The Iraq thread 4

[Crazysheep 1]

Heya, I haven't posted in a while, but was wondering what exactly Al Sadr wants? Does he want an Iran style government or just the US troops out or what?

[sputnik monroe 102]

Power

[quicksand 0]

One of the best reads in months.Raises prety much all the aspects of the current situation in Iraq.

What was Al-Sadr`s crime-Counterpunch

Quote[/b] ]Keep fighting even if you see me a prisoner or a martyr. God willing, you will be victorious."

Muqtada al Sadr

"Our blood will pave the way for those who will liberate Iraq and protect the holy shrines and for those who have refused to disgrace themselves through collaborating with the occupation forces."

Spokesman for Muqtada al Sadr, al Darraji

"The Americans have turned the holy city into a ghost town. They are now seen as full of hatred against Najaf and the Shia. Nothing I know of will change this...I do not understand why America craves crisis. A peaceful solution to the confrontation with Muqtada could have been reached. We were hoping that Prime Minister Iyad Allawi would lead the way, but he sided with oppression."

Bahr al Ulum, former US ally and president of the Iraqi Governing Council

We all understand the basic principle involved in democratic government.

The will of the people is articulated through the popular vote and the candidate who gets the most votes wins. Excluding America, (where the decisions are now entrusted to a Supreme Court) this is how representative government is established.

By any objective standard, Muqtada al Sadr is one of the most prominent figures in the Iraqi political spectrum and, therefore, a legitimate representative of his people. Even with the sketchy polling data we have, his popularity (when polls were taken during the original siege of Najaf) ranked in the 90% range. No one else even comes close. (except for religious leader Ayatolla Ali Sistani)

It makes no difference that he is unpopular with the Bush Administration. We might find that the Bush Administration is not that popular with many Iraqis. (In fact we have. More than 94% of Iraqis want the Americans to leave Iraq as soon as possible)

What matters is that al Sadr embodies the collective will of the Iraqi people (if only temporarily) to a greater extent then the American installed alternative, Ayad Allawi. This suggests that the US should try to negotiate a political solution with him to the current crisis.

That's how democracy works.

In Bush-world, however, things tend to operate a bit differently.

Rather than a popular representative of the Iraqi people, the Administration is anxiously promoting its own "hand-picked" interim Prime Minister, Allawi. (No one questions the absurdity of having a Prime Minister without a Parliament) Allawi's bone fides include a career in Saddam's Secret Police, a brief stint as a CIA operative, and a role as "terrorist bomber" in Baghdad during the mid 1990s.

He is widely seen as an American pawn who merely serves as the mouthpiece for further aggression.

Needless to say, he is not at all popular. (His popularity is somewhere in single digits, perhaps 9%)

He represents no one.

Never the less, Allawi has been useful in disguising the Administration's machinations and the media (ABC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC and CNN) has complied by scrupulously referring to this new "appointee" as the legitimate leader of Iraq.

In real democracies, leaders embody the will of the people. The "Social Contract" (Rousseau) is an agreement between the people and their government that is validated by the popular vote. Without that mandate, it is impossible to talk about legitimacy.

Allawi, of course, has never submitted to the electoral process, so his authority is entirely provisional.

Rather than tackle this issue head-on, the Bush Administration has decided that the more expeditious approach is simply to kill Muqtada al Sadr. This is consistent with the administration's propensity to resolve every problem with some variant of coercion; in this case murder.

They have decided to defend the "imaginary" sovereignty of an unelected government and press to annihilate any resistance to their plans.

But, who is being fooled?

We already know that Paul Bremer unilaterally passed 93 edicts that control every area of Iraqi commerce.

We already know that Bremer appointed more than 20 colleagues to ministries that control every aspect of Iraqi government.

We already know that the 140,000 occupying troops undermine any real authority of an Iraqi sovereign.

And, we already know that all oil revenues are completely under the control of the Bush administration.

So, where's the sovereignty? And, more importantly, who is taken in by this ruse?

Having foreclosed on all the legal means of expression (street demonstrations; newspapers), the American Occupation has forced al Sadr to pursue his last option; rebellion. It is precisely the type of rebellion that is sanctioned in the Declaration of Independence;

"That to secure these rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Isn't that what al Sadr is doing; "altering and abolishing" tyranny?

How else does one explain the bombing of wedding parties, the arbitrary detentions, the siege of Falluja, the suppression of populist leaders and the widespread torture and abuse?

Doesn't that explain his burgeoning popularity?

