Abbas Kadhim Calling It Like It Is

2008-02-09T21:41:00.000-08:00

A Plan for Post-Surge Iraq

Almost five years have passed since the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s government and Iraqis are still waiting for the better life promised by President George W. Bush in his speech hours before the invasion. Two days before the commencement of the military operations in Iraq, President George W. Bush addressed the Iraqi people with the following message:

“Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.”[1]

If history has a tendency to repeat itself, this is one case of such tendency. On 23 November, 1920, “Sir Percy Cox read in Arabic a proclamation which included the following statement of policy:

“The British Government has now occupied Basra, but though a state of war with the Ottoman Government still prevails, yet we have no enmity or ill-will against the population, to whom we hope to prove good friends and protectors. No remnant of Turkish administration now remains in this region. In place thereof the British flag has been established, under which you will enjoy the benefits of liberty and justice, both in regard to your religious and secular affairs.”[2]

While President Bush’s message does not express the imperialist tone of Cox’s statement, the two share one thing in common: none of their promises in a better future for Iraqis were positively fulfilled.

The United States' efforts to stabilize Iraq for the past years have been always described as “progress.” The quality of progress was finally defined by Ambassador Crocker in the following terms: “the cumulative trajectory of political, economic, and diplomatic developments in Iraq is upwards, although the slope of that line is not steep.”[3] In plain English, the progress is there, but hardly enough to get the job done. Meanwhile, a growing number of Iraqis feel some unhealthy nostalgia to the bad old days. This article aims at identifying the reasons for the lack of adequate progress and suggesting some measures to give the trajectory a better direction. This task cannot be adequately accomplished without providing a critique of the current U.S. policy in Iraq and the alternative “plans” suggested by some critics of this policy.

Three plans compete for the chance to replace the official policy in Iraq: a simple “cut and run” plan which calls for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops as soon as possible and let the Iraqis sort out their differences; a simple division of Iraq into three autonomous regions, as it was in the Ottoman days; and the Biden Plan, which is, in spite of its shortcomings, the most coherent of the three. This article, for obvious reasons, will ignore the first two plans and discuss the Biden Plan and the official U.S. policy in Iraq. It will also propose an alternative plan for the post-surge era.

The Biden Plan
Senator Joseph Biden has devoted a lot of time and energy to the Iraqi problem. He is correctly described as “probably the best-informed member of Congress on Iraq.”[4] As his plan shows, he does grasp many of the current problems in the country and provide reasonable ways to solve some of them. But the plan also fails to recognize many essential problems that would call for more than “five points” to solve the Iraqi crisis. Simply put, the Biden plan rests on a political pillar (the first point), which delegates most of the power to the regions and leaves a skeletal national government with jurisdiction on the “common interests.”[5] This point maybe scrutinized on several levels. First, the federal government will not be able to keep Iraq together. The Senator’s distinguished career must have taught him that there is more to a viable federal government that what he allows the Iraqi national government in the first point of his plan. Second, the proposal to have a Shi’i region, a Sunni region and a Kurdish region is easier on paper than in reality—one of the problems of the Biden plan is that it is heavily charged with sectarian and racial language that Iraqis try to avoid as they articulate the foundations of their political system. There are millions of Iraqis who will end up in a region not controlled by their own sectarian or ethnic groups. If this plan, as the Senator presents it, designed to end sectarian violence, there no solution to be expected from federalism, because most of the sectarian and ethnic violence takes place in the mixed cities and not in the homogeneous ones like Najaf, Arbil and Tikrit. Third, the regions are not able to handle all of the power that will be given to them under the Biden plan. Until 2003, most of the Iraqi cities never had a governor, a mayor or a chief of police of their own. The regime of Saddam Hussein sent those from Baghdad or the few towns loyal to him. The catastrophic performance of the local governments in the past four years speaks volumes about where this plan will lead. The latest report submitted to Congress by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (October 2007) states that “Iraq’s provincial councils have limited ability to manage and sustain infrastructure projects, and they are not sufficiently budgeting for operations and maintenance requirements.”[6] Until those local governments are enabled to act proficiently, it would be irresponsible to give them a sweeping control over the destiny of millions of Iraq’s citizens.

The second point calls for equitable distribution of revenues. This is the right thing to do, but the plan needs some adjustment. A guaranteed 20 percent of “all present and future revenues” for Sunnis should be made after taking into consideration the central government’s expenses. Otherwise, the other two groups end up financing the state from their own portions. Additionally, the second point in the plan seems to worry about the Ba'athists, but gives no attention whatsoever to their victims who outnumber them more than ten to one. In this sense, the plan will replace a small angry minority of former oppressors with a large furious majority of victims. The Senator, in spite of his obvious effort to follow the situation in Iraq, perhaps is not aware that a vast majority of the victims of the past regime are still victims in the new regime. To reward their former oppressors and tell them (the victims) to simply “get over it,” will create a political and moral quagmire the consequences of which can be catastrophic.

The third and fifth points present good suggestions concerning the engagement of Iraq’s neighbors, politically and financially, in solving Iraq’s problems. Unfortunately, most of those are unrealistic at the present time. First, the regional states are not operating in harmony with one another, because they have mutually exclusive goals in Iraq. Also, some of them are on the worst terms with the United States, which gives them no incentive to cooperate. Indeed, even the U.S. ‘allies’ seem to pursue their own interests, which at times can be to the opposite of what the United States tries to accomplish. Further, the plan does not explain how to make those “oil-rich Gulf states” give money to Iraq. Until now, Kuwait insists on collecting all of the compensations for Saddam’s invasion and occupation in 1990-1991, much less provide any financial aid, and Saudi has only agreed to give Iraq loans in addition to some unsubstantial aid. Saudi Arabia still wants Iraq to pay the loans from the Iraq-Iran War, some $15 to $18 billion. Although they agreed recently to forgive 80 percent of the loans, they did claim that unpaid interest has brought the amount owed to $39 billion.[7] In this case, Iraq will still have to pay half of the original debt. As the Iraqi minister of Finance, Baqir Jabr, pointed out, “Saudi Arabia has also failed to deliver on a long-standing pledge to provide $1 billion in new aid.”[8] Additionally, some Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia, have undermined the stability of Iraq. In the words of one U.S. representative, the Saudi government shows “tacit approval of terrorism.”[9]

The fourth point calls for a withdrawal and re-deployment of “almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by 2008.” As it will be discussed shortly, this goal is not realistic, given the status of Iraq’s security forces. The plan does not call on giving Iraq a credible military and police to be able to defend itself in a very bad neighborhood, the Middle East. It calls for keeping a small number of troops, around 20,000, “to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces.” If 150,000 U.S. troops were deemed insufficient to keep Iraq safe, hence the surge, then how could one tenth of that number of troops accomplish this goal?

Additional critique of the plan must emphasize that the plan makes no mention of corruption, which is the second form of terrorism in Iraq, nor does it present any measures to end it. Indeed, under the plan corruption is more likely to thrive. Iraq’s provinces need a long process to establish the institutions that would ensure accountability and transparency. In 2006, Iraq was placed as the second most corrupt country in the world, sharing the same place on the list (160) with Myanmar and Guinea, and saved from the worst position by Haiti. This is not likely to change, except for to worse, when the 2007 report is announced. Iraq’s 2006 budget was $41 billion and it will be $48 billion in 2008, the highest in Iraq’s history. Yet, Iraqis still live in sub-human conditions, worse than those of the poorest countries. The only ones who seem to have prospered are the politicians and their allies.[10] To put it bluntly, with this level of corruption, all of the talk about a strong, stable and democratic Iraq is mere nonsense.

The United States is, sadly, part of this problem. To be sure, the United States did not introduce corruption in Iraq. But the United States has tolerated gross corruption for a higher priority, namely so as not to disturb the political process. Hence, a unique opportunity to break away from the old system of corruption was missed. From the billions of dollars that simply disappeared during the CPA era to the latest revelations of gross corruption cases, the U.S. Government has not taken any significant steps to prosecute the offenders, much less use available tools, such as the Interpol, to bring fugitive embezzlers to justice. This conduct on part of the U.S. Government caused some frustrated members of Congress, like Rep. Henry Waxman, to introduce House Resolution 734, accusing the State Department of “abuse of the classification process to withhold from Congress and the people of the United States broad assessments of the extent of corruption in the Iraqi Government.”[11] This came after the State Department “retroactively classified two reports on corruption in Iraq,” that were previously disseminated. The resolution also expressed frustration at the State Department for “directing its employees not to answer questions in an open forum that call for ‘Broad statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption, including allegations that investigations were thwarted/stifled for political reasons.’”[12] The resolution was passed in the House of Representatives on October 16, 2007, by an overwhelming majority of 395 to 21.[13] This is not about some small matters of petty corruption or embezzlement. As Representative Waxman put it, quoting the Head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Radhi al-Radhi, testifying before Congress, “Corrupt Iraqi officials had stolen a staggering 18 billion dollars.”[14] Thirty-one investigators, according to al-Radhi, were assassinated to prevent the exposure of those corrupt officials.

The plan, in Senator Biden’s words, aims to “beef up” the federal arrangement in the Iraqi constitution. This is not possible, of course, without a constitutional amendment. Iraqis of all groups reject this level of tampering with the constitution. It goes without saying that amending the constitution to make it reflect a plan presented by a U.S. senator is in itself a bad plan that can only excite the resentment of Iraqis. Iraqi politicians are conveniently racing to criticize the Senate vote to endorse the Biden Plan in harsh terms. The leader of one bloc in the Iraqi legislature described the vote in the U.S. Senate to pass a non-binding resolution (essentially based on the Biden plan) as a move that shows no ethics, taste or any respect to the International law, asking the interviewer, “What if the Iraqi legislature passed a similar non-binding resolution to divide the United States?”[15]

U.S. Policy: No Good Options
Setting all diplomatic niceties aside, Ambassador Crocker complained that “[no] Nelson Mandela existed to emerge on the [Iraqi] national political scene; anyone with his leadership talents would have not survived.” This line was echoed in a speech President Bush gave, saying: “Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.”[16] In between, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice also dwelled on the same theme and attributed the assumed lack of an Iraqi Mandela to the fact that “Saddam Hussein killed people, a lot of the leadership of Iraq.”[17] This lack of faith in all Iraqis, at the highest level of the U.S. Government, tells the whole story of failing to accomplish any substantial political progress in Iraq. In fairness to Ambassador Crocker and his superiors in the Government, they are not the first to hold this “Orientalist” view. Faced with the same task, Gertrude Bell wrote in 1920: “If only we could manage to install a native head of the state.”[18] She went on, a week later, to state that, “The theory is that we’re going to set up a government agreeable to all; the drawback [is] that such a government doesn’t exist.”[19] The British solution was to import a king, Faisal I, from Mecca. The real problem for the U.S. Government is not that an Iraqi Mandela does not exist; the problem is that there is no Faisal—a man who is accepted by the Iraqis and, at the same time, poses no threat to U.S. interests in the region. Any Sunni Arab or a Kurd will not be accepted by the Iraqis, because they will not agree to return to minority rule, which could only be sustained by oppression. Therefore, we are back to Ms. Bell’s quandary: “if you’re going to have anything like really representative institutions…you would have a majority of Shi’ahs.”[20] This will run against the second criteria since, as far as Washington is concerned, any Shi’i leader in Iraq is a priori guilty of being closer to Iran than to the United States.

Given this poverty of choices, the United States has moved in all directions and ended up with no particular direction. In the past five years we have seen U.S. support of democracy and its antithesis, tribalism; secularism and theocracy; constitutionalism and arbitrary politics; rule of law and contempt to the law; de-Ba’athification and re-Ba’athification; disarming the militias and tolerating the militias; fighting the insurgents and backing the insurgents; to give only a short list of inconsistencies. This experimentalism is directly caused by the lack of faith in the Iraqis and is also directly causing the lack of substantial progress in Iraq.

The drawback in Iraq is that after the military victory that resulted in the removal of a brutal dictator, a political victory by replacing him with a decent government did not ensue. Instead, factions within the U.S. Government kept their eyes on each other and let the Iraqi ball bounce all over the field. Just as Iraqis began to recover from the plunders of Ambassador L Paul Bremer III and, following two elections and a constitutional ratification, a fatal setback was set off by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s imposition of a “national unity” government which included politicians and parties who stood for anything but national unity. Worse of all, this imposition represented the first act to undermine a constitution whose ink was still fresh. As a result, it took the Iraqis several months to finally form a government that failed to reflect the constitution or national unity. The ministers represent and serve their own parties and social groups first and always, on the watch of a prime minister who possessed no actual oversight power on their performance—not to speak of the horrific corruption. Once again, Iraqis were sent back to despair and forced to embrace their tribes and militias, whose menace was tolerated simply because they outperform the incompetent government.

On January 10, 2007, President Bush said, “The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people—and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”[21] This statement was as true then as it was true three years earlier, but it would have made a world of difference had it been said in 2003. Part of the problem, of course, was that the American people did not actively unveil their judgment on the situation in Iraq in the 2004 election, which was interpreted as a mandate for the Iraq policy.

The U.S. election of 2006 brought several positive changes that gave a chance to correct the Iraq policy: the departure of Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which in turn facilitated the appointment of a general who called for more troops; the replacement of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who was resented by many Iraqis for what they perceived as his political bias toward the Sunnis;[22] and the first declaration by President Bush that “we’re not winning, we’re not loosing,” instead of the over-confident pre-election statement, “Absolutely, we’re winning.”[23] As a result, a policy contrary to that of Rumsfeld’s began to take shape. More troops were deployed to secure Baghdad and some other hot areas in the past months, which resulted in a significant reduction of violence in the city. But, unless true measures are adopted to sustain it, this reduction is temporary. Furthermore, it is not enough, as of now, to create a feeling of safety in the capital, or any other place in Iraq, because the terrorists are still able to strike at will in any place and at any time; and they do.

Contributing to the general lack of confidence in the future of Iraq’s security is the fact that the surge is supposed to end very soon. The post-surge circumstances will not have changed from the time before the surge to prevent the return of the terrorists and the criminals to the streets of Baghdad. The question that needs to be asked now is, “What is the post-surge plan?”

The Problem Can Be the Solution
The security problem in Iraq at this time is the weakness of Iraq’s military and security forces. Niceties aside, there is no true commitment on the part of the United States, or anyone else, to make Iraq a strong country. Iraqi forces are still untrained, poorly equipped and confused. This lack of commitment should not surprise anyone, because Iraq is still a suspect, just like it was in Saddam’s days. A strong military, which is what it takes to accomplish true security, is not on the immediate agenda.

In his recent testimony before Congress, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey argued that Iraq should have the number of troops it needs, but not more than that.[24] But, what is this number? Initially, it was estimated in 2003 that Iraqi forces would be, by 2006, as low as 40,000, excluding the police force—hardly enough to secure one Iraqi province. Nevertheless, at that time, Walter Slocombe, a senior Coalition Provisional Authority official, “said the new military would theoretically be able to defend Iraq from invasion.”[25]

After the rise of the insurgency, the objective number of military and police was set at 325,000 (134,700 Military and 188,300 Police). The irksome reality is that Iraq needs four times this number in order to achieve stability. Without domestic violence, Saddam Hussein employed a military of 400,000 troops in peace time to keep order and deter an outside attack, with the flexibility to raise the number to a million in war time. When the number of Saddam’s police, security police and other forces are added to the math, it should become clear that the current force objectives will never produce security in Iraq without a long-term commitment of foreign forces. This is exactly the assessment of Lt. General Dempsey, who said, in a recent interview: “For some time Iraq will continue to need assurances from the United States in terms of its external security.”[26] The General’s assessment was confirmed by the Declaration of Principles, which was agreed to by President George W. Bush and PM Nouri al-Maliki on November 26, 2007. In the section on security, the first principle stipulates that the United States “provides security assurances and commitments to deter any external aggression targeting Iraq and violating its sovereignty and its territory, water or space.”[27] As this declaration is a prelude to “a formal agreement defining long-term relations between the two nations,”[28] Lt. Gen. Dempsey’s statement that not before the end of 2008 that the Iraqi “…force begins to look like that of a fully sovereign government,” becomes an understatement of some sort. The national defense of Iraq will become the business of the Unites States for quite a while. Iraqi sovereignty will never be complete and no future Iraqi government can claim legitimacy and independence, as the experience with Britain proved throughout the first half of the 20th century.

