I am gratified that Mr. Sekzer has regretted that request. I am delighted that Mr. Gorman seems to be a decent man. I want them to read my letter again and again to know the result of that action. Perhaps they will be angry at whoever misled them to believe that bombing people in Iraq was a good revenge for 9/11… angry enough to do something about it.

Put My Son’s Name on a Bomb

2005-04-26T00:59:00.000+04:00

Where is the Truth?

[I am taking a break from my usual ravings about politics and religion and terror to relate some sequence that involves people who are directly affected by personal losses that came as a result of the present bloody conflict. It is these losses that are felt by people on both sides that so many politicians, war mongers, terrorists and bloody minded fools pay so little attention to. The post is unusually long put I make no apologies for that this time.]

Regular readers may recall that some time ago, I was deeply disturbed by poll statistics depicting how many Americans believed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Less than a fortnight ago, a friend forwarded to me an ugly story about a retired policeman who wanted to put the name of his son who was killed in 9/11 on a bomb going to Iraq.

I did a Google search of the term “put my son’s name on a bomb” and found several links. I followed a few of them to confirm the transaction which troubled me deeply. Please do your own search and follow the links for full details of the exchange of e-mail messages. Here is a summary:

***

A NY retired police officer started the “Simple Request”:

From: ***@aol.com [mailto:***@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:32 PM To: pao@centcom.mil Subject: Simple Request

Dear Public Affairs Officer:

If possible can this be relayed to a Navy, Air Force or Army or Marine unit in the Gulf Region. A simple request from a Vietnam Veteran and Retired New York City Police Department Sergeant who lost his son on 911 at the WTC. Simply to have his son's name put on one of the munitions (bomb, missile, artillery shell) that will be used on the war on terrorism including Iraq. His son's name was Jason Sekzer, the father is Wilton A. Sekzer and can be reached at ***@aol.com.

Thank you.

Gary Gorman Retired Police Officer NYPD ESS#1 Brooklyn, NY 11214

A long series of emails between various officers follows which ended with a short
“Can do” message from a Major Boehm on March 19 – only 5 days after the original request. Quite efficient I must say. The war hadn’t started yet.

And finally, 10 days into the war, “Mission Accomplished” message from Major Boehm:

From: Boehm Maj Joseph R [mailto:BoehmJR@taoc.3mawdm.usmc.mil] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:50 AM To: DiDomenico SSgt John C; Johnson Maj Thomas V Cc: ProudPD@aol.com; NYPD24423@aol.com Subject: RE: Simple Request
TV, SSGT,

Attached from yesterday. Hope this is satisfactory. Sorry for the delay but business is booming. The weapons don't stay still long enough to write on them. For the record: The weapon this tribute was written on is a 2000 pound, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS guided bomb. It's big, it's ugly and it's always lethal, just like we love them. It was dropped on the night of 1 April 03 against targets located east of Baghdad. The targets were associated with the Al Nida division of the Republican Guard. A United States Marine Corps F/A-18D based in Kuwait flew the mission. The mission and the weapon were 100% successful. Let me know if there is any more I can do. It's my honor and pleasure. Regards.

Semper Fi Major Joe Boehm

Attached to the message were three photographs of the bomb with the dedication “In Loving Memory of Justin Sekzer” being loaded on the plane.

***

I felt so angry!

Almost immediately I wrote an (extremely) angry message on April 12th to Mr. Sekzer and to Mr. Garman who had initiated the original request.

***

I am writing this message from Baghdad (the receiving end) to late Jason’s father to let him know what he has done.

Mr. Wilton A. Sekzer,

Over the past two years I have had to suffer many losses. I am writing this letter to you “in loving memory of my life-long friend Ghassan” who never hurt anybody in his life and who was killed for no reason other than that there are many people like you in this world.

All that blood shed in Afghanistan in 2001 was not enough to avenge your son. You had to put his name on a bomb going to Iraq in 2003 to kill more innocent people… in his name!

I hope you that your revenge was sweet. That bomb did not bring your son back. It turned you into a murderer yourself. You put your son’s name on a 2000 lb. weapon that must have killed quite a number of innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with your son’s death.

You have taken part in killing innocent people who had nothing to do with your son’s death or with 9/11. Many happened to be Arabs. Many happened to be Muslim. That’s it! It may help you sleep better at night to know that some of those people were not Muslim and some were not Arab.

Blind Revenge! No wonder the US army was so fond of repeating that on the second day of the war more than 3000 bombs were dropped on Baghdad.

There were many other bombs like that during that war and many more during the two years that followed which killed many more innocent people. There were other atrocities during those two years. Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Najaf, Tel Afar, Ramadi, Mosul…thousands of innocent bystanders gunned down for no reason.

Your people haven’t even yet bothered to count how many. All we have are “estimates” ranging from 20,000 (estimated through media reports in a country where reporters cannot venture outside protected fortresses!!) to 100,000 (estimated by Lancet, a professional medical body which many people in the States would like to see discredited – I don’t know why!) That is not to mention the countless others killed or kidnapped by terrorists and criminals let loose by the other administrative revenge implemented by your administration.

Wouldn’t you like to know how many of those terrorists were killed to avenge your son? Your rationale may be to kill as many people as you can so that perhaps you will kill enough terrorists. You have also devastated a country and made many millions of people suffer for two years.

Well, like all mad murderers you failed. You killed many, many innocent people and managed to create many terrorists bent on blind revenge.

Those innocent people have fathers too.
They have sons and daughters and mothers.
They have brothers and sisters and cousins.
They have friends and townsmen and tribes.

People down here are much more closely connected.
You try and visualize the numbers.
Some of them will have dreams of revenge too.
Some of them will be blinded by that revenge too.
Some will do anything they can to send death to NY city to avenge their loved ones too.

These feelings of anger and injustice have rippled to 300 million people who see themselves as Arabs. They are felt by a further 1000 million people who see themselves as Muslims who now believe that they are targeted simply for being what they are… because of people like you!

Do you have any idea how many vindictive fanatics there are in 1300 million people?

No War on Terror, no technology, no puppet regimes, no freedom and democracy pretences and no claims of being decent will convince them or protect you from them. And you don’t know where they will hit or when… in a year, in 10 years’ time… or a 100 years’ time. But I sadly assure you that they will. People like that unfortunately do exist… just like you.

The problem is that those people in seeking revenge will not kill you but will kill other innocent people.

And people like you will start wailing: “Why do these people hate us?…. What have we done to them?… they are not human!...”.

Please remember that in this in this new series of terrorism you are the original terrorist and “Original Sinner”.

Sir, you have disgraced the memory of your own son and have assisted in the future murder of other innocent people like him.

I feel sorrow that innocent Jason lost his life. But I also feel sorry for him that he had such a primitive, vindictive father who, as a retired police officer, is supposed to represent the law of civilization… not the law of the jungle.

Sincerely,
Abu Khaleel

***

Several days later I received a reply from Mr. Garman who had initiated the original request. Following a request, he kindly gave me his permission to publish it.

Dear Mr. Khaleel,
I believe you were misinformed regarding this request. I was the original person requesting Jason's name be pout on munitions that were to be dropped in Afghanistan on terrorists operating in that country. The request was made in early 2002. No mention was ever made of Iraq.

I am only a retired NYPD Police Officer but I think I speak for most Americas in that we do not hold the Iraq people rerp[somsibe for Sept 11th. We hope that American forces will be able to soon come home and a free Iraq will florish in the reagion.

Sincerely,

Gary Gorman

***

By any standard, and whatever a person’s position regarding this war is, this is a sad story of sorrow and anger between people who lost loved ones in this violent episode.

The transaction is all there. I seek the help of those who took part in the sequence of events to shed some light on the truth.

Houses of Glass

2005-04-16T23:23:00.000+04:00

"If your house is made of glass, do not throw stones at people."

This old Iraqi saying is so apt in this discussion: So many of our ‘belief houses’ are made of glass!

All of our value structures are imperfect and incomplete. All, of our ideals leave a lot to be desired when it comes to application to reality and to complex human nature or social development: Religions, Communism, Liberalism, Atheism… you name it! We all (without exception) hold contradictory beliefs.

… Yet most of us choose to close our eyes to our own contradictions and imperfections and prefer to attack other beliefs… yelling that our beliefs are undoubtedly superior.

So, if all our houses are made of glass, why are we all throwing stones at other houses and other people?

The simple reason is that most of us believe that our own houses are not made of glass… but all the others are!

Sometimes we think we can throw stones to larger distances than they can. Sometimes we think that making all other houses look like our own is worth the risk. Sometimes we just want to own and dominate the other houses for economic or ego advantage. Sometimes we do it out of fear of the unfamiliar.

And because we usually turn our backs to our own houses in our attempt to defend them, we cannot see the dirty corners or the incomplete constructions in them. Facing those other houses, we can see all their ‘dirty linen’, all their un-swept corners, all their non-fitting joints and, above all, the ugly residents.

I am not talking about rational discourse!

So many of us are “flatlanders” - people who can only see in two dimensions. How can a flatlander see the other side of the coin? Few flatlanders even realize that they live on one side of a coin. And there are so many coins!

Very few people can see the other houses objectively, though many pretend.
Fewer people can see the beautiful things in other glass houses.

***

A notable exception that we all can learn from is modern 'natural science'. There was a time when 'scientific' laws were sacred. Modern physics has also gone through the pains of transformation but has finally accepted the fallibility of its own laws… that are now seen as only approximations to the truth… and has already begun to crawl carefully and incrementally towards better approximations. Mathematics has already moved even further ahead and has complete sets of ‘alternative axioms’ and whole systems of thought built upon these. Some of these look exceptionally odd… such as systems in which the sum of a triangle’s angles need not be 180 degrees!

Yet nobody is fighting wars or killing other people over these differences!

***

The above remarks are not meant as attacks on all those beliefs and different value systems. On the contrary! They are all part of the great, stumbling human experiment and mankind’s march towards perfection (or towards knowing God, if you like).

All these systems are towing forces pushing and pulling the wagon of human development in different directions that they think will lead to the right course. The human development is the result of all that pushing and pulling. But within each force, protectiveness and prejudice blind us to the merits of the ‘other side’.

People talk of compromise all the time and how important it is. Yet, how many of us are prepared to have a peek at other value systems and compromise our own beliefs? Yet, how can we be aware of other visions and other means of looking at life without talking to people from other ‘worlds’? It doesn’t help to label them as ‘enemies’ and call it a day.

Would it help to look at all those various ‘alternative systems’ of belief and see that they all had their adherents who believed their systems were better to the extent of going to war and risking their lives to ‘spread the word’? This is true for most of the alternatives now held dearly by large segments of mankind: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Communism, Socialism, the Mighty Dollar… and of course Freedom and Democracy.

Has any one of these systems of thought led to Utopia? Some of them have been trying for thousands of years! The best system will probably be the end result or the resultant sum of all those results? We are not there yet.

To bring the issue closer home, consider Communism for example. It was for half a century the leading global enemy of the USA and many other countries. But how many people are aware of its influence on our present perception and on our view of economic injustices present in most societies? [Neo-Reds, Please don’t jump to that keyboard yet! I am not a communist!]

But this painful and blood-soaked process that has taken thousands of years has created a very large ‘grey’ area of common human heritage which billions of mankind share. It includes the large human bank of knowledge, an almost universal sense of right and wrong, a sense of justice and even some shared sense of beauty manifested most visibly in art and architecture.

It is truly a vast, common area.
Yet, so many cannot see it!
They have to win; their system is the best!

That grey, common area is sufficient to accommodate most of mankind. In fact I believe that’s where most of them want to be. They like their glass houses there. Most think that their glass houses are the best and they like to grumble about the ugliness of the others. What’s wrong with that? (In this last remark I am asking for trouble!)

Let humanity’s scouts, free-spirits and independent thinkers venture out of the grey area into the fascinating world of colors and uncharted territories. But let them not invite everybody there until the color of the new territories becomes grey!

…

A poet with the name of Abul Ataheya who lived in Baghdad more than a thousand years ago, said:

As Times polish me, they show me more of my ignorance…
…And the more I know, the more I grasp the defects of my mind.

Christianity and Islam (4)

2005-04-11T20:11:00.000+04:00

If it is not religion, what is it?

The Pseudo-Religious

In this essay of the comparison series, I will talk about two real people. I usually have an aversion to generalizing from specific incidents or anecdotes. However, I have chosen to illustrate my point this time by mentioning two cases that I think do reflect truly worrying currents… of increasing significance!

Islam Has Problems: Character A

I have met and discussed some issues with a quite a number of Muslim fundamentalist hardliners but I have not met any one of those (mostly imported) murdering fanatics. A friend of mine has.

He put a hypothetical question to that person and asked him if he came across an American soldier close to five children; would he shoot if there was a danger of killing any of those children? The man replied in the affirmative without much hesitation. His reasoning was that the American soldier, being an invader, would naturally go to hell and the children, being innocent, would go to heaven!

This person claims to believe in a religion that categorically dictates:

"… whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind… “(5: 32).

Ah… manslaughter or corruption in the earth! Excellent excuses for killing those innocent children!

Christianity Has Problems too: Character B

It is only during the past two years that I was aware of the extent of the existence of strong fundamental religious currents in America. Before this awareness, I always made the assumption that the New-American-Century US empire builders were driven by cold calculations of control, global domination, power-mongering and economics; things that generally have little to do with God or religion.

Now, it seems that these people do have a power base of Christian fundamentalism that sounds very much like that of the Dark Ages. Full of dogma and hate and dreams of conquering and 'annihilating' infidel enemies!!! A thing from the past? Here is a quote from a comment that I received from a one time regular contributor on my blog sometime ago. The person who wrote these words does not live in the dark ages. He is a Christian who lives in present day America.

“Is "Christian fundamentalist" bad? The fundamentals of the teachings of Jesus Christ are the most peaceful that anybody has ever tought …

Anybody who thinks that 'taking the enemy on' is a losing cause (because we create more enemies) is sadly mistaken. These people want us dead because we give women rights, watch TV and don't pray to Allah 5 times a day. If we don't fight they'll attack us, therefore we're only left with one choice – anihilate them.

We WILL destroy them, we must - choose your side and fight by it, otherwise get out of our way. This collective pacifism will only get more of US killed. Maybe you don't understand the nature of this war, do you understand just how much MERCY we ARE showing? Would you like us to show NO mercy? Then you'd truly understand what might is - we HAVEN'T used it yet... ”

Those words don't strike me as being compatible with the teachings of the Jesus Christ that I know! I don’t think I need any quotes to prove this point!

Ah…self defense (and later, Freedom and Democracy)! Excellent excuses for killing countless innocent people! And… we are showing magnanimous mercy.

The question that bothers me is: what percentage in present-day America does this view represent? An honest answer can be truly terrifying.

Looking more closely at those two characters

Looking at character A’s stance, several aspects are noteworthy:

• This person sees himself as a Muslim.
• Many others (of various convictions) see him as a Muslim.
• He believes that he is doing something good… religiously.
• His violence is evidently out of anger.
• He believes that he is acting in self-defense.

