Iraqi Opinions

[Texas Gentleman]

A worthy read http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110004882

 

An Essential War

Ousting Saddam was the only option.

by George Shultz

 

(Excerpt below) is a long damn article

The United States launched a military campaign to eliminate the Taliban and al Qaeda's rule over Afghanistan. Now we and our allies are trying to help Afghanistan become a real state again and a viable member of the international state system. Yet there are many other parts of the world where state authority has collapsed or, within some states, large areas where the state's authority does not run.

 

That's one area of danger: places where the state has vanished. A second area of danger is found in places where the state has been taken over by criminals or warlords. Saddam Hussein was one example. Kim Jong Il of North Korea is another.

 

They seize control of state power and use that power to enhance their wealth, consolidate their rule and develop their weaponry. As they do this, and as they violate the laws and principles of the international system, they at the same time claim its privileges and immunities, such as the principle of non-intervention into the internal affairs of a legitimate sovereign state. For decades these thugs have gotten away with it. And the leading nations of the world have let them get away with it.

 

This is why the case of Saddam Hussein and Iraq is so significant. After Saddam Hussein consolidated power, he started a war against one of his neighbors, Iran, and in the course of that war he committed war crimes including the use of chemical weapons, even against his own people.

 

About 10 years later he started another war against another one of his neighbors, Kuwait. In the course of doing so he committed war crimes. He took hostages. He launched missiles against a third and then a fourth country in the region.

 

That war was unique in modern times because Saddam totally eradicated another state, and turned it into "Province 19" of Iraq. The aggressors in wars might typically seize some territory, or occupy the defeated country, or install a puppet regime; but Saddam sought to wipe out the defeated state, to erase Kuwait from the map of the world.

 

That got the world's attention. That's why, at the U.N., the votes were wholly in favor of a U.S.-led military operation--Desert Storm--to throw Saddam out of Kuwait and to restore Kuwait to its place as a legitimate state in the international system. There was virtually universal recognition that those responsible for the international system of states could not let a state simply be rubbed out.

 

When Saddam was defeated, in 1991, a cease-fire was put in place. Then the U.N. Security Council decided that, in order to prevent him from continuing to start wars and commit crimes against his own people, he must give up his arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction."

 

Recall the way it was to work. If Saddam cooperated with U.N. inspectors and produced his weapons and facilitated their destruction, then the cease-fire would be transformed into a peace agreement ending the state of war between the international system and Iraq. But if Saddam did not cooperate, and materially breached his obligations regarding his weapons of mass destruction, then the original U.N. Security Council authorization for the use of "all necessary force" against Iraq--an authorization that at the end of Desert Storm had been suspended but not cancelled--would be reactivated and Saddam would face another round of the U.S.-led military action against him. Saddam agreed to this arrangement.

 

In the early 1990s, U.N. inspectors found plenty of materials in the category of weapons of mass destruction and they dismantled a lot of it. They kept on finding such weapons, but as the presence of force declined, Saddam's cooperation declined. He began to play games and to obstruct the inspection effort.

 

By 1998 the situation was untenable. Saddam had made inspections impossible. President Clinton, in February 1998, declared that Saddam would have to comply with the U.N. resolutions or face American military force. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and returned with a new promise of cooperation from Saddam. But Saddam did not cooperate. Congress then passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a vote of 360 to 38 in the House of Representatives; the Senate gave its unanimous consent. Signed into law on October 31, it supported the renewed use of force against Saddam with the objective of changing the regime. By this time, he had openly and utterly rejected the inspections and the U.N. resolutions.

 

In November 1998, the Security Council passed a resolution declaring Saddam to be in "flagrant violation" of all resolutions going back to 1991. That meant that the cease-fire was terminated and the original authorization for the use of force against Saddam was reactivated. President Clinton ordered American forces into action in December 1998.

 

But the U.S. military operation was called off after only four days--apparently because President Clinton did not feel able to lead the country in war at a time when he was facing impeachment.

 

So inspections stopped. The U.S. ceased to take the lead. But the inspectors reported that as of the end of 1998 Saddam possessed major quantities of WMDs across a range of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence services of the world agreed on this.