Meanwhile, the plan to handle Iraq’s current military and police deficiency is both misguided and dangerous. It is built on outsourcing the job of Iraq’s inadequate troops to the tribes and, in some limited cases, the insurgents! Fighting one element of the insurgency by empowering another insurgency element is an untenable method of counterinsurgency, especially when both elements have the same stated goals: to kill as many Iraqis and Americans as it takes to regain control of Iraq. The same can also be said about the empowerment of tribal elements. The tribal sheikhs do not put their lives and those of their men on the line because of pro-Americanism or because of some Iraqi patriotic sentiments. They do so to enhance their own positions in the constant struggle with local rivals over territory and prestige, not to mention personal gains. A similar policy of reliance on the tribes brought dire consequences to the Ottomans in the 19th century; it exploded in the face of the British administration of Iraq in the early 20th century; and it will lead to the same now.

The objective of “an Iraq that does not constitute a threat to its neighbors” must not be understood in pure military terms. Otherwise, the old, threatening, Iraq would be replaced by a new Iraq that is constantly threatened by its neighbors. The concept of an Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors must be found on a democratic, stable and strong Iraq. The solution is to have enough forces in Iraq to end the violence and provide stability. Since a substantial increase of U.S. forces is not a possibility, both logistically and politically, the only solution—which also happens to be the right one—is to re-institute the military conscription in Iraq.

Military Conscription in Iraq
Military conscription in Iraq was mistakenly abolished after the toppling of Saddam’s government. It was established by an elected Iraqi parliament in the 1930s and was kept on the books by every subsequent government.[29] Re-instating conscription in Iraq will tackle a complex of problems in the country. Most importantly, it will provide the number of troops desperately needed for the upcoming years. This will reduce the security dependence on U.S. forces, many of whom went through three tours of duty, and some are on their fourth tour. Indeed, this is the only viable plan for the post-surge period.

Conscription will also change the current lopsided make-up of the Iraqi forces, wherein the Shi’a are over-represented. Consequently, insurgency propagandists brand all Iraqi soldiers and officers as “collaborators with the U.S.” or as “militias loyal to the governing parties.” A military conscription will undermine this claim and restore the old status of the Iraqi soldier. For once, there is a chance for the Iraqi military to be a true national institution in a country with a dire need for some institutions that transcend the sects and ethnic groups. This can be done only when the military includes all Iraqi groups through a return to conscription. Furthermore, with every recruit added to the Iraq forces, the number of Iraqis who join the insurgency, or choose a criminal path for economic reasons, will decrease.

In addition to conscription, a return to the previous laws concerning soldiers’ commitment to their units is essential for a successful military in Iraq—in today’s Iraq, “it is not illegal for an Iraqi soldier to abandon his unit or go AWOL.”[30] This is why many soldiers simply desert their units when asked to fight and, in other cases, insist on serving in a specific location but not elsewhere. In May 2006, “dozens of [soldiers in the Anbar province] declared that they would refuse to serve outside their home areas.” And a year earlier, “more than 15,000 other Iraqi soldiers and police officers deserted, forcing the training effort essentially to start over with new practices designed to increase the retention of recruits.”[31] Still, no policy exists to prevent the recurrence of such conduct. According to Lt. Gen. Dempsey, of the Iraqi Security Forces that were ordered to support the plan to secure Baghdad, “some units didn’t want to fight,” while there was “one case where several senior leaders at the lieutenant colonel and major level spoke out against the mission [in Baghdad] and advised their soldiers not to deploy,” contributing to other reasons behind the loss of 35%-40% of the units’ authorized strength.[32] Iraqis need to confront this flaw in there military if they wish to operate independently to provide internal security and/or defend their country against an external threat.

There is, of course, the past history of abusing the conscription law by the previous regimes; especially the abuses under Saddam Hussein’s rule. Saddam Hussein engaged in external wars for eleven of his twenty-two years in power. Throughout these years, conscripts were kept in the service for up to thirteen years,[33] with a pay that was hardly enough to cover the soldier’s personal expenses, much less to support a family. When the war was over, veterans were thrown out to unemployment and neglect, only to face a recall when another war began. The lives tens of thousands of Iraqi men and their families were shattered by this cruel practice. The new conscription law must take every measure to prevent such abuse. Additionally, the law needs not be permanent. It can be set with an expiration date after seven or ten years and a provision for a review by the Iraqi legislators to keep it on the books or end it according to the circumstances.

A Plan for Iraq
The Iraqi Constitution should be sole basis for Iraq’s political and legal processes. Having failed to meet its purpose and proven its incompetence, the National Unity Government should be replaced with a government consistent with the Iraqi constitution. The Prime Minister should choose his ministers and have full authority over them. What Iraq needs is a really united and vibrant government in office and a vibrant opposition in and outside the parliament. PM Nouri al-Maliki can form such a government and govern for the balance of his term.
Iraq’s Conscription Law needs to be reinstated and the Iraqi Forces, including the Air Force, should be fully equipped and trained to meet the current and future challenges. Iraq’s security should not be compromised for the sake of the political process or to satisfy some local or regional actors. This is the only realistic way to responsibly withdraw the U.S. forces without leaving a vacuum in Iraq.
Militias, tribal and religious forces, and all other anti-democratic armed groups should not have a place in Iraq. The government must devise a plan to have a monopoly on the possession and use of weapons. As the circumstances allow, subsequent laws can be enacted to permit reasonable possession and use of arms in a manner that poses no threat to law and order.
De-Ba'athification must be a legal and a political process. The question needs to be addressed at three levels. First, Ba'ath Party members should be accountable for their personal conduct rather than their previous association with the Party; second, the victims of the Party’s brutality must see justice done by prosecuting known criminals and fair compensation for their loss and suffering during the Ba'athist rule; and, third, reconciliation may be made with the individuals, but not with the Ba'ath as a party and an ideology—the ideology of the Ba'ath Party and any similar form of chauvinism must not be permitted in Iraq. All former Ba'ath members can receive political amnesty, as long as this does not preclude any victim from pressing charges against anyone of them for personal crimes committed during their time in power.
There is a need to activate the Iraqi judiciary and respect its independence. No one in Iraq can be allowed to escape prosecution, especially high profile criminals and terrorists, who are spared for the sake of the “political process.”
Corruption in Iraq must be combated with the same determination as the insurgency and terrorism. No corrupt politicians or bureaucrats should be spared for any consideration.
With the exception of the three Kurdish provinces, federalism in Iraq should be applied gradually, starting with the federalism of the governorates. Political and financial powers should be given in a progressive way along with extensive training and capacity building and the necessary steps to assure transparency and accountability. Once the governorates attain the level of maturity as federal unites, they can join each other and cluster as larger provinces (aqaleem).
The reconstruction of Iraq should be given a higher level of consideration. It must not be tied to the “generosity” of the International Community or the regional actors. With a budget of $48 billion, Iraq is capable of depending on itself. Any extra contributions should be treated as a welcome addition, but not as a sine qua non basis for reconstruction. Along with reconstructing Iraq, there is a need to raise the standard of living for all Iraqis. Whether they are unemployed, or employed with inadequate pay, too many Iraqis do not live with dignity at the present time. This is unacceptable for a country with the second oil reserve in the world.
Iraqi revenues should be distributed equally among all Iraqis according to a sound and transparent fiscal policy. Any oil laws should be made with the consensus of all Iraqi groups and crafted by professionals and specialists rather than partisan politicians with no knowledge of the long-term consequences of the laws. Iraq’s current vulnerability must not be a justification to surrender its wealth to the multi-national corporations.
Since none of Iraq’s neighbors can be considered a friend of the Iraqi people, they must not be allowed to influence the political process in the country. The more they interfere, the harder it is for Iraqis to succeed. While the United States cannot make Iraq’s neighbors provide positive assistance, it certainly can deter them from hindering the process. This should go for both U.S. foes and allies.

Notes:
1. White House Press Release, “President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours,” March 17, 2003.

2. Arnold T. Wilson, Loyalties: Mesopotamia 1914-1917 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1930), 10-11.

3. Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, September 11, 2007.

4. Peter Galbraith, “Make Walls, Not War,” The New York Times, October 23, 2007.

5. Senator Joseph Biden Press Release, “Iraq: A Way Forward," October 6, 2006. See also, Joseph Biden, “A Plan to Hold Iraq Together,” The Washington Post, August 24, 2006, A21.

6. For details, see the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Quarterly Report to the United States Congress for October 30, 2007.

7. Steven Mufson and Robin Wright, “In a Major Step, Saudi Arabia Agrees to Write Off 80 Percent of Iraqi Debt,” The Washington Post, April 18, 2007.

8. Ibid.

9. Al-Jazeera News, “US: Saudi Arabia destabilizing Iraq,” Al-Jazeera News (Aljazeera.net), July 29, 2007.

10. The series of hearings on Iraqi corruption conducted by the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform are very revealing and disheartening.

11. H. Res. 374, "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq," October 11, 2007.

12. House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, “House Passes Resolution on Iraq Corruption,” October 16, 2007.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Salih al-Mutlak, interview with al-Fayhaa TV, November 30, 2007.

16. An online clip is accessible on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1KGwQ1O88Y (accessed on Nov. 22, 07). Given Mandela’s position on the whole Iraq tragedy, it is highly doubtful that the Bush Administration is "literally" looking for someone like Mandela.

17. Text of September 12, 2007 Interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on KARN with Dave Elswick, posted at the U.S. State Department Website.

18. Gertrude Bell, a letter to her father on October 3, 1920. Ms. Bell, as she is generally known, was the architect of the modern Iraqi state.

19. Gertrude Bell, a letter to her parents on October 10, 1920.

20. Gertrude Bell, a letter to her father on October 3, 1920.

21. “President’s Address to the Nation,” White House Website (Whitehouse.gov), January 10, 2007.

22. As Nibras Kazimi noted, “Shia resentment is so acute that the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, is referred to as 'Abu Omar' in Iraqi political circles—meaning ‘father of Omar,’ with Omar being a quintessentially Sunni name as far as Shias are concerned.” See Nibras Kazimi, “’Abu Omar’ vs. the Shias,” The New York Sun, April 12, 2006.

23. Peter Baker, “U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time,” The Washington Post, December 20, 2006.

24. Lt. General Martin Dempsey’s Testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, June 12, 2007.

25. Patrick Tyler, “AFTER THE WAR: THE NEW ARMY; U.S.-British Project: To Build a Postwar Iraqi Armed Force of 40,000 Soldiers in 3 Years,” The New York Times, June 24, 2003.

26. James Kitfield, “Q &A: Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, More Art Than Science,” National Journal, June 8, 2007.

27. Al-Sabaah Daily, November 26, 2006.

28. Thom Shanker and Cara Buckley, “US and Iraq to Negotiate Pact on Long-Term Relations,” The New York Times, November 27, 2007.

29. Abbas Kadhim, “Civil-Military Relations in Iraq (1921-2006): An Introductory Survey,” Strategic Insights V, no. 5 (May 2006).

30. Jeremy Sharp, The Iraqi Security Forces: The Challenge of Sectarian and Ethnic Influences, CRS Report for Congress, January 18, 2007.

31. Nelson Hernandez, “Iraqis Begin Duty With Refusal,” Washington Post, May 2, 2006.

32. James Kitfield, Op. Cit., “Q &A: Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, More Art Than Science,” National Journal, June 8, 2007.

33. Conscription in Iraq at the time in question required a service of three years of those without a college degree and two years of the holders of a college degree.

2007-03-23T14:28:00.000-07:00

Shi`i Perceptions of The Iraq Study Group Report

When addressing the reactions of various Iraqi groups to the findings and the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), one has to bear in mind that Iraqis do not view the Iraq Study Group’s main purpose to be pertinent to their plight. Rather, they view the formation of the ISG as a means to help a perplexed American administration to break the vicious cycle of failure in Iraq, which has encompassed every aspect of life in the country: politics, security, services, economics, reconstruction, and to the last item in the long list of necessities.[1] It is no wonder, then, that Iraqis fell into two categories, those who rejected the Group’s report and others who complimented it with cold and vague statements.

Being true to its mission, The ISG Report is a reminder of the British reports from the Iraqi Mandate era in the 1920’s. The first item in the report was a “Letter from the Co-Chairs” that reads, in part, as follows:

“There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests.

Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate.”

Other than the diplomatic phrase of “honor[ing] the many Iraqis who have sacrificed on behalf of their country,” in the last sentence, there is virtually no attention paid to the interests of Iraq or the desires and aspirations of the Iraqis, as there was no mention of the cost this war has caused for the Iraqis. In essence, the report could not have been written with a more alienating tone as far as the Iraqi audience is concerned.

This essay addresses the reactions to the Group’s report among the Shi`a. But before any further elaboration, it should be helpful to map out the Shi`a factions and their aspirations regarding the salient recommendations in the report.

The Shi`i landscape:
Political and religious factions have mushroomed in Iraq since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s government on April 9, 2003. In the past, two active political groups were generally known:

The Da`wa Party : a religious party established in the late 1950s under the influence of Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, an exceptional Islamic scholar who was executed by the Iraqi regime in the context of the political escalation between Iraq and Iran prior to the eight-year war (1980-1988). The Da`wa Party had a strong organization inside Iraq, but the leadership resided in Iran, Syria and London. Membership in this party was considered, by Iraqi law, a crime punishable by death.[2] The group leadership was split later into two major factions, one technocrat and another made of clergymen. The split was caused mainly by the disagreement between the two factions about the Iranian meddling in the party’s affairs. Both factions of the party returned to Iraq after the U.S. invasion. Although they were against the invasion, Da`wa leaders have participated in the political process and played an important role in the past years—the last two Iraqi prime ministers were chosen from the Da`wa Party.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) : this group was established in Iran, by the late Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, son of Ayatullah Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakim. Sayyid Muhsin al-Hakim was the head cleric in the Najaf Seminary (the Hawza) until 1970. The Iraqi government brutally persecuted his family in the 1970s and 1980s; his sons, Muhammad Baqir and Abd al-Aziz, managed to escape to Iran. The former established the SCIRI in 1982, recruiting its membership mainly from Iraqi exiles in Iran and the repentant Iraqi prisoners of war who were captured over the years.[3] The latter group became known as the Badr Corps (Faylaq Badr) and remained under the command of Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim. They received both military and ideological training in Iran.

Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim became a household name in the Iraqi south in the 1980s and 1990s. This author recalls passing through the Marsh areas during the 1991 uprising in the midst of crowds chanting Muhammad Baqir’s name. One man actually claimed that the Sayyid (i.e. Muhammad Baqir) was in town, leading the uprising, which was not true of course because he, like all other opposition leaders, failed to agree on a location to meet and decide how to help the uprising, much less to do something about it.