Looking at character B’s argument, one can draw similar conclusions:

• This person sees himself as a Christian.
• Many others (of various convictions) see him as a Christian.
• He believes that he is doing something good… religiously.
• His violence is evidently out of fear.
• He believes that he is acting in self-defense.

Christianity and Islam of the Pseudo-Religious

Islam is often seen as a more ‘martial’ religion. It certainly requires its followers to fight for their faith. This has given its adversaries a lot of ‘ammunition’ for attack and much material for ‘misinformation’. One needs to examine Islam more closely and away of any propaganda to fully understand its ‘militarism’ aspects. This is not any easy task, and I have no inclination to tackle it here!

But for the purpose of this argument, let us assume that Islam as a religion gives rise to, or allows, a violent culture such as that of A.

But what about B? Christianity, as almost everybody accepts, is a religion of love (to the point of loving the enemy), forgiveness and turning the other cheek. So how come B is so criminally violent? What excuse does B have? What does it say about people coming from a loving culture who are so violent?

Some people may argue that A is a true Muslim and B is not a true Christian!! Fair enough. But that would require us also to explain (away) all those similarly violent Christians as well as all those others who existed 50, 200, 500, 1000 years ago… doesn’t it? This may prove to be a daunting task.

It is almost amusing that people who charge Islam with breeding violence (as opposed to Christianity) themselves are the loudest advocates of violent solutions. They see nothing wrong with that. They are good. Their violence is also good and is necessary for the noble causes… unlike the other side.

It is a Global Problem

Now these ‘Christian’ fundamentalist fanatics (like B) are even more dangerous than those ‘Moslem’ fundamentalist fanatics (like A). The latter are hunted almost everywhere and have to work clandestinely. The former, on the other hand, aim for, and probably have, the helm of the most powerful nation in the world.

What is worse is that these people can get the support of decent Americans in the name of fighting terrorism, patriotism and defending innocent Americans. Similarly, Al Qaeda is enjoying the sympathy of a large number of people who see it as a force fighting for faith and opposing the onslaught of enemies. For supporters on either side atrocities are almost dismissed as ‘mistakes’ or necessary and justifiable in the greater fight.

People of this kind are having increasingly louder voices in these times… and an increasing number of followers. The question is: do you discard them completely (whether they are Muslim or Christian), look at them as lunatics and fanatics… or try to find out the reasons for their burning fires?

Each type is apparently causing the other type to ‘breed’ more. These people (A and B) are poised to shape the world we are going to live in. I frankly don’t like the prospect.

Both of these types of people are already operating almost freely in my country at the moment. They have both caused more death and suffering than most people can imagine.

Christianity and Islam (3)

2005-04-07T12:48:00.000+04:00

Knowledge, Democracy and Women

Comparisons between Christianity and Islam often overlook important contextual frameworks.

Many people in modern 'Christian' societies look down on Islam and generally associate it with backwardness and ignorance because most 'Muslim' countries and societies that they see around them exhibit these characteristics. Memories of the excesses of the Ottomans in southern Europe are not too distant in the past. Terrorist groups are at present predominantly Muslim.

Many bigotry Muslims on the other hand associate Christianity with what they see as unacceptable promiscuity or lax social standards or weak family ties. They associate Christianity with the times when these two cultures clashed during the crusades or in Andalusia, Spain. Christians are associated with savagery, mistreatment of prisoners of war and even lack of personal hygiene. Mention is frequently made of the savage act of the Spanish Christians in demolishing all those public baths in Cordoba and elsewhere!! 'Terrorist countries' are at present predominantly 'Christian'.

[President Bush, who is not particularly known for choosing his words carefully, caused deep waves of anxiety in the Muslim world by thoughtlessly using the word "crusade" prior to the present war. Images of Christians attacking the Muslim world put Mr. Bush's campaign on the wrong foot before it even started! Much capital was made of it in Arab and Muslim media. To talk about the power of the word!!]

Both sides are largely wrong!

Also, there has been so much “misinformation” regarding all the “us-versus-them” comparisons between Islam and Christianity, one doesn’t know where to begin! I will only address three of the central subjects that have direct bearing on the question of secularism and an immediate effect on daily living. I will put more emphasis on Islam for the simple reason that most readers are less familiar with it.

Knowledge

Before I even begin discussing the topic, I would like to draw the attention of people who cannot accept any compatibility between religious belief and independent thought to the following aspect that I always keep in mind myself: Even in relatively recent history and particularly in the field of natural sciences, it is noteworthy that some of the most outstanding intellectuals and independent thinkers like Pascal, Newton (and Einstein, who was Jewish) were deeply religious. Not only simple minds seek the comfort of religious belief.

During Christianity’s years of dominance, in addition to the run-of-the-mill dogmatic, thought stifling clerics, you can find so many scholars who were deeply religious. Many were themselves devoted; some were even monks. The Jesuits are an example of a sect based in a large part on the pursuit of knowledge.

If you examine the history of Islam, you will find many similarities!

The first word conveyed to Mohammed was “read”. Numerous references to knowledge and seeking it are encountered in the Koran. Prophet Mohammed is reported to have said, “Seek knowledge even if it were in China”. China was probably seen as the farthest possible place for it. Prisoners of war were released if they could teach 10 children to read and write. Numerous examples!

Yet, you find people who believe that religion itself yields the ultimate truth and that no further pursuit of knowledge outside the ‘defined’ sphere is necessary or even healthy! A tragic example was the burning of the Library of Alexandria which was a sad loss of unimaginable proportions. [It is truly doubly sad and ironic that that horrendous act was sanctioned by the same man (Omar, the second Caliph) who said, 1400 years ago: "How can you enslave people when they are born free by their mothers" ]

And yet, as soon as Islamic Caliphate was established as a rich and powerful country, the pursuit of knowledge was followed in earnest within less than a century. Many of the Islamic scholars of the 8th- 12th centuries played an important role in world scientific thought and practice ranging from mathematics to medicine, chemistry and philosophy. They played an important part in preserving Greek thought and knowledge and transmitting it to the newly-aware Christian West.

It seems in conclusion that although religious domination may attempt to censor or limit scientific inquiry, the inquisitive nature of mankind ultimately prevails. It had definitely done so under the dominance of both religions.

Democracy

The Koran states:

“… And those who answer the call of their Lord and establish worship, and whose affairs are a matter of counsel…” (42:38)

The concept is called “Shura”. To me, this spells only one thing: Democracy. But the clergy interpret this that it can only be “consultation between the more knowledgeable of the faithful”.

Very much like the Christian clergy.

The word of God has to be above the will of the majority. It is part of the faith… in both faiths. Naturally, only those who have some in-depth knowledge of the word of God can take part in those consultations.

What I say is: Let the people consult with their clergy if they wish but let the flock of the faithful decide for themselves. If they make a religiously unwise choice, then let the wrath of God fall upon them! Is that fair?

Incidentally, this concept of shura has for so long been repeatedly distorted by power mongers. Even today, most Arab states now have what they call “Shura Councils” of appointed puppet members, which allow rulers to govern as they please while claiming to abide by the words of God!

Women and Equal Rights

A lot has been written on this subject. There is much confusion between culture and religion. I will only refer to the very basics:

Islam: "Men have authority over women...” (Women, 34)

Christianity: "... wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything…” (Ephesians 5:24)

Both guilty as charged!

***

I honestly cannot see much merit in this “comparison” game. It has been going for more than a thousand years, and can go on for another (and probably will). Faith is something these comparisons cannot address.

If you accept the doctrine of Christianity or Islam as a faith, you have to take it as it is (or as it is interpreted by the various sects) and reconcile yourself to live with that. You can try you best to “spread the word”. I personally can live with that… as long as the arguments do not extend into the realm of swords, bullets, bombs and cruise missiles!

People using swords, bullets, bombs and cruise missiles are the ailment, not the arguments.

When religions are used as tools for injustice and to inflict suffering… that is a worse ailment.

Christianity and Islam (2)

2005-04-02T19:14:00.000+04:00

The Clergy… and the Case for Secularism

This essay is more a defense of secularism than it is an attack on religion or any religion’s clergy. I hope it will be read in this spirit. I have no quarrel with the clergy as long as they don’t force their own interpretation of God’s words (or intentions) on the rest of mankind!

Let them be there to offer spiritual and religious guidance to people. But they should not govern them!

Non-believers, who include some people whose opinions I respect, tend to dismiss this whole issue because they are not convinced by the original dictum! To them I say, you cannot dismiss things that have had, are having and will continue to have enormous effect on all our lives.

***

If you examine the histories of Christianity and Islam objectively, you will find that they display some similar characteristics:

• The established religion fought the newer one relentlessly as heresy.
• The newer one initially spread mostly under its own power of appeal and the example of its founders.
• The older (of the three main monotheist religions) denies the more recent.
• The more recent recognizes the older one(s) within the constraints of the newer one.
• Each is seen as the last true word.

Sects and differences within each religion were established by people who tried to “interpret” the religion to make sense of the ‘gaps’, the ‘grey areas’, the unanswered questions and unaddressed details in it… or to make it more compatible with their vision of human life and society.

Both religions, in refraining from defining everything in great detail (Islam to a much lesser extent) and yet attempting to encompass all aspects of life, allow for such interpretation. And who does the “interpretation”? The clergy! It is truly fascinating to consider the wide spread of sects and denominations in both religions and how they started!

Sometimes it seems to me that these religions, in addressing so many issues of human life and attempting to construct a unifying ‘umbrella’ for everything within the philosophy of a single religion, end up, through interpretations, like huge very elastic bands that can envelope a wide variety of ‘shapes and sizes’ of beliefs!

We can probably assume that many of those ‘interpreters’ acted in ‘good faith’ within the framework of their mentality and the prevailing social norms of the time. But also, in both religions, there have been, and still are, people who have distorted the ideals behind these religions… making use of the enormous scope, complexity and contradictory nature of human life. When such people have the upper hand, they can interpret the basic wide-encompassing teachings according to their whim and doctrine and turn them into oppression machines.

Christianity:

When the clergy were established as a “political” power with much sway over the kings and princes of Europe, that love-based religion was not benevolent anymore. It was the clergy who wanted to decide what God said or didn’t say about the position of the earth in the cosmos, or about the shape of the earth, or what constituted scientific method, witchcraft, heresy, and a multitude of other issues.

Looking back at that time in history, would anyone find it reasonable to condemn the other dissenting parties to Hell and to eternal suffering based on the judgment of a simple mortal? Some of those people were violating some of the most fundamental basics of the original doctrine!

Looking at the history of some of those Popes, for a long time the symbols of Christianity, I frankly find it hard to see some of them as Christians (i.e. followers of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.) They were so entangled by ‘palace conspiracies’ and earthly power struggles and even wars. Power, and its corrupting effect, had something to do with it.

Martin Luther’s Protestantism and King Henry VIII’s rebellions are basically “revolutions” against that dominance of a particular doctrine, or a specific official view of Christianity. They were not revolutions against Christianity itself. Another important feature is that in Christianity, under Protestantism the priesthood’s role is reduced compared to Catholicism. The Catholic faith ultimately followed.

Sometimes it may be worthwhile to ask simple questions: In that wide maze of sects, creeds and differences, where do the teachings of Jesus lie? The answer of course would be that no Christian sect can contradict those teachings; they are all Christian. But these sects have so many incompatible differences (both theological and in matters concerning aspects of common life, e.g. birth control, divorce, etc.). Are they all equally holy?

Islam:

Many Muslim scholars maintain that Islam had abolished the whole concept of priesthood and the clergy… and the very act of life-dedication to worship. There is no role for a priest in birth, wedding or death. Even the act of leading prayers is left to the ‘most knowledgeable’ among those present. The class arose again from society’s need for ‘specialists’.

In any case, a distinguishing feature of Islam perhaps is that the clergy were never given the ‘power’ to judge, absolve or condemn to start with. Yet, we can find that some of them gave themselves these powers later. Furthermore, the ‘specialists’ were reduced in status much sooner after the establishment of the religion as a ‘state’ than was the case with Christianity. It was done by those seeking earthly power and un-heavenly glory! Also in Islam, Shiism, the ‘newer’ sect gives more prominence (and, to some extent, more reverence) to the clergy. This was primarily because that sect was developed in opposition to the prevailing political power and sect!

In the present revival of both religions, the clergy, particularly the militant clergy and the ‘populists’, are having more influence. I see beliefs and convictions that to my mind are not true to the spirit of the original doctrines.

In Islam, this trend is particularly alarming, as many of these clergy are gaining earthly powers over the ‘flock of the faithful’ that they never had. It was always said jocularly in Iraq (when in doubt about the proper thing to do, religiously speaking) something that roughly means: “Take it from a scholar; he will bear its responsibility and you will be safe”! This attitude seems to dominate now. People are increasingly turning to religious scholars of all creeds for guidance on a great variety of things. Knowledge is power! Some horrible crimes are justified because some scholar or someone seen as a religious authority had sanctioned them! In one instance, someone with basic education up to 6th grade followed by rudimentary religious training was followed and obeyed by a violent religious group. The examples are numerous. Theocracy cannot be far behind such trends.

Again I ask: in that wide maze of sects, where do the teachings of the Koran and Prophet Mohammed lie? Muslims are asked to follow the precedence of Prophet Mohammed. But he is not portrayed as infallible; the Koran says that “Mohammed is only a Messenger”. There are several instances in the Koran where he is scolded for not doing the right thing. Yet, some of those Muslim ‘sect leaders’ have acquired holiness that seems to me to be greater than that of Prophet Mohamed himself.

***

My own personal conviction is that those ‘interpreters’ of both religions assume that the rules they set are what God, Jesus or Mohammed intended. Isn’t that rather presumptuous? Aren’t they giving themselves more authority than they should? How can they, no matter how ‘theologically’ versed they are, ascribe intentions to Jesus, Mohammed… or even God? And if they are so absolutely correct, why do other versed theologians contradict them?

Why can’t they leave ‘the flock of the faithful’ live in those ‘grey’, undefined areas as they please? How do they know that that’s not what God intended? Sadly, it seems that most of the time ‘the flock of the faithful’ themselves seek such guidance. Given mankind’s need for prejudice and us-versus-them attitude, the rest (of mankind’s bloody religious conflicts) naturally follow.

***

This is to my mind what constitutes the case for secularism in as far as it means the separation between religion as a faith satisfying people’s “spiritual” needs and the state which regulates their living. This naturally leaves the question of whether that state is compatible with this religion or that and to what extent… conveniently open. This is why I believe that secularism need not be anti-religion. So many people in Iraq and elsewhere today seem to think that it is! I am told that in Australia, secularism has the opposite meaning!

Secularism need not be anti-religion!