The "radical cleric" (as the western press has dubbed him) has become the icon of resistance throughout the Muslim world. His defiance is not limited to just the current occupation in Iraq, but a struggle against the ongoing repression in Palestine, the escalating hostility towards Syria and Iran, and resistance to 60 years of American support for the puppet regimes throughout the Middle East.

His stature has been miraculously enhanced by an Administration that refuses to engage in either politics or diplomacy; only force.

Now the US military has elected to demonstrate its recklessness in one foolhardy move; a full blown assault on Najaf, the center of the Shiite cosmos. The battle (as of this writing) has already taken the lives of hundreds of Iraqis (many of them civilians) and reportedly wounded al Sadr. The conflict is being covered in the Muslim world for what it is; a direct attack on Islam.

And, for what? What exactly is Muqtada al Sadr's crime?

Is he a former Ba'athist who seeks to reinstate the Saddam regime?

No.

Is he a terrorist who is encouraging the random bombings and kidnappings around Baghdad?

No.

Is he a "foreign fighter" who has entered Iraq to destabilize the country and undermine its prospects for democracy?

No.

Al Sadr's crime is that he is an Iraqi nationalist and a popular leader who categorically rejects the colonial aspirations of the Bush administration.

Period.

His al Mahdi Army does not function as a aggressive militia, but only defends the cities and shrines that that belong under the control of legitimate Iraqi leaders.

He may well be a "firebrand" as the American press suggests, but his resolve to terminate the occupation and liberate his country reflects the sentiments of many Americans (who see the war as a deliberate act of aggression) and the majority of the world's population.

His cause is just.

As the conflict unfolds, and the resistance is inevitably ground down by the superior firepower of the superpower, the vulnerability of Iraqis defending their own country against the invaders will become even more apparent.

How long will it be before these loosely organized militias devote themselves entirely to finding a viable deterrent to American aggression?

Isn't this precisely why Bush and co. have dedicated themselves to disarming the world? (WMD)

In the meantime, the resistance has grown increasingly sophisticated.

The kidnapping campaign has attracted the most public attention and has produced admirable results.

Already, a number of countries have left Iraq taking their contractors with them.

This situation threatens to further isolate the US in the world community and amplify the error of the invasion.

In the meantime, the resistance has grown increasingly sophisticated.

The attacks on oil facilities are another indication that the resistance understands the occupation's weaknesses.

The empire runs on oil. Any disruption in that supply (especially, now, with oil selling at $46 per barrel) can have catastrophic political affects.

Currently, all oil shipments have been successfully stopped through northern Iraq leaving Basra as the only possible point of exit.

Currently, Al Jazeera is reporting that, "Workers at an oil-pumping station in southern Iraq said on Wednesday they have stopped operations in protest against the government's backing of the US offensive against followers of al-Sadr."

"We stopped pumping in protest of the inhuman conduct of the interim government and its cooperation with the occupation forces to ransack the holy city of Najaf and insult the Shia, their symbols and holy places," the statement said.

If this report is true, the military will have to act fast in Najaf or the consequences on world oil prices will be dire. (as will George Bush's political future)

The resistance has also succeeded in enlisting more and more Iraqis who were originally sympathetic to the goals of the occupation.

Even Iraq's Vice President, Ibahim al-Jaafari has urged US forces to leave Najaf and end the fighting. .

"I call for multinational forces to leave Najaf and for only Iraqi forces to remain there," he said. We must "put an end to this phenomenon of violence in this city that is holy to all Muslims."

The deputy governor of Najaf Jawdat al Kuraishi also resigned in protest of American hostilities. "I resign from my post denouncing all the US terrorist operations that they are doing against this holy city," al Kuraishi said.

These views are illustrative of growing antipathy to the American occupation and the growing support for the resistance in Iraq and throughout the world.

Najaf is shaping up to be another massacre in the order of Falluja. And, while the violence and suffering should be rightfully despised, it may be one more step towards galvanizing public opinion against an empire that rules by force alone.

(Note: It should be apparent now why PM Allawi was encouraged to expel Al Jazeera from Iraq. It's clear that the siege of Najaf was planned well in advance and that the Bush Administration (Rumsfeld) wanted to exclude "unreliable" media from covering what may have turned out to be a "bloodbath".)