The SCIRI returned to Iraq after the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime and, later in the same year, Muhammad Baqir was assassinated as he was leaving the Friday Prayer, which he led in the Shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf. His brother Abd al-Aziz took his place, democratic considerations notwithstanding.

In addition to the Da`wa Party and the SCIRI, there was the clergy establishment in the holy cities of Iraq, especially in Najaf, where the oldest continuing Shi`a seminary (the Hawza) is located.[4] Since 1970, the Hawza has been under the guardianship of the Grand Ayatullah Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei and his student and successor, Grand Ayatullah Ali al-Sistani, both of whom never acquired an Iraqi citizenship. As such, the Hawza leadership pursued a non-political approach, often causing the anger of some firebrand Ayatullahs, such as Khomeini in the 1970s and Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr in the 1990s. Ayatullah Khomeini, while mainly concerned with Iranian politics, had tacitly accused the Hawza leaders of infidelity to the authentic teachings of Islam, because of their advocacy of separation of religion and politics.[5]

Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr was also an outsider (i.e. not part of the Hawza). He criticized the quietist approach and, contrary to it, he established his own school, branding it “the Vocal Hawza” (al-Hawza al-Natiqah), to imply that the Hawza of Sistani was “the Silent Hawza.” The main product of the Vocal Hawza was presented in the form of Friday sermons in the Grand Mosque of Kufa, where Imam Ali gave his sermons 1,350 years ago. Sadr gave ninety speeches (two each Friday) before he was assassinated in late February 1999, evidently by the regime of Saddam Hussein.[6]

Following the 2003 regime change, the first actor on the Shi`a scene was the Sadr Movement, a network consisting of the loyal followers of Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, who gave allegiance to his only surviving son, Muqtada al-Sadr. Having been active under the radar of all observers, this group was underestimated by the U.S. officials, to the detriment of their mission in Iraq. In addition to their founder’s disillusion with the quietism of the Hawza, the group resented being dismissed by the Americans, who favored their counterparts from the Da`wa and the SCIRI. They were also feeling the pressure from some well-funded groups that returned from, or newly established by, Iran, especially in the southern cities of Basra, Imara and Nasiriyya. Some of these new entities were established under the guidance of returning clergymen who used to be part of the Da`wa Party of SCIRI. Paradoxically, most of these new parties claim some intellectual descent from the “Two Sadrs” (Muhammad Baqir and Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr).

One of the most successful factions that was established after 2003 is al-Fadhila Party (the Virtue Party), founded by Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoobi. It is a major component of the Shi`a coalition in the Iraqi Parliament and is a growing party with more than one web site. They also have a newspaper and several offices in and outside Iraq. The party assumed several ministries, including the Oil Ministry in several administrations since 2004.[7] The founder’s web-site has a place for answering the questions of “concerned believers,” who ask about a variety of issues, from the opinion about drinking the “Islamic Beer” to the permissibility of certain clothes for men and women. Most shocking of these answers was his opinion that a man who wears short pants is not human, but an animal who needs to be advised gently, and if such advice is not effective, then by “gradual coercion.”[8] Al-Fadhila made news in the past days by its withdrawal from the United Iraqi Alliance, the largest bloc in the Assembly, citing the need to end “sectarianism” in Iraqi politics.

Not unpredictably, this diversity among the Shi`a has created some serious tensions and, with so much at stake, violent clashes that plagued most of the communities in the southern Iraqi region, where the regime’s former victims are still collecting the remains of their loved ones from the scattered mass graves across the region. The fighting has many causes, most prominent of those have been the control of the revenue from the holy shrines, the oil smuggling business and, of course, the fighting over the control of city councils, where billions of dollars are squandered with no accountability whatsoever.

The salient issues:
Unlike the voices who lamented the selection of the members of the group because of the lack of expertise on the part of most members, this writer, acknowledging this fact, does not tend to blame the ISG members. If anything, they should be commended for their service. The blame goes for those who made the selection. It does not help that the ISG did seek the advice of many experts in the field—although some of the names listed are clueless about the Middle East and were listed merely because of their political weight. As Machiavelli suggested in The Prince, “a prince who is not prudent himself, cannot be well-advised.” Hence, the Group, lacking knowledge about the basics, could not tell the difference between a good advice provided by Phebe Marr from a bad one that might come from someone less qualified on the advisory list.

The Shi`a and Kurdish grievances were best articulated by Mahmoud Othman, a leading Kurdish politician known for his forthright comments, who blasted the ISG for not having Iraqi members or doing enough homework inside Iraq, arguing that, “those who wrote it (i.e. the Report) have little knowledge about the situation in Iraq. They only visited the Green Zone for some days, they did not go to the south or to Kurdistan to ask the people there. This is the reason why their outcome and recommendations are superficial and inaccurate.”[9]

The greatest problem plaguing The ISG Report, however, pertains to the uneven treatment of Iraq’s neighbors. The group’s approach to these countries is disturbingly identical to the current approach taken by the Bush administration, with the single exception of demanding to engage Syria and Iran, a proposal that was rejected by the administration until very recently.[10] Syria and Iran are described as part of the problem, while Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are part of the solution.[11] While one cannot dispute the negative role played by Syria and Iran in Iraq, The ISG Report loses its credibility by giving a pass to the others, whose role is not less counterproductive. This hypocrisy is rampant throughout the U.S. political establishment that portrays these countries as “the moderate Arab governments,” in complete defiance of the truth and common sense. The ISG Report, by adopting this Orwellian style, has enforced the cynical beliefs that Mr. Baker’s strong ties to the Saudis made him a bad choice for this task.

Syria and Iran are blamed in The ISG Report for supporting militias and insurgents, Saudi and Jordan are considered as potential sponsors of reconciliation in Iraq. It is obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes that Saudi Arabia and Jordan play a similar, if not worse, role when it comes to support the forces of destabilization in Iraq. While it is fashionable to demonize Syria and Iran, even if for good reasons, it seems that Mr. Baker finds it very hard to criticize the Saudis, with whom he has special relations—Baker’s law firm, Baker Botts, represented the Saudis.

This “sweet” treatment of the Saudis and Jordanians in The ISG Report make the Shi`a very nervous. Saudi Arabia is the most anti-Shi`a country in the region. The ISG Report’s statement that “the Saudis could use their Islamic credentials to help reconcile differences between Iraqi factions” is preposterous. First, because the Saudis do not believe in the reconciliation between the Islamic factions and, more importantly, they have no Islamic credentials to speak of, since their Islamic standing as Wahhabis is disputed by the Sunnis and the Shi`a alike. Theirs is a cult that gave the world many extremist groups such as the Taliban and al-Qa`ida, not to mention their repugnant oppression of their own citizens. In the words of a leading scholar of Islamic studies:

“Sometimes the Wahhabis are characterized, particularly by non-Muslim observers searching for a brief description, as ‘extreme’ or as ‘conservative Sunnis, with adjectives such as ‘stern’ or austere’ added for good measure. It has, however, been observed by knowledgeable Sunnis since the earliest times that the Wahhabis do not count as part of the Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama‘a [i.e. the Sunnis], for almost all the practices, traditions and beliefs denounced by Muhammad b. Abd al-Wahhab have been historically integral to Sunni Islam, enshrined in a vast body of literature and accepted by the great majority of Muslims.”[12]

Jordan has also displayed its anti-Shi`a sentiments at the highest levels. King Abdullah II of Jordan made a statement warning of the rise of a " Shia Crescent" from Iran to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, threatening the entire region, as he perceived it. Jordan also hosts many former Ba'athists and other Iraqi personalities who express hate to the Shi`a and support the so-called Iraqi resistance. The third member of the axis of “moderation,” President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, was more blunt in expressing his views. He told the pan-Arab TV, Al-Arabiyya that the Shi`a “are mostly always loyal to Iran and not to the countries where they live .”[13]

The Shi`a consider the recommendations on the engagement of Iraq’s neighbors a way to counterbalance Iran’s help for the Shi`a. The ISG Report rightfully states:

“None of Iraq’s neighbors especially major countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel see it in their interest for the situation in Iraq to lead to aggrandized regional influence by Iran. Indeed, they may take active steps to limit Iran’s influence, steps that could lead to an intraregional conflict.”[14]

Historically, Arab countries—all hold a Sunni identity—have intervened in an anti-Shi`a manner. The Shi`a view any call for a bigger role for those countries as a call to stop the progress of their political rights. Given the Bush administration’s attitude toward Iran, the Shi`a realize that the involvement of Iraq’s neighbors will not benefit them, as Iran’s input will be ignored, if it is ever requested. Hence, the process would be dominated by the anti-Shi`a countries.

The 28th recommendation in The ISG Report deems any provincial control over the whole or even part of its oil as incompatible with the national reconciliation. Sharing the oil according to population, as The ISG Report suggested, is a fair recommendation. However, the Shi`a, whose territories hold most of Iraq’s known oil reserves, want the past neglect of their towns to be taken into consideration when oil revenues are distributed or used for the purposes of reconstruction and development. They want spending to keep in mind the need of each city, which means more spending, initially at least, in the Shi`i region. This writer, having served as a soldier in Basra, remembers the constant illness from bad water in the city, where drinking a decent cup of tea was, and still is, a luxury. The ISG should also know that sweeping this past under the rug of national reconciliation is also incompatible with national reconciliation.

Talking directly to Sistani and Sadr is a positive recommendation. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that Sistani would receive a U.S. emissary, even if he be “a high-level American Shia Muslim,” as The ISG Report thoughtfully suggests.[15] The same may be said about Muqtada al-Sadr. Although he is easier to contact, the United States does not seem ready to ingest some of his demands.

The ISG Report’s recommendation to give an amnesty to “once-bitter enemies” has played a negative role in many Shi`a circles. This is seen by the Shi`a as a euphemism for re-Ba'athification in the government and the military. The ISG’s lack of knowledge regarding Iraq’s history may have made it easy to miss this sensitivity. The Ba'ath Party came to power in a vicious coup in 1963 and lost power soon thereafter, but a complete de-Ba'athification was not undertaken by the Arif government. Consequently, the Ba'ath came to power again in 1968 and established a reign of terror for thirty-five years. Repeating the same mistake will risk another episode of a Ba'athist tyranny in Iraq sooner or later. Also, amnesty would necessarily mean that the past regime’s victims, the majority of whom are Shi`a, would receive no justice. In Islam, the state has no right to make concessions on behalf of the victim, or his kin, without their approval. Again, the ISG has no way of knowing this obscure, yet very important, detail. Any such amnesty, therefore, must secure the popular consent and be accompanied with an elaborate system of reparations. Otherwise, and given the long trail of the Ba'ath’s criminality, this amnesty will open the door for the victimized to take the law into their hands.

Furthermore, The ISG Report’s recommendation to transfer the entire Iraqi police force to the Ministry of Defense is a formula for creating several problems.[16] For this move will essentially abolish the Ministry of Interior, as a national force. According to the sectarian distribution of cabinet positions, the Ministry of Interior has been a Shi`a ministry. In return, the Sunnis have the Ministry of Defense. Taking the best and strongest elements of the Ministry of Interior and allocating them to the Ministry of Defense will be seen by the Shi`a as an empowerment of their Sunni rivals and a weakening of their position, which would be absolutely unacceptable. Further, giving the Ministry of Interior the authority over local police in the provinces, while a good idea in the present time, does not sit well with the local governments who see their control over their local security as a sign of the self-governance in the post-Saddam era. The Shi`a, whose performance is arguably more successful in providing better security in their region, do not want to delegate this task to the central government whose performance has been catastrophic in every aspect.

The Shi`a Reactions:
The Shi`a reaction to The ISG Report was not as negative as the Kurdish reaction. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, has said that the report “is not fair, is not just, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution…[It is] a type of insult to the Iraqi people.”[17] Of course, the Kurdish fierce opposition to The ISG Report is understandable, since they stand to lose much more than anyone else should all the report’s recommendations are implemented.

The ISG Report emphasized more than once the relation between Iran and Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, whose party, SCIRI was described as having “close relations with Iran”[18] The militant wing of SCIRI, the Badr Brigade, according to the report, “has long-standing ties with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.”[19] The ISG Report fails to mention that SCIRI and its leader, Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, are the only Shi`a religious group that supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq and they are the closest Shi`a allies of the United States in Iraq at the present time. This portrayal of the group in the report led al-Hakim to condition his acceptance of The ISG Report’s recommendations by expressing some reservations. He told some media outlets that he disagrees with the ISG on some parts of The ISG Report, which he described as “containing some inaccurate information.”[20] A key member of the SCIRI, Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, also cited problems with The ISG Report’s recommendations that suggest a very little role for Iraqis in the process. He took the opportunity to demand that Iraqis have a larger involvement in the decision making.[21]

The former prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Ja`fari, criticized The ISG Report’s attempt to link the Iraqi case with other crises in the region, arguing, correctly, that this will complicate the Iraqi crisis even further.[22]

Conclusion:
There are several obstacles for the implementation of most of The ISG Report’s recommendations. First and most importantly, the U.S. administration has not made the decision to deliver Iraq to the Iraqis. The United States simply cannot deliver Iraq to the Shi`a majority or to the Sunni minority, because it perceives the former scenario as equivalent to delivering Iraq to Iran, whereas leaving the Sunnis in charge would necessarily mean delivering Iraq to al-Qa`ida, not to mention the collapse of any rhetoric regarding democracy and political idealism.

Second, The ISG Report’s recommendations go against the political nature of the administration’s key decision makers who view any concessions or pragmatic positions as a sign of weakness or defeat. As expected, the administration picked a few of the favorite recommendations for implementation and acted to the contrary of the most important ones. The administration and its allies in Congress even claimed that sending more troops to Iraq is indeed consistent with The ISG Report.

Third, various Iraqi factions find in The ISG Report a threat to their own interests. The ISG Report requires the Kurds to lower the ceiling of their demands and give up some of what they consider as their rightful share, whether it is the de facto independence they enjoy now or the ultimate fate of Kirkuk and other territories they claim to be part of Kurdistan.

The Sunnis, while applauding The ISG Report’s accurate statements on the militias and the sectarian conflict, found it lacking any real solution to the problem. More importantly for them, the report failed to ask for a specific schedule for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq. Other Sunnis lamented what they considered as the bad timing of The ISG Report, which they considered to be too late.[23]

The Shi`a, especially SCIRI, find The ISG Report equally threatening to their dream in a large province made of nine governorates in the south where they will finally have a breathing room away from the meddling of the central government. SCIRI is of course the best situated at the present time to control such a province once it is formed. With the oil and other revenues, especially those coming from religious tourism, the new province will be one of the most prosperous places in the world. Further, The ISG Report’s recommendations on disarming the militias make the Shi`a uncomfortable, since the militias are, in spite of their present menace, the only guard against the vicious onslaught on the Shi`a by al-Qa`ida and the Ba'athists. Given the incompetence of the central government and the lack of effectiveness by the Multi-National Forces in providing security, any talk about disarming the militias will not be welcomed by the Shi`a.

Finally, the politicians at all levels do not like the implementation of The ISG Report’s recommendations regarding the end of financial and administrative corruption, which turned Iraq into one of the worst cases in the world. If there is one multi-partisan interest in today’s Iraq, it would be the quest to maintain the current lack of accountability.

References
1. Adnan al-Ubaidi, “The Baker-Hamilton Report: its positive and negative aspects,” An-Nabaa News.