One problem is that people holding one of the two faiths in question feel that they have a duty not only to defend the faith but also to ‘spread the word’ to others, to guide them to the correct path in life for healthy material and spiritual living. They are basically “missionary” in nature. This is why they spread so widely. This is not a problem in itself. The problem is that when these people have the upper hand in any society, they tend to be tyrannical. Not only that, but society has to accept the interpretation of the particular clergy (and sometimes the interpretation of a small group or even a single person) holding the reigns of that particular religion.

If the clergy want to govern our daily lives, my proposal is this: let the clergy of the various sects of any religion agree to the common ground between them first! As to the differences between the clergy of the different religions, I do not think there is much hope of reconciliation in the foreseeable future. A true Christian cannot accept the whole of Islam and cannot agree that the Koran is the word of God. On the other hand, although a Muslim recognizes Christianity as a true religion, he believes he has the latest word from God. Yet, there are a large number of well-intentioned people from all religions attempting that formidable task.

For Islam, I feel that the solution is already there. No matter how sects may differ in their interpretation of the ‘grey’ areas in religion, none can contradict the constitution of the religion, namely the Koran. In this respect, the Koran unequivocally states: “There is no compulsion in religion”. Yet, this clear, explicit code was broken more times than I care to list.

Christianity and Islam (1)

2005-03-30T10:36:00.000+03:00

It is not religion; it’s the “religious”

Islam has been under much focus in the world following the surge of fundamentalism… and of course 9/11! Many atrocious acts have been committed in the name of Islam. Regular Islam has been said to encourage such behavior by nature of the religion. Regular Muslims who are in contact with other cultures have been mainly on the defensive, defending or justifying their faith. Muslims immersed in their own communities have been on the offensive, defending their faith against what they see as an organized onslaught. Much literature has been written on the subject.

Islam and Christianity

Comparisons between the various religions are almost always futile unless one is considering selecting one or the other, convincing reluctant impartial onlooker… or gathering support in preparation for a war of confrontation. It certainly is not an objective of this essay. I will approach the subject from a much simpler view and try to avoid dreary techno-religious details.

1. When I look at my own aging mother, who is a devout Muslim, I frankly see nothing wrong in her faith. It gives her tranquility, peace of mind, a constant, universal standard of right and wrong, a sense in life, a unified vision of the universe, an attitude towards other human beings, an assurance of her compassion towards the needy, the unfortunate and the suffering, rituals that put order in her life, emotional and spiritual fulfillment… and so on and so forth.

But I am sure that this description fits your own mother, grandmother or some gentle old Christian soul that you know.

2. Compare this image to those people with fiery eyes and long, unkempt beards, wielding swords and beheading ‘infidels’, declaring jihad [religious struggle] against decadence… and seeking to ‘convince’ people to live in bygone times, in the name of Islam.

Across the Atlantic, I am sure that you can also see men with fiery eyes and loud voices dripping venom, vindictiveness and hatred claiming to be the followers of loving, forgiving Jesus Christ…. advocating wars, justifying wars and glorifying the murder of innocents.

3. I also hear and read many criticisms of Islam and its incompatibility with democracy, science, free-speech, liberalism of thought, equal rights and personal freedoms. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t… But my mind goes back to the time when Christianity held sway over people’s (even king’s) lives in Europe and elsewhere.

I remember wars, crusades, where atrocities were committed and blood shed to liberate the birthplace of Christ from the hands of infidels. I remember the Spanish inquisition. I remember burning people alive at the stake under charges of witchcraft. I remember ‘official’ religious views that the earth is flat or is the center of the Universe; or poor Galileo. I remember book burning. I remember slave ships run by God-fearing Christians… and numerous other such things unacceptable to modern thinking.

Has Christianity or the teachings of Jesus changed much over the centuries? Neither has Islam or Mohamed’s teachings.

I am certain that this is not what these religions were intended for. Had this been the case, they wouldn’t have had so many willing followers in so many nations throughout many past centuries.

Everybody is innocent and everybody is guilty.

Hooligans are the problem, not football.

It is not the religion. It is some of the “religious”.

Oh, Religion!

2005-03-25T18:07:00.000+03:00

The question of religion is so volatile and riddled with emotions that I have been postponing my promise to start discussing it time and again. Now, with the elections in Iraq over and the arena undoubtedly dominated by sect and religion, it seems to be on everybody’s mind. Not just in Iraq but in America too. America is so occupied by its own question of religion, values as well as with Islam. The same is true for many other countries of the world.

World terror and both Muslim and Christian religious fundamentalism are likely to have a large, and an increasingly important, effect on all our lives for decades to come. They are certainly having an enormous effect on my life and the lives of all the people I know!

On top of that, I believe that these serious issues are being blurred, sometimes deliberately, by other undeclared motives and intentions that are almost totally unrelated to its essence. They are of course also being distorted by prejudices on most sides. We need to define and address the problem itself outside ‘power’ considerations, undeclared intentions and, above all, blind hatred that has been feeding on prejudices for more than a thousand years.

It is only fair to bring this question into the open. For a long time, I erroneously assumed that most people are uninformed on many of the important issues regarding Iraq and Islam. Now I believe that more have been misinformed! How that ‘misinformation’ came about is another intricate and complex issue.

The events of 9/11 naturally shook the people of the United States to an almost unprecedented degree. But they also seem to have generated an almost irrational wave of reflexive fear that was put to use to propagate other agenda. I find it sad that that momentous event did not spur most of the American public to do some serious soul searching or seriously attempt to understand. Most seem not to care. All they want is for their government to protect them from further attacks… at whatever cost. To many, it does not seem to matter much at the moment that the route followed may lead to higher risks in the future.

I have to make it clear though that I can only express my own personal point of view in this regard. I am in no way an authority on the subject but I am fortunate that I have mingled with people from all walks of life in Iraq, as well as people from the West, both devoutly religious and atheist as well as the wide spectrum in between.

Perhaps a re-statement of my own personal position on the question of religion may be in order:

I have said before that I am not a religious person in the normal sense of the word… but I have developed a deep respect for religion after realizing the enormous positive conceptual and practical effect it had on the morality of mankind.

In this regard, I frequently find myself enjoying Nietzsche’s insightful ravings about the corrupting effect of religion on mankind’s composition and spirit, its herd mentality influence and so forth… but I cannot agree with him.

I can also see some merit in Marx’s dim view of religion in general; I can understand some of the reasons that led him to his conclusions… but I cannot agree with him on the “opium” thesis either. We have ample evidence now that religious beliefs existed when man was living as a hunter-gatherer long before any exploiting classes existed.

All in all, I believe that the overall effect of religion on mankind was, and in many cases probably still is, beneficial. Most of mankind cannot venture out into the wilderness of uncharted and undefined intellectual moral woods (or deserts!) without a guiding hand, a ‘map’ or an external beacon. It may be even counterproductive to ask most people to do so. Many of the universally in-built values of justice, and sense of right-or-wrong that I sometimes feel are shared by the whole human race seem to be still too frail in most people; they can easily be over-run by more immediate concerns of survival, dominance, benefit… or even convenience.

This is why all those free spirits that have existed throughout mankind’s violent history and who have ventured into uncharted intellectual wilderness are so valuable… as scouts, even though many have erred and the conclusions of some of them have led to disasters. The quest is far from over. But I cannot hold some people’s belief that we are already there against them. For most people, life would be otherwise too chaotic and extremely painful.

Regarding religion, perhaps I can say in summary that my quarrel is not with religion per se, but with many of the “religious” and many of the “religious establishments” of the various religions.

I also sadly believe that most people need some prejudices and some sort of “collective” identity. Look at some of the football supporters! Trivial as this example may sound, I believe it exemplifies one of the major ailments of our societies, with very few exceptions.

***

This series is no longer directed mainly to America; America, by and large, does not seem to be ready to listen. Yet, America remains a most important player in this arena. The issues and the dangers involved are however of a global concern.

It is not intended as a guide to religion (whether Islam or Christianity). I am not qualified as an authority in either. Instead, they are musings of a concerned person and his journey in wrestling for some decades with the important question of religion in society… as well as a simple outline of the main conclusions reached through this quiet struggle and through observation of the society from the inside.

I will try to restrict myself to Islam and Christianity. The Islam-Jewish conflict is still too volatile for quiet debate and is riddled with politics, a long history of conflict and an enormous amount of injustice and mistrust. I know too little of the Buddhist faith.

This is not a propaganda campaign and I hope that it will not attract propagandists and ‘misinformers’ of any creed. I also know that my words will be read by a number of non-believers. All I ask them is not to dismiss very lightly beliefs held and cherished by several billion people.

Basically it’s a viewpoint.

Iraqi Letter to America

2005-03-25T18:00:00.000+03:00

This blog is no longer directed mainly to America.

I have therefore changed the name to Iraqi Letters.

End of the Opening Game

2005-03-16T18:33:00.000+03:00

Today, the new elected national assembly in Iraq met for the first time. I hope that I have made my position clear in this blog regarding the design and the implementation of 'democracy' in Iraq under the guidance of the present US administration. I have outlined the shortcomings of the process and warned of future damage. Indeed a lot of damage to both Iraq and America has already been done.

And now, regardless of what political arrangements are made and who is chosen to lead the country during the next crucial months, the rules of the game have permanently changed. This is the end of a phase.

The opening game was characterized by a number of features that I believe will be studied and analyzed by students of politics and history for a long time to come. I further believe that the conclusions reached will not be kind to America.

Yes, America... and not just the American administration. America is a democracy. Many Americans are fond of saying that in a democracy the people get the government that they deserve. On top of that, the American people have decidedly re-elected the same administration after the features of this phase were clearly distinguishable. Further, I still believe that four out of every five Americans either do not care what their government has been doing or are actively supportive of its actions for a variety of motives and reasons. This makes these people partly responsible for those policies and actions. America is in a great need for some serious soul-searching.

This opening game had the following main features:

The pre-invasion phase and the administration's drive to build up support for its plans to invade Iraq largely succeeded in America but failed abroad. The fact that the campaign was based on mainly faulty assumptions does not seem to have mattered much.

The invasion itself went relatively smoothly as wars and invasions go.

The post invasion management can only be placed somewhere between "gross incompetence" and "ill-intentions". those post-invasion plans certainly desreve a closer look and a more in-depth assessment.

The successes claimed: Saddam ousted and democracy initiated. These achievements have to be weighed against the damage, destruction, devastation of infrastructure, lack of basic services, lawlessness, loss of innocent life, the introduction of violent terrorism into Iraq, suffering by millions of people living under almost impossible conditions for two years now, etc. The list is long. Whether those successes could have been achieved at less cost is an important consideration. To me, the answer is clear.

I have only outlined some of the aspects to this phase relating to Iraq. The wider questions of the credibility of America in the eyes of the rest of the world, the neocon pheomenon and its reign, the effect on the global effort against terrorism, the rift with other traditional allies and the long-term damage to the UN as an umbrella for international consensus... are naturally important, and should be critically assessed when America is ready to do that.

But in Iraq, that phase - the opening game - is over. The new phase will have its own charateristics and features. The visible players will have Iraqi faces. Sooner or later, the US army will leave. Excluding major new factors and unpreditable developments, there is no other option. The US administration will have to exert influence, pull strings and flex muscles mainly through by now familiar, and probably more professional, channels.

As a parting shot, let me leave you with the following thought:

Simple Test for Success

So many pro-administration advocates, rosy picture painters and American Saddamists never tire of assuring us all that the present course is leading to Freedom and Democracy, to an end to world terror, to stability in Iraq and security in the States.

So many of these people are well-informed; some of them hold positions of responsibility in the American administration. It would seem rather insolent to contradict them… never mind the facts on the ground.

Of course, there are many parameters that one can use to measure performance: a stable government, services, security, jobs, etc, etc. but, instead, I will propose a simple test to bring the matter closer home to those Americans.

I will be the first to concede the success of the present policy when a "normal" American can freely walk through the streets of Baghdad in broad day light and…

Not be afraid for his or her life and…
Not feel ashamed for all the things that the US administration has done to Iraq.

Brilliant success can be claimed if this American (with an average integrity) feels proud of what the administration has done.

Does this sound fair?

All we need now is some register for those willing to commit themselves to what they say to put their names down, together with a tentative date for their prospective visit.

What America Believes!

2005-02-28T14:35:00.000+03:00

In a Harris Poll conducted this month, I found some of the results quite surprising:

44 % actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis.

47 % of adult Americans believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

36 % believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded.

Please think about these figures for a minute. They refer to something like 100 million adult Americans. These results are not just surprising… they are quite disturbing.

After two years of Iraq being constantly a top item in the news, with all these issues being thoroughly covered by all media, how is it possible that so many millions do not know? In this age of the freedom of the press, of the huge news networks, of hundreds and hundreds of newspapers, radio and TV stations… and the Internet…. How can that be possible?

Can someone tell me how this is possible after all the media coverage and after all that has been written and said? What news do all these people watch? What newspapers do they read? What radio stations do they listen to?

Are all those people mad? That certainly cannot be true! They have to be misinformed. But who has been doing that…and why?

If it is possible to mislead so many Americans so easily, and for so long, then of course it is possible for the US administration to do what the rest of the world sees as unacceptable. This being the case, then of course it is not difficult to see that many millions of Americans may willingly support any administration in targeting Iraq, Iran, Syria, France or even Britain… or practically do what they like. Unbelievable?

How can a democracy work with so many people grossly ignorant of simple, basic and important facts?

What hope is there for ‘reaching America’ or discussing finer points if such basic blatant facts are held in error by so many?

What am I doing, wasting my time and yours?

Binary America

2005-02-24T09:34:00.000+03:00

The New (Package) Deal

There seems to be a significant mood for polarization in America. I don’t know whether it is old or new, but it seems to be widespread. I see it exemplified by President Bush’s repeatedly iterated stance of “you are either with us or against us”.

If you are not with us, then you have to be against us. Since we are good, you have to be bad. Even if you are with us in principle and final objective but do not approve of ‘our’ approach to solution, then you are also against us. Simple logic… but wrong.

There is no possibility of compromise. There is no middle ground.

With us, or against us. Good or evil. White or black. Red or blue. It is a binary perspective: 0 or 1.

Our administration is good. If you are against any of its policies, you are bad.
Our administration is pro-democracy. If you oppose it, you are anti-democratic.
Our administration is religious. If you don’t like it, you hate religion.
Our administration represents the people of America. If you do not approve of it, you hate America.
Our administration is fighting a global war on terrorism. If you do not like its approach or its methods, you are a ‘terrorist-hugging dirt bag’.

It is not black and white in the wider sense. Old black and white movies were not strictly pure black and white. They had a wide range of shades of gray. Otherwise they would have been quite annoying to the eye.

It is not even a binary system. In a binary system, combinations of 0’s and 1’s can produce an astonishing variety of shades. Witness these very words you are reading and the images and colors you can get on your monitor.

No. This is like a two-state multi-bit binary system. Something like either 111111111111111 (us) or 000000000000000 (them). Generosity is sometimes shown by allowing a few 0’s on the less significant bits.

