Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Salih Speaks of Horizon for US Troops;
Chalabi in Tehran, Criticizes US;
Sistani rejects Use of His Name in Campaign

Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih said that the al-Maliki government is beginning to think about the "time horizon" of the US troop presence in Iraq. That terminology is awfully close to a request for a timetable for troop withdrawal. PM al-Maliki has repeatedly said that Iraqi militias and army can handle the security problems themselves within 18 months.

Ahmad Chalabi, meeting in Tehran with Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani, commented on the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated by the Bush administration with the Iraq government:

' The INC's Chalabi retorted that granting immunity to US military personnel from prosecution under Iraqi law is baldly unacceptable. “The vast majority of Iraqi people and authorities oppose the security treaty and regard it as contradictory to Iraq's sovereignty and security.” Chalabi stated the treaty is counterproductive for Iraq in the long term and what the US is seeking is a binding bilateral agreement for the ongoing presence of its forces in Iraq whose UN mandate expires on December 31.'









Then Chalabi sat there while Larijani warned the US against "adventurism."

I don't think Chalabi likes the US very much. What is he doing discussing a bilateral US-Iraqi agreement with Larijani in Tehran? And let's see, I'm trying to remember whose idea it was for the US public to give Chalabi tens of millions of dollars and to try to put him in power in Baghdad . . .

Oh, yeah, thanks to Amanda Terkel for reminding me . . . it was our very own Mr. Foreign Policy Experience (a.k.a 'one is born every minute' . . .):
' McCain welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), to Washington and pressured the administration to give him money. When General Anthony Zinni cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the Iraqi opposition, McCain rebuked him at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In 2003, McCain joined four other Republican senators and asked Bush to “personally clear the bureaucratic roadblocks within the State Department” that blocked increased funding for the Chalabi’s group. Also that year, McCain said of Chalabi, “He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.” '


Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that as the 18 October date for the provincial elections approaches and parties begin campaigning, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has rejected the use of his name or picture in campaign materials for any party.

The controversy stems from the decision of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq to run as a stand-alone list in the provincial elections and its announced intension to use Shiite religious symbols in its campaign. It has been criticized on this score by the Sadr Movement.

Al-Hayat says that tribally based party lists are now campaigning in Diyala Province and hope to do well.

It also reports skepticism in some quarters about whether the provincial elections will really be held before 2009, given that disputes about them still rage in Iraqi politics.



Meanwhile, the dispute between the al-Maliki government and the US military in Karbala province, over the US operation that killed a relative of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, has worsened, according to McClatchy. Hannah Allam writes:

' Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman called Friday's operation "unacceptable" and had strained relations between the countries. "This is a big embarrassment for Prime Minister Maliki because he was in that area two days before the incident, telling his people that we are the masters in our country and the decisions were ours to make," Othman said. "This is why we are afraid of agreements and immunity. ... If there are wanted people in any area, why not send an Iraqi force to do the job?" '


Ned Parker on how the troubling story of Awakening Council guerrilla Abu Abed indicates that little progress has been made toward Sunni-Shiite reconciliation in Iraq.

Labels:

14 Comments:

At 3:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chalabi, like nearly all the Green Zone gangsters, loves the US when they dish out money and protection but hate the US when Iran is paying.

These are straight-forward crooks. But they are very good on judging how the wind is blowing, and they can see that the US era is about to end.

 
At 6:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Before the invasion, and for some time after it, Bush said: "We will stay as long as necessary, and not a day longer." When we asked them why they were building the huge bases, they said they are for the Iraqi Forces and not the US!

Khalilzad went further insisting that the US does not want any troops to remain in Iraq, and that Bush should make that clear. It is all a communication problem.

But for some reason Bush came up with his Germany/Japan crap and the "partnership" with the Arab, mainly Muslim, and hugely oil rich country. McCain dropped his "100 years, ten thousand years, a million years" clanger.

Now they want to play more games. The Americans do not want to stay for ever, but for an unlimited period! The idiots think they can occupy a whole country by playing silly verbal games.