2. For a detailed history of the Da`wa Party, see Faleh Jabar’s The Shi‘ite Movement in Iraq (Saqi Books 2003), 78ff.

3. Ibid., 235ff.

4. The Hawza of Najaf has been continuously operational since 1055 AD.

5. While residing in Najaf, Ayatullah Khomeini wrote his famous book, Islam and Revolution, wherein he articulates the doctrine of wilayat al-Faqih (the sovereignty of the jurist). He accused the advocates of separating politics from religion of being agents of Western colonization.

6. An audio recording of the sermons can be found on the Sadr's web-site

7. Al-Fadhila Party’s web-site.

8. For details on this and other fatwas, see: Yaqoobi's web-site.

9. Kevin Zeese and Liz Persson, “Reactions to the long-awaited Iraq Study Group Report,” AlJazeera Magazine (Dec. 9, 2006): 5.

10. This policy was reversed when the administration agreed to talk to Syria and Iran during the Baghdad Conference on March 9, 2007.

11. The ISG Report, 25-26 and 35.

12. Hamid Algar, Wahhabism: A Critical Essay, New York: IPI Press (2002), 2-3.

13. Abbas Kadhim, “United We Stand: The demonisation of the Shia is on the rise,” Al-Ahram Weekly, April 13-19, 2006.

14. The ISG Report, 35. While The ISG Report does not advocate the involvement of Israel in the Iraqi crisis, for obvious reasons, Israeli interests will certainly be represented through the U.S. presence in any effort. Hence, it is fitting that the report lists Israel in this statement.

15. Ibid., 46-47.

16. Ibid., 53-54.

17. Brian Knowlton, “Baker and Hamilton Defend Report on Iraq,” New York Times, December 10, 2006.

18. See page 17 of The ISG Report.

19. The ISG Report, 11.

20. “Baker-Hamilton Report draws different reactions,” editorial in Al-Mada Newspaper.

21. “Half-hearted reactions to the Baker-Hamilton Report," German Press Agency (DPA), December 7, 2006.

22. Al-Ja`fari made this statement in an interview with the Iranian News Agency (IRNA) on December 7, 2006.

23. Editorial: “Opinions are still differing on the Baker-Hamilton Report,” Al-Sabah Newspaper, December 10, 2006.

2007-01-27T13:15:00.000-08:00

Back to blogging. Apologies for the delay and hopes that nothing will stop the flow of entries.

2006-06-10T00:27:00.000-07:00

The death of Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi is a very welcome news. This, however, is not enough, since too much has been said about this particular terrorist that many people feel that his death is going to change things dramatically. I am sad to say that it will not.

What will change things dramatically is for the Iraqi government to activate the judiciary and begin processing those who are sitting in detention waiting to be released in some fishy deal every once in a while. Terrorists in Iraq should be dealt with in the same manner elsewhere. They should be tried in a fast fashion and made examples of.

They just released a group from detention in the name of the so-called 'national reconciliation.' When they are captured they are said to be terrorists and when they release them arbitrarily they call them detainees.

Abu Mus`ab was a rotten terrorist who committed every disgraceful act on the books. Whe must remember that he did not do it alone.

2006-05-27T12:34:00.000-07:00

A very touching story. Interesting is that the article never mentioned that the girl is a Muslim or even of Middle East origin. If this were a negative deed that she did, you would have this in the first sentence. You would have seen reporting on the family, the mosque they attend and much more.

But, in any event, it is a very touching story:

"SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A soldier said he was only showing his gratitude when gave his Purple Heart to a 13-year-old student being honored for winning a contest for writing letters to American troops.
"It's important what these children do for us in sending these letters," said Staff Sgt. Phillip Trackey, after giving away the medal he received for injuries in Iraq. "The letters mean so much to us. So I thought this was a big way of giving something back to them."

Trackey and a group of fellow Fort Drum soldiers were attending a ceremony Thursday at West Genesee Middle School for seventh-grader Fatima Faisal, of Camillus, who was being honored as a regional winner in the Veteran's of Foreign Wars' Letters to the Front contest.

After Faisal received her prizes, Trackey stood and held up his Purple Heart for everyone to see. Then, he pinned it on the girl's blouse.

Fatima said she didn't know what to say or do.

"I'm touched. I'm speechless," Fatima said. "This is the sweetest thing ever."

Faisal's letter was chosen the best out of more than 300 letters written in the age 12-18 category in the Central New York region. The national contest was to write letters to servicemen and servicewomen starting with the line, "Dear Service Member, I just wanted to say thanks for ..."

Teacher Donna Mahar said she has her seventh-grade classes participate in the yearly contest. About 60 of her pupils wrote letters, she said.

In her letter, Faisal said, "...I give you great respect because you had a choice to join the military and because of your bravery and courage you decided to join."

For winning the contest, Faisal received a T-shirt, a certificate and a $50 savings bond.

But the Purple Heart was the top prize, Faisal said, adding she hoped to mount it in a frame to hang in her room.

"When he gave it to her, I was getting chills," said Nadia Faisal, Fatima's mother. "I told her 'Oh my gosh, Fatima. You should treasure it forever.'"

Trackey, of Glens Falls, said he received the medal for the shoulder and head wounds he suffered when a bomb went off near him in Baghdad in January 2005. Trackey said his Purple Heart was just collecting dust at home."

2006-05-14T18:55:00.000-07:00

Happy Mother's Day !!!

2006-05-01T01:48:00.000-07:00

I remember visiting an Iraqi friend who resided in Zarqa in 2000. Detecting my Iraqi accent, the ones I spoke with (cab drivers, store owners and others on the street) took special pleasure in tormenting me with their expressed love for Saddam, not to mention their claims to monopoly on Islam. Having read this article, it seems that nothing has changed in that little Jordanian town.

2006-04-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

Happy Easter !!!

2006-04-16T10:22:00.000-07:00

Iraqi parties and groups failed to agree on a prime minister, pushing the parliamentary meeting a few days ahead. It has been more than 4 months since Iraqis risked their lives to elect this group of power-hungry clique and still, no government. Funny that they used to criticize Saddam for doing everything to stay in power. While they are not as bad as Saddam (well, some are), they are getting closer to his level of badness with passing of every day.

2006-04-16T10:20:00.000-07:00

Somebody sent me this link (12 minutes tape). It is a very interesting report about what one Iraqi Jews calls a "split personality".

Regardless of what the agenda of this project is, the interviews herein are exactly the same as what I hear from my Iraqi-Jewish friends and the Iraqi-Jews who came from Israel and stayed at the hotel I worked for when I was a struggling MA student in San Francisco. While they embrace their Israeli citizenship, the also spoke with tears about their memories in Iraq, or the memories of their parents. It shows us how silly this conflict really is.

2006-04-13T18:12:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, Egypt's President accused the Shi'a in Iraq and the Gulf region of holding loyalty to Iran rather than to their countries. Here is my response from Al-Ahram Weekly.

The demonisation of the Arab Shia wherever they live in the Arab world is not new. In modern times, this practice began by the ideologues of Arab nationalism who revised history and created a scapegoat for the failing of their ideology, having been supported by intolerant religious leaders. The symptoms of this folly then moved fast to the mostly semi-illiterate part of the Arab masses and finally found its way to the corridors of politics. The Shia were said to be responsible for the killing of the third caliph, Othman, the wars against the fourth caliph, Ali, the killing of Imam Hussein, the fall of the Umayyad state and the fall of Baghdad in the hands of the Mongols. Hence, Shiism came to be considered, as Ahmed Amin put it in his book Fajr Al-Islam, "a refuge for anyone who wanted to destroy Islam".

In the current times, this practice is on the rise. The most recent accusation by Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak that the Shia "are mostly always loyal to Iran and not to the countries where they live" were preceded by statement of King Abdullah of Jordan alleging the rise of a "Shia Crescent" threatening the region as he perceived it. While the allegation of the Jordanian king was a novelty so absurd that even he did not stand by it, President Mubarak's statement is more deep-rooted in the minds of many people who suffer from the Shia scare.

The corollary of this statement is that the Shia are traitors and potential domestic enemies to their own countries. It is highly disturbing that the president of a major Arab country would think in this manner about a population that, in his words, amounts to 65 per cent in a country such as Iraq. It is no wonder that the Shia of Iraq view the silence of Arab governments towards the atrocious crimes of Saddam Hussein as a sign of consent, if not encouragement. After all, for Arab governments and many in their intellectually sequestered populations, the Shia are nothing but "Iranian agents" who represent the worm in the otherwise very healthy Arab apple.

As an Iraqi Shia, I have seen during my entire time in the country discriminatory practice of the Baathist regime, which was a continuation of the past governments ever since the Ottoman times. There had been walls after walls between the Shia individual and any rights if this individual refused to sell his soul to the devil; the devil being the armies of regime security institutions whose only job was to hunt down "domestic enemies", the agents of Iran and America at the same time, mind you!

It is past due to set the record straight, at least by visiting a few facts as this limited space may allow. In spite of centuries of Ottoman abuse against the Shia of Iraq, they sided with the Ottomans against the British after World War I and fought the British in the 1920 Revolution, which forced the British to give up their plan to annex Iraq. For all of their sacrifices, they were not given even one ministry. And until 1936, the entire senior officer corps in the Iraqi army had one Shia officer only, a major named Hussein Alwan. Furthermore, of all the coups and conspiracies against the Iraqi government in 1936, 1941, 1958, 1963 and 1968, none was a Shia affair. It goes without saying that the war against Iran, financed and praised by Western and Arab countries was fought by the alleged "Iranian agents", the Shia, who paid the heaviest casualties.

There is no question that the Shia feel certain affinity to their coreligionists in Iran. But this is a far cry from the allegation that the Shia are traitors. Sectarian affinity, however, does not capture the whole story. Our Arab brothers have done nothing to embrace us, as they keep demanding proofs of "loyalty", whatever that means. From the organised atrocities in Iraq to the denial of our existence in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. This abominable hostility among the Muslim community has lasted for centuries because no sustained effort was ever made to end it. Indeed, it has always been more fashionable to compete in adding more fuel to the raging fire.

2006-04-09T23:40:00.000-07:00

Al-Sabah, the Iraqi semi-official paper, reported that the city council of Babil (Babylon) passed a binding resolution to suspend any cooperation with the Americans, citing American lack of seriousness about finishing the reconstruction projects.
The paper quoted Qasim al-Jarrah, an engineer and a member of the city council as saying, "We did not sense any seriousness on the part of the Americans concerning the reconstruction." He told the paper that the Americans abandoned 12 projects they already promised to finish within the coming 90 days.

US exit strategy as announced by Washington's officials rarely counts reconstruction as an important element. This is not prudent, because any exit strategy has to possess three legs: security, functional government, and reconstruction.

Of course, in criticizing the exit strategy, we have to assume that these guys really want to exit.

The paper also reported on the city council's emphasis on the federalist plans for the south and central areas of Iraq. A meeting is to be held in Karbala later this month to discuss the details. This issue is going to be at the center of a heated debate when/if the government is formed.

2006-04-08T23:55:00.000-07:00

Az-Zaman, Iraq daily newspaper, reported that Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani refused to interfere in the dispute over the nomination of a prime minister for the next four years. According to the paper, Sistani's deputy in Karbala asked the groups within the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) to remain united if they want to keep his blessings. The paper added that the situation in Najaf, where the four grand Ayatollahs reside, is full with apprehension. Militia men from Al-Mahdi Army loyal to Moqtada Al-Sadr and others from the Supreme Council (SCIRI) loyal to the Hakim family took their positions on the streets of the city in case of any escalation.

After months of relative calm, Najaf witnessed a car bomb killing ten people and wounding others.

Az-Zaman, like other Iraqi papers continued covering the attack on the Baratha mosque, where Iraqi clergyman and member of the parliament, Jalal Al-Din Al-Saghir leads the Friday prayer. Three suicide bombers (useful idiots for the Iraqi branch of the Wahhabi cult) wearing women clothes to avoid thorough search entered the mosque and caused some nasty carnage, killing 80 Shi'a worshippers and wounding 160 others. The Baratha mosque is 1,200 years old and it was subject to Sunni wrath. It was destroyed many times and many Shi'a worshipers were killed in it with every attack. The mosque is the symbol of Shi'i resilience in Baghdad. It is also associated with many leading Shi'i scholars who led the prayer in it over the centuries. Jalal Al-Din Al-Saghir was not hurt in the attack.

The paper also quotes US Ambassador Khalilzad as saying that "the world community's patience has run out" concerning the formation of an Iraqi government. Khalilzad should have expected this delay when he insisted on trashing the results of the elections and impose a so-called "unity government" on Iraq. Also, the delay is because he keeps his veto on the UIA nominee for prime minister, Ibrahim al-Ja'fari, without having the leverage to impose another nominee, thus creating an unnecessary stalemate.
Khalilzad said, according to the paper, that his negotiations with the insurgents have "decreased the attacks." Tell it to those 240 innocents slaughtered or wounded at Baratha mosque and the ones who died in the past days!

2006-04-04T18:12:00.000-07:00

The political chances of Iraqi PM Ibrahim Ja'afari hang now in the hands of Moqtada al-Sadr. If the opposition to him increase substantially inside the UIA -- there are no signs on this taking place yet -- then Sadr will have to drop Ja'afari, but don't be so sure that his demands for doing so maybe tolerated. Indeed, he might spoil the whole process and ask for a PM close to him, by pressing impossible demands for allowing Adel Abdelmahdi (a candidate Moqtada would rather not see on the winning stage.)

Also, it is likely that the fall of Ja'afari will be combined by the fall of Talabani from the Presidency, or Zibari from the ministry of foreign affairs as a payoff (read punishment for opposing Ja'afari). It is interesting that the Iraqi official TV (al-Iraqiyya) which is close to Sadr and Ja'afari broadcast yesterday an hour-long interview with Fassal al-G'oud of the Province of Anbar, who is obviously a Sunni Arab and a candidate for the presidency running against Talabani. I must admit that this "outsider" came across as much more convincing than Talabani and the rest of the stooges in Baghdad. Was this a message? You bet!!

Also, the visit of both Ms. Rice and Mr. Straw to Baghdad at this time will make any changes seen as an arm twist to those who blink -- very bad for their legitimacy and the "integrity" of the process, but worse for Khalilzad who is going to appear the wrong guy he always has been.

At any event, most of the agreements that have been reached so far were made with the understanding that Ja'afari will be the PM and Talabani the Prez. If this will no longer to be the case, I am afraid that a new marathon has to be run to make new arrangements. The greatest loser in this case will be Iraq and its people, I mean the one's residing out of the la-la land (the Green Zone).

2006-03-27T23:36:00.000-08:00

My Translations and commentary on the Iraqi papers. Enjoy!

The Iraqi TV, al-Iraqiyya, continues its coverage of the raid on the mosque in Sadr City as the number of deaths went up from 17 to 20. The problem is that Iraqi "main stream" religious leaders are in rage. Of course this will help them exploit the situation to their political advantage. The have been given the short end of the stick lately and such incident immediately after the Samarra shrine bombing and the continued violence against the Shia by terrorists will make it very hard to ask the Shia to give any concessions (not that they should more than they have in the ideal world).
When the normally patient politicians like Jawad al-Maliki speak about the operations by American forces as "criminal" we should be alarmed. The TV showed graphic pictures of dead people whose bodies have sustained more than just bullets. Eye witnesses claim they were tortured before they were killed.

I am not vouching for the truth in this news. The role of this blog is to tell you what Iraqis are told and how this will affect the public opinion.

The TV also covered a session by the city council of Baghdad which suspended all dealings with the American forces until this incident is fully investigated "and the wrongdoers are brought to justice," according to the decision read by the chair of the city council. This should not be taken lightly. The British are having a very hard time ever since the city council of Basra decided to stop cooperation with their forces.