It is like a ‘package-deal’: If you are with us, you have to be pro-democracy, pro-war-on-Iraq, anti-terrorist, pro-religion, anti-abortion, pro-Rumsfeld, pro-Sharon, anti-social-welfare, anti-France, anti-UN and so on and so forth.

This is worse than McCarthyism. What is so worrying is that this mood seems to be prevalent in America to the point of being epidemic.

It is this mode of thinking that has alienated much of Western Europe (a traditional ally) and most of the rest of the world. They did not approve of our actions in Iraq. Therefore, they must be enemies.

Illustration:

Problem: French Fries. French, bad, 0. Fries, good, 1. Result: 01.
Can’t have that!
Solution: Freedom, good, 1. Therefore, we have “Freedom Fries”.

Well, life is not as simple as that! Life is too complex, rich and varied to be described by a few 0’s and 1’s. Personally this creates a problem for me. If I am forced to use this system, being pro-democracy, pro-freedom, not-against-religion but against the present administration’s policies in Iraq, against their approach to war on terror against crony-cracy in Iraq… I would be something like:

0110010100110001000111110000101001010001100100011110001001000111

Very bad indeed!

The problem is… many, many hundreds of millions of mankind, including a couple of hundred million Americans, have similar problems.

Talking to Terrorists?

2005-02-22T00:16:00.000+03:00

There are now reports that the US administration could be having talks with segments of the Iraqi ‘insurgents’.

For the past 20 months we were constantly told that there was no such thing as a nationalistic resistance in Iraq. There were only mindless killers attacking almost everybody at random, including Iraqi civilians and children.

Is the US administration talking to and negotiating with terrorists?

We all know that it is a firm and constant US policy not to negotiate with terrorists. We can therefore assume that the administration is negotiating with the resistance (or at least one or more factions of it).

The question is when did they discover that there was a ‘resistance’? Have they discovered recently that there was more than group of fighters in Iraq… or did they know all along? If they knew, why did they mislead America and the world? If they had only discovered that recently, that can only be due to gross incompetence.

First, there was no resistance; those killers were just remnants of the old regime. Then there were 4,000 of them, then 20,000… then the head of the new Iraqis security put the figure to 40,000 full time combatants and 200,000 in all. The administration did not confirm…or deny.

Have the original estimates been wrong… or has the resistance increased?

If the original estimates were wrong, that indicates a degree of professional incompetence. If, on the other hand, resistance has increased, it indicates incompetence at the policy level. Will anybody admit either? A lot of Iraqi and American blood has been shed during those 20 months. If those estimates or those policies were not so incompetent, could that blood had been less? Isn’t that important?

Another important question is why? And why now… after 20 months of blood and turmoil?

Having said all that, I think it is a good thing if it is true and if taken seriously. I have already alluded to this in my last post: Iraq, America and the world need to clearly distinguish between people willing to fight for what they see as a legitimate cause and ‘forces of darkness’ that have other, mostly evil agenda.

But for now, let us be grateful for this small step.

Journalists and Terrorists

2005-02-18T19:40:00.000+03:00

Most violence in present day Iraq is generally attributed to ‘insurgents’. It seems that in most people’s minds in America, the word ‘insurgents’ means only one thing: ‘terrorists’.

I have often wondered how this conviction took hold of these people’s minds. I can only find one answer: the mass media. But this is only a partial answer!

I don’t know exactly how many daily acts of violence are taking place these days. But we were told that before the elections the figure was around 100. (My personal belief is that the actual figure is higher.) We are further told that around 80 of these acts are directed at the US army. But which ones do you get on your news? Mainly acts of terrorism. It’s the media.

Many wrong things have been done in Iraq by a multitude of parties. Many Iraqis knew of these things. But it is the mass media that can make the international public aware of them. Examples are many. The few that caught the attention of people worldwide, such as Fallujah, the devastation of Najaf and Abu Ghraib… have been exposed by the media.

It only stands to reason that any patriotic force operating in Iraq in opposition to what they see as an occupation should desire maximum media exposure of what is happening on the ground. This would serve their purpose of exposing wrongdoing and making people aware of the resistance to the occupation to rally support for their cause. It is in the interest of any such national resistance to have maximum media coverage.

The result of the lack of such coverage was that the resistance was associated in the minds of many people (even inside Iraq) with acts of terrorism… those acts that get media coverage. That certainly does not serve the purpose of such a resistance movement.

All this leads one to think that it would be a central objective of the resistance not to attack the media and the journalists working inside Iraq. But the media and those journalists have been viciously attacked for the past two years. Some of those attacked were people who were dedicated to giving the world a better picture of what was going on in Iraq, at considerable personal risks.

I have mentioned in a previous post that the nature and magnitude of attacks on Iraqis going to polling stations on Election Day had clearly separated the terrorists form the national resistance. I now contend that attacking the media and journalists is another parameter.

Who has been abducting the journalists? I hope that the answer to this question is evident by now. Some people may still argue that there is no such thing as a nationalistic resistance in Iraq and that all those people are terrorists and fanatical suicide bombers. They are entitled to their opinion of course. But the consequences of such a view to both Iraq and America can be disastrous.

Another, equally important question that is more difficult to address, naturally follows: Who has been attacking the media in Iraq and making its work of covering events on the ground more difficult? … and why?

A Lesson from History

2005-02-12T13:03:00.000+03:00

Britain also "liberated" Iraq 90 years ago. They landed in Basra in 1914, took Baghdad in 1917 and reached Mosul in the north in 1919. During that campaign, the Iraqi people were also divided. Some wanted to get rid of the Ottoman occupation at any cost; some saw the British as "infidels" and preferred the Muslim Turks.

The first thing they did when they took Baghdad was to declare that they came as "liberators" not conquerors. They put the country under direct rule but used a collection of people to form a government (Governing Council – Interim Government)!!

In June 1920, the whole country was up in arms; towns and countryside; south; center and north – all corners of all the triangles. Casualties and expenses mounted to convince the British that they should let the people govern themselves.

They too decided to make the country "in their own image" – A constitutional monarchy. A national assembly convened in 1924. Large segments (following the advice of leading clerics) boycotted it. It resulted in what looked like a democracy (parties, elections, opposition), but it was basically dominated by cronies: a cronycracy.

The system had a large number of good aspects. It made the country stand on its feet. Many good institutions were established; there was some accountability; management of resources was acceptable. But people were not convinced of its legitimacy. It took many political stands with its friends the British (but against some national sentiments and so-called "national constants"). The British embassy in Baghdad meddled too much in local politics. They had their reasons of course: oil, WW2, the undeclared Anglo-American conflict for influence in the area and, finally, the cold war. For a long time, many of the national politicians (some of whom were good people) were looked at as traitors or collaborators… and were detested.

Ultimately, 37 years later, it was toppled in 1958 by a coup of military officers using a small military force. The people did not defend it. For the next 10 years, Iraq spiraled down a path of military coups that ultimately led to the previous regime.

In this short account, I have deliberately overlooked many other important (local) economic and (regional and international) political factors that had significant effect; but my aim is to remain focused on the issue being discussed.

I can see so many similarities with the present situation. Why can't people learn from past lessons? If everything goes well and according to plan, under the present course, then the US administration could still end up making the same mistake as good old Britain.

Declaration of Independence

2005-02-04T22:52:00.000+03:00

Why is this Iraqi angry with America?

When I read the American Declaration of Independence I am moved by the noble humanistic ideals expressed. I can sense the noble spirit behind it. The word ‘independence’ takes a meaning beyond the political independence of country from a colonial one… more like an independence of the human spirit.

And when I examine the Constitution, I see those words taken from the rhetoric domain and transferred into political reality in the most impressive practical idealism… complete with checks and balances.

On top of that, when I look into the biographies of some of the people involved, I feel that their honor and integrity still shine after more than two hundred years. My personal favorites are Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and Adams, in that order.

Those people were imperfect human beings like the rest of us but had visions that transcended their own narrow and immediate interests and tailored a system for the good of the whole, yet preserved individual aspirations. Many were religious people, some of them deeply so, yet they did not allow religion to dominate society in a rigid fashion.

The result was that the foundation they designed endured and supported a massive political and economic structure that was built upon it for more than two centuries.

But now, when I look at America I see a nation that has retained the form of that system yet lost much of its spirit and true content.

I look at the some of the issues deemed important by the electorate… and I feel sad.

I look at the politicians, and I mostly feel dismay and disappointment. I look at the candidates and I see actors, more worried about their “image” than about what they want to say; compromise artists and appeasers for those forces that hold the throne and control the coffers. When was the last time you had a truly grand statesman running America? Why?

The answer is simple. Would any idealist visionary, true to the spirit of the Founding Fathers have a chance to be elevated by the major party machines or funding contributors? My contention is that the initial filters discourage, even expel, people of the required caliber.

What chance did “outsiders” have against the gigantic red-blue polarizations and their huge spending machines? How many Americans had a chance to hear what those people had to say? How many Americans were interested?

Complex, varied life is packaged in two colors, in two huge containers, with all the wide range of social, political, religious, economic issues (each of which itself a complex maze of issues).

Is this abnormal? It is more like the normal course of evolution of a system… to fine-tuning if you like. But the problem is that these complex stratification and filtering stages produce mediocre results.

What has this got to do with Iraq? How insolent is this Iraqi attacking the system that produced the world’s sole hyper-power?

My grudge is this:

Because these people have lost sight of the original American ideals (that I personally cherish and respect) but they retained the form and the rhetoric without the substance, practical, shortsighted, we-versus-them cold-war mentality. These people are now playing God and tailoring Iraq “in their own image”. I wouldn’t have complained if that “image” were based on the original ideals. But it is based on the form with an ugly content.

I contemplate our new ‘major players’ on the Iraqi political arena, made or incubated in foreign lands and I see anything but Founding Fathers. Perhaps “Foundation” Fathers or ‘Fund’ fathers… but not Founding Fathers. The new deal and the new democracy were designed around these people.

These people will entrench. No, they have already entrenched. They will write a constitution to maintain this status quo; A compromise, half-baked solution that reflects not the true spirit and the richly diverse mosaic of the country… but the three or four external colors from the dark ages.

And you, no matter how well-meaning you may be… you cannot give what you no longer have!

Iraqi Elections - The Day After

2005-02-01T13:17:00.000+03:00

The People Have Spoken

I had, and I still have, many reservations regarding the ‘rules of the game’ of the elections we have just had in Iraq.

But all these are secondary now. The key fact in all this is that it seems that more than 50% of the Iraqi people have cast their vote. I may not like the results, but this is immaterial now. The people have chosen to accept the game and play within it. This is what matters. If we accept the basic principle of democracy, then we have to accept that the people are the final arbiters. As simple as that!

They went out in large numbers against eminent dangers to say just that. Some were killed or injured doing that.

In the comment section of my last post written on the eve of the elections and which was full of anxiety and misgiving, someone wrote “You've got to trust in collective wisdom. I know this has been a flawed, tragic, some would say criminal process, I wish I could make it otherwise.” These words wisely sum it all up.

I was against the rules of the game, as defined by the unfortunate Transition Administrative Law (TAL) which was supposedly written by the Iraq Governing Council.

Sistani was outspoken in his opposition to that law. He made such a strong stand against it to the extent of writing to the UN Security General during the drafting phase of Resolution 1546, asking for TAL not to be mentioned in the resolution text (using rather strong words). And so it was. He was accommodated. Sistani was declared a winner.

The leaders of the two major Kurdish parties were furious. They wrote a letter to president Bush and threatened: “If the TAL is abrogated, the Kurdistan Regional Government will have no choice but to refrain from participating in the central government and its institutions, not to take part in the national elections, and to bar representatives of the central Government from Kurdistan.”

What happened later was that Sistani endorsed the intended elections – based almost totally on TAL.

I was also against the ‘major players’ presented to the people by the power of occupation as representing them. Many do not meet my definition for people to be entrusted with looking after the country in these difficult times and writing a constitution that will last. I still am.

I am still “fearful of the long-term damage being done to Iraq and to America”. I still believe that “ True, representative democracy is the only hope”. Democracy, not elections! I still stand by every word that I have written for the past 9 months since I first wrote those words.

The last time I went against the prevailing current, it took 22 years. It was 1982 when I was convinced that the previous regime was leading the country to ruins. When that was proven correct, it was then too late. The country was already in ruins. I can still wait. But this time I hope that the waiting is shorter; I may not live that long. I certainly also hope that the country is not in ruins when that happens. Above all, I hope that I am wrong!

My feelings at the moment are probably similar to the feelings of many people in America and around the world at the end of the US presidential election. No, I feel like someone whose long-awaited newborn turns out to be defective due to some genetic manipulation. Most people have accepted that new-born baby. I hope that with tender care it survives and thrives. I humbly bow to the will of the people… and to collective wisdom!

That was my personal position. I had to make it clear.

Two important observations need to be made on the election itself. They were not mentioned on the media because they refer to things that didn't happen:

1. There were no skirmishes, fights and sectarian or neighborhood battles in the many “mixed” areas of Iraq between people who wanted to vote and those who didn’t. This was a very significant thing that did not happen and was therefore unnoticed!

2. The violent attacks were far less than I expected and feared. They certainly did not reflect the strength of the “insurgency”. One reason of course is that “insurgency” strongholds did not vote. Nevertheless, forces capable of carrying out some 80 daily attacks against the US army could have mounted more and larger attacks on people at the polling stations. Also, we know that "insurgents" have a strong presence in "mixed" areas. My belief is that most of those attacks were carried out by ‘forces of darkness’ who have no qualms about killing Iraqis. This was another good sign.

Will these elections solve the multitude of problems in Iraq, unify the country, end the occupation, bring your boys and girls back home? That is a different question.

With large segments of the country underrepresented for a variety of reasons, how can their integration, already being talked about, into the process be possible (democratically) with the whole country designed as one gigantic electoral district? It may be said that these people gave away their right to have a say in the shape of Iraq by not voting. In theory this may be true and acceptable, if the elections were not polarized and seen as ethnic and sectarian even by those who took part in them. With the question of ethnicity, particularly to public Sunni participation, this takes a new dangerous turn.

At this point, I would like to refer readers interested in some serious analysis to an excellent study from the Project on Defense Alternatives entitled ‘The Iraqi election “bait and switch”’. I am grateful to a reader for the link. It is worth reading carefully. Please keep in mind that that report was compiled before the last elections. A small quote:

The legitimizing effect of the electoral exercise will rest on a simple misperception: Balloting is the most conspicuous element of the democratic process and can be easily mistaken for the whole of it. The world and the media will be enthralled when millions of Iraqis go to the polls on 30 January 2005 to cast votes in the country's first multiparty legislative election since 1953. Some Iraqi voters will have to fight their way, literally, to the ballot box; and some will be killed in the process. This mass expression of democratic passion will be proffered and broadly accepted -- at least outside Iraq -- as a realization of democracy's promise. But to judge the true worth of the event requires us to pay attention to a subtler issue: Will the balloting and the government it produces fairly represent the balance of interests and opinion in Iraqi society?

I hope that the post-election planning is better than the post-invasion planning.

