Samarra' Assaulted by Guerrillas

The LA Times reports that guerrillas launched a major attack in Samarra on Wednesday. Carloads of gunmen came into the city and attacked a building used by security forces with rocket propelled grenades. They then attacked the hospital, until US and Iraqi government forces responded to attacks. When ten carloads of guerrillas can just drive into town and shoot it up, you know no one is really in control of the place. Samarra is an important city north of Baghdad, with a population of nearly 200,000. Its early Islamic monuments make it symbolically important.

The LA Times says that guerrillas also killed Kamal Khalid Zebari, a Kurdish security chief of Mosul.

The murder two days ago of a Shiite parliamentarian has set off a debate among Shiites about using paramilitary forces to defend themselves from Sunni guerrilla actions. The debate was made especially bitter by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's admission last Sunday that the US is talking behind the scenes to leaders of the Sunni guerrilla movement, a move that many Shiites denounce.

The Arab News reports from wire services:

' Furious Shi'i deputies suggested that the time had come to counter relentless attacks that have targeted their community. Khodr Al-Khozai of the Shi'i-dominated United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) appealed to the three biggest Sunni organizations in Iraq: “We call on the Committee of Muslim Scholars, the Waqf (state-run endowment group) and Iraqi Islamic Party to take a clear stand regarding murders and attacks on Shi'is.

“We are on the edge of a precipice that could swallow us all. The ministries of interior and defense have proved incapable of defending us and in this case the people have the right to self-defense,” Khozai said.

A deputy from the Mehdi Army of Shi'i cleric Moqtada Sadr suggested neighborhood committees be created with religious and community leaders to work with the interior and defense ministries. “These committees would know how to find the terrorists,” Fatah Al-Sheikh promised." '

Meanwhile, the movement for southern autonomy is growing, according to Ed Wong of the New York Times. The movement is opposed by the hard line Shiite nationalists of the Sadr movement, and not especially favored by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, either. Although Wong highlights the secularists arguing for regional autonomy, there are Shiite religious figures who want it, as well, as reported by al-Zaman.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Another US Helicopter Downed, This Time in Afghanistan
17 Dead

Taliban used some sort of rocket to shoot down a US helicopter in Afghanistan, killing all 17 servicemen aboard.

This is the second US helicopter lost this week. Earlier in the week, Iraqi guerrillas north of Baghdad downed one, killing two US soldiers.

It is not clear if these are rocket propelled grenade strikes, which are difficult to pull off and therefore rare, or if Taliban and Iraqi guerrillas are getting hold of shoulder-fired missiles, which would be more dangerous to the US in both places. What kind of missile used, if so, would also be telling. Old SA-7s, manufactured by the Soviet Union, don't appear to be very sophisticated and are seldom still in good working order (one of these was used unsuccessfully against an Israeli jet liner at Mombasa). SA-14s and SA-16s are more deadly, with electronic heat-seeking capability. I'm told that despite the serial numbers, SA-14s are deadlier.

Milt Bearden, the CIA station chief in Pakistan during the 1980s, has long held that the US provision to the Mujahidin (predecessors of the Taliban) in Afghanistan of Stinger missiles to use against Soviet helicopter gunships was key to their victory.

If the sophistication of the weaponry in Afghanistan and Iraq increases, it could signal a two-front, hard-fought war for the US. I am not sure how many shoulder-fired missile launchers are out there on the world market already.

Meanwhile, Bush's speech on Iraq appears to have drawn a remarkably small audience on television. NBC's broadcast of it only drew about 5 million viewers. That is not a very good prime time statistic. If I'm not mistaken, Jay Leno's late-night comedy and interview show does something on that order. My guess is that Americans do not like the subject of Iraq because it is clearly bad news, and did not expect Bush actually to give them any good news. They were right, of course.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Guest Opinion: Iraq Avalanche Unstoppable: Richards

"The Iraq Avalanche Cannot be Stopped"

by Alan Richards

University of California Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA
June 24, 2005

I have been reading the debate . . . on "What next in Iraq?" ("Unilateral withdrawal? UN forces? Staying the course?") with great interest. There is a way, however, in which I am troubled by what I perceive as a tacit assumption--a very American assumption,--underlying most of the discussion. It seems to me that even "pessimists" are actually "optimists": they assume that there exists in Iraq and the Gulf some "solution", some course of action which can actually lead to an outcome other than widespread, prolonged violence, with devastating economic, political, and social consequences.

I regret to say that I think this is wrong. There is no "solution" to this mess; it is sometimes not possible to "fix" things which have been broken. I can see no course of action which will prevent widespread violence, regional social upheaval, and economic hammering administered by oil price shocks. This is why so many of us opposed the invasion of Iraq so strenuously in the first place! We thought that it would unleash irreversible adverse consequences for (conventionally defined) US interests in the region. I am very sorry to say that I still think we were right.

Let me get specific:

1) As you have often pointed out, our continued presence de-legitimizes the current Iraqi government, which is, in any case, largely a Shiite Islamist and Kurdish tactical alliance. As Patrick Cockburn has pointed out (London Review of Books), the Kurds destabilized Iraq for half a century, and the Sunnis can certainly do the same. No Sunnis, no deal, no way-as you have repeatedly stressed. And the polls, which you courageously cite, which show some 40% of the population backing the insurgents, at least in principle, demonstrates-as you have repeatedly argued-that a large number of Iraqis want us to get out.* This means, as you say almost every day, that our current policy ("unilateral presence", if I may call it that) is unsustainable. The insurgents, and many Iraqis, want us out, by any means.Our continued presence cannot succeed.

2) Your scenario for a regional Lebanese or Thirty Years? War style conflict in the wake of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal seems very plausible. Indeed, since I think that the U.S. cannot stay, and since I (regrettably) think that the U.N. option is also not viable (for some of the reasons your correspondents have stated), such a scenario may be the most prescient prediction. But the U.S., as a polity and culture, will simply not sustain this war, not without huge damage to other interests, to the military itself, and to what remains of American democracy. Our continued presence only postpones the evil day, and the U.N. is not, I think, likely to step in.

3) Salafi jihadis and Iran are the big winners in all this-and they hate each other. I can see NO possible way for outsiders to defuse this: not with the U.S. in Iraq, not with the U.N., not with a power vacuum. People from outside the region (U.S., E.U., U.N., India, China, whoever) can do very, very little about this. It seems to me that, as usual, only Muslims can ameliorate the problems of Muslim governance.

4) Finally, there is a tacit assumption in the discussion so far that low oil prices, including current levels, are viable. I don't think this is true, for at least two reasons. A) The terrifying truth is that how we consume energy now both in the U.S. and elsewhere is entirely unsustainable for environmental reasons. Denial is the national past-time on this; and it is deeply destructive. Global warming is a reality, it will get worse, and the consequences will be extremely serious. I now work surrounded by biologists and environmental scientists, many of whom would cheer (even as they paid a heavy price in lost jobs and income) if the price of oil hit $100 a barrel, because they are in a panic about the consequences of our current profligate behavior. B) The jury is still out on the "Hubbert's Peak" or "Peak Oil" hypothesis, but the viewpoint is hardly silly. If it should prove to be correct, oil prices will rise, steeply-until we get serious about fostering the kind of changes in consumption and technology which are necessary, in any case (see A). To repeat: assuming that low oil prices are viable is very dubious at best, and at worst, constitutes a species of denial.

5) Who will pay the price for high oil prices? As you rightly say, poor people, especially in the Global South. Will they know this? Certainly. Will they thank rich countries like us? Hardly. Might this lead to other violent social movements, particularly given all the other problems in the Global South? I can't see why not. Of course, there are ways in principle of dealing with this problem which could minimize the pain. Every competent economist knows the litany of price changes, technology subsidies, and quantitative mandates which we should have implemented, decades ago. We should still do this now, even at this late date. Of course, every indication suggests that the necessary steps will not be taken, thanks, in large part, to American culture and politics. After all, no one, from either party, in the political arena is saying anything even remotely commensurate with the threat which most scientists see to the future of the planet. No one with any power is talking sensibly about energy use, global poverty, and their interrelationships. No one at all.

6) My last pessimistic point: my reading of history is that the only way large changes occur is as responses to large crises. I don't like this, but it seems true to me. And, I hasten to add, change in a crisis is hardly guaranteed to be humane, decent, or to have any claim on our ethical allegiance. We might get a new Roosevelt, but we also might get a new Hitler.

Please don't misunderstand me: I am not advocating regional-crisis-cum-oil-price-spike. I simply think that it is probably unavoidable. If we leave, there will be violence, mayhem, slaughter, and instability, and if we stay there will be violence, mayhem, slaughter, and instability. If there is (as I tend to think) a large crisis looming on the horizon, it will certainly be ugly, even hideous. And then-something else will happen. The one thing I don?t think is possible is to avoid it.

So let me close where I began: I think it is delusional to imagine that there exists a "solution" to the mess in Iraq. From this perspective, the folly of Bush, Cheney and Company in invading Iraq is even worse than most informed observers of the region already think. Starting an avalanche is certainly criminal. It does not follow, however, that such a phenomenon can be stopped once it has begun.