The Iraqi daily, Az-Zaman, reported on "a letter from President Bush to Abdulaziz al-Hakim," the head of the Shi'i list. According to the paper, President Bush "asked Hakim to replace Ibrahim al-Ja'fari as the nominee for the position of prime minister." If this report is true, the one should be replaced is the aide who suggested Bush sends this letter to Hakim. It is Sadr who holds the key to the nomination. Also, like President Bush, Ja'fari won the nomination and unlike Bush, his coalition won the elections in a landslide. Also, this letter at this time (after the mosque raid) is like adding fuel to a raging fire.
The paper also reported on the Shi'i reaction to the raid on the Sadr City mosque. It quoted Jawad al-Maliki, the number 2 leader in the Da'wa Party as saying, "The American forces and special forces under their command have committed a horrible crime when it raided the al-Mustafa Mosque and caused the martyrdom of tens and arrest of others, and the destruction of the mosque and the office of the Iraqi branch of the Da'wa Party." The declaration issued by the Shi'i coalition stated that, "What happened was an organized crime with dangerous political and security consequences for the purpose of creating a civil war to alter the current equation during this critical time as the government is being formed."
The paper also quoted the director of the military operations in the ministry of defense, Gen. Abdulaziz Muhammad Jasim, as saying that, "the ministry of defense has no knowledge of such raid," adding that "if our forced have participated then the ordered must have come from me, but this has not happened."
In another news, az-Zaman reported on the first tape purported to be made by Saddam's deputy, Izzat Ibrahim, urging the Arab League to support what he calls "the honorable resistance" and asking them to expel the "traitors," referring to the current Iraqi government. President Jalal Talabani, along with other Arab heads of states, did not participate in the summit which is currently hosted by Sudan and expected to focus on Iraq and, as usual, Palestine.

Inspired by the Clintonian dictum, I announce to you all, Ladies and Gentlemen: "The era of big government is" coming to Iraq. Iraqis are likely to have not one, two, three or four, but five deputies for the prime minister, according to the Iraqi semi-official paper, al-Sabah. It is amazing to have five deputies for a guy who has very little power to begin with.
Similarly, the government is likely to keep the, not one but, two ministries of education, as well as many ministries whose work can better be done by small agencies. Also, don't forget the extra-constitutional National Security Council which has 19 members and, yes, the three-member Presidential Council.
As to the number of ministries, it is based on the following (I am not kidding):
The Sunni list asked for a minimum of seven ministries, the Kurds asked for a similar number (that's 14), then the Shi'i list asked for half of the ministries (are you counting? 28 ministries so far). Then they have to give ministries to the minorities (2 Turkuman, 1 Christian and one for all others, to be decided by lottery). That's 32 ministries. Then they will see what jobs the ministers will have to perform (or don't).

Al-Sabah al-Jadid reported on a mortar attack targeting the home of Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf, wounding tow people, not members of his family, it seems. The paper quoted Moqtada as urging his followers to "practice self-restraint."
In another news, the paper reported on terrorist attempt to pass candies stuffed with explosives or poisoned. They gave them mainly to school children in Yarmouk, a residential quarter in Baghdad.

Al-Mu'tamar, Ahmad Chalabi's own paper, reported that the infamous Abu Ghraib prison was vacated and the prisoners were transferred to other prisons. As to the detainees in American custody, they are going to be transferred to the detention facility in the Baghdad Airport and the arrangements will be made later to transfer them to Iraqi custody.
The paper also reported on a strong letter from Ahmad Chalabi to the Australian minister of trade, concerning the scandal of Australia bribes paid to the past regime pertaining to wheat exports to Iraq. The suspension of Australian wheat imports will, according to the paper, come in favor of American exporters.

Al-Adala, a paper close to the SCIRI (Adel Abdulmahdi and Abdulaziz al-Hakim) quoted its editor-in-chief, Adel Abdulmahdi as saying that he will not accept the position of prime minister as an alternate player of a back-up in case Ja'fari steps down as a nominee. He said that the only way he would accept the job would be when he receives "a strong mandate and a strong backing." This will not happen, not if Moqtada has anything to do with it anyway.

2006-03-26T11:45:00.000-08:00

The Iraqi official TV (al-Iraqiyya) displayed some carnage in a Shi'i mosque (husayniyyat al-Mustafa) where the men inside claim that US and Iraqi forces attacked the place during a service held for the anniversary of the Prophet's death. A man said that the attacking forces used excessive force and killed many people, including the custodian and some worshippers.

The TV said 17 people were killed although the film shows about ten men of different age categories whose ID cards show their affiliation with the Da'wa Party and the Council for Iraqi Tribes. The TV seems to condemn the act and agree with the claims from the mosque. The sub-title called the dead "martyrs," a sign of taking their side, displ;aying the film more than five times as they tried to reach Hazim al-Araji, the spokesperson of the Sadr Movement.

Jawad al-Maliki, a high-ranking member in the Shi'i coalition (UIA), claimed that the 17 people "were executed deliberately." He claimed that the forces burned the office of the Da'wa party, accusing the forces to attempt to create a political crisis. He blamed US Ambassador Khalilzad for the incident without saying why. He called for a comprehensive investigation, urging Iraqis to remain vigilant. He said that the reason given for the incident is utterly unacceptable -- the forces were said to be chasing a fugitive who was hiding in the mosque.

This can be trouble, not because of the graphic images and involvement of US forces, but because the mosque seems to be affiliated with the Sadr Movement and some of the dead belong to the Da'wa Party, the party of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari. This may be interpreted as an attack on the new coalition between Sadr and Ja'fari in the context of the formation of the new government. The US was vocal in its opposition to the nomination of Ja'afari for the position of prime minister. Sadr, in defiance of this opposition, was instrumental in Ja'fari's nomination and the likely confirmation in the job for the next four years. Let's hope for the best.

2006-03-25T17:28:00.000-08:00

My friend, Tom, has this comment on my recent article:

"If I did not know better I would swear Abbas has been reading my blog. :) needless to say I agree with much of what he said, not all mind you, I don't know that Iraq was the safest place in the ME. We all know that the perceived safety of a police state is only an elusion, or I guess a mirage in the dessert.
If we could ask all those people in the mass graves if they were safe, what would they say? Abbas himself reported once to having seen a regime tank come to his town with the words "today there is no more Shi'a" written on the sides. There is no need to ask Abbas if he felt safe that day, he left Iraq after that and made his way here to the US. So you have to remember to read that line as relative safety. Sort of the safety of being in solitary confinement in a prison.
And the line about the Interior Ministry not being able to work effectively, we all know that left to their own device they would be engaged in a campaign of payback, not that they are not doing that now, but they would surly have made saddam's campaign against the Kurds look like a kindergarten school play. Which brings us back to the safest place in the ME line. If Iraq was so safe, then why do the Shi'a hold such a grudge against their countrymen. Seems to me that someone, at sometime must have done something to them to make them so lustful for revenge.
These comments were e-mailed to Abbas as his comment are still closed. Maybe he will grace us with a response."

Hi Tom,
Glad that you continue to check in often.

I talk about oranges and you talk about apples. I do agree with your point on the repressive nature of the state in Saddam'e days. I lived through that and know it first hand. but let me remind you that Iraqis are losing up to 100 people a day as we speak. If this rate continues in the same random manner, Saddam's days will look like a piece of cake. I am sure you agree.

The point of this war -- according to the latest given rationale -- is to make things better for Iraqis. Iraq now has the same level of corruption, if not more than what was in Saddam's days; the same level of loss in Iraqi lives, if not more; and, yes, I stand by my statement: in the 24 years I lived in Iraq I never feared to be attacked on the street, kidnapped, or harmed in anyway in a day or a night at the hands of terrorists, foreign fighters or common criminals.

It seems that we told Saddam: We see your corrupt government and raise you complete chaos and lawlessness.

I don't understand, nor do I accept, the mindset that considers criticizing the current disgraceful conditions in Iraq as a tribute to Saddam's time. Far from it. The first step toward making a difference in Iraq is to rise above any comparison with Saddam, no matter what the outcome of such comparison might be.

p.s. I am interested to see that you focused on the quote from the minister of interior (a Shi'i) and ignored the similar quote from the minister of defense who is a Sunni and is not accused of abuses. He said the same thing.

2006-03-23T10:46:00.000-08:00

My article in Al-Ahram Weekly

A most caustic concurrence
Three years on, Iraq, argues Abbas Kadhim*, has become the model of what not to do

Three years ago, a coalition of mainly American and British forces made its way into Iraq along the same path of previous invasions, the south. Once again, the Shia were subjected to the hard test of a three-fold dilemma. While they did not want to die defending Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime, they were not very excited about the prospects of the imminent Anglo-American invasion of their land. The third dimension of their quandary was inspired by their 1991 experience with broken American promises, for which they paid the heaviest price among other Iraqis. Unlike the Kurds who were given a safe enclave in the north, the Shia were thrown to the wolves with complete indifference. This time around, American affirmations, pronounced by yet another George Bush, were shrugged off. The march through Iraq was not a "cake-walk" as self-appointed Iraqi opposition leaders with nominal affiliation with the country and a cursory knowledge of the real Shia sentiments prophesied.

Shocked and awed by the malfunction of their own "shock and awe" strategy, many supporters of invading Iraq jumped out of the sinking ship leaving the Bush administration scrambling for any ideas to contain a situation that was clearly spinning out of control. Adding insult to injury, months of rigorous and quite expensive search throughout the country turned no weapons of mass destruction and aside from some retired trouble- makers, there was evidence pertaining to real links between regime and any anti-American terrorism.

Indeed, the open-border policy in the first months following the invasion turned Iraq into a nest of what may as well be a chronic problem for many decades to come. The collapse of the two selling excuses for the invasion of Iraq that would fit the adventure in the larger context of the "global war on terror" forced the administration to find a reason outside the original framework of the ante-bellum period. In preparation for declaring Iraq a WMD-free country, the administration reduced any mention of them in favour of the ever- increasing oratory concerning the democratisation of Iraq in order for it to serve as a model for the entire region, which was going to catch the virus of democracy from Bahrain to Morocco. Indeed, this might be a viable theory if not for the clumsy planning and catastrophically incompetent management of Iraq ever since the country was invaded in 2003. Instead of serving as a shining model for democratic transition, Iraq has become a model of what not to do.

On the political front, and after a very rough start with 14 months of occupation ending in a partial transfer of certain responsibilities to an appointed and by all measures a very corrupt government, Iraq had three elections, including a referendum on the constitution. But the actual effects of these elections fell short of achieving anything even remotely close to the level of the expectations of Iraqi voters. After more than two months of negotiations following the January 2005 elections, the new government came as a concoction politicians recycled from the old governing bodies according to a formula unrelated to the results of the elections.

A paralysed assembly was also seated for the sole purpose of drafting a constitution, which they presented in an incomplete form to meet the strict deadline imposed on them by the transitional administrative law, among other external considerations. A semi-final draft was published and distributed to the Iraqi people, with the food ration -- which was also missing some essential items of its own. Just before the referendum was scheduled to take place, a number of changes were added to avoid a veto by three governorates.

It is unclear whether the Iraqi people actually voted for the current constitution, because the adopted version is different than the one distributed to them. As to the third elections, it remains to be seen, what sort of a mockery is going to come out of the negotiations currently underway. More than three and a half months have passed by and no government has yet been formed.

On the security level, Iraq has moved from one of the safest countries to a completely lawless place. It is impossible to believe that such lawlessness is attributable to the lack of capacity on the part of the forces on the ground. Indeed, one must take it as an insult to the American troops and their allies, including the Iraqi forces to say that they are unable to provide a bare minimum of security level in the country. The problem must indeed be attributed to the lack of will. Iraqi ministers of defence and interior have both said publicly and honestly that they are not allowed to do their job in order not to "disturb" the political process. In other words, security is being placed as a lower priority than the already dysfunctional political process with the Iraqi on the street paying the ultimate price.

Services, too, continue to be a nightmare for every Iraqi. Sitting on a sea of oil, Iraqis are unable to heat their homes, find cooking gas or fill their cars with fuel. Many Iraqis go through the trash for food or stand in humiliating long lines to receive $100 per family every three months while Iraqi oil is stolen by militias and politicians to be sold in the black market. With no metres installed -- and this is a story in its own right -- one may only guess how much oil is being exploited on a daily basis and what kind of corruption is involved. What hope remains for Iraq in any success if the Iraqis and the Americans claim that it is hard to stop ships loaded with stolen oil sailing off from Basra?

The electricity is another chronic problem for Iraqis. The service now runs approximately three hours a day for most Iraqis. It is estimated that Iraqis will not have full-day electricity any time in the foreseeable future. It would take more than $25 billion to provide adequate service through this essential field of service. The rest of reconstruction efforts are in no better shape than electricity, all wrapped in corruption, incompetence and negligence.

For Iraq to recover, three changes must take place. First, problems relevant to security and services must be considered as important as the political process. The lessons from Hurricane Katrina clearly indicate that democracy is meaningless without security and basic services. Iraqis have lived in Katrina conditions for too long and no political process is going to impress them so long as their daily life remains unchanged. Second, financial corruption and lack of accountability have to be treated immediately before any further steps in this ailing process.

The current policy of rewarding dishonesty and incompetence will lead to an imminent catastrophic end. And finally, there must be an immediate effort to address the economic deterioration of the country. This may not be done by granting victory to fundamentalist ideologies, like the implementation of sweeping privatisation, but multi-phased plan taking into consideration both the current conditions and needs in the country as well as the realistic potential of the Iraqi economy at each following stage.

2006-03-22T19:51:00.000-08:00

Az-Zaman newspaper reported that negotiations between Iran and the United States may start as soon as next week when the ambassadors of the two countries to Iraq are supposed to meet in Baghdad. The paper quoted Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, as saying, "If Iranian officials are going to be able to express Iran's views concerning Iraq, then [I see] no reason for not doing so." The paper noted that Iraqi PM Ibrahim al-Ja'fari rejected the idea of any American-Iranian negotiations about Iraq without the presence of Iraqi representation, according to the paper.
Indeed, everyone, except for the party of Abdulaziz al-Hakim, the man behind the plan, had voiced their concern. Of course, other factions, the Shi'a, the Kurds and secular politicians are very uncomfortable with American acknowledgement of an Iranian role in Iraq.
If successful, this dialogue might be the beginning to further direct negotiations between the two countries whose relations were cut since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979.

The paper also reported on the news that Naji Sabri al-Hadithi, the former Iraqi foreign minister, was on the pay of the CIA through French agents. The CIA have not commented on the news reported originally by NBC. Al-Hadithi, according to the paper, called the reports "false claims," saying that "the information portrayed in this strange story is entirely false and baseless." The paper quoted him giving a speech similar to the ones he used to make during the days he was serving Saddam. The report alleges that he received $100,000 for allegedly serving two masters, but the information he gave was ignored because he told his contacts that Iraq did not have WMDs.
It is very hard to confirm such stories with all parties refusing to confirm the information. However, the "no comment" from the CIA, the fact that al-Hadithi was not arrested and tried, as he should be (he was allowed to leave Iraq to a safe location for no reason whatsoever), and the fact that his brother, who used to be a high official was killed by the Baath regime, all bode well for the information in the story, at least until the CIA enlighten us about the subject and the U.S. government provide an equally good reason for allowing him to leave Iraq instead of bringing him to justice with the rest of the Saddam's criminal gang.