I still have faith in my people who never stop surprising everybody.

Election Night Jitters

2005-01-29T17:53:00.000+03:00

Recklessness and Irresponsibility

I have some difficulty unraveling my own complex feelings regarding the big election day tomorrow.

On the one hand, I am passionately for democracy in principle. It is the only hope for Iraq. On the other hand, I am passionately against these particular elections. They are only an ugly, distorted imitation of democracy. I am convinced that they will not lead to stability … or even democracy.

I agree with fellow Iraqis who want these elections postponed or even boycotted. We have already seen these elections boycotted by the vast majority of expatriate Iraqis.

But I cannot blame the people who want to take part in them! In fact, I have nothing but admiration for those people who are going to risk their lives to cast their vote tomorrow.

These people are not corrupt politicians greedy for power and wealth. They are not “collaborators”. They are people going out to vote for issues or people they believe in whether their motives are ethnic, religious, sectarian, political, economic or nationalistic. Most of them want to exercise their right to have their say for the first time in more than 50 years.

I may disagree with many of these people; some may be misguided… but they certainly don’t deserve to die!

Their safety is the responsibility of those who are running the country.

Imagine that it is known that there were bombs on a number of the planes leaving JFK airport on a certain day. What should the authorities do? What would you do? Ask the people to go about their business, make a stand against terrorism, show courage and board those planes – telling them not to be intimidated by terrorists? The show must go on? Would that be a responsible thing to do? Later, when the worst comes to the worst… blame the terrorists for the unfortunate loss of life… and call it a day? Wouldn’t that be reckless and irresponsible? Yet, this is what we have.

Let us have a look at those different people urging the Iraqi people to go out and vote.

1. The US administration’s representatives in Iraq, the US army and the Interim government running the country from heavily defended fortresses… and cannot even protect those fortresses. Yet, they hope to protect more than 6000 polling stations across the country… where people are to go, to vote.

2. These people in charge do not venture out of their fortresses unless heavily armored and covered by a blanket of security. Yet they ask unarmed men and women to go out and expose themselves to danger.

3. Candidates who are not prepared to go out and take a risk and campaign for themselves. Some do not even have the courage to have their names published and be known. Secret candidates! Yet, they want Iraqis to take the risk and vote for them.

4. Many American super-patriots who are still shivering with anger or fear of attacks carried out on three buildings in their country more than three years ago. Yet, they ask Iraqi housewives (eg Rose) not to be frightened or intimidated by terrorists… in a country that is going through multitudes of 9/11’s regularly.

5. A country that is wisely taking measure after measure to protect its frightened citizens and ensure their safety through stringent finger print and eye retina scans for visitors… is so eager to expose Iraqis to grave danger.

6. President Bush who did not return to his seat of government immediately after those attacks, fearing for his safety. Yet, he asks Iraqis to show courage.

7. The UN Secretary General, who withdrew his entire staff from Iraq following one attack. Now he is asking Iraqis to vote in a dangerous situation and telling them that the UN will do everything to help them.

Reckless and irresponsible!

Isn’t it enough for Iraqis to live under the constant threat of random violence, just going about their shattered lives? Governments should be less reckless and more responsible than that! People should be more caring for fellow human beings.

Make no mistake! The decision to go on with these elections was made in Washington DC. I still remember that day. Several parties in Iraq started requesting a postponement. President Bush promptly announced that there will be no postponement. Hours later, Ambassador Negroponte, who was on a visit to Fallujah, re-iterated. Several hours later, a spokesman for Mr. Allawi re-iterated the same position. The decision was already made. The show must go on!

People are going to die tomorrow. Who will be responsible? Zarqawi? Terrorists? Insurgent? Extremist fundamentalists? Possibly. But it is the responsibility of those in charge of the country to create a secure environment so that people can participate in elections… in safety.

Postponement alone is useless if the current track is maintained. There will be more, not less, violence. A new approach has to be attempted to attack the roots of the problem. But this may be too much to hope for from the same people who were partly responsible for creating the current violent environment in the first place.

Apparently, it is so easy for some “freedom fighters” to risk other people’s lives for the sake of noble ideals. But when those armchair freedom lovers do it while they are completely safe, there is nothing noble about that.

It is reckless and irresponsible.

I am so full of anxiety, apprehension, bitterness and misgiving tonight. I hope that not many innocent people will die tomorrow. Above all, I only wish that it was all for something worthwhile and noble, like true democracy… and not for a charade that is conducted by people in positions of responsibility… who are reckless and irresponsible.

Iraq Elections – Vote of no confidence

2005-01-26T11:11:00.000+03:00

Not many people paid attention to a small item of recent news:

The Election Commission announced that only 1 in 10 of eligible Iraqi expatriates registered to vote in the coming elections.

A few facts make this item extremely significant:

1. Anybody who knows even a few Iraqis is aware how passionate they generally are regarding politics. Furthermore, most of these people have had their lives severely disrupted by politics and tyranny. It cannot be that they don't care how Iraq is governed. So, their failure to register to vote cannot be attributed to apathy.

2. The vast majority of these people have fled the country during the previous regime. So, they cannot be mostly Baathists.

3. Since these people have fled the country, it is natural to assume that most were oppressed! Since ‘experts’ maintain that Sunnis have been the oppressors. These people cannot be mostly Sunnis!

4. These people are outside Iraq now. They are in is no significant danger if they vote. So, it cannot be fear of terrorists or intimidation!

What's the matter with these people? If they are not apathetic, if they are not Baathists, if they are not mostly Sunnis and if they are not intimidated or afraid of bombs, why didn't they register to vote? Aren't they interested in democracy and elections?

The answer is simple: They are against "these" elections.

What’s wrong with these elections? Well, I have already discussed that in previous posts.

Consciously or unconsciously, these Iraqis have put another spanner in the works! They have crushed the theory much in vogue nowadays that it is Sunnis who are against the elections, for fear of losing their dominance. Shiites were eager for these elections, they claimed! Just a few 'hot spots' in Iraq will not take part in these historic elections. The rest of Iraq is enthusiastic, they said!

Again, the lesson drawn from this small news item: Most Iraqis of all denominations are against these particular elections. Theirs was a vote of no confidence in this particular process as designed and presented to us. They are against the ‘major players’ destined to dominate Iraqi politics for the next decade. It does not mean that they are against democracy.

Now that the expatriate Iraqis have sent a powerful silent message, will this cause the US administration's train to change track? Will they reconsider this disastrous mistake in the making? Of course not! The decision has already been taken and publicly announced.

It is poor leadership to ‘flip-flop’ and reconsider important decisions. Later, we can say that mistakes are always made, transition to democracy is never easy… and that we knew so little of the country and of the people at the time, can't we?

About a million and a half Iraqis have already registered their disapproval of this ‘mistake in the making’.

Iraq: Seeking Solutions - Plan B

2005-01-22T12:14:00.000+03:00

This post may look conspicuously out of step. With elections in Iraq eminent and democracy just round the corner, it does appear “unseemly” to suggest an alternative route. Well, it is written to be read (and probably dismissed) now but to be revisited at a later date and read again in hindsight.

With different people and different Departments and think-tanks quietly discussing various exit strategies behind closed doors in open-government America, I thought perhaps I can offer my own suggestion openly on the blogosphere.

We have a problem. We need solutions. Only people living in a fantasy world do not realize that. The coming elections in Iraq will not solve this problem, whatever the outcome. The reason is simple: Elections have to be believed by the majority of people to have any legitimacy. The coming elections are not. As simple as that!

The present situation is likely to deteriorate. The present course will only lead to more Iraqi and American blood being needlessly shed. In this post I hope that we can examine an alternative course of action.

***

"Great" statesmen, running the affairs of nations usually despise managing things on the "micro-scale". They prefer operating on the grand "macro-level". Well, life is generally not like that. Many things are better handled on the micro-level. Democracy in a widely diverse country is one of these things. My ‘plan A’ was basically about that.

Plan A, you may remember, was for the US to build true, representative democracy in Iraq. For a variety of reasons, this seems to be unacceptable to the US administration yet. I hope that I am realistic enough to know that that argument is a "dead ender".

So, here is a proposal for a ‘Grand Scheme’ to get us both out of the present quagmire. Of course, it may only be considered when the people who are pulling the strings realize that we are in a quagmire.

Basis - The US cannot succeed on its own

There are numerous reasons (that I hope are clear by now) why the US administration will not be able to "get there" on their own. Most fundamental of which is that almost all Iraqis lost faith in their intentions and/or capabilities. Other countries have little faith too, they fear the US’s intentions, and they will do everything they can to ensure its failure.

Attempts to involve NATO in the American scheme have also failed and will fail due to "old Europe's" resistance.

The task ahead of the administration to achieve that objective would require them to:

1. Convince the Iraqi people that the USA does not want to occupy Iraq indefinitely.

2. Convince Iraqis that the USA is not occupying Iraq in proxy on somebody else's behalf (multinational corporations, oil interests, etc.)

3. Convince Iraqis that America does really want democracy (not crony-cracy) in Iraq.

4. Convince Iraqis that the USA is not after Iraq's oil (for securing future US energy supplies or controlling the sources of that important commodity or after money for the connected corporations.)

5. Convince the world of the above.

This is a tall order indeed.

Given the track record of the administration in Iraq, I cannot frankly be optimistic about their chances of success in such an endeavor. I cannot even see much hope of a US success in this.

The other major problem is that because people mistrust the US administration so violently, any person who cooperates with them is stigmatized and labeled a traitor or a puppet in the eyes of ordinary people. This will naturally alienate a large number of decent people who fear for their reputation and will prevent them from taking part in any reconciliation process if pursued along the now-familiar lines.

Some people argue that America does not need to do that. American did not need to do that in Germany, Japan or Korea before. This argument will bring us back to (staying the course) which we all know by now is not working. Those countries were defeated (obliterated really in a world war). The people of Iraq were not defeated in war (Saddam's regime was). Furthermore, religion did not come into it really!

Only those people who have lived in this part of the world may have an idea what the power of religion could be like in these parts. And when it comes to playing the religious chord, the US administration is at a total loss, to say the least. There are others who are much more proficient in playing this game.

***

One possibility would be a bold admission of error, a declaration of a new intent, a clear and transparent plan. This would be political daydreaming in practical politics!

Many people have been saying that an immediate withdrawal by the US would lead to civil war or create a state of unstable chaos in the region. That may or may not be true. I certainly have some reservations regarding some of the “authoritative” assertions that have been made on this topic. In any case, an immediate withdrawal, leaving the country in a state of political vacuum and turmoil would not be a wise policy. It is a last resort (Plan C?). There is another alternative: an orderly, gradual and a more dignified withdrawal. Go international and do it through the UN!

It may sound strange for an Iraqi who suffered a great deal through those UN sanctions to advocate such a course. Strange it may be, but one has to be practical sometimes and choose the lesser of two evils!

Go to the UN and the World

There is a good lesson to learn from.

Last June, when the American administration reached a dead end with the CPA and the Iraq Governing Council (IGC) and wanted to change policy, they went to the UN to get a new mandate. They had to compromise to appease France, Germany, Russia, China, Pakistan and many others. There were a few jokes about it but the end result was not bad. Resolution 1546 was a good compromise.

However, the US administration does not seem to have learned the lesson. They continued to manipulate the political scene in Iraq and have simply replaced Mr. Chalabi by Mr. Allawi and the Iraq Governing Council by the Interim Government (The Interim National Assembly has already gone into oblivion).

Now, through this “political engineering”, we have reached the important stage of elections. The whole thing is only a fortnight away. Like last time, the whole thing has been designed behind closed doors to ensure that those cronies maintain their hold on political power in Iraq. If this happens, the whole process will be rejected. Resistance will continue (because public support for the resistance will continue) and we will all be back to square one. Evidently somebody in the US is extremely fond of square one.

Why repeat a failed policy. Why not build on a successful one?

Why the UN?

 Whether we like it or not, Iraq is already an international problem.

 Ever since the USA decided to go it (almost) alone in Iraq because the administration could not convince others of its cause, there has been conflict within the UN. The UN's role in the world has seen considerable decline.

 The general mood within the US administration is that you are either with us or against us. There is no desire to build true global coalitions. Most people believe that this is only self-assertion by the USA – to define the USA as the ONLY force in international affairs for this century.

 No matter how many people dislike or mistrust the UN, it is still the only body that represents international legitimacy.

If there are problems within the UN, the proper course of action should be to improve the institution to solve those problems, not ignore and trivialize that most important global organization. The US still has a great deal of muscle and influence within the UN.

Solution through the UN – Realization

This is just an idea for discussion. I will try to keep things as simple as possible to start with.

Objectives:

1. Honorable US withdrawal from Iraq.
2. Establishment of democracy in a stable Iraq.

Are these fair and practical objectives to aim for? Are they sufficient?

Proposed Solution

1. US maintains present course and status for a month but will only act in self defense and to preserve the peace and will not go after "insurgents" or carry out random searches and arrests, etc. during that month.

2. US announces and implements an immediate freeze on the building of permanent military bases in Iraq. If there is no such intention (!) they can publicly and categorically state their policy in this regard.

3. The US goes to the UN to help establish, within 2-4 weeks, a "International Council for Iraq" (ICI). Two alternatives are possible:

 A council of 15 members each nominated by a UN Security Council member state and approved by a majority of the other members.

 A council of 5 members of internationally respected figures nominated by the UN General Assembly and approved by the UN Security Council.

This council is to act as the supreme authority for running the country in the interim period of 6 months.

4. The US reiterates its intention to withdraw completely from Iraq at the request of the ICI or a democratically elected government.

5. Work out a UN Security Council resolution to "guarantee" the continuity of democracy in Iraq, under chapter 7 of the UN Charter (which authorizes the use of force). This is to guarantee that no military coup or other means of force are used to overthrow the newly born democracy of Iraq for a number of years. Iraq is already an international problem in many respects.

6. Place the Multi-national forces now in Iraq as well as the Iraqi army, police, etc. under the political authority of the ICI.

7. The ICI is given an international mandate for six months to establish a democratic government in Iraq, without any conditions on its conduct apart from the objectives mentioned above and normal financial auditing.

8. Let this "council of the wise" find its own solution without interference or pressure. I would only like to add that all its deliberations and activities should be made public.

The US can still seek to secure its strategic interests and the goal to combat international terrorism within the framework of international law and the norms of the international community, where it still has considerable muscle and influence.

Possible Opposition

The Iraqi People

Such a proposal may not be very popular with many Iraqis – they simply hold the UN responsible for much of their hardship through the 1990’s. Many don’t trust the UN and regard it as a US “tool”. But then again, most compromise solutions are not initially very popular with the various antagonists!

The US Administration

I am afraid the resistance from these quarters will be more on principle.
I will simply quote from a letter sent by some of the activists of the PNAC to President Clinton in January 26, 1998 and signed, among others, by: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, James Woolsey and Robert Zoellick.

“In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.”