-----

*[Ed. note: The Boston Globe in May cited a US "internal poll" showing 45 percent support for attacks on US troops; reader Alex Easton says he called the Globe and confirmed that this was 45 percent of the Sunni Arabs. However, other polls have shown a majority of Iraqis wants US troops out of the country. 7/4/05]
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Some Iraqis Criticize Bush's Speech
Looming Health Crisis in Qaim Area

An Iraqi response to Bush's claim that he is fighting terrorism by drawing terrorists to Iraq:

' "Why don't they find another place to fight terrorism?" asked Abdul Ridha al-Hafadhi, 58, head of a humanitarian aid group. "I don't feel comforted by Bush's remarks; there must be a timetable for their departure." '

On Wednesday, a grenade attack wounded two Polish troops near Diwaniyah, and a bombing in Tel Afar killed four. On Tuesday, a bombing near the Japanese base at Samawah killed two Iraqis. Thousands of people came out for the funeral of slain parliamentarian Dhari Ali al-Fayyadh.

On Tuesday, guerrillas killed US troops at Balad and Tikrit; several were also wounded.

Reuters also reports that on Wednesday US forces arrested Dhahir al-Dhari, a major clan leader whose brother heads up the Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard line Sunni clerical group. Likewise:

' But another Sunni leader, Ayham al-Samarai, a former minister in the previous, U.S.-backed interim government, launched a new political movement, saying he aimed to give a voice to figures from the "legitimate Iraqi resistance". "The birth of this political bloc is to silence the sceptics who say there is no legitimate Iraqi resistance and that they cannot reveal their political face," he told a news conference. '

Al-Zaman: The Ministry of Labor is opening an inquiry into why several major Iraqi factories have closed down.

Iraq's health minister has warned against a building humanitarian crisis in the Qaim area. US military operations in the cities near the Syrian border have left made refugees out of 7,000 families, some of them now living in tents in the desert. It is alleged that the US is not allowing ambulances and humanitarian aid into the cities, and that there is danger of some refugees starving.

Although the primary stated goal of US campaigns in places such as Qaim is to root out guerrillas using them as bases, the massive force employed clearly announces that a subsidiary goal is to terrify the Sunni Arab population and to "encourage" them to report on the guerrillas from now on. Jane Arraf of CNN when reporting on the al-Qaim campaign showed a picture of what looked like a large community center being blown up by American planes. I thought to myself that it couldn't possibly be necessary to destroy that nice building. And, at the same time, the US is talking to the guerrilla leaders. Saddam called this sort of policy "tarhib wa taqrib": first you terrify your subjects, then you find ways of pulling them close to you. It does not reflect well on the US that the techniques it is now using look so familiar.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Arguing with Bush

Bush's speech.

"The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent.

"Terrorists" are not a cohesive ideological category like "Communists" as Bush suggests. Lots of groups use terror as a tactic. The Irgun Zionists in 1946 and 1947 did, as well. Also ETA in Spain, about the terrorist acts of which Americans seldom hear in their newspapers (they are ongoing). The Baath regime in Iraq engaged in so little international terrorism in the late 1990s and early zeroes that it was not even on the US State Department list of sponsors of terrorism.* Bush could take the above rationale and use it to invade most countries in the world.

"To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill: in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere.

Yes, and these were al-Qaeda operations, and you haven't caught Bin Laden or al-Zawahiri.

"The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

This is monstrous and ridiculous at once. The people in Fallujah and Ramadi were not sitting around plotting terrorism three years ago. They had no plans to hit the United States. Terrorism isn't a fixed quantity. By unilaterally invading Iraq and then bollixing it up, Bush and Vines have created enormous amounts of terrorism, which they are now having trouble putting back in the bottle.

"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."

Maybe 8 percent of the fighters in Iraq are foreign jihadis. Of the some 25,000 guerrillas, almost all are Iraqi Sunni Arabs who dislike foreign military occupation of their country. You could imagine what people in Alabama or Kentucky would do if foreign troops came in and tried to set up checkpoints in their neighborhoods.

Moreover, many of those jihadis fighting in Iraq wouldn't even be jihadis if they weren't outraged by Bush's invasion and occupation of a Muslim country.

The fact is that the US went in and convinced the Sunni Arabs of Iraq that we were going to screw them over royally, driving them into violent opposition. They aren't inherently terrorists and could have been won over.

There are no Iraqi military units that can and will fight independently against the Sunni guerrillas, so all those statistics he quoted are meaningless.

Almost all the coalition allies of the US have a short timetable for getting out of the quagmire before it goes really bad. Bush's quotation of all that international support sounds more hollow each time he voices it.

An interesting Flash presentation on Coalition casualties can be found here, demnstrating their geographical extent throughout the country.

The political process in Iraq has not helped end the guerrilla war. It has excluded Sunnis or alienated them so that they excluded themselves. It offers no hope in and of itself.

There was nothing new in Bush's speech, and most of what he said was inaccurate.

Tomdispatch.com takes apart Bush's moral relativism or amoral relativism and is worth a read.

----

*This statement was a mistake on my part. Iraq was taken off the list in the 1980s and again in the early 1990s. It was on the list in the late 1990s and early zeroes, but the annual report noted that it had undertaken no terrorism against the US since 1993. See this set of reader responses.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Tel Afar and the North

We have not heard much lately about the US campaign in the northern, largely Turkmen city of Tel Afar. The city has been a perennial security problem. There is evidence of local Turkmen guerrilla groups cooperating with Arab guerrillas, and the city seems to be part of an underground railway for the infiltration of foreign jihadis from Syria. An informed observer with experience in Iraq explains the dynamics of ethnic and religious disputes in the Iraqi north, especially among the Turkmen:

"Quick clarification on your June 16th post regarding Tel Afar. The US and the Iraqi forces are having such a hard time because the Turkmen in Tel Afar are actually Sunni, not Shia'. They are nearly all Ottoman-era Sunni migrants, rather than Shia' descendants of the Akqoyunlu and Karaqoyunlu tribes who make up a majority of Turkmen in Kirkuk.

While the Ba'ath used tribal proxies everywhere, they generally recruited "direct hires" in the security services from a much narrower base in specific communities. Nearly all Turkmen who had significant positions in Ba'ath security were from Tel Afar. Tel Afar had land conflicts with the Kurdish Mirani tribe - who were allies of Mustafa Barzani - and backed the government in the Kurdish wars of the 60's and 70's. Saddam subsequently recruited heavily in Tel Afar for Maktab al-Amin positions because many of them speak Kurdish. Tel Afar will remain an insurgent stronghold because it is historically as much a Ba'athist city as any city of the same size in al-Anbar.

The Turkmen-Kurdish conflict in Kirkuk is a little different. Unlike in Tel Afar, Turkmen in Kirkuk are unlikely to join the present insurgency because they really dislike both the Ba'athists and the Sunni jihadist types. The Turkmen in Kirkuk are a minor impediment to Kurdish control over the oil but the Kurds are more likely to repress them out of a fear of Turkish government influence. A Turkish special forces team attempted to assassinate the Kurdish governor of Kirkuk in July 2003, in coordination with Turkmen in the city. I'm convinced Kurdish abduction, torture and abuse of Turkmen is intended to intimidate alleged collaborators with Turkey rather than the insurgency. Make no mistake - the Kurds fully intend to be independent, even if it takes another decade. The Kurdish policy in Kirkuk is to control Turkish intrigue long enough for demographics to shift in their favor, without provoking Turkey to the point that they close the border. That occurred when the US accidentally arrested that Turkish hit squad.

. . . I have no doubt that the Kurds are abducting Turkmen, but I also have some suspicions about the objectivity of the [State Department memo] and the scale of the problem. Kurdish abduction and torture of Sunni Arabs is a much more serious problem, but neither the US nor Turkey are likely to protest too strongly. This conflict seems to be on an inevitable and tragic path towards a shadow war in which pesh mergha and the Badr Brigade - maybe wearing Iraqi uniforms, maybe not - start going after the insurgents using their own methods and tactics. Both the U.S. and Turkey have an incentive to draw the line if Turkmen are the victims . . .

I don't support a "shadow war" in which the Kurds and the Shia' political parties start fighting fire with fire. I think there needs to be pressure on them to prevent abuses, and I think there needs to be rigorous monitoring. But I hope I don't give the impression of moral equivalence between the pesh mergha and Shia' parties on the one side, and the former Ba'athist/jihadists on the other. The former are more responsive to public and international opinion and there's a certain degree of internal self-control that usually places some limits on their behavior. Not to mention Sistani, who . . . deserves the Nobel Prize. The Ba'athists and jihadists are another matter . . .

Interesting history... Too bad the US doesn't understand it."

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

SCIRI Rejects Negotiations with Baathists

Against the backdrop of the London Times report that the Americans are negotiating with Iraqi guerrillas, confirmed recently by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Gilbert Achcar writes:

Excerpt from the lead article on Iraq in Al-Hayat, June 28:

The Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim) [the main Shia fundamentalist pro-Iranian force in Iraq and the main component of the Parliament's majority United Iraqi Alliance] warned the Americans against concluding a settlement with the Baathists and supporters of the previous regime.