Al-Mada, a paper whose parent company is headquartered in Syria reported that U.S. forces began an investigation concerning the "random shooting by U.S. forces while conducting a raid, leading to the death of Iraqi civilians." The paper reports on two different stories regarding the number of dead people. The Americans report "the death of four Iraqis including a woman and a child." The paper, however, quoted a source in the Iraqi police as saying that American forces "killed 11 people including five women, two men and four children before they destroy the house."

The paper continued its publication of Paul Bremer's book about his time in Iraq, highlighting the following sentence from Bremer:
"The only case the Governing Council worked on with record speed was the payment of salaries for its members. A sub-committee headed by [Ahmad] Chalabi proposed a very high budget, calling for $50,000 a year for each member and $4,000 for the ministers with mileage compensation for 50,000 miles a month, as David Oliver intelligently suggested, in a country with bad roads."

This, by itself should send Oliver and Bremer to court. First because these people did not drive outside the Green Zone, which is 11 miles from one end to another. It is clearly a bribe. This is the kind of work Bremer was given a medal for.

2006-03-21T09:16:00.000-08:00

"A jury found an Army dog handler guilty Tuesday of abusing detainees at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison by terrifying them with a military dog, allegedly for his own amusement, according to " this AP report. The jury rendered found him guilty after 18 hours of deliberation. Sentencing will come sometime later.

2006-03-21T08:50:00.000-08:00

Al-Sabah, Iraq's semi-official paper reports on the continuing problems between the city council of Basra (south) and British forces. The council just rejected a proposal to grant British companies any investment opportunities in the oil sector, perhaps in favor of a counter proposal submitted by the Russians.

Hakim al-Mayyah, a member in the Basra city council, told the paper that "the people of Basra do not want to see British forces in the streets of their city, therefore we cannot accommodate Britain's wish in oil contracts," citing the absence of a law regulating the work of foreign companies in the country.

The decision comes as part of the boycott for British forces after the abuses of Iraqi citizens and Britain's refusal to apologize for such acts. If anything, this is an indicator that the oil of Basra is already out of the jurisdiction of the central government. Similar action is being taken in Kurdistan, where the government began negotiations with foreign companies to exploit the oil in that region. Of course, there is no legal basis for these actions by local authorities in Basra and Kurdistan. But this is only to be expected when the jurisdictions are not defined. Currently, Iraq operates according to everyone's ability to create facts on the ground or set a precedent.

The paper also reports in another article that forced migration of Sunnis from Shi'i areas and Shi'a from Sunni areas (often involving murders and other intimidation) is becoming a problem beyond toleration.

2006-03-20T14:22:00.000-08:00

As the negotiations for establishing some sort of a government continue, Iraqis lived the third anniversary of the invasion "with apathy", according to an article by the London-based Iraqi paper, Az-Zaman. The paper quotes a press release issued by Association of Muslim Scholars, a group of politico-religious fanatics close to the insurgensy, as saying, "Everyone should note that the American project in Iraq has failed. We call not only for the schedueling of withdrawal of occupation forces, but also for paying all obligations based on the invasion."

The paper also quoted another release issued by the Islamic Party, a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq, as saying, "The forces of occupation have failed to put a stop to oppression; indeed, the single oppressor has prolifirated to become many oppressors."

Hamid Majid Musa, head of the Iraqi Communist Party, told the paper, "unfortunately, the alternative for dictatorship [in Iraq] has not been established after the passing of 3 years since the past regime was overthrown."

Al-Adala, a paper close to the Supreme Concil for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) quoted Iraqi Interior Minister Baqir Jabr as saying that the call for a dialogue between Iran and the US "is not new," adding that "it was initiated four months ago and that he was part of the talks."

Al-Mu'tamar, a paper close to Ahmad Chalabi, ran an article on the catastrophic conditions of al-Husayniyya, an outskirt of Baghdad, which lives a Katrina-like life for a long time now. The official TV station, al-Iraqiyya, reported on this poor place a while ago, but there seems to be no response to the coverage of such tragedies. The reporter points out that "reed and other plants have dominated the area where stagnant water turned the entire place to a marsh." Services, or the lack thereof, can be the deal breaker for most Iraqis who are mad that after three years there life conditions are going from bad to worse.

2006-03-20T14:05:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since I did an update. Apologies! Too many obligations.

Here is a paper I published recently in Al-Ahram Weekly.

The destruction of the shrine in Samaraa, where the two imams, Ali Al-Hadi and Al-Hassan Al-Askari, were buried, generated a tsunami of well-deserved condemnations from one end of the world to the other, until there is nothing to add or improve on what has been said. It is now time to assess the aftermath of this crime and where it left Iraq. Analysts worldwide are already proposing theories about civil war as if we are standing before a scene from Rwanda or Bosnia. Iraq is not very well, to be sure, but to speak of civil war is to show complete detachment from the realities of the country.

Iraqis were hailed for having their third democratic vote in December 2005. Yet we already began to witness several steps to separate the elections from their political consequences. At the centre of this effort is the overt participation of US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, whose visibility and conduct is more like that of Paul Bremer, the former civil administrator of Iraq during the period of official occupation. While the ambassador is perhaps trying to show the world that the US is helping with this difficult process, his involvement sends the wrong message to the people of Iraq. The plight of Iraqis in the past eight decades is a legacy of the political engineering of British king-makers who cared more about establishing a friendly government than about establishing a democracy. There is hardly any difference between then and now.

Thankfully, Iraq and the Iraqis passed the latest test very successfully. Aside from the few whose emotions overruled their better judgement, impressive levels of restraint and awareness were manifest in the conduct of leaders and the masses alike. Important and sacred as it is, the Askari shrine is less sacred than innocent human life that is, unlike shrines and monuments, irreplaceable. This has not been the first time a sacred place came under assault. The Kabaa was destroyed more than once and other shrines came under assault time and again. In the heat of Hanbali zeal, the shrine in Baghdad was levelled to the ground in the 11th century and a street was constructed through it. In the 18th century, religious fanatics destroyed the shrines in the cemetery of Madena -- never to be rebuilt -- and attacked Karbala in 1802. They destroyed shrines, stole priceless treasures and killed thousands of innocent people. Most recently, Saddam Hussein's army rampaged through the shrine cities of Kufa, Najaf and Karbala causing great damage to the golden domes and leaving pools of innocent blood all over.

Following every atrocity, Iraqis repair the damage and move on. This time will not be different. In some ways, this crime caused more good than bad. Iraqi political and religious leaders stepped in to heal the wounds. Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani stated the obvious in affirming that all mosques are the houses of God and therefore they are not fair game for angry protesters. The profile of the imams and their shrine has never been as high, now that it acquired an international fame. As a reporter told me, "One needs not be Christian to appreciate St Peter's Church." The attack offended not only Muslims, but all lovers of beauty and art as well, because these monuments were state of the art in their architecture, in addition to their spiritual value. Perhaps the perpetrators' disgraceful act came as a blessing in disguise.

Another good was the rise of upright Muslims across the world, especially the leader of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, who is to be highly commended for his integrity and genuine compassion for all Muslims. His words were badly needed at this time when the Shia are demonised and dehunmanised by fanatical clergymen and their brainwashed followers in some Muslim countries. Enormous events like the demolition of the Samaraa shrine are excellent opportunities for good people to reveal their excellence. An international conference jointly sponsored by Al-Azhar and the Shia Hawza is very timely, indeed overdue. What is happening in Iraq is a mirror image of the state of affairs in the Muslim world at large. Committees must be formed to end the sectarian strife and provide for true mutual recognition and acceptance. No legacy can be greater than being credited for setting the stage for such an accomplishment.

Muslims cannot be on good terms with the world if they are not at peace with one another. The rightful outrage of Muslims against cartoons defaming the Prophet Mohamed may seem hypocritical when combined with indifference vis-à-vis the desecration of Islamic symbols and the ongoing fratricide from one end of the Muslim world to the other. If they take their own blood and symbols lightly, they may claim no moral ground for objecting to others doing the same.

The problem of Iraq is the lack of a strong and fully sovereign government. The country now is a confederacy of incoherent and unaccountable provinces with a failing central government. City councils from Basra to Mosul are made of gangs and militias operating with no oversight or any mechanism to ensure performance or transparency. What remains of Iraq is a de facto independent Kurdistan where the laws of the central government do not apply. On the front of reconstruction and services, billions of dollars were spent without any visible change in the daily life of Iraqis. It remains to be seen how long Iraqis will endure living in sub-human conditions while their country is one of the richest in the world -- all under the insidious excuse of the lack of security, as if one failure is a valid justification of another.

If there is going to be any war in the short term, it would be an all out revolt to take the country back from the corrupt and incompetent politicians who recklessly took the people's loyalty for granted.

2005-12-04T13:43:00.000-08:00

Another example demonstrating the chaos and disarray in Iraq. Iyad Allawi, a former Ba'athist and the head of the appointed government prior to the last elections of Jan 30, attended a military graduation ceremony in al-Muthanna airport in Baghdad, without the knowledge of the government, the Minister of Defense or anyone in the Executive branch. Allawi has no authority to do such thing according to the so-called law in Iraq.

Who is responsible for this? More importantly, who is behind it and what does it mean? Is Chalabi correct in calling this "a return to the days of military coups"? It seems like this to me.

2005-10-21T22:33:00.000-07:00

Back after a long time. Many things to do, and very little time. Here is the first impression on the trial of Saddam:

No doubt, it is very encouraging to see him in court. I always thought that the waiting period for trying him has been ridiculously long. It is an insult to Iraqis that this case has not been put as the first priority.

The trial, however, did not start well. There is some obvious incompetence and lack of professionalism on the part of the judge and the prosecutor. I can't believe that these are the best Iraq can offer (I know they are not).

Call Saddam what you want, but he is not an easy or a soft target. I doubt that these guys can try him.

The other setback was the killing of one of the lawyers who are representing one of the thugs on trial. This is going to complicate things. Already people are talking about holding the trial out of Iraq -- a bad idea of course. I have seen some reports trying to accuse the government of the killing. This is absurd. It is most likely that people who want to hinder the process and embarrass the government who did thins. Lothsome as they may be, these lawyers should be allowed to do their work and the government should ensure their protection.

The coverage is another fiasco. It is nonsense to claim that it is a public trial, when the broadcasting is hours late and edited like there is no tomorrow. Also, the technical aspects of the trial are disastrous.

This is an important affair, where any error may change history. There should be no room for incompetence or nepotism

2005-08-01T22:57:00.000-07:00

A new issue of the Journal of Associated Graduates in Near Eastern Studies (JAGNES) is out.

The four articles came from a seminar I taught at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Fall 2004.

2005-07-31T03:01:00.000-07:00

Shouldn't this money go to taxpayers?

"A special auditor tracking billions of dollars spent by the United States to rebuild Iraq said on Thursday he has found millions of dollars worth of fraud by US officials and companies."

2005-07-31T02:45:00.000-07:00

This article details the goings on in Iraq, including the firing of a nasty official, Adnan al-Dulaimi, who used to oversee the Sunni Endowment (al-waqf al-Sunni).

"I think that the reason behind my dismissal is that they want to silence a voice that is speaking against unjustified practices against Sunnis such as arrests, torture in the prisons," al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press.

False! He should have been fired for his nasty remarks. He, for example, told the Sunnis to stay home on the election day and then began to complain that they are under-represented in the new government. The new guy, Abd al-Ghafour al-Samarra'i, is much better that al-Dulaimi, who seems to be 350 years old.

2005-07-31T02:37:00.000-07:00

LAWYERS for Saddam Hussein claimed the former dictator was attacked during a court appearance on Thursday.

This court thing seems to be going too slow that Saddam might die of old age before he gets punished.

2005-07-28T17:50:00.000-07:00

U.S. Muslims issue anti-terrorism "fatwa"
28 Jul 2005 17:03:22 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Romney Willson

WASHINGTON, July 28 (Reuters) - Top U.S. Muslim scholars issued a fatwa," or religious edict, against terrorism on Thursday and called on Muslims to help authorities fight the scourge of militant violence.

The fatwa was part of efforts by U.S. Muslims to counter perceived links between Islam and terrorism and avert any negative backlash after this month's bombings by suspected Islamic extremists in London and Egypt.

"Having our religious scholars side by side with our community leaders leaves no room for anybody to suggest that Islam and Muslims condone or support any forms or acts of terrorism," said Esam Omeish, president of the Muslim American Society, one of the groups which announced the fatwa.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said it was the first time Muslims in North America had issued an anti-terrorism edict, although they had repeatedly condemned such acts of violence.

American Muslims this month launched a nationwide advertising campaign in which they declared that those who committed terrorism in the name of Islam were betraying the teachings of the Koran.

Muslim organizations say they have not so far detected any widespread reaction against their community after the most recent bombings.

Hooper said Thursday's religious ruling, issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, said: "We clearly and strongly state (that) all acts of terrorism targeting civilians are 'haram' (forbidden) in Islam."

"It is 'haram' for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence, and it is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians," he quoted the ruling as saying.

The Fiqh Council is an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Islamic religious law. Hooper said it was the only one of its kind in North America.

Some 130 North American Muslim organizations and leaders have signed and endorsed the fatwa.

Similar anti-terrorism fatwas have been issued by other Muslim communities. After the bombings in London religious leaders from about 500 British mosques issued such an edict and presented it to local politicians.

According to Islam, only responsible, religious authorities which are recognized by a Muslim community may issue fatwas. Many Muslims say extremists such as Osama bin Laden have given these edicts a bad name in the West because they have used them without authorization and to call for acts such as murder.

Because Islam is not based on a world-wide hierarchical structure, the edicts are not globally binding, and only affect the community whose religious leaders have issued the rulings. (additional reporting by Caroline Drees)

2005-07-12T20:44:00.000-07:00

The one thing Washington people seem to never get is that the cover-up is often more injurious than the crime. It is hard to believe that no one really knows who gave the name of that agent to Bob Novak. The question is whether it will work this time around?

Now everybody is suspecting that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove had something to do with it. We shall see!

2005-07-08T01:21:00.000-07:00

The London terrorist attacks turned July 7th into another shameful moment in the history of humanity.

What is equally shameful is that the world displays the right feelings and re-acts in the right way only when the tragedy hits certain areas but not some others. What happened in London is a great tragedy, there is no doubt about it, and the world's dismay and outrage is proportionate, to say the least. But this is exactly what Iraqis suffer almost every day for the past two and half years. Only there is no such outrage about it.

Our prayers for the victims of these acts of terror and for their families. And our continuous prayers for the Iraqis whose pain is much less lamented, even by their so-called Arab brothers.

2005-07-07T01:38:00.000-07:00

Anatomy Of A Neocon Smear, by my good friend, Bill Beeman:

American neoconservatives were clearly not to be deprived of their cherished canard that the "mullahs were manipulating the election." Certain that Ahmadinejad's rival, former president Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, would win, they first denounced his comeback as "due not to popular demand, but to machinations of mullahs," as Danielle Pletka asserted in The New York Times on June 16, before the final voting. Once Ahmadinejad had been declared the surprise victor, the neoconservatives began to denounce him as the candidate of religious leader Ali Khamene'i, claiming that the election was fixed by the clerical establishment. Clearly, the election was to be demonized, whoever won...

2005-07-06T00:19:00.000-07:00

My article on the status of Iraqi universities (Arabic text).

2005-07-04T18:49:00.000-07:00

Happy July 4th.