 

From that time until late last year, Saddam was left undisturbed to do what he wished with this arsenal of weapons. The international system had given up its ability to monitor and deal with this threat. All through the years between 1998 and 2002 Saddam continued to act and speak and to rule Iraq as a rogue state.

 

President Bush made it clear by 2002, and against the background of 9/11, that Saddam must be brought into compliance. It was obvious that the world could not leave this situation as it was. The U.S. made the decision to continue to work within the scope of the Security Council resolutions--a long line of them--to deal with Saddam. After an extended and excruciating diplomatic effort, the Security Council late in 2002 passed Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one final chance to comply or face military force. When on December 8, 2002, Iraq produced its required report, it was clear that Saddam was continuing to play games and to reject his obligations under international law. His report, thousands of pages long, did not in any way account for the remaining weapons of mass destruction that the U.N. inspectors had reported to be in existence as of the end of 1998. That assessment was widely agreed upon.

 

That should have been that. But the debate at the U.N. went on--and on. And as it went on it deteriorated. Instead of the focus being kept on Iraq and Saddam, France induced others to regard the problem as one of restraining the U.S.--a position that seemed to emerge from France's aspirations for greater influence in Europe and elsewhere. By March of 2003 it was clear that French diplomacy had resulted in splitting NATO, the European Union, and the Security Council . . . and probably convincing Saddam that he would not face the use of force. The French position, in effect, was to say that Saddam had begun to show signs of cooperation with the U.N. resolutions because more than 200,000 American troops were poised on Iraq's borders ready to strike him; so the U.S. should just keep its troops poised there for an indeterminate time to come, until presumably France would instruct us that we could either withdraw or go into action. This of course was impossible militarily, politically, and financially.

 

Where do we stand now? These key points need to be understood:

• There has never been a clearer case of a rogue state using its privileges of statehood to advance its dictator's interests in ways that defy and endanger the international state system.

• The international legal case against Saddam--17 resolutions--was unprecedented.

• The intelligence services of all involved nations and the U.N. inspectors over more than a decade all agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to international peace and security.

• Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal.

• He used every means to avoid cooperating or explaining what he has done with them. This refusal in itself was, under the U.N. resolutions, adequate grounds for resuming the military operation against him that had been put in abeyance in 1991 pending his compliance.

• President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those who criticize the U.S. for unilateralism should recognize that no nation in the history of the United Nations has ever engaged in such a sustained and committed multilateral diplomatic effort to adhere to the principles of international law and international organization within the international system. In the end, it was the U.S. that upheld and acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions on Iraq, not those on the Security Council who tried to stop us.

 

The question of weapons of mass destruction is just that: a question that remains to be answered, a mystery that must be solved. Just as we also must solve the mystery of how Libya and Iran developed menacing nuclear capability without detection, of how we were caught unaware of a large and flourishing black market in nuclear material--and of how we discovered these developments before they got completely out of hand and have put in place promising corrective processes. The question of Iraq's presumed stockpile of weapons will be answered, but that answer, however it comes out, will not affect the fully justifiable and necessary action that the coalition has undertaken to bring an end to Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq. As Dr. David Kay put it in a Feb. 1 interview with Chris Wallace, "We know there were terrorist groups in state still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomena was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been very dangerous if the war had not intervened."

 

When asked by Mr. Wallace what the sellers could have sold if they didn't have actual weapons, Mr. Kay said: "The knowledge of how to make them, the knowledge of how to make small amounts, which is, after all, mostly what terrorists want. They don't want battlefield amounts of weapons. No, Iraq remained a very dangerous place in terms of WMD capabilities, even though we found no large stockpiles of weapons."

 

Above all, and in the long run, the most important aspect of the Iraq war will be what it means for the integrity of the international system and for the effort to deal effectively with terrorism. The stakes are huge and the terrorists know that as well as we do. That is the reason for their tactic of violence in Iraq. And that is why, for us and for our allies, failure is not an option. The message is that the U.S. and others in the world who recognize the need to sustain our international system will no longer quietly acquiesce in the take-over of states by lawless dictators who then carry on their depredations--including the development of awesome weapons for threats, use, or sale--behind the shield of protection that statehood provides. If you are one of these criminals in charge of a state, you no longer should expect to be allowed to be inside the system at the same time that you are a deadly enemy of it.