Ali al-Aadhad, a member of the leadership of the SCIRI, told Al-Hayat that "the terrorist attack that hit the Shia-inhabited al-Karada aera in Baghdad represented a turning point in the strategy of the alliance between the Takfiri forces [fanatical Sunni fundamentalists] and Saddam Hussein' bunch. This turn meant basically a shift from attacks aimed at the US and [Iraqi] army and police men to attacks aimed at Shias as was the case in al-Karada."

He considered that "such terrorist attacks constitute a means of pressure on the Americans to speed up the conclusion of a settlement with Saddam's bunch, allowing them to return to political life." He maintained that "the Americans use sometimes labels like 'Sunni Arabs' in order to justify the talks, but the SCIRI knows that the talks are held with Saddam's bunch."

He accused the Americans of attempting "to by-pass Shia religious forces" [the SCIRI leader specified "religious" because "secular" former US-designated Prime Minister, Iyad al-Allawi, is the main architect of the strategy of a US deal with the Baathists], maintaining that "the timing of the US settlement with Saddam's bunch means that the Americans want to involve this bunch in the drafting of the constitution and the forthcoming elections." He added that one of the most important goals of the al-Barq [Lightning] operation was "to accelerate the weakening of Saddam's bunch in a way that contradicts the ongoing attempts to conclude an American settlement with this bunch."

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Parliamentarian Assassinated

Guerrillas assassinated a member of parliament in Baghdad on Tuesday. They cut down Dhari Ali al-Fayadh, along with his son and three bodyguards. Al-Fayadh had run for office as part of the largely Shiite United Iraqi Alliance. The oldest member of parliament, he served as speaker of the house when it first met. He is the second member of parliament to be killed.

Reuters reports:

"In other incidents on Tuesday, a suicide bomber dressed as a policeman blew himself up in a hospital in Musayyib, south of Baghdad, killing three people and wounding 13. A car bomb killed two bodyguards in a failed assassination bid on the chief of traffic police in the ethnically divided northern oil city of Kirkuk and police opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators in the southern city of Samawa wounding seven."

US forces began a new campaign at Haditha.

45% of Americans in a new poll say that the US will never succeed in Iraq. Some 49% thought it could, but most of those believed it would take five years (a very optimistic time scale).

Iraq's new government is trying to get out of a United Nations-imposed program that subtracts 5 percent of its oil revenues to pay compensation to Kuwait and others for damage done by Iraq in the 1990-1991 invasion of Kuwait. Iraq wants the ability to negotiate bilateral deals rather than being under the UN thumb on this. The Iraqi government is only able to pump about 1.4 million barrels a day because of sabotage, and needs every cent to run the government and work against the guerrilla movement. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and others, however, want the payments to continue, figuring Iraq owes them $50 bn. for damages.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Guerrillas Shoot Down US Helicopter
Bombings in Baghdad
Bush Presses Blair for More Troops

Guerrillas using a shoulder-held missile launcher, probably an SA-16, shot down a US Apache helicopter Monday north of Baghdad, killing both servicemen aboard. AP reports, ' "Witness Mohammed Naji told Associated Press Television News he saw two helicopters flying toward Mishahda when "a rocket hit one of them and destroyed it completely in the air" . . . Heavy gunfire was heard at the time of the crash and shots also were heard afterward, the AP reporter said. ' If this is the future of the guerrilla war, US casualties will rise dramatically.

In another attack on Monday, guerrillas detonated a massive bomb aiming at a US military convoy in Baghdad during the early evening, but missed. It went off between the al-Bida'a Cinema and the Sunni al-Samarra'i Mosque, killing at least four Iraqi by-standers and wounding 16 others. AP says people were shopping in the New Baghdad area "before the curfew." There's a night-time curfew in Baghdad?

Elsewhere in the capital, guerrillas targeted a police patrol in the northern Azamiyah neighborhood (largely Sunni), but appear to have missed, killing two innocent by-standers.

Wire services report, "Seven Iraqis were also wounded when a rocket slammed into a restaurant in the centre of the capital as attacks continued in Baghdad despite a security clampdown. The seven, three waiters and four customers, were wounded when a rocket exploded in Al-Yassir restaurant near a busy taxi and bus terminal off the capital's central Museum square."

Former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi admitted in Cairo recently that Syria is not actively backing the jihadi infiltrators coming into Iraq across the Syrian border. Allawi will have been in a position to see the intelligence on this matter when he was in office, so this is a crucial admission. It contradicts the charges bandied about by members of the Bush administration and the Neoconservatives in the US.

A Two-Front War

Tony Blair and the British military are caught between Iraq and a hard place. The Bush administration is putting enormous pressure on the British to send more troops to Afghanistan, where the Taliban are regrouping and launching an Iraq-style guerrilla war. So the British began making noises about reducing the number of their troops in southern Iraq (around 10,000) and shifting them to Afghanistan.

But no. Bush recently told Blair that Iraq is on the brink of disaster, and that the British need to send more troops to that country, in addition to sending new units to fight the Taliban.

The Scotsman reveals that

' Tony Blair was warned that war-torn Iraq remains on the brink of disaster - more than two years after the removal of Saddam Hussein - during his summit with President Bush in Washington earlier this month. Scotland on Sunday revealed last month that Blair is preparing to rush thousands more British troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war, amid warnings the coalition faces a "complete strategic failure" in the effort to rebuild the nation. '

If the Pushtuns turn against the Karzai government in large numbers, rallying around neo-Taliban, the country could fall back into war. This danger was always the hidden cost of Bush going on to Iraq before stabilizing Afghanistan.

I don't think the British public will put up with being dragged into a two-front hot war, and you wonder whether the Blair government might fall over such a development.

The mystery to me is why the Americans think they need more British troops in southern Iraq. Most of that area has fallen into the hands of religious Shiite militias anyway, and I doubt the British get out of their barracks all that much. When they do, they appear to be angering a lot of the Shiites, as in Maysan, the provincial government of which yesterday launched a non-cooperation campaign against the British. Do the Americans want to move the British up to the hot zone in the Sunni heartland? Is the South more unstable than it looks on the outside (e.g. is the Mahdi Army reconstituting itself down there?)

Ironically, even as the Afghanistan venture appears on the verge of collapse, Dick Cheney instanced it in his Wolf Blitzer interview on Sunday as evidence of the undue pessimism of his critics and a reason to be optimistic about Iraq.

About three quarters of Americans believe that the guerrilla movement in Iraq is either maintaining its strength or growing in strength. Only 1/4 agree with Dick Cheney that it is weakening.

Arundhati Roy reports from the mock tribunal in Istanbul trying George W. Bush for the Iraq War.

The Egyptian cleric kidnapped by the US Centeral Intelligence Organization from Milan in February of 2003 was involved in Ansar al-Islam, the terrorist group, and was preparing false passports and aiding in other ways the transport of radical volunteers to go to Iraq, where the group had a base in the north. An Italian magistrate has issued arrest warrants for the CIA personnel involved. It is not entirely clear why the US couldn't get the Berlusconi government to move against the cleric itself.

I'm posting this a little early because am traveling on Tuesday, but will try to post more late afternoon.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Rumsfeld on Vietnam and Government Secrecy

These quotes from Congressman Rumsfeld, circa 1966, are amusing and tragic in retrospect.

' A 1966 article in the Chicago Tribune quoted Rumsfeld as saying the following: “The administration should clarify its intent in Viet Nam,’ he said. ‘People lack confidence in the credibility of our government.’ Even our allies are beginning to suspect what we say, he charged. ‘It’s a difficult thing today to be informed about our government even without all the secrecy,’ he said. ‘With the secrecy, it’s impossible. The American people will do what’s right when they have the information they need.” [Chicago Tribune, 4/13/66] '

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

50 Killed in Guerrilla Violence
Al-Hakim: Sectarian War Could Engulf Middle East
Al-Akhbar: Internationalize Iraq Crisis

Guerrilla violence killed at least 50 persons in Iraq on Sunday and left a similar number wounded, according to Al-Sharq al-Awsat. Among the killed was a US soldier killed by roadside bomb in Baghdad (two other US servicemen were wounded in the incident).

The biggest death toll came in Mosul. The casualties in the bombing of the police station mentioned here on Sunday rose to 12 dead, two of them civilians, with 8 wounded. Later, a suicide bomber killed 16 persons and wounded 7 -- mostly civilians -- in the parking lot of an Iraqi army base at the edges of Mosul. Yet another attacker with bomb belt blew himself up in Mosul's Jumhuri Teaching Hospital, targeting a room used by police guards and killing 5 and wounding 8 of them, and wounding 4 civilians, as well.

Outside Sadiyah, an hour and a half's drive north of Baghdad, guerrillas shot down 6 Iraqi soldiers at their base.

There were two bombings in Kirkuk, one of them using a booby-trapped dog, which left 6 persons injured.