 
At 9:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems like the SOFA in Iraq is analagous to tying yourself to Bush in American politics (witness even Republicans running away from him), which isn't surprising since they stand for one in the same. I think the Iraqis will (quite correctly) wait out Bush and deal with the next guy, whoever it is. Absolutely nothing can be gained from signing this agreement.

 
At 9:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BREAKING NEWS

Seymour Hersh Reports - Preparing the Battlefield: Current Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran

US escalating covert operations against Iran

Because Two Wars Is Not Enough Let's Start A Third War!!

 
At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

People forget that McCain was the favored candidate of the neocons in 2000. Bill Kristol was one of his biggest backers. Unfortunately, Bush proved to be mentally weak enough to make for an easy coup.

 
At 9:47 AM, Blogger isis said...

Though Salih and Maliki clearly project a withdrawing of US forces, the wild card is an attack on Iran.

And it's response. SS-N-22's.
A US carrier sunk.

The ensuing conflagration would conveniently entrench US forces deeper in the ME, more firmly in Iraq, and for an even longer, more indefinite period of time.

 
At 9:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I certainly do not believe in the caricature that is drawn of Mr Chalabi both here and elsewhere. It would be very helpful to look into Mr Chalabi's family background. If I have been informed correctly, Mr Chalabi traces his ancestry to an ancient Iraqi family and if I am not mistaken, he may even see himself as Iraq's future King. I believe that portraying him as yesterday's American client and today's Iranian client is utterly oversimplified and distracts from the very fundamental fact that he may be pursuing a personal policy that is neither American nor Iranian. Above all, it must not be lost out of sight that Mr Chalabi is an extremely intelligent and manipulative man. One should realise, for instance, that he has a PhD in Mathematics from University of Chicago, one of world's best Universities (in particular in Mathematics and Physics - the Physics Department of this University was home to such giant of the 20th-century physics as Enrico Fermi). BF

 
At 10:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"PM al-Maliki has repeatedly said that Iraqi militias and army can handle the security problems themselves within 18 months."

Of course, saying something repeatedly doesn't necessarily make it true. This war has been filled with repeated predictions that didn't quit work out-- remember the repeated certainty of finding WMDs? I wonder if any facts support al-Maliki's 18 month ETA?"

 
At 10:40 AM, Blogger jeppen said...

Mr Cole, if Obama said the agreement USA seeks in Iraq is unjust, and if Obama (when president) went to Iran to negotiate, wouldn't you applaud that? To me it seems that you attack Chalabi, in this case, because it is a way to simultaneously attack McCain.

Obamas pastor cooly said about Obama, when Obama had rejected his views, something like: "Obama is a politician and he does what he has to do". I guess the same goes for Chalabi? For him to talk to Iran and reject US agreements is more or less mandatory!

I know you are virtually campaining for Obama now, but I think you can do better than this. I, as a European, don't care much about your presidential election. But anyway, here's my two cents: Perhaps Obama is better when it comes to Iraq, perhaps not. But what is certain is that Obama is poised to destroy world trade and also heap money on US special interests. (Supporting the agriculture bill and such things, he has already begun.) McCains record is far better.

 
At 11:46 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

If there are wanted people in any area, why not send an Iraqi force to do the job?"


Oh I see. If the Americans first decide they want to kill somebody, they should decide to send in the The Maliki lackeys to do execute the contract.

Seems the only question for Othman and the rest of that gang of US puppets is - full or half bow?

Unless it's a designated Kowtow to Tehran Day

 
At 12:37 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

ref : “little progress has been made toward Sunni-Shi’ite reconciliation in Iraq

imho, So long as the USA remains openly hostile = unreconciled with IRAN, ‘reconciliation’ between Sunni and Shi’ite peoples in ‘IRAQ’ will remain improbable, if not impossible: a priori.