 

Sept. 11 forced us to comprehend the extent and danger of the challenge. We began to act before our enemy was able to extend and consolidate his network. If we put this in terms of World War II, we are now sometime around 1937. In the 1930s, the world failed to do what it needed to do to head off a world war.

 

Appeasement never works. Today we are in action. We must not flinch. With a powerful interplay of strength and diplomacy, we can win this war.

 

Mr. Shultz, a former secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. This is adapted from his Kissinger Lecture, given recently at the Library of Congress.

[salim]

Texas Gentlman,

 

share your views about some of the previous US policy

I am sure with such spirit we can together help building the new Iraq of freedom and civil rights. I think the real issue is not to blame this or that party for what had happened for Iraqis over the last fourty years.. Even Iraqis them selfs should be blamed for allowing such criminals get pentrated through..

I think the issue is to figure out why this had happened in order to prevent it from happening again in Iraq or else where.. Why supper powers might find them selves in position of encouraging tyrannies..

Some might think that this an isolated incident and it was just because of the Iranian revolution in the eighties or might be related to the cold war.. I would go different.. I think that there is a gap of trust and communication between the people on both sides.

I remmember in the fourties and fiftees, people in middel east were looking to US with a lot of hope .. So had happened to get this into the other direction?

 

If we just have a look to the recent US war on Iraq, I am sure that US would never risk sending American young women and men into such a war without having the full confidence that Iraqis wouldn't fight back..

How does such confidence developed? I think it is because of all those Iraqi free fighters that were playing the rule of communication channels between the two sides.. Americans might go after Sadaam in 1991, but they were so worried about the real intention of Iraqi people that might turn Iraq into an Islamic-Iranian style state.. Till now and after all what Iraqi people had proven to show of their refusal for such state, there are still a lot of propaganda by the "liberal" western media warning from such possibility and accusing the Bush administration of failing in the after math!.. We need to trust the good will of Iraqis, what had happened in Iraq over the last year should make us fully trusting that will of Iraqis in building their new democratic and free country..

The support by the Iraqis to Alsystani is just another simple prove for such moderate and civilized intentions. What is needed by the Coalition is to go faster than what Iraqi would like to go.. DON"T repeat the same mistake of underestimating the potential of Iraqi people will to build the new Iraq.. Give them the chance but be open and frank with them.

When I asked about the Iraqi Satellite station in my last comment, I was referring to the issue that a lot of Iraqis are feeling.. Why the Americans don't trust us?

[Texas Gentleman]

Your Quote Salim; (sorry I do not know how to use the quote option correctly)

 

"I think the real issue is not to blame this or that party for what had happened for Iraqis over the last fourty years.. Even Iraqis them selfs should be blamed for allowing such criminals get pentrated through..

 

I think the issue is to figure out why this had happened in order to prevent it from happening again in Iraq or else where.. Why supper powers might find them selves in position of encouraging tyrannies..

 

Some might think that this an isolated incident and it was just because of the Iranian revolution in the eighties or might be related to the cold war.. I would go different.. I think that there is a gap of trust and communication between the people on both sides.

 

I remmember in the fourties and fiftees, people in middel east were looking to US with a lot of hope .. So had happened to get this into the other direction?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My response;

The simple answer is “Israel” “Palestine” and the events since 1947-48 ---- the entire Middle Eastern and Near Eastern MAJORITY of Muslims still refuse to recognize Israel as a legitimate State and consider Jews repugnant, and less than human. (a mild description) Muslims NOW continuously blame the USA for this because we have and currently DO sponsor Israel’s right to a homeland State. There is this predominating Middle Eastern mindset that Israel and JEWS should be driven from any lands previously occupied by Muslims no matter who was there first and that Israel has no right to exist. These lands were historically, previously captured by Middle Eastern and Near Eastern and other cultures from the original JEWISH peoples rule. There in a nutshell is this clash of civilizations.

 

While it is true that Muslims had ruled these biblical lands for centuries proceeding the State of Israel’s formation in 1948 or the Colonialism that began in the 1917 mandates in the Middle East, it is also true that proceeding Turk, Ottoman, Assyrian, Persian, or Christian etc , the Jews were predominate and had ruled these lands before being driven out from them. That history is totally unacceptable to Muslims since Mohammed’s time.