Al-Hayat: Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and of the United Iraqi Alliance that controls parliament, warned Sunday that "the launching of a sectarian war in Iraq would mean the outbreak of war in the entire region." He called on Arabs and Muslims to "stand decisively against those who spread terror" to Iraq. His statement was distributed at a wake held for the victims of attacks last Wednesday and Thursday on the largely Shiite neighborhoods of Shu'lah and Karradah in Baghdad.

He said, "Zarqawi-- the criminal and the wreaker of corruption in the land-- and his helpers and supporter from among the sectarians, and the orphans of the dead-and-buried Saddam regime, and the excommunicators, have unveiled the ugliness of their visages more and more by targeting innocent civilians from among the Shiites." He added, "These criminal groups have openly announced to the multitudes their sectarian war against the Shiites in Iraq, and have issued Islamic legal rulings declaring them excommunicated and unbelievers, saying that it is a duty to kill Muslims who follow the family of the Prophet, after having initially hidden for the previous span of time behind the pretext of confronting Occupation and those who collaborated with it." He affirmed that the Iraqi people "will not be drawn into these criminal, terrorist plots, rather Sunni and Shiite organizations will strengthen their bonds."

Then there is this item:

' Iraq's Al-Hakim Praises Egyptian Grand Imam for Condemning Terrorist Attacks
MENA (MIDDLE EAST NEWS AGENCY)
Sunday, June 26, 2005 T19:03:23Z

BAGHDAD, June 26 (MENA) - Chairman of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim hailed Sunday the stance of Al-Azhar Grand Imam Sheikh Mohammad Sayed Tantawi on Iraq.

Sheikh Tantawi had condemned attacks targeting innocent Iraqis, Hakim told a ceremony mourning those recently killed in a cluster of bombings in Al-Karada and Al-Shuala districts in Baghdad.

The SCIRI leader asked Muslim scholars and religious authorities to make public their stances on attacks against Iraqis.

He stressed that Iraqis need to unite in the face of terrorist attacks. '

Al-Hakim was glad for the denunciation of the killing of innocent Muslims by the Rector of al-Azhar, who is among the foremost religious authorities in the Sunni world. Tantawi has also forbidden Sunnis to excommunicate Shiites, i.e., to allege that they are not really Muslims. His statement calling on Muslims in Iraq to unite across the sectarian divide came after he had met with former interim PM Iyad Allawi.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that the provincial Governing Council of Maysan province, along with political parties and civil society organizations, has called for a boycott of British troops and a non-cooperation drive with regard to them. The non-cooperation movement comes in protest against what the GC calls the continued "excesses" of the British troops against inhabitants of the province. They cited home invasions, one of which cause a pregnant woman to miscarry, the incarceration of "a number of innocents," and mistreatment of government bureaucrats from the circles of the minitry of trade. The governing council also lodged a complaint about these incidents with the national parliament. Maysan politics is dominated by the Sadr movement of nationalist Shiites, many of them influenced by Muqtada al-Sadr or by his rival, Muhammad Yaqubi.

Egypt's government is afraid that the US will withdraw, leaving Iraq a mess in the Middle East that will blow back on other Arab states.

At the same time, the government-owned al-Akhbar in an editorial urged the United States to seek international help in Iraq in a way that it refused to do in the past. (This reference may be to the United Nations or the Arab League-- it isn't clear). Via FBIS:

' Cairo Paper Says Washington Should Ask for International Help in Iraq Editorial
The Difficult American Option in Iraq!"
AL-AKHBAR
Sunday, June 26, 2005 T21:52:23Z

"This is a fact proven by the rising number of Americans killed in Iraq, the continuing Iraqi bloodletting, the incessant explosions that claim tens of Iraqis every day, and the size of the terrifying destruction that has turned this Arab country into wrecks and ruins.

Perhaps the only way to come out of this fix is an admission by the United States of the dimensions of the Iraqi predicament and a very determined quest to involve the international community in searching for a solution--even if this solution meant Washington's adoption of some difficult decisions it had not taken into consideration when it took this dangerous decision to invade Iraq.

(Description of Source: Cairo Al-Akhbar in Arabic -- State-Owned Daily) '

George Hunsinger warns of a Thiry Years' War on the part of the US in the Middle East.

I share al-Hakim's fear that civil war in Iraq could ignite the entire eastern portion of the Middle East. He is a man of the region and attention should be paid to him on this. Likewise, I agree with the Egyptians that a precipitate US withdrawal would very likely spark the sectarian war that al-Hakim warned about. I also agree with the al-Akhbar editorial that it is time for the US to bring in the international community. The Egyptians know Iraq and know the region. The Americans, who have shown themselves incredibly ignorant of both, should listen carefully to what they are saying.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

It Depends on What "Throes" Is

It started when Cheney went on "Larry King Live" last month and said this:

' "I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." '

This is the man who "knew where exactly" Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction were and who was sure Iraqis would deliriously greet the US military as liberators.

Virtually nobody agreed with Cheney. Senator John McCain, when asked if it was the last throes, sighed "No." Senator Chuck Hagel suggested Cheney was disconnected from reality.

Then there was this exchange at a senate hearing between Sen. Carl Levin and General John Abizaid, the Pentagon's senior officer in the Gulf:

' Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.: "General Abizaid, can you give us your assessment of the strength of the insurgency? Is it less strong, more strong, about the same strength as it was six months ago?"

Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in the Persian Gulf: "In terms of comparison from six months ago, in terms of foreign fighters, I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago.

"In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I'd say it's about the same as it was."

Levin: "So you wouldn't agree with the statement that it's in its last throes?"

Abizaid: "I don't know that I would make any comment about that other than to say there's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency." '

In other words, a lot to be done and no progress in the past 6 months.

So then Wolf Blitzer at CNN came back to Cheney and asked him again about the last throes.

BLITZER: The commander of the U.S. Military Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid has been testifying on Capitol Hill.

CHENEY: Right.

BLITZER: He says that the insurgency now is at a strength undiminished as it was six months ago, and he says there are actually more foreign fighters in Iraq now than there were six months ago. That doesn't sound like the last throes.

CHENEY: No, I would disagree. If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period -- the throes of a revolution. The point would be that the conflict will be intense, but it's intense because the terrorists understand if we're successful at accomplishing our objective, standing up a democracy in Iraq, that that's a huge defeat for them. They'll do everything they can to stop it. [Cheney then invoked the Battle of the Bulge in December of 1944.]

Cheney contradicts himself here. On the one hand he redefines "throes" as capable of lasting a long time. Then he goes back essentially to predicting that the Iraqi guerrilla war will be over in about six months. Isn't that the implication of his invoking the Battle of the Bulge?

Then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld goes on Fox Cable News and says this:

' Rumsfeld said: "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years." '

So now not only has there been no progress for six months, not only is there a lot of work to do, but we are not in December, 1944 of WW II at all. We are in 1963 of the Vietnam War, with 12 years to go, and we can't win. The Iraqi ARVN has to win.

But my real question is whether "throes" can mean what Cheney alleges.

The Oxford English dictionary defines a "throe" as

' 1. A violent spasm or pang, such as convulses the body, limbs, or face. Also, a spasm of feeling; a paroxysm; agony of mind; anguish. '

That just doesn't seem to me to be the sort of thing that could last for several years at a time. A spasm has to be over with pretty quickly.

The Bard gives us this: "Their pangs of Loue, with other incident throwes That Natures fragile Vessell doth sustaine." [SHAKES. Timon V. i. 203] So here a throwe [throe] is a pang, as in a pang of love. (Spelling it without the "w" seems to be a seventeenth century practice that only arose late in Shakespeare's lifetime; i.e. it is a late innovation).

A lot of early modern writers used "throes" to refer to a mother's birth pains:

Milton says, "My womb..Prodigious motion felt and rueful throes." [1667 MILTON P.L. II. 780]

And Pope writes, "Her new-fall'n young..Fruit of her throes." [1715-20 POPE Iliad XVII. 6]

Defoe has, "Frequent Throws and Pangs of Appetite, that nothing but the Tortures of Death can imitate." [1719 DE FOE Crusoe (Hotten's repr.) 408] Again, a pang, as in a pang of appetite. I wouldn't say a pang of appetite could go on for years ordinarily.

But Cheney didn't just speak of a "throe." He said "the last throes, if you will." Apparently we won't. But in any case, the last throes are the spasm of a dying body, of the sort that actors find it so difficult to do convincingly. Afficionadoes of classic silly comedy movies will remember when the dying prospector kicks the bucket in "A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." I mean, his foot actually strikes the bucket as he dies. That's the throes, Dick.

OED says the Scottish spelling of this was deid-thraw. I thought that had an ominous ring to it, sort of like something you'd find in Frank Herbert's Dune books. "The deid-thraw of Abu Musab."

Spenser in the Faerie Queene gives, "O man! have mind of that last bitter throw." (I. x. 41)

I thought this entry rather good: "The agony of . . . outrage transcends the throes of dissolution." [1833 H. MARTINEAU Tale of Tyne vi. 113 ]

In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how just about everyone feels about Cheney's assertion about the throes in Iraq.