Saddam was a butcher,the Sunnis are fighting to get him back in power,Zarqawi wants an Al-Queda safe heaven in Iraq but what can be said against Al-Sadr?He hates both Saddam and Zarqawi he is loved by both the Sunnis and the Shias,he is more legitimate to lead Iraq the Allawi will ever be.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A105-2004Aug14.html

Quote[/b] ]

Iraqi Troops to Take Lead In Fighting Sadr's Forces

By Karl Vick and Rajiv Chandrasekaran

Washington Post Foreign Service

Sunday, August 15, 2004; Page A01

NAJAF, Iraq, Aug. 14 -- Prime Minister Ayad Allawi will send Iraqi troops to Najaf to battle a Shiite Muslim militia, Iraqi officials and U.S. commanders said Saturday after peace talks collapsed between the interim government and rebellious cleric Moqtada Sadr.

"The army will be deployed now" to the city, where U.S. forces have been fighting the militia, said Sabah Kadhim, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry. Units of the new Iraqi army would immediately prepare for an offensive aimed at evicting Sadr's Mahdi Army from the shrine of Imam Ali, a sacred site the militia has used as a refuge, he said. News of the deployment -- the first since sovereignty was restored to Iraq on June 28 -- reached U.S. forces just as scores of tanks, armored troop carriers and Humvees lined up inside the gate of the main U.S. military base in Najaf, apparently preparing for significant combat operations just hours after a two-day truce had been called off. They then turned around and went back into camp.

A U.S. commander spread the word that missions were being scrubbed, conveying a message written on a Post-it note that the prime minister was angry and was "sending Iraqi Army to settle the problem."

Quote[/b] ]

One battalion of Iraqi commandos is already in the city. The unit, previously known as the 36th Battalion, was trained by U.S. Special Forces and fought alongside U.S. forces in Fallujah in April. Another Iraqi battalion, trained by regular U.S. army troops, refused to fight. The commando unit raided a mosque in Kufa this week, supported by a Marine unit that was kept at a distance.

Quote[/b] ]

The national conference, aimed at selecting members of a new national assembly, will begin a three-day meeting in Baghdad on Sunday despite the violence across central and southern Iraq, Fouad Masoum, the chairman of the conference, said Saturday.

More than 1,300 delegates are scheduled to participate in the meeting, Masoum said. Under a political transition plan designed by the United Nations, the participants will choose 100 people to serve in an interim assembly.

I wonder what the SF people do differently than the regular troops training the Iraqis.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128860,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Teenage Ally Helps Soldiers in Iraq  

Friday, August 13, 2004

FORT CARSON, Colo. — In the Iraqi border town of Al Qaim, U.S. forces were getting pounded by insurgents up to 10 times each day.

Tankers from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (search) knew that intelligence was key to battling the enemy. Capt. Chad Roehrman was at a checkpoint when he thought another dodgy informant walked up.

"One of my guys came to me and said, 'Hey, sir, we got another boy who says he has information,'" he said.

What the boy had was information on a well-connected cell of 40 fighters whose leader was a former officer in Saddam Hussein's (search) army. He was also the boy's father.

The Americans hid the boy in an armored Humvee and checked out his report of a weapons stockpile in his backyard.

They found explosives, rocket propelled grenades and a complete weapons system they hadn't seen before. The father and another man were arrested.

After the bust the boy couldn't go home so he moved in with the soldiers. They gave him the nickname "Steve-O" and a bunk right next to theirs. He later gave them more intelligence that led to other arrests.

That teenager is a brave! He might of signed his death warrant but he has some balls. I wish there were more people like him that can stop the bloodshed. In the end, they (US military) will have to take him outside the country.

[Balschoiw 0]

This had to be expected :

Abu Ghraib: Rumsfeld escapes blame

Quote[/b] ]Washington: A Pentagon report on prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison is being labelled a whitewash before it has even been released.

The report is the result of the internal inquiry launched by General George Fay in April after the now notorious images of mistreated Iraqi prisoners were broadcast around the world.

Critics are arguing that its final conclusions, some of which were leaked last week to the Baltimore Sun, amount to a deliberate cover-up to protect senior military and civilian figures in the Pentagon.

Due to be published by the end of the month, the report will call for disciplinary procedures to be launched against up to two dozen military intelligence officers.

Even more controversially, the role of the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has been judged to be outside the investigation's remit, despite allegations that extreme treatment of prisoners was authorised at the highest levels.

Last month, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski, the commander formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib, alleged that Rumsfeld had authorised the use of "dogs, food deprivation and sleep deprivation".

"This is a whitewash - a carefully orchestrated one," said a lawyer who has liaised with military officials involved in the case.