 

SO that brings us to the current *Palestinian* question. FACT: The term “Palestinian”, meaning a people was invented by Yassar Arafat’s PLO around 1957 I think. The British Colonialist called this protectorate or mandated area Palestine when they occupied and colonized the land in the early 1900’s, (that included trans-Jordan) and ostensibly trying to bring an end to the warring tribes/sects dating back to the split in Islam over Mohammed’s successor. The French Controlled mandates did likewise in northern parts of the region without inventing new names (as the British did ) in the regions they controlled. (I.E. Syria, Lebanon) Never had these people called themselves Palestinians before the PLO, even in the era when it was called Palestine after many different rulers.

 

THE FIRST COMMONWEALTH (ca. 1004 - 586 BCE)

1010 – 970 BCE Reign of King David

960 King Solomon begins to build the First Temple

928 Division of Kingdom into Israel (north) and Judah (south).

722 Assyrians conquer northern Kingdom of Israel.

701 Hezekiah successfully withstands Sennacherib's attack on Jerusalem.

597 Babylonians capture Jerusalem

586 Nebuchadnezzar destroys city and First Temple and exiles Jews to Babylon.

THE PERSIAN PERIOD (539 BCE - 332 BCE)

THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD (167 BCE - CE 63)

THE HASMONEAN PERIOD (167 BCE - CE 63)

ROMAN PERIOD (63 BCE - 324 CE)

BYZANTINE PERIOD (324 - 638)

EARLY MUSLIM PERIOD (639 - 1099)

CRUSADER PERIOD (1099 - 1187)

AYYUBID and MAMLUK PERIOD (1187-1517)

OTTOMAN PERIOD (1517 - 1917)

THE BRITISH MANDATE PERIOD (1917 - 1948)

(see timeline @ http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/jer...m/jerutime.html

 

The Jewish people deserve this free State exactly where it was originally. Yet a pacification program has existed ever since returning to the area now called Israel, in less than 1/5 the size of ALL Middle East Muslim countries with only Lebanon smaller in land area, ..but.its become the lightning rod of the World. Pacification continues today by attempting to give so-called *Palestinians* a State of their own. Yet even this is still unacceptable to most Muslims anywhere in the 22 Islamic countries. Some Muslim leaders will pay lip service (without action) that recognize doing so might stop most of the horrors committed by both sides of the issue, but are too afraid of their own people in their countries and feed this anger deflected toward the west and the USA in general. It has always been the goal of the PLO and most Muslims to eliminate Israel and Jews. Little has changed that in 1000’s of years. It is past time for middle eastern Muslims taking a more tolerant view of Israel.

[Texas Gentleman]

Your Quote

"If we just have a look to the recent US war on Iraq, I am sure that US would never risk sending American young women and men into such a war without having the full confidence that Iraqis wouldn't fight back..

 

How does such confidence developed? I think it is because of all those Iraqi free fighters that were playing the rule of communication channels between the two sides.. Americans might go after Sadaam in 1991, but they were so worried about the real intention of Iraqi people that might turn Iraq into an Islamic-Iranian style state.."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My Response;

Agreed too mostly, but there is also a fear the radical Islamist will get weapons of mass destruction; Saddam was just the type fellow that would use them or share them with any terrorist to use.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Your Quote

"Till now and after all what Iraqi people had proven to show of their refusal for such state, there are still a lot of propaganda by the "liberal" western media warning from such possibility and accusing the Bush administration of failing in the after math!.. We need to trust the good will of Iraqis, what had happened in Iraq over the last year should make us fully trusting that will of Iraqis in building their new democratic and free country.. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My Response;

The European is famously liberal socialist and left wing in my opinion, just as our current American Democrats are. They believe the State should be responsible for the People. I believe that the People should take responsibility for themselves, and the State should be responsible TO the people. That is my Republican view. A so called Palestinian is no better than a Jew, A Jew is no better than a *Palestinian*. True Democracy is a form of Government of the people, by the people and for the people. That means ALL THE PEOPLE, and not one sect. or tribe or religious group but equal toward ALL.

 

The European media and US media are controlled predominately by left wing socialist Democrats in my country. The US liberal press would be the first one criticizing Bush for NOT helping Iraq, if Bush had chosen the opposite path and ignored Iraq after toppling Saddam. They care only for political power and will criticize no matter what Bush does, they will take the opposite stance.