Cheney is wrong to mix up two separate usages of "throes." The "last throes" are the "paraxysm of death," and imply a quick end. The "throes of revolution" are a different sense of the word.

The OED gives, "When a nation is in the throes of revolution, wild spirits are abroad in the storm." [1856 FROUDE Hist. Eng. (1858) II. ix. 373]

You can say that again. Also watermelons and dogs rigged up with bombs.

The throes of a revolution is a figurative sense of throes, drawing on its meaning of "convulsion, paroxysm," and perhaps invoking its archaic connotation of the pangs of childbirth. It just isn't the same as "the last throes" unless you actually were speaking of "the last throes of the revolution."

So, I have to reject Cheney's explanation to Wolf Blitzer of what he meant by the "insurgency" being in "its last throes, if you will." He wasn't talking about the throes of revolution. He was talking about kicking the bucket. Pretty soon. And the guerrilla movement in Iraq just isn't in the last throes of anything. It is in throes all right, of some sort. But there's no death rattle to be heard except that of its victims. And we can expect this to go on for years (I'm agreeing with Rumsfeld! Help!)

The OED on etymology or the origins of words is sometimes hard to follow. But I waded through what it had to say about "throe." And I conclude that the whole thing is probably a series of mistakes, something like Bush's malapropisms. Throe as a word was given to us by a series of people very like Bush. It should probably be the "thrawes of death."

[Throe is a late alteration (noted first in 1615) of the earlier throwe, throw (which survived as late as 1733). The origin and history of ME. {th}rowe (found c 1200), and its northern form {th}raw(e, {th}raw, thrau (known c 1300, and still in use in Sc.) is not quite clear.

It may come from the verb throwen or thrawen, which early on (i.e. when the Buyids of northern Iran ruled Baghdad) meant "to twist, rack, torture." That works for me. But there are apparently reasons to think it got mixed up with other verbs over time.

Such a series of linguistic errors is hard on dictonary makers. Bush produces them by the bushel.

Bush has refered to America as the world's "pacemakers" instead of "peacemakers". Or he has spoken of the need for the Americas to be an "economically vile hemisphere." He has called for "the end of terriers," which appears to be a mongrel dog made up of "tariffs and barriers". Or he said, "I understand there's a suspicion that we—we're too security-conscience." Or "Who could have possibly envisioned an erection — an election in Iraq at this point in history?" (Jan. 10, 2005)

In the same way, some Bush ancestor seems to have messed around with thrawen and thrawe and turned it into throw and then later on misspelled it throe.

And then Dick Cheney came along and reinterpreted it as something that could last for twelve years in a row.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Al-Hayat on US contacts with AMS
Chalabi Favors Timeline for US Withdrawal

Gilbert Achcar writes:

Quite interesting excerpts from an article written from Baghdad by Basil Muhammad in today's Al-Hayat, reporting on an interview he made with Abdul-Salam al-Kubaisi, a prominent leading member of the (Sunni) Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), the most respected Sunni group vocal against the occupation.

Excerpts:

' ...On the dialogue with the Americans, he said that the contacts that the AMS had with them were "interrupted," explaining that "the previous dialogue between the two parties was very obscure and we don't know whether it was a tactial dialogue or a strategic one." He added that "the dialogue that we hear of between the dissolved Baath party and the Americans seems different." He also added that "the ground on which the AMS stands in any dialogue is patriotic whereas the Baathists have different choices, including their return to power; the AMS doesn't want any power, but seeks a specific goal that is the withdrawal of occupation forces."...

He described the meeting held recently by Iraqi Vice-Prime Minister Ahmad al-Chalabi with the leadership of the AMS as "a step toward the dialogue with al-Jaafari's Government." He said also that "al-Chalabi agrees with our position calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops... We told him that we won't join the political process as long as State terror is carried on in al-Qa'im, al-Anbar and Baghdad districts."

He maintained that "the patriotic camp calling for the withdrawal of occupation forces and for quickly establishing a timetable for their withdrawal has become larger than anytime before."

Al-Hayat has learned from other sources that there is a current within the Government holding a position in favor of a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.

This current, of which al-Chalabi is a prominent member, has accused American parties of refusing the idea of concluding an agreement on the status of foreign troops, and of wanting to preserve the current status quo. '

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Ahmadinejad Uses Bush's Tactics

Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei gloated Saturday that the Iranian public had "humiliated" Bush by electing hard liner Mahmud Ahmadinejad as president. But in fact, the campaigning style of the two men suggests that in some ways they are soul mates.

Newly elected Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad won in some part by using the same electoral tools as George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

1. Smear Tactics

Ahmadinejad's supporters smeared his chief rival, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani by spreading all sorts of false rumors about him. Negative campaigning is illegal in Iran, but complaints to the rightwing judges went nowhere because they support Ahmadinejad. (See below).

Bush supporters in South Carolina in the 2000 elections smeared his Republican rival for the nomination John McCain by falsely suggesting (via a phony telephone poll) that he had had an interracial affair that produced an illegitimate child. In the 2004 campaign, the White House directed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to smear John Kerry as a liar and coward with regard to his distinguished military record, while chicken hawk Bush, who did not even properly serve out his time as a reservist back in the US, was depicted as some sort of war hero.

2. False Consciousness

Ahmadinejad, a rightwinger, poses as a champion of the common people, and once dressed up as a street sweeper. He thus got a lot of working class people to vote for him, even though he will do the bidding of billionaire clerical hardliners who have done little for ordinary folks.

Likewise, George W. Bush affects a southern drawl (he is from Connecticut) and makes himself out to be a friend of the common man, with his "tax cuts" and program to "save" social security. In fact, everything Bush does primarily benefits the rich and actually hurts the interests of workers and farmers. Nevertheless, as with Ahmadinejad, he gets many in the working classes to vote for him.

3. Posing as a Critic of the Government You Run

Ahmadinejad is allowed to attack the Iranian government because he has impeccable credentials as a rightwinger and loyalist to Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei. He can therefore complain about state corruption without being pilloried or punished. His anti-government rhetoric struck a chord with many Iranians and helped him get elected. If a liberal reformer had spoken that way about the Iranian government, he would have been accused of disloyalty and lack of patriotism.

Likewise, George W. Bush affects a rhetoric of "cleaning up Washington" and breaking the gridlock and overcoming partisanship. In reality, corruption has flourished in his regime, with severe questions constantly being raised about lobbyists essentially bribing Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham and others. The grandson of a senator and son of a president who calls the white-tie corporate crowd his "base" represents himself as an outsider to Washington and a critic of the government! Yet liberals like Dick Durbin who criticize the government are pilloried as traitors.

4. Benefitting from Dominance of the Judiciary

Ahmadinejad was supported by the clerical rightwing judiciary and Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei. When other candidates complained about ballot stuffing, the rightwing judges backed Ahmadinejad.

Bush: Five words: Florida and the Supreme Court.

5. Religious Congregations and the Military

Ahmadinejad was supported by many mosque preachers all over the country, as well as by religious volunteers for a paramilitary called basij. Some 300,000 basij all over Iran essentially acted as a political party to support Ahmadinejad.

Bush depends heavily on the support of evangelical and fundamentalist churches in the United States, which abuse their tax-exempt, non-partisan status by actually becoming foot soldiers for the Republican Party. The US military is also disproportionately Republican and supports Bush. Air Force cadets are apparently put under enormous pressure to become evangelicals, under the Bush regime.


By the way, speaking of cadets, Space Cadet Michael Ledeen over at the American Enterprise Institute alleged last week that hardliners brought two million Pakistanis over to vote for Ahmadinejad. Presumably they would have been brought in to Zahedan in Iranian Baluchistan from Quetta.

Ledeen fancies himself a Middle East expert and is trying hard to get up a US war on Iran, having been helpful in getting up the Iraq War, which he promised us would go so well.

Let me explain a few basics to Mr. Ledeen.

1. You can't move 2 million people through the Baluchistan desert in a short period of time. A population movement that massive could even be seen by satellite.

2. Pakistanis are largely Sunnis. They don't like the Iranian regime, which is their rival. They would not go vote in Iran. Even the Shiite minority would not, and it wouldn't vote for Ahmadinejad if it could.

3. The voting rolls for Iranian Baluchistan show about 800.000 voters. Where are the two million Pakistanis?

4. Baluchistan voted for reformist candidates. (Most Baluchis are Sunnis and are afraid of the Shiite hardliners).

Can you imagine that people like Ledeen are actually allowed to come on television as "experts" or to publish in political journals despite spewing complete nonsense? If your son or daughter gets drafted and sent to die in Iran, it will be in some part because of the propaganda spread by people like Ledeen, who, by the way, has some sort of weird relationship both to the more fascistic elements in Italian military intelligence and to the Likud extremists in Israel. NB: The false Niger uranium documents were forged by a former agent of Italian military intelligence . . .