2005-06-30T01:01:00.000-07:00

"With the Aug. 15 deadline for writing a new constitution bearing down, a cadre of powerful, mostly secular Shiite politicians is pushing for the creation of an autonomous region in the oil-rich south of Iraq, posing a direct challenge to the nation's central authority."

I'm all for it. What is good for the Kurds should be good for the people of Basra. Fifty years of drinking contaminated water is more than enough for the region that sits on half of Iraq's oil. Previous governments and the current government have been guilty of ignoring the people of Basra.

Today I was watching the Inspector General in the Ministry of public Services and he said the ministry allocated only 2% of its budget to Basra. Basra is the second largest city in Iraq. This is outrageous. Even if they allocate the money equally among the provinces, Basra will have 5% of the budget. Now we know they must steal 50% of the money before allocation. This still going to leave Basra with 2.5% of the budget. How did it end up with 2% is beyond me.

2005-06-30T00:41:00.000-07:00

Full text: George Bush's Iraq speech at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as provided by the White House.

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

But this editorial writer disagrees:

"Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq."

Well, this is the bad thing about wars. You can time when to engage in one and how, but once this happens, others take it from there. It is unfair to ask how this will end and who will win -- especially when "win" does not necessarily mean a military victory. All we can do at this point is hope for the best and keep praying.

2005-06-27T01:56:00.000-07:00

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld promised Iraq 12 years of insurgency. That time goes for the presence of American troops there as well.

2005-06-17T15:45:00.000-07:00

Senator Dick Durbin's statement on the floor made him number one target of the torture-supporting crowd.

Here is the part that angered many people:

"When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

2005-06-15T01:04:00.000-07:00

My interview with SF Gate:

You teach students in the United States about Islamic ethics and the Quran. How well do you think Americans understand Islam today?

I would say that the average American is more informed about Islam now than prior to 9/11. Before 9/11, most Americans were either completely ignorant or misinformed. But there's been a lot of learning since then.

Still, what would you say are the biggest misconceptions?

Many Americans still think of Islam and terrorism as one and the same thing. This is a big problem. I mean, there are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. If all of them are terrorists, the world is doomed, right? There are a certain number of Muslims who are taking their violent agenda and giving it a mask that is Islamic, but this is not what Islam is. I defy anyone to bring me one verse in the Quran that advocates violence. The Quran talks about fighting and other things, but always in self-defense, and even the verses that mention fighting say that peace is the way to go.

Some critics have faulted Muslim leaders for not speaking out against violence conducted in the name of Islam. What do you think?

Muslims have been speaking out against violence all along. The fact that some people are not listening is not their fault. If you go to the majority of Muslim mosques in the world today you will see people calling for peace and denouncing violence. You will hear that same message at conferences in the Muslim world. This isn't surprising when you consider that the people who are paying most heavily for terrorism are Muslims. If you look at the people who have died in Iraq, it's mostly Muslims, by a ratio of 10 to 1. So, it's in the best interest of Muslim people to denounce violence, and they are advocating against it -- writing books, writing articles. I'm only one of hundreds, if not thousands, of Muslims who are using their voices to do that.

When you were living in Iraq, you fought to overturn Saddam Hussein's regime during the popular uprising of 1991. However, you opposed the recent U.S. invasion. Why?

I anticipated chaos, and it happened. I mean, they [the Bush administration] have been wrong in everything they have done there. And when things have worked well, it hasn't been because of them; it is despite their plans. There is no nice way to run an occupation. The moment you occupy a country, you have killing, torture and violations of international law. The last two years have been very, very bad for Iraqis. For every good day, there are about two months of chaos and horror.

What do you think is going to happen in Iraq? Do you think the country will eventually stabilize itself?

Yes. Iraqis have done very well in handling themselves with adversity. They have gotten their country back much faster than was planned. The original plans were to have a military ruler of Iraq for five years. Iraqis got a government within a year and a half. People are already being sent to jail for corruption and theft. Terrorists are being captured. So Iraqis, if they are left to their own devices, they will do very well. And if there is any trouble, I think it will be because of the interference of people who are trying to pass a different agenda.

What role do you think Islam should play in building the new Iraq?

More than 95 percent of Iraqis are Muslim. These aren't just Muslims; they are practicing Muslims. In a population with that kind of majority, the religion has to be factored in future plans. It's important to remember that whatever small success has occurred in Iraq so far has been the result of people using Islam as a positive force. The elections were not an American idea; they were the idea of [leading cleric] Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, who insisted on them. He also has been using his leverage to denounce violence. After the collapse of the regime, there was a wave of looting, and it was the mosques that called for people to return what was looted, and the majority of the things were brought back to the mosque. The mosque has been the only institution in Iraq really functioning in a positive way.

What about the fear that Iraq will become a theocracy, like Iran? Are you concerned about that?

This is not going to....

2005-06-13T02:42:00.000-07:00

"I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel that we've done about as much as we can do," said Rep. Walter Jones, who coined the phrase "freedom fries" to lash out at the French for opposing the Iraq invasion.

It seems that he is about to coin the phrase "freedom flight."

2005-06-11T23:34:00.000-07:00

Al-Hayat -- a London-based Saudi-funded paper -- could not find anyone in Iraq to report on his misery. So the reporter had to go to Saddam's home village to tell the world about the hard economic situation in the mother of all monsters (Arabic text).

2005-06-11T23:31:00.000-07:00

Abbas, you wrote:

"'Bush holds up Turkey democracy as example.'

This is because he has no clue how it works in Turkey. It is not a democracy; it is a state run by the military. Unelected generals have full oversight on what laws get passed."

Maybe Bush knows more about Turkey than you think. Your description actually sounds exactly like his concept of democracy.

Cheers

John C.

OK John, I stand corrected.

2005-06-09T00:05:00.000-07:00

"Bush holds up Turkey democracy as example."

This is because he has no clue how it works in Turkey. It is not a democracy; it is a state run by the military. Unelected generals have full oversight on what laws get passed.

If Turkey is to serve as an example for democracy, it would be example of what not to do.

2005-06-08T23:56:00.000-07:00

"A group of American security guards in Iraq have alleged they were beaten, stripped and threatened with a snarling dog by US marines when they were detained after an alleged shooting incident outside Falluja last month.
'I never in my career have treated anybody so inhumane,' one of the contractors, Rick Blanchard, a former Florida state trooper, wrote in an email quoted in the Los Angeles Times. 'They treated us like insurgents, roughed us up, took photos, hazed [bullied] us, called us names.'" ...s.a.d..m.u.s.i.c.!!!

2005-06-08T23:41:00.000-07:00

Iraq is in the process of putting a stop to Australian junk exports. You get real money to send real flour. One sign that thieves are no longer the only decision-makers.

"The new government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, which said it wants to curb graft in the system, is requiring the approval of a Cabinet-level committee for all big ticket contracts, including three million tonnes of mostly Australian wheat a year."

2005-06-03T00:04:00.000-07:00

A comment from Shirin:

"Hi Abbas,

Zarqawi is not only superman who can travel the entire width of Iraq with one leg and a chest split open by shrapnel, and without being "captured or killed" (or even seen), he is apparently able to charm the Iranians into believing that he is only kidding when he says Shi`a Islam and all its adherents should be erased from the earth, and that he really loves the Shi`is like his brothers."

2005-06-02T23:52:00.000-07:00

A federal judge has ordered the US Army to release more than 100 photographs and several videos taken by an American soldier relating to detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, court documents say.

2005-05-30T23:48:00.000-07:00

Anti-Corruption Committee issued arrest warrants for seven ministers from the Allawi government The Ministers of Labor, Environment, Transportation, Housing, Interior, Health, and electricity.

2005-05-29T01:55:00.000-07:00

My article on the Shi`a of Iraq (Arabic text)

2005-05-29T01:26:00.000-07:00

OK, we must admit now that Zarqawi is more skillful than any movie character we've seen. With a "Shrapnel [that] went in between the right shoulder and his chest, ripped it open and is still stuck there," he elected not to go to Syria, which is a few miles away from where he was allegedly hit, but insisted on going to Iran, according to this article. This way he crossed Iraq from west to east (about 350 miles) passing through American and Iraqi forces in 4 cities, including Baghdad, without being detected.

2005-05-29T01:19:00.000-07:00

Some Gold Star mothers are more equal than others.

2005-05-27T12:17:00.000-07:00

"Iraq announced on Thursday it will deploy 40,000 police and soldiers in the capital, ringing it with hundreds of checkpoints 'like a bracelet' in the largest show of Iraqi force since the fall of Saddam Hussein."

It is absolutely necessary to make the entire security operation purely Iraqi. Given wide authority, Iraqi forces can do the job much better than the foreign forces.

Also, in recend weeks, the government announced the capture of the criminals andf terrorists who are involved in specific acts, unlike the Allawi government, which operated in a Saddam-like fashion. I was very impressed by the tone of the Minister of Defense (Sunni) and the Minister of Interior (shi`i) in their joint conference. This is the best evidence that the sectarian identity of the person in charge cannot stand in the way of serving his country, so long as there are institutional and public checks. If these two succeed (it seems that they will), then sectarian quota will lose its importance and Iraqis will gradually find out the virtue of citizenship as a test for public service.

2005-05-27T12:15:00.000-07:00

It seems that Crown Prince Abdullah bin `Abd al-`Aziz is on his way to being the official king of Saudi Arabia. He has been the de facto king for the past 10 years.

2005-05-22T18:33:00.000-07:00

Among other things,
this article (Arabic text) reports the first death penalty sentence against three convicted terrorists. The sentence is to be administered within 10 days.

Also, the U.S. is planning to keep 4 bases in Iraq (cost = $82 billion) instead of 14. They currently have 106 bases according to the article. I personally think that there should not be even one long term base. Otherwise, the experience with the British base on Habbaniyya (until 1958) will likely be repeated.

2005-05-22T12:25:00.000-07:00

A Comment from John C.

"Abbas-

I am sad to see you write things like this: 'By the way, this is the one prisoner I don't care what is done to him or how. The worse it gets for him the better it is for everyone else.' Can't you see that this is the trap door through which civilization has repeatedly fallen? This is the logic of Guantanamo.
You can do better."

The people in Guantanamo are suspects. Some of them were released, which is an admission that at least there is no evidence against them. If evidence is presented against anyone in Guantanamo that he was engaged in terrorism, then I will have no problem how they are going to be punished. Once a person engages in acts of terror against innocent people, he gives up any right to respect or good treatment. But until they are tried and convicted in a court of law, they should receive humane treatment (this is also the declared position of the U.S. government).

None of the people in Guantanamo, to my knowledge, has publicly done what Saddam did in the last 35 years. If there is such a person, then the U.S. government is not doing its duty by not trying him and giving him the punishment he deserves.

Talking about rights for someone like Saddam or Bin Laden in the name of civilization is a slap in the face to civilization itself. The only right they have is the right to an immediate punishment. It is not part of civilization, as I understand it, to give similar rights to a suspect and to a murderous tyrant or a confessing terrorist who is proud of himself. The suspect is given rights because he might turn out to be innocent. This is not the case for Saddam or Bin Laden. They broke the contract with the rest of humanity.

But we might agree on this: those who are guarding his jail and used their position to take the pictures and -- probably -- sold them to The Sun proved that they have no better morality than his. But when I see a race to the bottom, I don't support either side, certainly not Saddam.

Another Comment from Tom:

" 'By the way, this is the one prisoner I don't care what is done to him or
how. The worse it gets for him the better it is for everyone else.'

You of all people should not be condoning war crimes.
You could lose any hope of your nomination to higher office, if ever
nominated to one, of getting confirmed.

Just writing to say hi, you know so I don't lose the habit.
Why are your comment pages still closed?
I mean with the resent announcement that they are reducing the summer
language programs, you should have all the time.."

Hi Tom,
I am not and I will never want to hold any office. So this is not going to be an issue.
Concerning the comment section, it became a forum for hateful people to engage in loathsome discourse. I am looking for a way to replace it with something more effective.
As to teaching Arabic, I am not doing this at the present time. I am engaged in full time research and writing. So time is still in short supply for me.

2005-05-20T18:02:00.000-07:00

Saddam underwear photo angers US:

But he has always been in U.S. custody. This means that it must be an American who took the photos and gave them to papers. Why is the U.S. mad at those who published them. It seems to be a case of misplaced anger.

By the way, this is the one prisoner I don't care what is done to him or how. The worse it gets for him the better it is for everyone else.

2005-05-20T12:10:00.000-07:00

"The head of Iraq's largest Christian community has denounced American evangelical missionaries in his country for what he said were attempts to convert poor Muslims by flashing money and smart cars."

I normally don't link to al-Jazeera. But this story is talked about all over Iraq. Al-Jazeera is as good a source as anything else.

2005-05-19T18:10:00.000-07:00

From My new article:

The Iraqi government must demonstrate a clean break with the past and begin an era in which the rule of law can prevail. Reporting astronomical numbers of arrests will neither charm the people nor deter criminals. This can only be achieved by trying those arrested in a court of law and punishing the convicts proportionately. The Iraqi judiciary must be activated immediately and it should get full support from the government and enjoy equal status to other government branches. It must also be completely independent and free from politics and corruption.

The current situation of Iraqi prisons is very disturbing. In many cases, people are arrested for various reasons and then arbitrarily released. An individual or a group of detainees may be released through bribery, connections or a bargain with his tribe or party. This frivolous manner of handling legitimate jail sentences should not occur in any instance. The lengthy detention system also deprives innocent people of their liberty for no legitimate reasons...

2005-05-18T18:58:00.000-07:00

Report: Muslim World Largely Anti-American.

That's odd! The U.S. government just hired a whole bunch of people, including one Egyptian lady, to achieve higher approval ratings in the Muslim World. Maybe there is another way to do that and the government is not willing to explore what that way might be?!

The article has many disturbing news, including that a terrorist and a thug like Bin Laden is admired by certain Muslims. I bet it is not out of love for him. Rather, it is a result of the resentment to U.S. policies. If these policies remain in place, Bin Laden and his ilk will have the best time they can ever wish for.

2005-05-18T18:45:00.000-07:00

The so-called Muslim Scholars Association called on the ministers of defense and interior to resign. I think that the so-called Muslim Scholars Association should resign. They are nothing but a front for the Wahhabi cult that infiltrated Iraq with money and terrorism.

Harith al-Dhari and his son, Muthanna, have brought shame on the good name of Shaykh Dhari, one of the heroes of the 1920 Revolution.

2005-05-18T18:34:00.000-07:00

"Despite a growing demand for Arabic translators in the United States, UC Berkeley officials said budget problems will force the university to cut introductory Arabic enrollment and turn away scores of students who want to learn the language in the fall."

I taught in the Arabic program every semester from Summer 2001 to Summer 2004. It is one of the best, and most demanding, programs in the U.S. It is a shame that students are being turned away now because of budget consuderations.

2005-05-16T22:48:00.000-07:00

"A military jury convicted a soldier Monday on all but one of the seven charges she faced for her role in the abuse of inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

A panel of four Army officers and four senior enlisted soldiers convicted the soldier, Specialist Sabrina Harman, on one count of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of dereliction of duty.

The defendant...was acquitted on one maltreatment count. Her sentencing hearing was scheduled to begin Tuesday. She faces a maximum of five and a half years in a military prison."

2005-05-16T19:03:00.000-07:00

From an interview late April, but was published today:

U.S.-funded broadcast networks, particularly Radio Sawa and Alhurra satellite television network, which target the Iraqi audience, have gotten mixed reviews from critics, but experts say it's the message, not the messenger, that's important. Those messages are contained in U.S. policies that have driven a wedge between Arab and American relations.