 

I think the European Governments are well, …….. Falsely intellectual, thinking they are smarter and superior to their American cousins, so they take a different path, regardless of what the USA does. Iraq just happens to be one of those choices. There is also the European Governments probable complicity of having supported Saddam for years and taking Saddams bribes and sweetheart deals. Insert here Russia, France, Germany and many others including most Arab States. The Iraqi Government records under Saddam are now bringing this too the light of day.

 

Trusting Iraqi’s I admit is the hardest part for most Americans with our fear of yet another radical Islamic Country being born instead of a truly Democratic one. The lefts Democrats in MY country actually think WE (the USA) would be better off with Saddam still in power because at least he was not a radical Islamist. One thing we all agree on is he was a radical terrorist eh?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

 

Your Quote

"…..there are tens of such stations that experess the old regime opinions "e.g. Aljazera, Alarabia" and there are two Kurds stations and there are one Christian station, but no Iraqi based one. It is just to have a way to relief the great pressure that most of Iraqis feel when they think that they are so isolated and srounded by all these anti Iraqi stations.

I would really like to hear from CPA about their opinion about this. I keep hearing from a lot of Iraqis inside Iraq that the Americans are prohibting such possibility."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My response;

The Arabic press and TV media in general is the absolute most horrific of all. They are nothing more than propaganda machines controlled by Arabic Regimes interested only in deflecting their peoples anger away from themselves and on too ANYONE else. The Israel/Palestine issued is a convenient tool of this propaganda that instills and incites nothing but MORE HATRED and ANGER. I pray most Iraqi’s are able to see through it for what it is. It is obvious that many Sunni areas do not.

 

I share your view that a younger class of Iraqis own FREE press aand TV media actually become the mainstream by telling the GOOD, while questioning the Bad things they see. That would be refreshing to see and the CPA should back a program for that..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Texas Gentleman]

SEVEN SIMPLE QUESTIONS

 

Christopher Hitchens writes:

 

I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered.

 

His questions are:

 

1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?

 

2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?

 

3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March?

 

4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?

 

5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"?

 

6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?

 

7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

 

 

Fallujah

A reminder of what the future might look like if we fail.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110004903

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

Friday, April 2, 2004 12:01 a.m.

 

There must be a temptation, when confronted with the Dantesque scenes from Fallujah, to surrender to something like existential despair. The mob could have cooked and eaten its victims without making things very much worse. One especially appreciated the detail of the heroes who menaced the nurses, when they came to try and remove the charred trophies.

 

But this "Heart of Darkness" element is part of the case for regime-change to begin with. A few more years of Saddam Hussein, or perhaps the succession of his charming sons Uday and Qusay, and whole swathes of Iraq would have looked like Fallujah. The Baathists, by playing off tribe against tribe, Arab against Kurd and Sunni against Shiite, were preparing the conditions for a Hobbesian state of affairs. Their looting and beggaring of the state and the society--something about which we now possess even more painfully exact information--was having the same effect. A broken and maimed and traumatized Iraq was in our future no matter what.

 

Obviously, this prospect could never have been faced with equanimity. Iraq is a regional keystone state with vast resources and many common borders. Its implosion would have created a black hole, sucking in rival and neighboring powers, tempting them with opportunist interventions and encouraging them to find ethnic and confessional proxies. And who knows what the death-throes of the regime would have been like? We are entitled, on past experience, to guess. There could have been deliberate conflagrations started in the oilfields. There might have been suicidal lunges into adjacent countries. The place would certainly have become a playground for every kind of nihilist and fundamentalist. The intellectual and professional classes, already gravely attenuated, would have been liquidated entirely.

 

All of this was, only just, averted. And it would be a Pangloss who said that the dangers have receded even now. But at least the international intervention came before the whole evil script of Saddam's crime family had been allowed to play out. A subsequent international intervention would have been too little and too late, and we would now being holding an inquest into who let this happen--who in other words permitted in Iraq what Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright and Kofi Annan permitted in Rwanda, encouraged by the Elysée.