All that said, it is probably true that there was some ballot stuffing by Ahmadinejad supporters. It was alleged by clerical moderate Karrubi, and it is plausible. These presidential elections are the least free and fair since the early 1990s, though all along there has been a problem of the exclusion and vetting of candidates by the clerics. On the other hand, it seems undeniable that Ahmadinejad's campaign struck a chord with many Iranians tired of corruption and economic stagnation. He may well have won the second round even without those "extra" ballots.

By the way, rightwing US commentators often slam Iranian elections because the candidates are vetted by the clerical Guardian Council for their loyalty to the Khomeinist ideology. In the past two years, the vetting has grown ever more rigorous, excluding relative liberals from running for parliament or president. The commentators are correct.

However, in the United States the "first past the post" system of winner-takes-all elections and the two-party system play a similar role in limiting voters' choices of candidates. Neither libertarians nor socialists are likely to be serious contenders for the presidency in the United States, since neither of the two dominant parties will run them. The US approach to limiting voter choice is systemic and so looks "natural," but US voters have a narrower range of practical choices in candidates than virtually any other democratic societ
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Mosul Police Station blown Up, many Dead
31 Killed Saturday, Dozens Wounded

Mosul: A suicide bomber detonated his payload at the central police station in Mosul on Sunday morning, bringing down part of the wall and killing at least 5 persons, 4 of them officers. At least 7 were wounded. The rubble was still being searched Sunday mid-morning Baghdad time.

On Saturday, wire services report, , "a suicide attacker rammed his vehicle into an Iraqi police patrol on a bridge in southwest Mosul, killing at least five and wounding two . . ." This attack aimed at killing the provincial chief of police, but he was not in the convoy.

Tel Afar In the northern, Turkmen city of Tel Afar, Reuters reports, "Residents and officials at Tal Afar . . . where U.S. troops have cracked down this month, said three bomb attacks were followed by a battle involving U.S. tanks and helicopters that lasted about three hours. Hospital officials said at least two civilians were killed."

Samarra: The Associated Press reports that on Saturday, a suicide bomber targeting the home of a special forces police officer instead killed 9 persons on the street.

Ramadi: On Friday, 20 guerrillas captured 8 policemen at a checkpoint near the city, took them to their offices, and mowed them down with gunfire.

Baghdad: On Sunday morning, guerrillas assassinated Col. Riyad Abdul Karim, the deputy head of one of Baghdad's main police departments.

Guerillas fired three mortar rounds at a thronging cafe in a mostly Shiite district of western Baghdad Saturday evening. They killed 5 civilians and wounded 7.

Guerrillas killed two police commandos patrolling West Baghdad on Saturday. Another policeman was found assassinated.

Amara: Guerrillas assassinated three policemen 46 miles south of Amara on Saturday.

Kirkuk: On Saturday, three Iraqi policemen were killed in Kirkuk, along with two Kurdish truck drivers delivering cement to the Americans:

From FBIS

Saturday, June 25, 2005 T20:59:22Z

"KIRKUK, June 25 (MENA) - Two Kurdish drivers were killed Saturday when their trucks came under fire by unidentified gunmen on Kirkuk-Tikrit road in northern Iraq. The truckers were carrying cement to US forces in northern Iraq, said eyewitnesses, adding that the attackers were dressed in Iraqi army uniform . . ."

KIRKUK, June 25 (MENA) - An Iraqi police convoy came under fire in Iraq's northern oil-rich city of Kirkuk. Three Iraqi policemen were injured in the attack that took place in Kirkuk's Al-Alamin district. Meantime, Kirkuk's Multaqa municipality chief Hiroush Abdel Karim survived an attempt on his life earlier in the day when an explosive charge went off near his motorcade. Two civilian cars were destroyed and a citizen was injured in the blast . . ."

The New York Times reports that Iraqi reconstruction efforts are plagued by graft.

Peter Beaumont reports for the Guardian from Baghdad that sectarian reprisal killings are on the rise in Iraq, and increasing hatred between Sunnis and Shiites are fueling them.

At least 70 radicalized British Muslims are fighting on the side of the guerrillas in Iraq, according to the Times of London. There are about 1.7 million Muslims in the UK excluding Northern Ireland, which does not keep statistics on them. (The UK population is approximately 60 million). Many second-generation Muslims are not well integrated into UK society and say they face discrimination and unemployment, especially in smaller cities like Bradford, the site of a race riot. On the other hand, 70 out of 1.7 million is not very many.

Reports from the Iraqi press via BBC World Monitoring for June 23:

"Al-Da'wah publishes on the front page a 70-word report stating that 40 National Assembly members presented to the assembly a bill regarding the formation of the southern federal bloc that comprises Basra, Al-Nasiriyah, and Maysan Governorates . . .

Al-Furat publishes on page 2 a 100-word report on the conclusion of the recent conference of the Advisory Councils of the southern governorates in Basra. The report says that the conference demanded 17% of Iraq's budget [i.e. oil income]. . .

Al-Adalah carries on page 1 a 150-word report citing Vice-President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi as saying that the there are no differences between the Unified Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdistan Coalition on adopting federalism as a form of government in Iraq . . .

Al-Hawzah publishes on page 1 a 200-word text of Muqtada al-Sadr's answers to questions by a number of "militant speaking Hawzah" regarding participation in the municipal councils' elections as candidates and electorate. Al-Sad says that religious scholars are not allowed to become candidates, while others are granted this right "under the condition that they are selfless, able to resist earthly temptation, and work to gain Iraq's independence."

Al-Bayan carries on page 2 a 100-word report citing chairman of the Baghdad Governorate Council saying that the council has made all arrangements for the elections of the municipal councils in Baghdad, scheduled for the end of July . . .

Al-Zaman publishes on page 4 a 600-word part 1 of a report on an interview with National Assembly member Mufid al-Jaza'iri, who says that a deadline for drafting the constitution is not [far] enough [off]. He adds that the government's decision to extend the stay of multinational forces has been taken without consulting the National Assembly . . .

Al-Dustur publishes on the front page a 300-word report stating that Iraqi tribal chiefs continued their sit in demanding that the Iraqi government review its recent decision to extend the stay of multinational forces in Iraq. The report cites the organizer of the sit in, Ali Hudhayfah, as saying that the reason behind the sit in is "to inform the elected Iraqi government that the Iraqi people are opposing the presence of these forces." He added that a number of National Assembly members, namely Falah Shanshal, Karim al-Bakhati, and Baha al-A'araji, have visited and declared solidarity with us. The report cites Shaykh Hatam Hashim al-Sadkhan, chief of the Al-Hamid tribe in Dhi Qar Governorate, as saying: "We have come to this place to support the National Assembly's decision of the withdrawal of US forces and to denounce the Iraqi government's decision regarding extension of the stay of multinational forces in Iraq." . . .

Al-Furat publishes on the front page a 300-word report citing well-informed US sources affirming that 80% of the funds allocated by the US for the reconstruction of Iraq have disappeared. The report says that this indicates large scale embezzlements and corruption. . . [This is a vast exaggeration - JC]

Al-Furat publishes on the front page a 160-word report citing Iraqi sources in Basra and Al-Nasiriyah Governorates asserting that a large number of the Al-Bidun, who were expelled by Kuwait after the Gulf War in 1991, are now working as informants for the US Army . . .

Al-Mada publishes on the front page a 150-word report saying that strict security measures have been taken by the Iraqi police to protect 3,000 people who staged a demonstration in Al-Najaf Governorate demanding the release of all detainees from the prisons, especially those from the Al-Sadr trend. . . .

Al-Furat publishes on page 2 a 200-word citing a health source as saying that 67,196 diarrhea cases were reported in Iraq in 2004. The source predicted that the number of cases will increase this summer due to drinking water pollution . . .

Al-Mashriq publishes on page 4 a 300-word report saying that the Ministry of Health has warned the citizens against drinking the water supplied through pipelines without boiling it, adding that diarrhea is currently spreading among people.

Al-Mashriq publishes on page 4 a 300-word report saying that the Environment Ministry has warned against the increase of environmental waste allover Baghdad . . .

Al-Manar al-Yawm carries on page 3 a 300-word article criticizing the Mojahidin-e-Khalq Organization for being a terrorist organization during the time of the former regime. . .

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

6 US Military Personnel Killed, 13 Wounded at Fallujah
Women Targeted

A bomber targeted a Marine convoy near Fallujah coming back from a checkpoint, then guerrillas sprayed machine gun fire. They killed 6 Marines, including 4 women, and wounded 13, 11 of whom were women.

The American women were deployed at the checkpoint to pat down Iraqi women. Arab culture insists on gender segregation, and it is considered unacceptable for male foreigners to pat down Muslim women.

The Marines appear to have had their guard down. Fallujah has been relatively quiet since it was invested by US troops last November, and much of its population is still living elsewhere as refugees. There have been occasional firefights in the city, or firing of mortar rounds by guerrillas. Friday's attack was the most audacious since the city was reduced.