Tarnishing Good Names

2005-01-19T20:14:00.000+03:00

Prime Minister Tony Blair, following the disclosure of more prisoner-abuse photos:

“I hope we do not allow [our disgust at the photographs] to tarnish the good name of the British armed forces “.

No sir! Of course not! We will not allow any of these minor incidents by groups of few bad apples tarnish the good names of the British armed forces, the US armed forces, the British and US intelligence communities, the good offices of army planners or the good offices of US political leadership. No sir!

Nor these acts by other groups of bad apples:

1. Soldiers steeling money from houses they searched.

2. Soldiers, when faced with anything like a threat, firing at random…killing women and children in the process. Hundreds of such incidents!

3. Soldiers forcing open doors of stores and government establishments to looters.

4. Soldiers shooting and killing thousands of innocent civilians in their drive to take over unresisting Baghdad.

5. Soldiers forcing old, retired people and disbanded army officers to stand in line for most part of the day under the Iraqi summer sun and using truncheons to keep them “well-behaved” when receiving their pensions.

6. Soldiers shooting and killing people in a peaceful demonstration protesting against the use of a local school as military barracks… because they claimed they thought someone had fired a shot at them. None of those soldiers was even scratched. They left 13-17 unarmed dead bodies.

7. Scandalous, inhumanely sick behavior by personnel wearing US army uniform, including torture and the rape of women, men and small boys.

Nor those actions by the larger bad apples:

1. The demolishing of much of the holy older Najaf, to fight insurgent and to “bring Moqtada to justice”.

2. Bombing and killing more than 700 people in Fallujah-I (including more than 200 women and children) and injuring many more, in revenge and mass-punishment for an atrocity committed by a handful of villains!

3. The demolishing of some 50,000 houses in Fallujah-II and leaving the inhabitants homeless for most of this cold winter to “break the back” of terrorism and catch M.r Zarqawi – having managed neither. The people are still homeless up this minute.

4. Allowing the looting of the Iraqi museum, despite warnings by reputable American academic institutions of its value and vulnerability.

5. The desecration of the ruins of Babylon, chosen out of all the vast empty areas in Iraq to house a military base.

Nor those actions by the really big apples – operating on a grander scale:

1. False claims and repeated inaccuracies regarding WMD or Saddam’s intentions to buy uranium from Nigeria or his capability to launch WMD within 45 minutes.

2. Continued false affirmation of Iraq’s links with international terrorism. Such links do exist now… after your “successful operation”.

3. Insinuations of indirect responsibility for 9/11 or fear from another 9/11 coming from this corner. To play on the fears of gullible millions.

4. The disbanding of the whole Iraqi army leaving some 400,000 men jobless, seeing their country being raped – and wishing that they would not to do anything about it.

5. Disbanding the whole of the police force, claiming that it was infested by elements of the previous regime and building a new force infested with hardened criminals and “special interest” groups. The result is that criminals are on the loose up to this minute, having a field day! The new police force is busy going after “insurgents”!

6. Leaving open and unguarded the country’s long borders so that anybody can come in to do horrible things to the people or to “fight it out” with you, using the Iraqi people as fodder… and then whining about neighboring countries not controlling their borders.

7. Causing so much damage and destruction of the country’s infrastructure that today, two years after the success of your project, people have to go without basic amenities including water and electricity.

8. Presenting the Iraqi with some criminals, thugs, murderers, embezzlers and lowly characters in the pay of an assortment of powers as people representing them for high office. The “new democracy” we are being asked to support is designed around these people.

9. Putting green youngsters in charge of building and reconstructing a country the size of California and 6000 years older.

10. Managing the country in such a chaotic manner that the number of innocent Iraqi killed can only be guessed at. People in the West are still arguing whether the number is 10,000 or 150,000! A range of 10:1. The difference is only 140,000 lives!

11. Making such a mess of running liberated Iraq that people are still baffled by the unbelievable sequence of events. This has left people wondering in amazement at a possible explanation to end up with the following ugly alternatives:

(a) At best: gross, criminal incompetence,
(b) A plan that went horribly wrong due to shear incompetence of conception and design
(c) That this was the plan all along to devastate this country for some sick, obscure reason.

But we will not let those minor incidents tarnish the good names of Britain or America. No sir!

[I apologize to the Iraqi people for not listing many of the other “incidents”. No list can possibly convey the misery, fear, worrying, suffering and losses that they have gone through over the past two years.]

Control & Feedback

2005-01-17T19:19:00.000+03:00

[Human society is so complex that sometimes one has to go back to basics to understand some of the dynamics, at the risk of over-simplification.]

In any control system, it is an elementary requirement that there should be some feedback for stability to be possible. Furthermore, this feedback has to be “negative”. Ask any mathematician, physician, engineer or biologist!

In simple terms, if your car moves too far to the right, you steer it slightly to the left. Right? Your eyes give you feedback and your brain decides how much correction is needed!

In a good control system, when there is no negative feedback, that indicates that the status is fine. This is the secret why people holding public office hate negative feedback.

This is also why democracy as a system of government has been more successful than other systems. Free speech, demonstrations, dissent, opinion polls, elections and media are all instruments of feedback (and sometimes of control too!).

Elections are of course the final tool, where the people can change the driver(s)… non-violently.

It would be difficult to over-emphasize the importance of the mass media as a feedback and a feedback-forming instrument. Rational people need data, information and other opinions in order to form their own opinion.

In practice, there are enormous complications to this simplistic picture and there are of course numerous channels that try to control this feedback. Political machinations, vested interests, media-controllers, are only a few examples of what are basically attempts to control the control system. Some of these tools have become rather sophisticated (sometimes to the extent of becoming almost invisible) in some developed societies.

It is also a feature of totalitarian systems that the “negative” feedback channel is severed. All factors that may lead to the generation of large feedback signals are carefully monitored and frequently oppressively filtered or blocked, sometimes using raw, brutal force. Numerous methods have been used over many centuries.

These practices can also be found in some democracies, but to a much less visible, and a much more subtle, extent. Society has also introduced many other tools such as debates, time-delays and “shock absorbers” to make the control process smoother and less disruptive.

***

What characterizes the attempts of the US administration in controlling Iraqi politics, implementing democracy and securing stability… is the almost total disregard or any negative feedback. They have always sought (and sometimes amplified) only positive feedback. Negative feedback was generally ignored and sometimes filtered out. This task is also assisted (wittingly or unwittingly) by many American super-patriots.

The result was that the enormous difference between the prevailing state and the desired state by the entity being controlled (ie the people) became so large only a few months after the invasion. It was ignored. The result was a total collapse of the control system! It went out with a bang.

So a hammer is being used instead of tuning the system.

The same thing is happening now with the elections. More and more individuals are coming out trying to convince the administration that the process will fail. Many of these are people who fully cooperated with the US administration for the past two years at least.

However, they are being ignored because their feedback is negative. The decision has been taken and the commitment has been made to go ahead with the elections regardless of any feedback.

No control system can be stable without negative feedback.

Not One Damn Dime Day

2005-01-15T17:27:00.000+03:00

Letter from America – the Power of the wallet.

Today, I received an email from an American lady I have been in communication with. It had an attached message that is worth looking into. I quote:

Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day," those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.

During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for anything for 24 hours.

For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that > it is their responsibility to stop it.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed. For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

There may not be sufficient time for this idea to gain enough momentum for the intended date of January 20th… but the idea is born. It can be used on other occasions in other countries. Besides, protesting on the inauguration day of a democratically elected President may not be an ideal date. May I suggest April 9th as an alternative date to commemorate the second year of the occupation? This may even give the British time to participate. I already feel that the idea may find enthusiastic supporters in Scotland.

The evident rhetoric notwithstanding, I still find it a potent and a civilized method of protest. No violence, no Left-Right conflict, no effort required… and you can save money. Economists are always telling people that saving is a good thing. So, no harm should would be done to the economy.

The greater the popular feeling behind a statement, the louder the silent message will be. Silent people making a statement by being even more silent through the power of many wallets.

There is another “American” aspect to it: the bigger your wallet is, the bigger your contribution ( and the more money you save). The more wallets, the louder the statement.

This idea could only be born in America.

Reciprocating Favors

2005-01-13T13:55:00.000+03:00

[I have been accused of being obsessed with the neocons. But look at it this way: Your country was attacked by a bunch of lunatics more than three years ago. I, everyone I love and care for, my people and my country have been paying a heavy price as a result! God knows we had nothing to do with it!

Conversely, I know who has been responsible for much of that death and suffering in my country (not to mention the unnecessary death of quite a number of your boys and girls). A fair minded person should not object to me writing a few harmless words about them!!]

Even the most horrific and devastating happenings may have some good coming from them.

Unwittingly, both Iraqis and Americans have done each other big favors over the past 18 months!

America’s Favor

Due to the way the campaign was managed, many Iraqis began to see the US army and administration as enemies. This ultimately united much of the country (the country, mind, not the politicians) exorcising some of Iraq's haunting ghosts of ethnic and sectarian divides in the process. Fresh attempts are being constantly made in that direction… but they will probably also fail.

Iraqis have been through invasions, military coups, revolutions, wars and tyranny before. But now, thanks to the American administration, they now also know that they can somehow survive in a society that has no government, no law, and no services; and can still lead a life of sorts with chaos, bombs, terrorism, criminals on the loose and random violence all around them. They will fear nothing now!

When you think about it, this is indeed a big "favor"!

Iraq’s Favor

When the annals of history are written in the future, it will be mentioned that a group of power-mongers and fascist fanatics took control of the most powerful nation on earth riding on a wave of fear. They pretended to mobilize the nation to fight for liberty and democracy against terrorists not much worse than they are.

Their first major campaign in this global war was waged on Iraq under false pretenses: to free its people from tyranny, which had weapons of mass destruction, and to get rid of a dangerous regime that was an eminent threat to the US.

Mobilizing the mighty force of the most powerful army in the world, they invaded that country. Within a year, they lost… miserably! [Fanatics always lose in the end really because they cannot see other forces and the power of other human beings who might disagree with them.]

The Iraqi people didn’t behave as theory predicted. They somehow unwittingly put a spanner in the works of a grandiose program to dominate the world! That program would have resulted in disaster to Iraq, to America and to the rest of the world.

When you think about it, putting that spanner in those evil works was indeed a big “favor” done by the Iraqis to America.

***

We still have many problems but I would hate to ask the US for favors again.

A Year of Neocon Rule

2005-01-10T20:32:00.000+03:00

Following my previous arguments, I can only characterize the period between April 2003 and April 2004 as “Neocon Rule”.

During that year, they had the field almost totally to themselves. It was when all those ’mistakes’ were made. They definitely also had ultimate control of the US army, which – wittingly or unwittingly - took part in those mistakes.

One of the many astonishing features characterizing that year was the appointment of young inexperienced people to run a country the size California. Examples:

 Simone Ledeen, daughter of Michael Ledeen, the Iran-Contra luminary, AEI scholar, and neocon strategist. She was 29, a freshly-minted M.B.A., with little to no experience in war-torn countries. But as an advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad, she was, in essence, helping shape one quarter of that nation's economy.

 Jay Hallen, a twenty-four-year-old who had applied for a job at the White House, was put in charge of launching Baghdad’s new stock exchange.

 Scott Erwin, a twenty-one-year-old former intern to Dick Cheney, reported in an email home that “I am assisting Iraqis in the management of finances and budgeting for the domestic security forces.” The college senior’s favorite job before this one? “My time as an ice-cream truck driver.”

These are just a few examples. If you look more closely, the picture is actually even more frightening. I can understand about political appointees and all that, but to me this looks ridiculous. They were either green fools or they didn’t want it to work. Whether these people who initiated those theories are evil or idiots can be debated indefinitely.

In either case, they bear much of the blame for what happened.

Anyway, neocon theory failed in practice. It failed miserably because it is based on some “naïve” (not to say evil) assumptions about human nature and how people behave under extreme stress. People simply did not behave as those neocons predicted [why Iraqis did not is a long story in a country that was continuously habituated for more than 6000 years, the last stretch of foreign occupation alone lasting more than three times the entire history of the United States.] One day, decent Americans and the people of the world will come to appreciate and admire these people’s handling of the difficult times that they have been through due to those criminal policies… like I do now.

By April 2004 (with the failure of most of Bremer’s measures, the fiasco of the Iraq Governing Council, the outbreak of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the Fallujah-I massacre, the first Moqtada episode and the evident surge in “insurgency”) it was clear that the plan has failed. This must have been quite obvious to President Bush in April 2004. Elections were dangerously close by then. Hence,

 The hurried attempt to produce a new UN resolution where the administration made some painful compromises to other countries at the UN Security Council and tried to accommodate all members and even Sistani to produce resolution 1546 (which, by the way, I still think was a good resolution… later distorted in application).
 The dumping of Mr. Chalabi who was undoubtedly strongly backed by the neocons in the administration and his replacement by Mr. Allawi the CIA / State Department man.
 Replacing Paul Bremer by Negroponte
 Abandonment of attempts to privatize Iraqi industries em masse.

Apparently the State Department and/or the CIA were given the green light to take charge. Alas, it was far too late.

What is happening now, after the election, is a new chapter in US politics. We will have to wait a while before making a judgment. But the signs (Rice replacing Powel, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz staying on, Gonzales appointment, etc.) are not that good.

You know what? There is not much that you can do about that moving train fuelled by a “solid” public mandate for the next four years. May God help us all.

What is truly sad in all this is that there are many well-meaning Americans still talking about “Freedom and Democracy” for the Iraqi people.

Making Sense of a Senseless Mess

2005-01-08T12:09:00.000+03:00

In my last post, I outlined three contradictory views on the US post-invasion plans:

 Major Wilson, official historian of the campaign: "There was no Phase IV plan"…. "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."

 General Tommy Franks, chief of the Central Command: "I was confident in the Phase IV plan."

 Naomi Klein, activist-journalist: "…the blame rests with the plan itself, and the extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based.”

To add more confusion to all this… in trying to research the subject, only two days ago I came across an excellent article by Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. It offers a no-conspiracy-theory assessment of this very matter. O’Hanlon reaches a conclusion that there was a plan… but it was a bad one: “The war plan was seriously flawed and incomplete.”

I have already stated that all this can be rather confusing. Can anyone call any of these people a liar or even incompetent? In honesty, I don't think that any responsible person should! So? What if all these people are right? Is this possible? Consider the following:

Premises

1. There is no conspiracy. Neocon literature is out there in the open for anyone to read. They are in fact quite active in promoting their vision of America, of the world and of this century. They are not shy about it. They are fond of their “creative destruction” doctrine.

2. To put it mildly, neocons have considerable influence in the present administration, to the extent that the sober and influential “Economist” advised European governments not to take them lightly: “… demonising them will merely marginalise their critics.”

3. We also know that the neocons, since 2000, have almost total political control of the Department of Defense.

4. We also know that the State Department had been working hard on its own post-invasion plans. Numerous committees produced that 13-volume study. We also know that these plans were never seriously considered for implementation. They were simply ignored.

An attempt to make some sense of it all!