 

Prescience, though, has now become almost punishable. Thanks in part to Richard Clarke's showmanship (and to the crass ineptitude of the spokesmen for the Bush administration) it is widely considered laughable to have even thought about an Iraqi threat. Given Saddam's record in both using and concealing weapons of mass destruction, and given his complicity--at least according to Mr. Clarke--with those who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and with those running Osama bin Laden's alleged poison factory in Sudan, any president who did not ask about a potential Baathist link to terrorism would be impeachably failing in his duty.

 

It's becoming more and more plain that the moral high ground is held by those who concluded, from the events of 1991, that it was a mistake to leave Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait. However tough that regime-change might have been, it would have spared the lives of countless Iraqis and begun the process of nation-rebuilding with 12 years' advantage, and before most of the awful damage wrought by the sanctions-plus-Saddam "solution." People like Paul Wolfowitz are even more sinister than their mocking foes believe. They were against Saddam Hussein not just in September 2001 but as far back as the 1980s. (James Mann's excellent book "Rise of the Vulcans," greatly superior to Richard Clarke's, will I hope not be eclipsed by it. It contains an account that every serious person should ponder.)

 

I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

 

I hope I do not misrepresent my opponents, but their general view seems to be that Iraq was an elective target; a country that would not otherwise have been troubling our sleep. This ahistorical opinion makes it appear that Saddam Hussein was a new enemy, somehow chosen by shady elements within the Bush administration, instead of one of the longest-standing foes with which the United States, and indeed the international community, was faced. So, what about the "bad news" from Iraq? There was always going to be bad news from there. Credit belongs to those who accepted--can we really decently say pre-empted?--this long-term responsibility. Fallujah is a reminder, not just of what Saddamism looks like, or of what the future might look like if we fail, but of what the future held before the Coalition took a hand.

[Guest Guest]

Tex,

The simple answer is “Israel” “Palestine” and the events since 1947-48 ---- the entire Middle Eastern and Near Eastern MAJORITY of Muslims still refuse to recognize Israel as a legitimate State and consider Jews repugnant, and less than human. (a mild description) Muslims NOW continuously blame the USA for this because we have and currently DO sponsor Israel’s right to a homeland State. There is this predominating Middle Eastern mindset that Israel

 

There are two reasons that make me prefer moving of the above very important point to another post..

First , I am noticing that most of Iraqis suffering was because of people who claimed the link between the two issues.. As if , because of Israel/Palestine conflict , then Iraqi should be killed.. Saddam killed us because of what he claims the Palestine issue. Not mentioning the late Alsader uprise that was managed in a scenario of a link to Shiekh Yasim killing.

 

The second reason is related to the current hot development in Iraq that I would prefer this topic to cover rather than going bit far..

[Guest Guest_salim]

The above was me..

[Texas Gentleman]

Tex,

The simple answer is “Israel” “Palestine” and the events since 1947-48 ---- the entire Middle Eastern and Near Eastern MAJORITY of Muslims still refuse to recognize Israel as a legitimate State and consider Jews repugnant, and less than human. (a mild description) Muslims NOW continuously blame the USA for this because we have and currently DO sponsor Israel’s right to a homeland State. There is this predominating Middle Eastern mindset that Israel

 

There are two reasons that make me prefer moving of the above very important point to another post..

p;ease move it to where you think it is appropriate (if you can), I confess to being a novice and do not know how. If you can-not but can instruct me how I will gladly do so.

 

TEX

[Guest Guest_salim]

Tex,

Thanks your understanding..

I would open new topic with the ubove comment..

[Guest Guest_tajer]

http://www.irqparliament.com/Art04C/hjawahri_09.htm

http://www.irqparliament.com/Art04C/hjawahri2_09.htm

 

In arabic.. Example of a libral islamic point of view.. Aljawahree is pointing to those who might put sticks in front of the Iraqi statbility

[Guest Tom Grey]

Tex G., fine comments. Please consider a consistent push to get more Iraqis elected as mayors -- so that Iraqis are making the spending decisions, with whatever money is there.

 

Iraq "authority" means decision making power. Power is mostly cash, supported by police/ military in extreme cases (lots of extremes in Iraq). Peace power in more stable places is even more based on cash.