"People in the Pentagon have been coming to me in a fury because of the way this has been handled. By naming military intelligence officials as well as the seven military police who have been charged, it will look like action has been taken. But basically it's still the same storyline of just a few bad apples, way down the food chain."

The decision to limit the investigation to military personnel has caused huge controversy within the Pentagon. "Some of the military lawyers are incandescent," said one Pentagon adviser.

"There's been a deliberate attempt to make sure the buck stops well before it gets to the doors of the civilian hierarchy."

Another coverup by the famous TBA.

[Bernadotte 0]

That teenager is a brave! He might of signed his death warrant but he has some balls. I wish there were more people like him...

Do you honestly believe that it is merely a lack of courage that prevents others from turning in their fathers?  

(Guess you and your dad didn't get along too well. )

[kerosene 0]

I wonder how many groups/people will be banned from taking part in the Iraqi elections when they happen? I dont think Iraqis are nescessarily goiong to vote for the "right" people. And certainly not anyone whos overtly pro-western.

[Bernadotte 0]

I dont think Iraqis are nescessarily goiong to vote for the "right" people.

The same can be said of the citizens of any democracy, including the good ol' US of A.

[Donnervogel 0]

I wonder how many groups/people will be banned from taking part in the Iraqi elections when they happen? I dont think Iraqis are nescessarily goiong to vote for the "right" people. And certainly not anyone whos overtly pro-western.

Yeah well. The thing is. They're not western ;)

Iraq has it's own cultures and it is in a totally different enviroment than "western" countries are.

It was said before the war started that bringing those people liberty and freedom will not necessarily result in a democratic government as we know it. Maybe it will result in a totally undemocratic government. If you let people decide freely you have to accept their choice even if you don't like it. And I fear the Bush government won't accept that. And that the hypocritical aspect of "Operation Iraqi freedom". It reminds me very much of the "Brezhnev doctrine". (Brezhnev was soviet head of state and the doctrine stated basicly that other socialist countries are free to do what they want as long as they don't change their form of government in a way the soviet union doesn't aprove of)

Don't misunderstand me. I wish that Iraq could become a stable and free democracy with civil rights and all that. The question is only if the Iraqis want that... not to speak of the problems with the Sunnis,Shiites and Kurds...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do you honestly believe that it is merely a lack of courage that prevents others from turning in their fathers?  

(Guess you and your dad didn't get along too well.  )

I called him brave because his action has likely signed an death warrant for him. For example, a iraqi girl got medical treatment in the US and people in her family gave intel about the insurgency. She wants to live in the US because her family is being attacked in Iraq for giving out the info.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1565482,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Iraqi girl seeks US asylum

30/07/2004 13:06  - (SA)  

Washington - A 15-year-old Iraqi girl who came to America for medical treatment is seeking political asylum, claiming persecution at home because her family co-operated with the US military.

The petition, under review by the Centre for Immigration Services, seeks reprieve for the girl and her mother, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation against other family members still in Baghdad. Several of them have been shot at and one was killed, according to the petition.

The case, which is expected to be decided on Tuesday, is believed to be among the first US instances of an Iraqi seeking political asylum. A victory could open the door for other Iraqis in the United States who claim persecution for reasons other than race, religion or political opinion.

"Here, it's just their association with the US military that's causing the problems," said Jeff Sullivan, a Washington lawyer at Foley & Lardner who is representing the mother and daughter. "Something has to be done."

The girl began having pains last year from a growth in her cervix that was later determined to be cancerous, the petition states. But after consulting 27 Iraqi doctors, not one said they could provide the appropriate treatment. Finally, the mother approached US Army doctors in Baghdad, who arranged for treatment at Walter Reed Medical Centre in Washington.

The girl received successful treatment last fall, and is expected to fully recover. But after she and her mother left Baghdad, family members began receiving death threats from insurgents who resented the girl's special attention from US troops, the petition states, citing sworn affidavits from army officers.

Members of the girl's family also have provided the US military with "actionable intelligence" on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's cohorts and purported bomb factories, although it's unclear whether that's widely known, said Army Col Frederick Gerber, who submitted an affidavit in the case.

Subsequently, the girl's uncle was killed in March, and several relatives, including a cousin who looks like her, were shot at and injured. Two weeks ago, insurgents painted graffiti on the family's home, stating "Dead soon" and "Long live Saddam Hussein," according to the mother.

"It's not safe," the mother said. "I'm afraid for my other children and husband."