Further, it would be interesting to explore ANY historical evidence or modern incidences of ANY ‘reconciliations’ between Sunni and Shi’ite peoples ~ not just this oft-expressed (but seldom intellectually considered) context of "reconciliation... in American- and Iranian-occupied ‘IRAQ’," but at any time, anywhere fwiw...

25-SEP-2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sunni and Shi’ite Sects - “There are two major Islamic sects: Sunni and Shi’ite. The two groups are very similar, although the Shi’ites exalt their Imams as a line of inspired teachers. The two sects have also had sharp political differences. The split stems from the early days of Islam and arguments over Mohammed's successors as caliph or leader.

Sunni comprise about 85 percent of all Muslims. Nations with Sunni majority include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and most other Arab nations, as well as non-Arab Turkey and Afghanistan. Most Palestinian Muslims are Sunni. Note that "al-Qaeda" are radicalized Sunni Muslims.

Shi’ite are the second-largest sect. Iran is the only nation with an overwhelming Shi’ite majority. Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain also have large Shi’ite communities. It is interesting to note that (in this SEP-2001 article, for example), that ‘IRAQ’ ~ having approximately a 60%-65% : 32%-37% = Shi’ite : Sunni ethnic distribution ~ was not considered to be an example of a nation with "an overwhelming Shi’ite majority" population.

 
At 4:57 PM, Blogger Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves said...

BF: "...and distracts from the very fundamental fact that he may be pursuing a personal policy that is neither American nor Iranian."

He can think of himself however he likes, quite highly I'm SURE... but in America, what he's done over the years is simply called "opportunism".

BTW, is he still wanted for BANK FRAUD in Jordan, or did U.S. State 'smooth' that over for him as a favor for feeding all that disinformation about Iraq's non-existent WMDs to Doug Feith's OSP group?

 
At 11:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't Chalabi the bait that was fed to Bush administration that swallowed it and the whole "fish and caboodle" that lied this nation into a pre-emptive war and occupation? Yeah, that's him, but I didn't know that McCain was as important a catalyst as it now appears that he was when he sweet-talked Bush give Chalabi the bucks so that he could do his "voodoo" and lying. Chalabi is meeting with Iran (boy, that's a slap in the face)so that he can put pressure on the U.S. for an agreement that will allow him to be a broker and player-player in Iraq. What a stinkin', God Almighty mess!

 
At 1:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Da'Buffalo amongst wolves: I did not try to pass any moral judgement on Mr Chalabi and his character, only stated some observational facts.

Incidentally, I do not invest any trust in the story that America went to Iraq through the lies of Mr Chalabi and his ilk. He was at best a useful cheerleader who later proved to be a useful scapegoat as well for the failures in Iraq. No sane individual jumps from a rooftop because others cheer him/her to do so, and I believe that this logic equally applies to the undertakings of states.

Right now it is being said that the information concerning the enrichment activities of Iran came to light through the intelligence provided by MEK. In fact, I have read in various publications that the information originates from MOSSAD. They first offered this information to Reza Pahlavi, however Reza Pahlavi being aware of the overwhelming support that the enrichment program enjoys amongst Iranians, declined to cooperate. It was only after this decline that MOSSAD passed their intelligence to MEK. Interestingly, Mr Adreshir Zahedi, amongst others the Ambassador of Iran to Washington during Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi's regime and the person who has signed NPT on behalf of Iran in 1968, is one of the staunch supporters of Iran's enrichment program; the video in which he unequivocally expresses his support is the following (the interview is in Persian and is conducted by Mr Bijan Farhoudi of the Persian section of VOA --- dated September 25, 2006):

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=Ardeshir%20Zahedi&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

The discussion concerning nuclear issue starts at around 34 minutes into the interview.

Before closing, Congressman Dennis Kucinich has placed the following video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8e9yMfMF3g&feature=bzb302

Here he quotes from a report by Physicians for Social Responsibility in which the death-toll of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is estimated to be 2.6 million people in the first 48 hours following the attack; the number of people suffering from the consequences of radiation is estimated to be 10.5 million. If this is not genocide, then what is?


BF.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home