 

Get Iraqi mayors, and get money to these local Iraqi decision makers. On security, hire more and more Iraqis -- and even assume many "might" be willing to be terrorists, but treat them as not, and many may learn not to be. More pay to those doing real positive work.

[Texas Gentleman]

What Iraqis Want

( please comment on article )

We'll settle for nothing less than sovereignty, democracy and justice.

 

BY AHMAD CHALABI

Saturday, April 17, 2004 12:01 a.m.

 

The most ominous harbinger for the future of Iraq to emerge from the bloodshed that has engulfed parts of the country is the collapse of the indigenous Iraqi security structures put in place by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Few of the police resisted Muqtada al-Sadr's activists, while some joined his militia and many simply ran away. Half of the army mutinied. The intelligence service did not produce accurate or useful intelligence, and elements of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, which is designed to be a national paramilitary force, also mutinied and may be implicated in the murder and mutilation of the four Americans, which touched off the siege of Fallujah.

 

While not all members of the police, army and ICDC failed to do their duty, enough did that the CPA must undertake an urgent review of its plan to stand up coherent Iraqi security forces before the handover of sovereignty on June 30. The CPA's policy of recruiting law-enforcement officers and soldiers without allowing nominations or vetting from its allies within the Iraqi political system must be revised. If not, then the new Iraq will end up with security forces of dubious loyalty and little courage or motivation.

 

The one bright spot among the Iraqi security forces has been the 36th Battalion of the ICDC. This special unit, which was formed from the hardened fighters of the anti-Saddam opposition, has performed admirably and bravely in Fallujah. The officers and men of this battalion were nominated by the main political parties of the struggle against Saddam, who are America's chief allies in Iraq today: the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Iraqi National Accord and the Iraqi National Congress. These parties and others are able to immediately field a cadre of loyal and motivated troops. Most importantly we can provide forces that have been vetted and vouched for.

 

Reconstituting the old Iraqi army would be a grave mistake. The notion that CPA Administrator L. Paul Bremer's decision to disband Saddam's army contributed to the postwar violence in Iraq is simplistic and wrong. The army was overwhelmingly made up of conscripts, mostly from the Shia majority. They did not want to be there, and they took the first chance they could to go home. They would have deeply resented any attempt to keep them in the army they hated. The officer corps was mainly from Saddam's minority community. Some were steadfast supporters of the Baath Party, and many of those are leading the postwar terrorism. U.S. Marines have confirmed that ex-Republican Guard officers are among the organizers of the Fallujah insurgents. Others are guilty of crimes, human-rights abuses and corruption, and are not fit for duty. Mr. Bremer made the correct decision to wipe the slate clean and build a new professional Iraqi army, which will have as its primary purpose the defense of the nation, not the oppression of the people.

 

The CPA, the Iraqi Governing Council and the provisional government that will take power on June 30 must make greater efforts to bring the fruits of liberation to the lives of the mass of the Iraqi people. Sadr has attracted support because of growing discontent among the Shia. Dispossessed, abused and disenfranchised for so many years under the Baath, Iraq's Shia rejoiced at America's promises of liberation and democracy. Yet one year later liberation has become occupation, democracy is delayed, Baathists are returning to positions of influence, and while mass graves and torture centers have been revealed, the victims have yet to receive justice.

 

The alienation of the Shia is fostered by increasing calls in Washington, backed by the Arab capitals, for scaling back de-Baathification and bringing about "national reconciliation" between Iraq's communities. Both of these are seen by the Shia as euphemisms for renewed Baathist domination and Shia disenfranchisement. Careless comments by American politicians such as Sens. Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller, who recently criticized the de-Baathification process, are replayed with glee by the Arab media and serve only to heighten the anxieties of the Shia majority and propel them into the arms of Sadr.

 

At the same time there must be greater efforts to empower the leaders in the Sunni community who are opposed to Saddam and Baathism and will support democracy in the new Iraq. There are many such leaders but they lack resources, organizational skills and, most importantly, the confidence to speak out. Iraqis must understand that democracy is not a zero-sum game where one community will triumph at the expense of others.

 

A year after Saddam was deposed, the Iraqi people are grateful for liberation but tired of occupation and delayed promises. Only sovereignty, democracy and justice will satisfy us now.

 

Mr. Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, is founder of the Iraqi National Congress.