The guerrillas clearly had the women under surveillance and deliberately targeted them. Attacking each other's women is a major feature of imperial warfare in history. The Sepoys in India in 1857 who rebelled against their British officers often invaded the British cantonments and attacked their women. Indeed, when the British troops were sent out from Britain to reconquer North India in 1857-58, they underlined avenging the massacres of white women as among their primary goals. In Bosnia, Serb irregulars used rape as a deliberate tool of war. In most cultures, ideals of masculinity are wrought up with the protection of women (feminism hasn't penetrated most militaries), so attacking the enemy's women is a way of humiliating and rattling him

The Marines responded by putting all of Fallujah under a strict curfew. Al-Jazeera is saying that the Marines are sending automobiles through the streets with loudspeakers, calling on the residents to inform on the guerrillas to the Americans, and threatening that if they did not, they would be trapped in their homes by a continued curfew. The US military frequently employs forms of collective punishment in Iraq, and resorts to locking down an entire city where it feels it necessary.

The Guardian writes that

"gunmen on Friday killed an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric. Police said two bodyguards were also killed trying to protect Shiite cleric Samara al-Baghdadi, who represented al-Sistani in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite al-Amin district. Iraqi security forces also discovered the bodies of eight beheaded men - at least six of whom were Shiite farmers - in a region north of Baghdad on Friday. It was unclear why the men were killed."

Al-Hayat reports that Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari privately asked congress to tighten its economic boycott of Syria as a way of forcing Damascus to be more forthcoming about policing the Syrian borders to prevent the infiltration of Sunni jihadis into Tel Afar and other flashipoints. Jaafri will travel to Damascus himself soon, though I think his reception just got chillier.

al-Sharq al-Awsat also says that a young men in Najaf are being arrested for wearing blue jeans.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Student Unions [in Iraq] Call for Withdrawal of Occupation Troops

Gilbert Achcar kindly sends along his translation of this newspaper article:

' Student Unions [in Iraq] Call for Withdrawal of Occupation Troops

Baghdad – Abdel-Wahed Tohmeh – Al-Hayat, June 24, 2005

11 Student Unions approved the call made on al-Jaafari’s Government to set a timetable for the withdrawal of multinational forces and considered that the request made [by the Government at the UN] for the extension of their presence is “an infringement on Parliament’s prerogatives.”

The 11 Unions issued yesterday a statement, of which Al-Hayat got a copy, supporting the members of the Independent National Bloc and other MPs [see the article by the same author dated June 20] and calling on “al-Jaafari’s Government, the United Nations and its Security Council to adopt these demands.” The statement also said: “We have taken part in the election and voted, risking our lives going to the polling stations, only for one essential issue that the electoral slates adopted and put in their political programs, and that is the demand for the withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq.”

The Unions called on the lists that won the election “to remain faithful to their promise and put their political programs into practise so that the people could respect them.” Their statement also called on the Government “not to adopt crucial decisions without referring to the representatives of the people in the National Assembly.” The statement also expressed bewilderment at “al-Jaafari’s and his Government’s support for maintaining occupation troops at a time when the US Congress is asking for their withdrawal.”

The statement was signed by the Student Unions at the Universities of Baghdad, Mustansariyya, Kufa, Qadissiyya, Basra, Diali, Ramadi, Mosul, the Technological University, the Islamic University and the Organism of Technical Education.
The president of the Student Union of the University of Baghdad, Mustafa Shabar, said that “the students of Iraq are resolute to get the Government and the National Assembly to abide by anti-occupation demands.”

Moreover, 18 students representing Iraq’s 18 governorates ended a sit-in at al-Firdous Square in the center of Baghdad, meant as a protest against the Government’s decision to extend the presence of multinational forces. Shabar said that “the choice of al-Firdous Square for our sit-in came as a result of the refusal of the Government to let the sit-in be held in front of the Parliament building.” Member of Parliament Falah Hassan Shneishel added that “a big rally will take place today at Kadhimiyya with the participation of tribes which came to Baghdad from all Iraqi governorates in support of the demand by the MPs to the Government to put a timetable for the withdrawal of occupation troops.” '

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Does Karl Rove Hate our Liberties and Way of Life?

' At a Manhattan fund-raiser Wednesday night, the flamboyant architect of Bush's two presidential campaigns and now White House deputy chief of staff told members of the Conservative Party of New York State: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." '

Now we know where the Bearded Lady of the Carnival Right, Ann Coulter, actually gets her material. She is just channeling Karl Rove, who believes that "liberals" wanted to put terrorists on the psychiatrist's couch or wanted to put them on trial rather than declaring them "enemy combatants" (i.e. persons with whom Bush and Rove could do as they pleased, without reference to any law). And, he implies that Conservatives knew what to do instead. Why, they got out their shotguns and went hunting for the varmints. Rove must not have heard that the Senate just apologized for not objecting to the practice of lynching in the old days.

So Rove is saying this about the "Conservatives" (and I apologize to the real conservatives for bringing him up in this context, but he is the one who used these words). He is saying that they don't indict terrorists or consider them mentally ill. Right?

But wait. Is Rove saying that the Bush administration didn't prepare any indictments as a reaction to 9/11?

What about this, from former Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom--I believe--George W. Bush appointed?

"This morning, a federal grand jury indictment charging Nuradin M. Abdi, a 32-year-old Somali national, was unsealed in Columbus, Ohio. Abdi was arrested on immigration charges and has been held by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since November 28, 2003. I note that an indictment is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The charges against Abdi are:

* Conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists;
* Conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda; and,
* Two counts of fraud and misuse of documents."

Gee, Rove must have been just furious at Ashcroft. Not only did he deal with Abdi with a mere indictment rather than personally taking him out and putting two bullets behind his ear, but he openly announced that he was presumed innocent!! What a wimp. What a marshmallow. And he calls himself a "Conservative"!

But surely Ashcroft wimped out here because he was just accusing someone of planning a bombing. He'd deal someone who pulled one off differently, right?

Nope. This from 2003:

Attorney General John Ashcroft announced May 15 that a federal grand jury in Manhattan has indicted two Yemeni fugitives for the October 2000 bombing attack on the USS Cole in the harbor of Aden, Yemen, that killed seventeen Americans and wounded more than 40 others.

It is worse. He had to indict them in absentia because the Conservatives hadn't got them in custody, despite all that rooting around with their shotguns. Hmmm. So Rove all along seethed because he considered Ashcroft a goddamned Liberal.

So the "Conservatives" might have indicted some terrorists instead of just blowing their brains against the Oval Office walls. But surely they didn't excuse them by saying that they are mentally ill, right? Terrorists like Saddam and Bin Laden are just evil, not insane. Isn't that the implication?

Oooops. Bush slipped up and said this about his decision to go after Saddam, to the Republican National Committee:

"Do I forget the lessons of Sept. 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

But he just slipped up once, right? Nope.

Bush liked the line. Put "the word of a madman" and "Bush" into google and see how often it comes up.

George! Say it isn't so. First the indictments. Now putting Saddam on the couch and calling him a madman. Could it be W. is a closet Liberal?

But then the "Liberals" are unconcerned with terrorism, right? Isn't that what Rove is saying?

But here is what Ted Kennedy said about his position on the Iraq War:

" I voted against that resolution and war with Iraq because I was not persuaded that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our national security, and because of my belief that war with Iraq, especially without broad international support, would undermine our ability to meet the gravest threat to our national security - terrorism against the United States by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."

But, the Rove "Conservatives" would say, Kennedy is just a partisan Liberal who won't give Bush the benefit of the doubt and doesn't understand the American values that are key to taking on the terrorist threat. Right?

Nope.

"Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. And let me say with the same plainness: Those who agree with that course have an equal obligation – to resist any temptation to convert patriotism into politics. It is possible to love America while concluding that is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line: We must ask what is right for country and not party. That is the true spirit of September 11th — not unthinking unanimity, but a clear-minded unity in our determination to defeat terrorism — to defend our values and the value of life itself."

The little things standing between Karl Rove's "Conservative" approach to "terrorists" are numbered 4-7. Rove has worked for decades to erase them from the American Constitution. What do you call an American who despises the Constitution?

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Rove and his un-p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act want to declare some US citizens "enemy combatants" and to get rid of the Bill of Rights in their regard the way the John Travolta character got rid of dead bodies in a vat of acid in Pulp Fiction. As for non-citizens, Rove has declared the Geneva Accords "quaint" and wants an end to international law.

But remember, Rove is neither insane nor a mere criminal. You figure out what he is. But remember that he seems to hate our liberties and way of life.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Jaafari in Washington
Weeping Madman in Sweltering Baghdad

Robin Wright and Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post profile the meeting of Ibrahim Jaafari with George W. Bush.

As reported here yesterday, on Thursday morning back in Baghdad, four bombings left 17 dead and 70 wounded. (-Al-Sharq al-Awsat).

Richard Reeves predicts that the US will be in Iraq for 6 or 7 more years, and that when it withdraws it will be a "tragedy." He has no idea.

Every time the interim leader of Iraq has a photo op with US officials, he seems to feel a need to say all kinds of unrealistically optimistic things. It used to happen with the rotating presidency of the Interim Governing Council. Izzedin Salim went on saying optimistic things right up until he was killed while waiting on the Marines to let him into the Green Zone. Allawi came and said that the problems were only in four provinces (he didn't mention that one of them was Baghdad).