Legal experts said political asylum cases are typically hard to win, because government officials don't want a flood of applications to the United States they can't handle. The girl's case might be more difficult because cooperation with the military isn't a typical category, although it could be seen as political opinion.

"The reason people are attacking US troops are for political reasons. So you can certainly argue the attacks on the family can be attributed to political opinions that Americans are not such bad guys," said Douglass Cassel, director of the Centre for International Human Rights at Northwestern University.

In the meantime, the girl is attending summer school in the Washington area and says she enjoys watching movies and learning to play the piano.

..............................

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=....at=Iraq

Quote[/b] ]

In Baghdad, about 1,300 religious, political and civic leaders gathered for the unprecedented three-day conference, which will help choose a 100-member national council meant to serve as a watchdog over the country's interim government before elections scheduled for January.

"This conference is not the end of the road for us, it is the first step ... to open up horizons of dialogue," Allawi told the delegates. "Your blessed gathering here is a challenge to the forces of evil and tyranny that want to destroy this country."

Some 70 factions are participating in the conference, though several are boycotting it — including al-Sadr's movement.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Washington - A 15-year-old Iraqi girl who came to America for medical treatment is seeking political asylum, claiming persecution at home because her family co-operated with the US military.

Nothing new with that, same thing happened in Europe 1944 after D-day, when allies liberated France, Holland etc. Those who collabarated with germans were shot/beaten/jailed.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nothing new with that, same thing happened in Europe 1944 after D-day, when allies liberated France, Holland etc. Those who collabarated with germans were shot/beaten/jailed.

Quote[/b] ]The girl received successful treatment last fall, and is expected to fully recover. But after she and her mother left Baghdad, family members began receiving death threats from insurgents who resented the girl's special attention from US troops, the petition states, citing sworn affidavits from army officers.

She was not giving the info about the insurgency.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]The girl received successful treatment last fall, and is expected to fully recover. But after she and her mother left Baghdad, family members began receiving death threats from insurgents who resented the girl's special attention from US troops, the petition states, citing sworn affidavits from army officers.

She was not giving the info about the insurgency.

Oh really? But you just finished saying:

For example, a iraqi girl got medical treatment in the US and people in her family gave intel about the insurgency.

Sounds like the insurgents resented a lot more than her special treatment.  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sounds like the insurgents resented a lot more than her special treatment.

Did she give info.?

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sounds like the insurgents resented a lot more than her special treatment.

Did she give info.?

Did she receive death threats?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Did she receive death threats?

Quote[/b] ]Two weeks ago, insurgents painted graffiti on the family's home, stating "Dead soon" and "Long live Saddam Hussein," according to the mother.

Would that count?

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]The girl received successful treatment last fall, and is expected to fully recover. But after she and her mother left Baghdad, family members began receiving death threats from insurgents who resented the girl's special attention from US troops, the petition states, citing sworn affidavits from army officers.

Members of the girl's family also have provided the US military with "actionable intelligence" on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's cohorts and purported bomb factories, although it's unclear whether that's widely known, said Army Col Frederick Gerber, who submitted an affidavit in the case. .

If you read the bolded parts, it clearly says that the threat is against her family, whether she is threatened, that doesnt show in the article.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you read the bolded parts, it clearly says that the threat is against her family, whether she is threatened, that doesnt show in the article.

If she in that family, then she is threatened.

[turms 0]

it said family members began receiving death threats

not that the family received threats.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]it said family members began receiving death threats

not that the family received threats.

Quote[/b] ]Two weeks ago, insurgents painted graffiti on the family's home, stating "Dead soon" and "Long live Saddam Hussein," according to the mother.

Should the family feel threaten?

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Should the family feel threaten?

At least those familymembers who have received threats should feel threatened, becouse they are threatened.

About the other members of the family (who have not received any threats) I dont know. Would you feel thretened if your brother would be threatened?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Would you feel thretened if your brother would be threatened?

Yes because those persons can harm me to get at him.

[turms 0]

So are you saying that the girl received a death threat or what are you saying here afterall?

Arent US forces equally threatening that girl if a resistance fighter lives in her neighbour? becouse then US forces would danger her life by raiding the neighbour and she could get on way?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So are you saying that the girl received a death threat or what are you saying here afterall?

Arent US forces equally threatening that girl if a resistance fighter lives in her neighbour? becouse then US forces would danger her life by raiding the neighbour and she could get on way?

She and her mom are not filing for political asylum because the american troops are going to harm her. They are so afraid they even refused to identify themselves for fear of retaliation against other family members.