 

(what do most Iraqis think about Chalabi? do you agree with him here ? do you think he represents Iraqi interest or his own? )

[Airedale]

This point, as stated by AHMAD CHALABI seems to be debatable;

The one bright spot among the Iraqi security forces has been the 36th Battalion of the ICDC. This special unit, which was formed from the hardened fighters of the anti-Saddam opposition, has performed admirably and bravely in Fallujah.

Several news and blogger sources may not see it that way.

AT least some Iraqi soldiers interviewed gave opinions.

Those soldiers were not told there job was going to be

check point road block duty.

They were not supposed to engage in actual hostilities. ( According to one news source )

Well,

the reports of the 36th Battalion in action now seem to be very skewed to say the least.

 

The officers and men of this battalion were nominated by the main political parties of the struggle against Saddam, who are America's chief allies in Iraq today:

the Kurdistan Democratic Party,

the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan,

the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,

the Iraqi National Accord and

the Iraqi National Congress.

These parties and others are able to immediately field a cadre of loyal and motivated troops.

What are some of the lesser group's political stands on post July 1st turnover?

 

Will Ahmed Chalabi be expected to keep a high level role after July !st or will the Iraqi's be ready to award him a lesser role ?

 

The need for dialogue is very important but

the media prefers to cover explosions not heated debate.

 

I myself would like to know what has been agreed to for July 1st.

I would like to know more about local elections that have already been held in the smaller rural areas of Iraq.

They have opinions the world needs the media to report.

 

How are the "Swamp Arabs" getting along now that Saddams flood control dams have been destroyed.

 

Has their fishing livelihood outlook improved ?

ARe the fish stocks returning?

[Guest Guest_Salim]

Sadr has attracted support because of growing discontent among the Shia. Dispossessed, abused and disenfranchised for so many years under the Baath, Iraq's Shia rejoiced at America's promises of liberation and democracy. Yet one year later liberation has become occupation, democracy is delayed, Baathists are returning to positions of influence, and while mass graves and torture centers have been revealed, the victims have yet to receive justice.

 

The alienation of the Shia is fostered by increasing calls in Washington, backed by the Arab capitals, for scaling back de-Baathification and bringing about "national reconciliation" between Iraq's communities. Both of these are seen by the Shia as euphemisms for renewed Baathist domination and Shia disenfranchisement. Careless comments by American politicians such as Sens. Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller, who recently criticized the de-Baathification process, are replayed with glee by the Arab media and serve only to heighten the anxieties of the Shia majority and propel them into the arms of Sadr.

 

From my personall contact with Iraqi Shia both inside and out side Iraq.. I would say that the above is expressing the real feelings of most of them..

As I put it under my "Alsader uprise" posting on this site.. While Alsader might be thought of as a non popular within Shia, but his demands that concides with the above need to be addressed.. Americans should be careful not making the killing mistake of compromising the loss of real friendes with getting the hearts of real enimies , Sadamees and Salafees.

[Texas Gentleman]

Questions seeking opinions of Iraqi's

 

 

(A). Are there many Baathist ( primarily Sunni?) who were employed in the various Ministries or as teachers and other civil servants INCLUDING THE MILITARY who were ONLY Baathist members JUST to have jobs?

 

(B.) If answer to (A.) is yes, Was it a mistake to disband the ARMY & other SECURITY APPARATUS ( read police here) by trying to reconstitute them with out ANY Baathist members who were in previous command positions?

 

(C.) Is there any option left in Falujah except to belatedly go in with Military force and remove the remaining "resistance" terrorist?

 

(D.) Is there any option left except to go in and capture or KILL the Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr where he is hiding (including Mosque or in any Holy City?

 

(E.) If the answer to (D.) is no other option, how will majority of Shia react? ( and Sistanini's advice would be?)

 

(F.) If the answer to (D.) is yes, how do you negotiate with a murderer of a fellow Cleric and now provocateur of suicide bombers which will most probably kill more innocent Iraqi’s (left to fester over time) than the coalition forces will by taking him out?

 

(G.) IS this a catch 22 ? damned if you do, damned if you don’t?

 

my personal opinion to (G.) it is a catch 22 so TAKE HIM OUT NOW!! but I am interested to hear others opinions (especially Iraqi's)

 

thanks

Tex