Based on the above premises, consider the following possible scenario. I must add that this is just a conjecture to try and make some sense out of things and explain events:

1. The army in the US, as everybody knows, does not directly initiate or has much of a say in "political or economic" plans.

2. They were given the task of invading and occupying Iraq – which they prepared for, and did, successfully.

3. There was a neocon post-invasion plan. We now know that there was. Evidently, that plan was fermented by people close to the supreme decision-making corner and was therefore not debated within other (hostile) echelons of power in Washington or elsewhere. Hence, the mystery.

4. The military people were given the task of securing the country in terms that would allow the "political and economic" plan to be implemented – which they did “unsuccessfully” because there was inherent incompatibility with the military objectives.

5. They were given only "need to know" guidelines. They acted within that fragment of a plan. The assumptions and premises of the plan were basically "civilian" (in this case, neocon). For some reason, army planners did not subject those premises to sufficient scrutiny! This certainly explains those post-invasion "militarily stupid" mistakes. The army people do what they are told, but they are not stupid.

What happened in Iraq after the invasion fits so well with the neocon doctrine and visions. If we do not assume incompetence to an unbelievably criminal degree, then that philosophy is the only thing that offers anything like a plausible explanation.

So, my own conclusions regarding these incompatibilities are…

 Naomi Klein is correct. All those ‘mistakes’ actually fit well within such a plan.

 General Franks was correct. He had an operational partial plan. He had a specific task… and planned for it. He was "blinded" to the "civilian" aspects of the plan and its “social” assumptions, or “accepted “ them (which doesn't really absolve him from responsibility for the loss of at least the America soldier blood).

 Major Wilson is right. There was no all-encompassing, comprehensive plan that he was looking for as an army historian.

Whether that disaster was intentional or due to faulty underlying assumptions or to unforeseen factors that were not considered… is another matter that may or may not be debated within the States. It certainly is being intensely debated in Iraq and elsewhere, and will be debated for a long time. [I feel exceptionally generous this morning. I am even accommodating conspiracy theorists here. You’re welcome]

The important conclusion is that the link between the military plan and the political-economic plan are the civilian (political) controllers at the Pentagon, chiefly: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith. These people are to a large extent responsible, directly or indirectly, for much of the Iraqi and the American blood that was needlessly shed and is being shed since the "Mission Accomplished" announcement.

_____________________________________________________

Postscripts:

1. I am grateful to an anonymous comment poster for the following tip:
Intel-Dump, a blog by a former Army officer, journalist and a recent UCLA law student, links directly to Dr. Wilson's 64 page report. [which is an excellent piece of professional workmanship… although I would take issue with some of his assumptions regarding the “other side”.]
I am also grateful to “em dash” of LiberalStreetFighter.com for the link to an overview of neoconservatives in Wikipedia.

2. My arguments above cover events up to April 2004. I have come to believe that between April and May 2004 there was a shift of policy.

3. Michael O’Hanlon is a bit more “liberal” than I am in distributing the blame for the plan / fiasco under discussion. The following excerpts from his article may be of interest:

“The problem was simply this: The war plan was seriously flawed and incomplete. Invading another country with the intention of destroying its existing government yet without a serious strategy for providing security thereafter defies logic and falls short of proper professional military standards of competence. It was in fact unconscionable.

"Many basic tasks that should have been seen as necessary in Iraq—policing the streets, guarding huge weapons depots, protecting key infrastructure, maintaining public order—were simply not planned for. Instead, such planning as there was, conducted largely out of the office of Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, was reportedly unfocused, shallow, and too dependent on optimistic scenarios…

"Even as it became apparent that the initial assumptions were wrong, the Pentagon was unresponsive. The initial post-invasion chaos was famously attributed by Donald Rumsfeld to the fact that "freedom's untidy." In fact, only the U.S.-led coalition military forces were in a position to stabilize the anarchic conditions."

Whose responsibility?

The mistake here was primarily of the Bush administration's making. Indeed, much of the prevalent view within the uniformed military is that the Rumsfeld / Wolfowitz/ Cheney vision of modern warfare, as well as their strong preconceptions about how easy it would be to depose Saddam, deserve the blame for CENTCOM's lack of readiness to handle the challenges that began to present themselves in Iraq on April 9, 2003 when Saddam's statue fell in Baghdad. This perspective is mostly right. It is also too simple.

The uniformed military in fact shares some of the blame for the mistakes made in planning the Iraq stabilization mission. That is partly because General Tommy Franks in the end was the author of the plan. Even if he was under pressure from Secretary Rumsfeld to produce a certain concept, he had every opportunity to voice his objections. It is also because the joint chiefs of staff, with the apparent exception of Army Chief of Staff Shinseki, reportedly blessed the plan as well. It is also because no member of the armed forces of the United States went public with his objections or resigned in protest even though the plan was the military equivalent of medical malpractice.

Was There a Plan?

2005-01-04T10:52:00.000+03:00

[With the US elections now over, perhaps the question of US plans for the post-invasion of Iraq phase can be discussed with more objectivity and less heated, partisan sentiments.]

Was there a plan or wasn't there a plan for the post-invasion phase?

Even informed army personnel seem to be in some disagreement.

Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq, seems to think that there wasn't.

"While there may have been 'plans' at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these 'plans' operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse… … There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."

This is a serious allegation… and it comes from a serious person! I have posted a longer reference to his assertion in my other blog Disgruntled Americans.

I find this not only confusing, but rather odd. Faced with such a contradiction, one is naturally inclined to believe General Franks simply because his position allows him to know better! But this does not solve the dilemma; it complicates matters a bit! If there was such a plan, was it successful, or did it fail miserably?

I didn't hear of any senior army or political figure being scolded or demoted by Congress or by the administration on account of the "failure" of the post-invasion plan. Can we therefore assume that the plan was successful? Is what we are witnessing in Iraq the result of a successful plan? Is this the plan?

Could the US army, with the mission now accomplished (!) publish some highlights of that plan for us to see? How well did that plan fare? Otherwise, one is forced to look somewhere else for a theory that fits the facts on the ground.

For example, Naomi Klein offers an alternative explanation in a long article that is worth reading in full [I hope the fact that the author is a left-wing activist will not discourage right-leaning Americans from examining the facts and explanations presented]. Excerpts:
…
The fact that the boom never came and Iraq continues to tremble under explosions of a very different sort should never be blamed on the absence of a plan. Rather, the blame rests with the plan itself, and the extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based.
…
The theory is that if painful economic “adjustments” are brought in rapidly and in the aftermath of a seismic social disruption like a war, a coup, or a government collapse, the population will be so stunned, and so preoccupied with the daily pressures of survival, that it too will go into suspended animation, unable to resist… …
…
At first, the shock-therapy theory seemed to hold: Iraqis, reeling from violence both military and economic, were far too busy staying alive to mount a political response to Bremer’s campaign…
…
As the British historian Dilip Hiro has shown, in Secrets and Lies: Operation ‘Iraqi Freedom’ and After, the Iraqi exiles pushing for the invasion were divided, broadly, into two camps. On one side were “the pragmatists,” who favored getting rid of Saddam and his immediate entourage, securing access to oil, and slowly introducing free-market reforms…. On the other side was the “Year Zero” camp, those who believed that Iraq was so contaminated that it needed to be rubbed out and remade from scratch.
…
The Iraqi Year Zeroists made natural allies for the White House neoconservatives: … Together, they came to imagine the invasion of Iraq as a kind of Rapture: where the rest of the world saw death, they saw birth—a country redeemed through violence, cleansed by fire. Iraq wasn’t being destroyed by cruise missiles, cluster bombs, chaos, and looting; it was being born again. April 9, 2003, the day Baghdad fell, was Day One of Year Zero.
…
The great historical irony of the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq is that the shock-therapy reforms that were supposed to create an economic boom that would rebuild the country have instead fueled a resistance that ultimately made reconstruction impossible… These forces have transformed Year Zero in Iraq into the mirror opposite of what the neocons envisioned… For the neocons, this must be a shocking development: their ideological belief in greed turns out to be stronger than greed itself.

Is it possible that there was such a plan that went sourly wrong… and failed?

Or, as many cynics in Iraq and elsewhere now believe, what is happening in Iraq, the break-down of law and order and services, the lawlessness and the chaos, is itself the plan?

Don't Iraqis and Americans have a right to know?

Ungrateful Californians

2004-12-31T15:12:00.000+03:00

[A light note of a fairy tale to break the gloom and depression of previous posts and offer some distraction from our sordid reality!]

A well-connected drug company comes up with a new wonder drug called Neoconide that researchers were confident would make people happy and live longer, as well as make the company a lot of money for a long time to come. Definitely a good idea and a noble cause!

This company manages to get the FDA approval to test this drug on California. Why not? Everything looked so good on paper. There was also a lot of what looked like historical evidence that made sense.

California was ripe. It was decadent. People were dying of over-indulgence in decadence. It was even governed by a manifestly violent person - who sometimes even acted as a weapon of mass destruction. There was a danger of the disease spreading to other states.

The drug was administered in shock therapy to the whole population en masse.

Unfortunately, this drug had some nasty side effects and led to the death of thousands of Californians: 15,000 – 150,000 – maybe more. No one knows for sure. The FDA didn't bother to monitor. What is the significance of a few 100,000 deaths when you are trying to save a whole state? Those people were dying for what we believe to be a good cause and an important experiment.

Life of other, surviving Californians became truly miserable. Everyone was affected: police, people in charge of power supply, hospitals, schools, businesses, factories, traffic… Criminals, now free from police harassment, went on a rampage. Others poured across the unattended borders into California to join in the free-for-all festivities.

Californians were naturally angry and many demanded an immediate stop to the campaign. Some sought to stop it through violent means. They targeted FDA paramedics and Californians who collaborated with them.

The FDA, prodded by the company, decided to fight back hard. They were convinced of the ultimate success of their drug. The Texas Cowboy Cavalry were called in. To them, all those Californians looked so much alike in those flowery shirts. They started shooting everybody that crossed them. They made matters worse.

The State was in a state of total chaos.

Texans were divided. Some felt what the Californians were going through and sympathized with them, but they were a minority and were helpless. Some were good people who knew in their hearts that what was happening was wrong, but had faith in the FDA's intentions and abilities to pull the thing through. Some simply did not care; California was so far away. But many, perhaps a majority, endorsed the actions of the FDA and did not understand what those stupid Californians were whining about.

Didn't they realize that they were living in hell before that drug?
Medicine is always bitter. Didn't they know that "Cure was Hell"?
All medicines have some side effects.
Yes, mistakes were made. But mistakes are always made whatever you choose to do!
If those mistakes were not made, others, probably worse, would have been made.
Did Californians expect the FDA to be God?
Good Texans were risking their lives to help them.
Didn't these people know what was good for them?
They are not worth it. Let's leave them to their misery.
Better still, let's nuke them!

Californians are so impatient and ungrateful for all the effort, the expenditure, the inconvenience the FDA and other Americans have gone through to help them.

But then again, Californians were always like that, some were quick to point out. Weren't they always decadent? Didn't they even willingly allow movie actors to govern them?

Stupid, ungrateful Californians!

[I hope that Californians are not be offended by this post. It is only a fairy tale, written under the influence of Neoconide.]

Happy New Year!

Democracy, not Elections

2004-12-26T13:35:00.000+03:00

The problems in Iraq cannot be solved by just by having elections. They can be solved by democracy. Elections will not work. Democracy will.

An increasing number of people are realizing that the coming elections in Iraq will not solve the multitude of prevailing problems. Some of the people and political parties that have fully cooperated with the US administration since the invasion have started asking for a postponement of the elections. These people hope that in, say, six months, Iraq will be stable enough for elections to take place. No justification is given for this belief. I can only see more of the same turmoil in the present path.

There have also been several proposals put forward to solve the present stand-off regarding these elections: putting aside some seats for Sunnis or for some Sunni-dominated areas currently in turmoil… and wait for better conditions to run elections in those areas. It will not work.

I have already outlined my objection to one of these proposals in response to a comment in a previous post in my blog. I will just reiterate it here: Putting aside a certain percentage or a certain number of seats for "Sunnis" and going ahead with the elections is not only impractical but quite dangerous.

1. Sunnis don't have any ID to show that they are Sunnis.

2. About half of Iraq is thoroughly mixed as I have outlined earlier. How can you allow some people in Baghdad for example to vote and not others? Remember that Baghdad has a quarter of the population of the entire country.

3. So many people of the "type" that should have a favorable effect on the process and that should be encouraged to be involved, eg the enlightened, the secular or the moderate will refuse to be simply labeled as "Sunnis"… and they shouldn't be.

4. If a "geographic" approach is attempted and the "Sunni" provinces of Anbar, Saladdin and Mosul are excluded, how do you deal with the other mixed provinces of Diala, Babel and with the sizable Sunni minority in Basra?

5. Such schemes cannot solve the enormous problem of mixed and contested Kirkuk.

6. Any assembly that leaves large segments of the population unrepresented will lack legitimacy in the eye of many. How can such an assembly possibly discuss the future shape of the country and write a constitution?

7. Elections themselves are not an end. They have to be part of the democratic process. Running an election "for its own sake" without the other components will not solve the problem.

8. Finally, such an approach is extremely dangerous in that it may further polarize the Iraqi society along Sunni – Shiite lines. I find this a recipe for a future civil war.

In any case, this line of reasoning naturally leads to treating different regions in Iraq individually. In contrast, the present rules of the game treat the whole of Iraq as one large constituency – something I frankly find unfortunate. Unfortunate to us it may well be… but quite understandable! It is basically designed to give some political parties and "chosen" individuals an edge.

Consider Mr. Chalabi for example. In a direct election, I would be surprised if he received more than a few thousand votes in the whole country. [In a BBC poll last year, he was found even more hated by Iraqis than Saddam Hussein!] However, by cleverly attaching himself to larger parties, and since he is the "senior" politician that he is, he managed to position himself at the top of their slate. This guarantees him a place at the new Congress. Quite a feat, isn't it? Well, not really! The system itself was designed for such people in the first place.

The only problem is that there are too many Iraqis who are too sly not to see through this scheme. Were this a game of some sort and not involving human life and human suffering, I would have taken the position to support this scheme as it is. When those elections are done, then those rejecting them will be joined by the majority of people. Alas, that would be an irresponsible, even reckless, stance.

Again, it is the "rules of the game" that are at fault, not the game itself. Democracy is not just about ballot boxes, it is about the will of the people.

There are no truly national parties or national political figures in Iraq at present. This is no coincidence. It has been the active policy of the previous regime for decades to produce just this result.

Also, Iraq as a country is far from uniform – there is such a wide spectrum of mentality, beliefs and modes of living. There is enormous diversity in the country.

But, again, democracy is all about the will of the people. So, how do you solve this problem?

It is a great advantage that Iraq is already administratively divided into 18 provinces and each province is further divided into smaller districts… all the way down to "neighborhoods". This was a feature of the highly centralized and totalitarian system of government that we had. This arrangement facilitated control. We can use it to an advantage! All the administrative details are there, on the ground. (For those interested in some details, my blog Rapid Democracy in Iraq gives some).