Now Jaafari is saying that progress is being made against what he calls "the terrorists," and that all that is necessary is an acceleration of the training of Iraqi troops (with maybe some other countries than the US helping [NATO already is].)

Most observers I know of who know anything serious about military training don't expect an effective Iraqi army to be stood up for five to ten years, so if Jaafari thinks there is a quick fix in this regard, he is just wrong.

The Post adds

' With just seven weeks until a constitution is due, Jafari also insisted that the Iraqis will make the deadline even though nothing has yet been written. "We know there are challenges and we know there are difficulties, but certainly the difficulties in writing a constitution will be not as severe or as intense as they were during the elections . . . in putting together the government," he said in the interview with The Post. '

I am quoted saying it is very unlikely that they can write a whole constitution by August 15 when it has taken them up to now to form a government and even form a drafting committee. As I reported yesterday from al-Zaman, the drafting committee is not meeting this week because the parliament building had no water or electricity because of sabotage. (Water service returned on Thursday.)

Andy Mosher and Bassam Sebti with Naseer Nouri draw the curtain back on the real Baghdad, a Mad Max scene of unpredictable explosions, scattered body parts, inadequate and undependable electricity, lack of refrigeration, water sabotage, and weeping madmen: ' Nearby, a scruffy young man in dirty pants and an unbuttoned shirt stood staring at vegetables scattered on the ground by one of the explosions. Bending over and picking up an onion spattered with blood, he began to cry. "Every one of you in Karrada calls me Crazy Ali," he said to no one in particular. "But I would never do such a thing. I am better than you sane people. At least I do not hurt you." '

Salon.com reports on how many Iraqi girls have been forced into prostitution abroad. One of the subjects is a victim of the Fallujah campaign.

Looted artwork and antiquities from Iraq are helping fund terrorist activity, rather as blood diamonds in West Africa did.

Somehow the rhetoric about freedom in Iraq seldom extends to the rights of workers and trade unions. They are demanding input into the writing of the permanent constitution. Free trade unions were key to the post-war order in Japan and Germany, but the Bushies are not as wise as the New Deal diplomats of that era were, who had lived through the Great Depression and knew the importance of a living wage.

The good news is that the Grand Mufti of Egypt has condemned the bombings in Iraq that kill innocent civilians. The bad news is that he says that "resistance to Occupation" (i.e. killing US and Coalition troops) is quite all right. The mufti, Egypt's chief Muslim jurisconsult, serves at the pleasure of the Egyptian government. If he is being allowed to talk this way, it is because the military dictatorship that controls Egypt is peeved at the US for trying to make it open up the electoral system. Allowing this statement to appear in the official newspaper, al-Ahram, is a small act of revenge. It also has the advantage of making it seem to the Egyptian public as though the Mubarak government opposes the US occupation of Iraq (which is highly unpopular in Egypt), while in fact the Egyptian military has offered extensive logistical aid to the US.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Al-Duri Leads Baath
Birth of His Daughter in Mosul

Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri [al-Douri] just had a daughter in Mosul, according to al-Hayat. The article says, roughly:

Al-Hayat has learned from sources close to Iraq's armed groups that the former vice president of the Revolutionary Command Council and the present Secretary-General of the dissolved Baath Party, Izzat al-Duri, was blessed with a baby girl, his eleventh child. She was born to a wife he married after the American attack. He has named her "Tahrir" (Liberation).

The sources affirmed that al-Duri received congratulations from the leadership of the Baath inside Iraq and outside it. He visited his wife, who gave birth in Mosul before leaving for parts unknown.

The sources said that al-Duri is in excellent health, and only suffers from occasional problems. He had a wide network of communications inside the country and without, which facilitates financial and political support, and donations, to the armed groups.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat says that police officials in Kirkuk are reporting that the United States forces have detained "Sufyan," the father-in-law of Izzat al-Duri. They say he is being interrogated at a holding cell out at the Kirkuk airport.

Yesterday, al-Quds al-Arabi carried the following (trans. FBIS):

Iraqi Ba'th Party Statement Confirms Commitment to Resistance
Unattributed article from London:
"Ba'th Party Confirms its Commitment to Resistance Option"

AL-QUDS AL-'ARABI
Thursday, June 23, 2005 T03:09:21Z
Document Type: FBIS Translated Text
Word Count: 747

The Iraqi Ba'th Party issued a statement commemorating the sixteenth anniversary of the death of Michel Aflaq in which it confirmed its commitment to the option of armed resistance in Iraq. The following is the text of the statement:

"With encouragement for the struggle, comradely deference, and ideological commitment, the Ba'thist mujahidin in resisting Iraq and their comrades in the lands of the Arab Nation and the diaspora salute the sixteenth anniversary of the death of the late commander, founder, and comrade Michel Aflaq. Commemorating the anniversary is a manifestation of the Ba'th allegiance and honoring the anniversary is a confirmation of the fighting commitment. It is a remembrance of the founding commander and of his life, his ideas, and his struggle to oversee the future of the (Arab) Nation and its eternal message.

"The resisting Ba'th Party embodies the age of heroism as it was heralded and called for by the comrade founding commander. The Ba'thist mujahidin, who are recording the pages of honor, pride, and dignity of their resisting land and their new nation, nevertheless embody the thought, pursuit, and struggle of the Ba'th Party at both the levels of the political struggle and the jihadist battle from the Comrade Commander Secretary General Saddam Husayn on down to the dear comrades at the broad base of the party.

"The struggling Ba'thists have not, and will not abandon their nation. Commander Saddam Husayn is a fighter and holy warrior who has not, and will not abandon Iraq, its people, or its nation. The comrade Ba'thist resisters have not, and will not abandon the Ba'th Party, the founding commander, the secretary general, and their Iraq and their nation.

"On this anniversary that we revere, we recall the rightful wagers of the founding commander on Iraq, on its leadership, and on the role of the Ba'th Party there. Through the commander and the comrades, Iraq's influence has been extended to the (Arab) Nation in all its various countries. Here, the anniversary brings us back more than 60 years, when the comrade founding commander put Iraq into the heart of the Nation's emancipative struggle. That gave true weight to Iraq, the struggle of its lively political powers, and its anticipated Arab role. He called for supporting Iraq when its fighters rose up at that time.

"The founding commander taught us that Iraq represents the true meaning of nationalism. Iraq today is targeted for its Arabism just like it is targeted for its nationalism, the sovereignty of its people, and the unity of its territory. The not-so-distant history paved the way for the standard of living in Iraq now and the challenges being warded off by the resisting Ba'th Party. For the Ba'th Party, with the brave army of Iraq and its proud people, fought and triumphed against the Persian Shu'ubist onslaught that was based on religious reactionism and backward Islam. How today resembles yesterday and how what was said by the founding commander at that time still rings true now and applies to the situation of the battle of Iraq's liberation: 'The Arab Nation has awakened to Iraq's call and to the splendor of the leading role and honorable virtues it has embodied. Its historical steadfastness is the line of demarcation between conditions of impotence, deviation, and treachery and the new phase that will no longer permit anything other than the honest, open stance with the national truth that Iraq represents.'

"This is a time in which the Ba'th Party, through its struggle and jihad in Iraq and within the span of a short time period, can enable the Arab Nation to once again discover itself, assess its capabilities, and promote its history not just to awaken from Iraq's jihadist call, but to share in meeting the call, carrying the message, and honoring the jihad by the honest, open stance with the national truth that resisting Iraq represents.

"The Ba'th Party, in its . . . jihad [resistance] in Iraq and its commitment to the option of the armed resistance, is not the renegade. It embodies and affirms what was said by the commander founder: 'The Ba'th is, above all else, the love of Arabism and the love of Islam and the experience of the party in Iraq has asserted these ideas actively and heroically.'"

(Description of Source: London Al-Quds al-Arabi in Arabic -- London-based independent Arab nationalist daily with an anti-US and anti-Saudi editorial line; generally pro-Palestinian, tends to be sympathetic to Bin Ladin)

On June 18, wire services reported that Muhammad Yunis Ahmad, a former high Baath party official, is a principal funder of the guerrilla movement in Iraq, and that the US Department of the Treasury was freezing his known assets.

On May 3, Patrick Cockburn of the Financial Times wrote, "The insurgents are less interested in participation in the present government than in direct talks with the US, a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces and the right to rebuild the Baath party. In Sunni Arab towns and cities a so-called New Baath party is beginning to emerge and is said to be very well organised."

Then there was this:

"MOSUL, Dec 10 [2004] (MENA) - The dissolved Iraqi Baath party has started regrouping by electing Tayeh Abdul Karim and Naeem Haddad as its leaders. The party has also started publishing newspaper Al-Thawra as its mouthpiece, Iraqi sources, who requested anonymity, told MENA. The paper is being publicly circulated in Mosul and other several cities across Iraq, they added."

For "cont'd" postings, click here.