There are about 7000 of these micro-districts. Even the present "rules of the game" have 7000 polling stations.

Almost all of these small districts are uniform in one aspect or another (ethnic, sectarian, social, economic, etc.). Why not use a readily available feature? Why not make each of these neighborhoods an electoral district? The people in all these micro-districts know their borders.

There is no need for any administrative overhaul or even a census. Even campaigning will not be much of a problem. Due to the nature of the Iraqi society, where people are "connected" to other people and are not isolated little islands like many people in the West, people in these neighborhoods know each other; they generally know who the good guys are! They can select representatives in little time, with less fuss. I have seen it happen, first hand, on a number of occasions.

We need not worry about representing the various sects, Shiites, Sunnis, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Caldo-Assyrians, Yazidis, Subba, religious, secular, communist, etc. etc. it will all sort itself out rather fairly. No headache. Delegates of the people can battle over their differences in meeting halls using words (and even probably chairs) but not bombs and bullets. If ordinary people are convinced by the representation process, there will no longer be a question regarding legitimacy.

Isn't that what democracy is really about? Why is this unacceptable? And why doesn't it happen then?

The answer is simple. Simply consider who is going to lose control: the present "imported & imposed" people and, more important, the US administration. The motive of the first group is obvious, but what about the administration. Well, they simply cannot afford to do that. They cannot venture into such waters. Democracy in Iraq without control? It is almost unthinkable to them. Think of all those extremists and fanatics!

They are wrong of course.

If such a democracy succeeds, the elected assembly will be "anti-American", reflecting the mood of the country. But, after a while, and when the country is stable again, even children unborn yet will be grateful to America for making it all possible.

The basic assumption in all this is my unshaken belief that most Iraqis, like most other people, are basically moderate. Is the US administration willing to take that risk? So far, apparently not! Instead, they are leading my country and yours into "the abyss".

On Dreams and Nightmares

2004-12-21T12:46:00.000+03:00

In a better world…

The US administration would apologize…

• To the American people for the great losses they have caused in blood, money and moral standing.

• To the American army for putting it in such an impossible situation and for damaging its reputation in the eyes of civilians and military professionals the world over.

• To the world for the damage they have caused in strengthening the hand of international terrorists and for sabotaging the war on terror.

• To the United Nations for pulling out the last of the few teeth it had and for their part in turning it from a dream for humanity into a farce.

• To moderate Moslems for weakening their case and for causing fanatics to have the upper hand in many of their communities.

• To the Iraqi people for all the unnecessary suffering and loss of innocent life, the looting, the destruction of the infrastructure of their country, for the terrorists they lured into their country, for the lawlessness and for putting the country on the road to total anarchy and ruin. The actual list is much longer, but one shouldn't be too greedy!

The Iraqi people would thank America profusely for ridding them of Saddam.

The American administration would then make immediate steps to put things right and ask others to help, perhaps even the Iraqi people.

An impossible dream? Of course! But why not? We are all entitled to some unrealistic dreaming sometime. Isn't that what dreams are all about? Besides, dreams are harmless things, aren't they?

Not exactly.

There are those who have different dreams: dreams of eliminating all world terror at the present battlefield in Iraq; dreams of an Iraq Free and Democratic - an Iraq with a contented population grateful to America for all the good things this administration has done for them; secure flow of oil for decades to come; thousands of huge contracts providing riches to some and employment to many Americans.

All these wonderful things can be achieved by simply following the present course!

An impossible dream? Of course! But this one is a bit more costly. Personally, I would rather call this a nightmare. But nightmares happen during sleep… this one looks and feels so real!

Can somebody's dream be somebody else's day-and-nightmare?

Of course! So much in mankind's history is made of this stuff. Hitler's dream was a nightmare to many millions, including Germans. On the other hand, Gandhi's dream was a nightmare to some empire-builders in Britain. Martin Luther King's dream was a nightmare to some Americans.

Which dreams won and became a reality in the end?

It may be useful to remember here that America played no small part in ending Hitler's dream. Will America be able to do it again? I don't know. America seems to be busy with its own dreams and nightmares at the moment.

So many people in America seem to be dreaming. Some are having nightmares caused in 9/11 by some other people's dreams; some are dreaming of ending those nightmares through the dreams of other people mentioned above, or through a new wonder drug called neocon; some have their own dreams of glory and empire-building and a brand new American Century. So many dreams and so many nightmares.

In Iraq, as popular folklore has it, a heavy meal late in the evening leads to having nightmares. I really don't know enough about American eating habits to make a judgment.

Have a Merry Christmas… and don't eat too much late at night, just in case…

Super Patriotism

2004-12-17T12:41:00.000+03:00

I was sometimes surprised by the severity of some of the responses I received through comments at some criticisms I have made. Any criticism of government policies is rashly labeled anti-Americanism.

I cannot honestly say that this mindset is the prevalent one in the USA, but it certainly exists and it has a name: Super Patriotism. This is somewhat surprising to me because I see the US as a sort of microcosm of the whole world; few nations or races are not represented. So many Americans do seem to reflect a truly global outlook that does not have much of an animosity component towards the rest of the world in it. Yet, those other people appear to have the upper hand at the moment.

Some time ago in this blog, I was particularly taken aback by the intensity and ferocity of someone's reaction to comments (by other fellow Americans) until he mentioned the fact that he was a naturalized US citizen as an adult. Sometimes it seems to me that some (mind you, some) of the new comers into the States somehow feel that they need to prove themselves to be "patriotic Americans" (no offence intended). They become aggressive on questions of criticism of the country… frequently they are on the defensive and lash back violently. In short: they become "more royal than the king"! Has this sort of attitude entrenched itself unconsciously into American culture so that people are no longer aware of it?

Am I correct to have this impression? Mind you, it is just an impression… from a distance! Are Australians and New Zealanders different in this respect? Is it raw power that affects some people? There is no intended sarcasm in this post. I really want to know.

We could all learn a thing or two from "old Europe". The roots of many of your values come from there. Britain is now a close ally of the US. Perhaps it would be less offensive to suggest learning something from them. The best jokes about Britain and its governments come from Britain; The English, Welsh and Scottish generally relish a good joke about their country. Yet, you can find a great deal of "subtle" patriotism in good old Britain! They generally don't have to be fierce about it… because they don't feel they need to prove it to anyone.

I have received a good deal of free advice on this blog (some of it patronizing, from people younger than my own children). I, in turn, would like to offer such people one piece of advice: If you want to be a true American, then study the words and wisdom of the Founding Fathers of your country. It was that wisdom and foresight that helped make your new country great, not the "kill 'em all" cowboy mentality that we see in some of the bad Western movies. That mentality may have expanded the country, but it was the guiding philosophy set by those good men that made it great. Look how far back in the history of other countries they looked to find the basic principles of a good system of government which they then built upon.

On Shocks & Awes - an Iraqi Perspective

2004-12-14T12:32:00.000+03:00

It is always surprising how some people think that because "we" are good and decent and have high and noble ideals, then everything "our side" does has to be good… or at least, justifiable. Thus, they justify to themselves and to others some truly grotesque acts. Such people exist in probably all countries of the world; America seems to have its fair share of them.

***

Shock & Awe

Shocking tactics to intimidate adversaries into submission are probably as old as human history. They were carried out by most nations throughout mankind's troubled and bloody history. I will restrict my post to recent "Shock & Awe" campaigns relating to Iraq.

Shock & Awe I

This was the official US army tactic during the Iraq war. The idea is to shock the opponent by an awesome show of force and superiority into submission. It is also argued that this may well result in a minimization of losses on both sides (some people still argue that the use of nuclear weapons in Japan also served this purpose of resulting in fewer final casualties – more people would have died if those nuclear bombs weren't used). You can find many references to this type of logic in neocon literature.

What is surprising is that many people in the States were not (and many still are not) appalled by what such a campaign really means in terms of human suffering.

If you come to think of it, that campaign was justified in the minds of many Americans by an earlier "Shock & Awe" campaign that was directed at the US in 9/11. To justify the campaign against Iraq, the US administration claimed that there were links between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Apparently it didn't make much difference to many of those people that those claimed links turned out mostly to be unfounded.

One little example: On the second day of the American army's "Shock & Awe" campaign to "liberate" Iraqis from tyranny and to secure the world from weapons of mass destruction, 3000 assorted bombs, missile and other explosive gadgets were dropped on Baghdad on a single day!

It was awesome! But what was awesome turned into something awful with the random killings, the Abu Ghraib grotesque abuses, the Fallujah-I, Najaf, Sadr City and Fallujah-II bombings. Some people would claim that the Abu Ghraib episode was the private "Shock & Awe" campaign of a few bad apples – some of those people got up to a year of imprisonment for it, some were even discharged from the army. It may however be argued that those episodes were seen to be merely a continuation of the original "Shock & Awe" strategy.

All truly shocking… and awful.

Shock & Awe II

Instead of producing the required result of total submission as neocon theory predicts, it produced a great deal of resentment and hatred (not unlike the reaction of many Americans to 9/11). This reaction fuelled what may be called the nationalist resistance. I maintain that this was mostly due to mistakes and blunders (and probably even some ill-intentions) by the current US administration in handling the occupation. In the days to come, this may well be related to the loss of the whole campaign.

However, other forces of darkness, lured by the US policy of taking the War on Terror to "them" started using Iraq as a base for their operations against the US.

Those people started using "Shock & Awe" methods in Iraq under the name of "resistance": Killing civilians at random, targeting innocent children, ugly slaughtering and beheading of Iraqis and foreigners, including international aid workers, etc. Video clips of these ugly things were produced and distributed for maximum effect! Incidentally, they also managed to discredit the above mentioned nationalistic resistance in the minds of much of the world and even in the minds of many Iraqis.

You have to admit that these barbaric acts were also shocking… and awful!

***

Both "Shock & Awe" campaigns have shocked decent people around the world. However, many people in the States were only shocked by the second campaign. Why? Because the first was conducted by respectable professionals who were doing it for a noble cause. Besides, pressing a button to send death to scores of people, or ordering such an act, is definitely more "civilized" than beheading them with a knife and recording the proceedings on video, isn't it?

The result is that the American "Shock & Awe-I" campaign and the "Shock & Awe-II" campaign being conducted by those forces of darkness have caused a great deal of suffering for the Iraqi people. In both cases, innocent people were the fodder in the tactics of "great" men in pursuit of what they regard as "noble" goals.

Fallujah Mission?

2004-12-11T11:48:00.000+03:00

The problem of Fallujah doesn't seem to want to go away!

The reports coming out of ruins and bodies lying in the streets are truly disturbing. The 200,000 or so who fled the town are still homeless – many of them living in tents. I have no idea what the living conditions of those who remained in the town are.

Fallujah may be no longer a safe haven for terrorists, but it also no longer home for its 300,000 inhabitants.

The US army refused to let in a group of doctors (5 young doctors with 5 ambulances and 10 supporting staff) sent in by the Ministry of Health a few days ago. They were stopped about 20 miles from the town and escorted by two Hummers to some US army headquarters. The lady-colonel who talked to them asked them what they hoped to do! They said that they were told that their expedition was arranged between the ministry and the US army. They also said that they had a letter from the Minister of Health. The lady snapped: "What minister? They can't do that!" They were then told that they could not go through… there were no facilities for them to use… they will let the ministry know when those facilities are ready. They were turned back. I was told of these details by one of the doctors with the group.

Two days ago, the Iraqi Red Crescent was ordered out of the town by the US army.

We are still hearing reports that some fighting is still going on in some parts of Fallujah. This was also confirmed by a Col Ramos who said on TV that there were still some pockets of resistance in Fallujah. We have even been hearing reports that insurgents are filtering back into the city.

Could this be explained by the following excerpt from story by a NY Times embedded journalist recounting events on the third day of the recent Fallujah-II campaign?

Hard Lesson: 150 Marines Meet 1 Sniper
By Dexter Filkins, New York Times, Published: November 11, 2004

FALLUJA, Iraq, Nov. 10 - American marines called in two air strikes on the pair of dingy three-story buildings squatting along Highway 10 on Wednesday, dropping 500-pound bombs each time. They fired 35 or so 155-millimeter artillery shells, 10 shots from the muzzles of Abrams tanks and perhaps 30,000 rounds from their automatic rifles. The building was a smoking ruin.

But the sniper kept shooting.

He - or they, because no one can count the flitting shadows in this place - kept 150 marines pinned down for the better part of a day. It was a lesson on the nature of the enemy in this hellish warren of rubble-strewn streets. Not all of the insurgents are holy warriors looking for martyrdom. At least a few are highly trained killers who do their job with cold precision and know how to survive.
…
At one point, they thought that they had a bead on someone running back and forth between the two buildings. Then Capt. Christopher Spears exclaimed: "He's on a bike!"
…
At 5 p.m., the marines finally crossed Highway 10 and searched the smoking remains of the two buildings. At 5:30 p.m., a sniper opened up on them.
…

***

The weird silence and consequent mysteries surrounding casualties (civilian and otherwise) of the Fallujah-II campaign are also confusing and contradictory. It seems that as far as the Fallujah campaign is concerned, after more than three weeks of aerial bombardment and four weeks of ground combat by the most powerful army in the world… no news is bad news! It appears to be too early yet to make an assessment of the affair, but the prognosis is not promising.

The Other Side of the Story

2004-12-05T13:21:00.000+03:00

Yesterday, I posted a little true war story in my other blog "A Glimpse of Iraq" entitled (The Poet's Son) about a young Iraqi former officer who was killed following an ambush he and some of his friends set up for a US army convoy.

In that story, there were no civilian casualties, women or children involved as far as I know. All those involved were professionals. Nevertheless, I still see those events as a human tragedy – on both sides of this pointless war.

I don't know how many US soldiers were killed in that ambush. If any, they would also be young people who also died believing that they were fighting for Freedom! Some of them probably also left behind beautiful young children or grandfathers who will miss them for the rest of their lives.

Why are all these young people killing each other trying to achieve the same good thing: Freedom? People killing each other for the same noble ideal cannot all be right, can they? Is it just a misunderstanding? I think not! Liberty to most Iraqis has the same meaning it does to most Americans.

If some 80% of Iraqis believe that the US army is here as a conquering army and not a liberating one… people who do not believe the claims and publicly declared intentions so many Americans seem to take for granted, surely it would be natural for some of their young to resist such an occupation violently…

Isn't there something that can be done about it? So far, apparently not! As things are at the moment, most people on either side simply think of the combatants of the other side as terrorists.

Meanwhile, those vile, true terrorists who are killing people indiscriminately, and who are actually the true enemies of both sides, are getting away with their acts.

Hasn't there been enough bloodshed? Isn't it time to start thinking about political solutions to this mess?

Those people painting rosy pictures have for some time run out of colors. Now, they are using blood to paint their roses. The problem is: the color of blood turns ugly after a while.