"A lot of this is symbolism; it's putting a face-lift on things. It doesn't work anymore to try and fool people and cover up policies," said Abbas Kadhim, an Islamic scholar with the University of California-Berkeley Graduate Theological Union. "You can hire anyone to tell the Arabs and Muslims what you want to tell them."

2005-05-16T10:44:00.000-07:00

"I demand several things, including punishing Saddam and calling on the Iraqi government, religious movements and political factions to work hard to kick out the occupier...I want the immediate withdrawal of the occupation forces," said Moqtada al-Sadr, in his first press conference since last summer.

As much as I dislike him, I must say that he's got a good point. The trial and punishment of Saddam is two years over-due. This war-criminal is receiving protection even innocent Iraqis don't enjoy. This is a shame and a scandal.

Also, it is overdue that a date is set for the foreign forces to leave. When this happens, people in charge will have to be creative in finding ways to make it work. Now, they are not under any pressure to do anything meaningful to make leaving Iraq a possibility. Indeed, all indicators show the opposite -- the plan is to hang around.

Continued presence of the U.S. and Britain in Iraq for an indefinite period is not good for Iraq and it is surely not good for the U.S.

2005-05-15T12:00:00.000-07:00

My good friend Omayma Abdel-Latif "looks into a long-troubled relationship [between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian government, which is] on the brink of a major confrontation over reform":

"There are growing fears, however, that the first victims of the escalation will be none other than the nascent reform movement itself. In fact, some interpret the Brotherhood's moves as an attempt to hijack the newly founded reform movement, and claim the street for itself. Wahid Abdel- Meguid of Al-Ahram's Centre for Strategic Studies said the group's actions were a reflection of what he described as 'a sense of exaggerated power' that drives the aloof manner in which the Brotherhood deals with other political forces."

2005-05-15T11:45:00.000-07:00

Liminal asks:

"Dear Abbas,

I was wondering why you've become accepting of Chalabi. Maybe you can clarify for me your opinion of him. Because I don't really understand. Please tell me a couple of things. 1) What has Chalabi done that is good... 2) Why does he deserve to lead Iraq..."

Actually I have not changed at all about Chalabi. I still think that he is bad news. His partnership with the United Iraqi Alliance does not mean that he has become a good guy. It is a smart move on his part to ride the correct wave to power, and it worked fabulously well for him.

My comment on Saturday was made in an objective way. He was convicted of taking the money and fleeing Jordan. If this is true, why should he accept a pardon and give the $millions back? The conviction did not hurt him and the pardon would not make his life any better -- at least not better enough to sacrifice millions of dollars. You might say, "He should do it because this is the right thing to do." But is he into this kind of stuff?

If the accusations are false, he also should not accept a pardon, because by accepting a pardon he would admit guilt. He has maintained all along that he is innocent.

As to Jordan, this pardon business is a way to get some cash. They have sold everything they have, or don't have, for cash. So why shouldn't they sell pardons.

Finally, there is one thing I am in agreement with Chalabi about: Iraq should make every Ba`athist pay for every moment of suffering they caused for the millions of Iraqis. No Ba`athist and no Saddam official should exist within 1 mile from any government building. Two exception I would make, however: courts and prisons.

2005-05-14T18:50:00.000-07:00

Chalabi would not accept pardon from Jordan.

Why should he? To be able to travel to Jordan?!

2005-05-14T16:03:00.000-07:00

"OUSTED dictator Saddam Hussein has decided to write his memoirs from the Iraqi jail where he is awaiting trial for more than 20 years of abuses.
Saddam had decided in recent weeks to start writing about his childhood in Iraq, his early exile to Egypt and his military adventures in Iran and Kuwait, Giovanni di Stefano, a member of his legal team, told the Financial Times.
He would try to embarrass the great powers that once saw him as a useful buffer against the expansionist ambitions of Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution, Mr di Stefano was quoted as saying."

Well, interested historians might suggest that his trial is delayed until he finishes his memoirs. This reminds me of a line from a film by comedian Adil Imam wherein he is asked about his last wish before execution. He replied: "I want to learn German."

But who knows! Maybe this will give incentive to Rumsfeld et al. to speed up his trial before he gets to the part where they come in.

2005-05-13T21:01:00.000-07:00

Mental torture is not a joke. Indeed, my 18 months in a Saudi Arabia detention camp (they called it refugee camp) taught me that mental torture is worse than physical torture. I was subjected to both while a "guest" in the wonderful Kingdom of Khadim al-Haramayn.

Notice that the article says he "was allegedly forced to stand on a box with wires in his hands and told..."

It almost want to say that probably he was willingly participating in the torture game. Way to minimize the guilt, if any is ever felt.

"Defence attorney Frank Spinner told the jury of four army officers and four senior enlisted soldiers he would present evidence that 'it was a joking type of thing, and that Gilligan was in on the joke and that this was simply a matter of sleep deprivation'".

I would love to see this lawyer argue a case of pain and suffering for someone whose neighbor worked on his lawn at 6:59 a.m.

2005-05-12T11:32:00.000-07:00

It has been a few weeks since I published anything. Here is my new article in the Arab Reform Bulletin, a Carnegie Endowment publication.

"Decades of oppression on the basis of an ascriptive identity have served to blur the line between the religious and the profane. The realm of secular Shi`i identity is shrinking continuously, while the realm of political religiosity is expanding. If secularism is unable to sustain itself, then it must give way to a form of politics more closely informed by religion. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as learned Shi`i religiosity continues to prevail over ignorant fanaticism...."

Also reprinted in The Daily Star and Kurdish Media.

p.s. The article includes the terms "Shiite" and "Shiites" which were chosen by the publisher over my correct terms "Shi`i" and "Shi`a".

2005-05-11T01:05:00.000-07:00

The mandatory carpool plan in Tikrit does not sem to work:

"In the deadliest attack, a suicide car bomber blew up his vehicle in Tikrit among a crowd of mainly Shi'ite migrant workers from southern Iraq who had gathered to try to find work on construction sites. Police said at least 27 people were killed and more than 60 wounded in the blast."

2005-05-11T00:28:00.000-07:00

Jordan is confiscating books left and right. In this insignificant country, you have all the freedom of speech to praise the paper king. But they will cut your tongue if you criticize his British accent when he speaks 'Arabic'.

I remember a conversation with a major publisher in Amman. He told me about some unbelievable stories from his dealing with the office of censorship. "They never hire educated people in that office, because educated people appreciate courageous thought. That is why they hire semi-illiterate people who fish for a list of words to flag them and ban the book if such words are found," he told me.

Jordan will not be criticized for this by Washington, and will still receive the usual tons oof money every year.

2005-05-10T23:46:00.000-07:00

"Insurgents have kidnapped the top official in Iraq's rebellious Anbar province as US forces continued an offensive launched three days ago against rebels in an unspecified area of the province.

Raja Nawaf, who only became governor of Anbar a few days ago, was abducted with four bodyguards on the road from the town of Qaim, near the Syrian border, to the rebel stronghold of Ramadi, his brother, Hamed Nawaf, told Reuters."

2005-05-09T21:01:00.000-07:00

Guardians Council says abortion of children in limited cases is against Islamic law.

President Bush would probably love to have these guys occupy seats in U.S. House and Senate.

2005-05-09T20:38:00.000-07:00

The U.S. military's Jerry Springer Show.

One difference: you don't hear from the victims.

2005-05-09T20:22:00.000-07:00

You cannot drive a car by yourself! This is what the people of Tikrit are told these days. It is a measure to reduce the possibility of having car bombs driven into crowded places.

I am still having hard time imagining anyone telling a man in Tikrit what not to do. Their cars used to be exempt from stopping at checkpoints.

2005-05-09T19:32:00.000-07:00

The Islamic Party in Iraq does have a sense of humor. They boycotted the elections and now they want al-Ja`fari to "remove the unfair distribution of government positions."

I have a better idea for them. There is an election in December. They should prepare from now and ask their constituents to participate and they should run for office. This is how the distribution of government posts should be made.

Six ministries, one vice president, one deputy prime minister and the speaker of the Assembly is not bad after having 6% of the vote. They must be happy that Iraq is not a true democracy yet.

2005-05-09T19:21:00.000-07:00

There is a world's difference between the disposed of minister of interior, Falah al-Naqib, and the new minister, Bayan Jabr. That is why the terrorists and their supporters did not want him in this position. They even said he was an Iranian, like Saddam used to call all the people of the South.

2005-05-09T19:08:00.000-07:00

Everyone is trying to get the advantage of Iraqis, but the Australians have been the most immoral, until now. After sending Iraq contaminated meat a year ago, as reported in the media, now they have sold several cargoes of...wheat contaminated with iron ore," according to Iraqi officials.

Even when such contaminated food gets detected, the damage is already done, because it takes time to replace it, leaving Iraqis with severe shortage, as it is already happening in Karbala.

I'd say, send it back and cancel all the contracts. Iraq needs to go back to the old strict rules on imported goods and to hell with Bremer's "free trade" policies. It is already reported that more than 5000 kinds of imported goods came to Iraq with serious defects, many of these where food-related. We'll see what the anti-corruption commission will say after reviewing all the criminal behavior of Allawi and his cronies.

2005-05-07T22:49:00.000-07:00

"Wagdan was 6 that hot day on April 3, 2003, when she was caught in crossfire between Iraqi insurgents and U.S. military. She was on her way to the outdoor toilets near her home in Samawah City, Iraq, about four hours south of Baghdad." (thanks Susan)

2005-05-07T22:29:00.000-07:00

The Ja`fari government issued an order preventing Allawi ministers from travel. (Arabic text)

Let's hope that some theives get their punishment.

2005-05-07T21:12:00.000-07:00

It seems that Saadoun al-Dulaimi is going to be the defense minister. Oil will go to Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum.

2005-05-07T21:08:00.000-07:00

"Fernando Botero, Latin America's best-known living artist, shocked the art world last year when he broke sharply from his usual depictions of small town life to reveal new works that depicted Colombia's war in horrific detail.

Now, Mr. Botero, 73, who lives in Paris and New York, has taken on an even more explosive topic: the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Forty-eight paintings and sketches - of naked prisoners attacked by dogs, dangling from ropes, beaten by guards, in a mangled heap of bodies - will be exhibited in Rome at the Palazzo Venezia museum on June 16."

2005-05-06T01:46:00.000-07:00

British voters decided to stay with the devil the know, so-to-speak.

Despite winning a historic third term, Blair's party took a big hit in the number of seats compared with the last elections, according to initial results.

The funny thing is that Radio talking heads were spinning all day long, saying that voters did not mind Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq.

False! The voters did not vote Blair out because his Conservative opponents are more sanguine in their support for the war than Blair could ever be, and the party that is against the war was promising to tax voters to the bone if they were elected.

2005-05-05T01:27:00.000-07:00

While Iraqis are starving and lacking medicine and other necessities of decent living, here is how Iraqi $billions are being stolen in broad daylight.

2005-05-05T00:42:00.000-07:00

Terrorism continues in Iraq.

It seems that all parties involved (Iraqis and foreign) have surrendered to this situation considering it the normal state of affairs. What a shame!

2005-05-04T18:00:00.000-07:00

"Pentagon Analyst Accused of Disclosing Secrets...to two employees of a pro-Israel lobbying group."

2005-05-04T17:41:00.000-07:00

"It is a simple equation - no information equals no money."

But when it comes to Homeland Security, it should not be reduced to this level of simplicity. No information should equal hearings and people being held accountable. That is what Congressional oversight means.

2005-05-04T15:01:00.000-07:00

"A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, saying he was not convinced the Army reservist who appeared in some of the most notorious photos in the scandal knew her actions were wrong at the time."

OK, so I was naive when I hoped a couple of days ago that this judge would have a better sense of what decency is, than the lawyers. It seems that he does not have any sense at all, because any first grade child should know that what this female soldier did was wrong.

2005-05-04T14:37:00.000-07:00

A tragic terrorist act hit the beautiful city of Arbil (Hawlear in Kurdish), in the North.

"At least 50 people have been killed and up to 150 wounded in a suicide bombing at a police recruitment centre."

I hope that this tragedy sends a wake-up call to the two Kurdish parties to remind them that they are in the same boat as the rest of Iraq. Most of their arrogant actions in the past month have been inspired by the relative security they enjoy in comparison to other parts of the country. They forget that the plague of terrorism does not spare anyone, and the best way to combat it is to have a stable and really sovereign government as soon as possible. Like all Iraqis, they cannot afford slow motion, even if it means long term gains for their nationalist agenda.

My heart goes to the people of Arbil, which is a fabulous city. I will always remember the numerous weekends I spent there during my five years in Musol.

2005-05-03T22:36:00.000-07:00

U.S. military report: Wars straining U.S. power

That's what wars do; they strain any power, not just the U.S.

2005-05-03T21:54:00.000-07:00

"Iraq swore in its new government on Tuesday, but five ministries and two deputy prime minister posts were left unfilled, highlighting the severe difficulties faced in forming a united leadership."

Part of the problem is that the Shi`a can't agree on a candidate for the Ministry of Oil, leaving Chalabi in charge for the time being!

On the other side, the Sunnis insist on presenting the most rotten Ba`athists and former Saddam officials to be ministers, most of whom are likely to face trials soon. They leave out many honorable Sunnis who deserve the jobs. I am sure that they will finally give up and withdraw these names as they did with Mesh`an al-Jubouri's candidacy in the National Assembly.

Neither the Kurds nor the Shi`a will trust a Ba`athist in the Ministry of Defense, for example, nor should they. They already tried a Shi`i Ba`athist in the job (al-Sha`lan) and the result was catastrophic. So, it is not a Shi`i - Sunni thing; rather, it is about getting the Ba`athists out of power until the dust clears, at least.

2005-05-02T00:29:00.000-07:00

"A US military inquiry has admitted flaws in the way American troops man checkpoints in Baghdad and recommended a 'comprehensive overview' of procedures."

"Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini said Italy would hand down its own version of events today. 'I believe that in homage to the memory of Nicola Calipari, but also for the indispensable national dignity, the Italian Government cannot be asked to sign off on a reconstruction of the events that does not correspond to what happened that night,' he said."

As usual, the truth may lie between the two versions.

2005-05-01T22:25:00.000-07:00

From The Grand Irish, Mark:

"Hi Abbas I hope you're well. I'm working my little whatever comes to mind :-) on a set of articles about Islamic activists in which I point out that saying 'political' is definitely not the same as 'fundamentalist' or 'jihadist'.

I came across something truly shocking in this story about a 'whistleblower' re: Custer Battles the mercenaries, oops sorry the 'contractors' currently being investigated for overcharging in Iraq. Here's the quote:

'He had come to Iraq to help rebuild the devastated country, accompanied by his 14-year-old son, Bobby.'

Ummm the USA does still have child protection laws doesn't it? A former cop and FBI agent brings a 14 year old child into a battle zone? How come he and his employers both aren't being done for reckless endangerment of a minor?"

I don't know, Mark, but Iraq is not a place for a 14-year-old to go for the ride. The man maybe a single parent who had no place to leave his son. I don't know if U.S. laws apply to Americans in Iraq. We know that Paul Bremer (remember him?) made sure that Iraq has as 'many'laws as Mars does, as far as non-Iraqis are concerned.

2005-04-29T23:37:00.000-07:00

"One count of committing indecent acts ... will be dismissed."

Silly! She was photographed in her military uniform admiring the private parts of naked male prisones. I don't know how one can say this is not indecent. Maybe the U.S. military has a different concept of decency, as the Pentagon and the White House have their own concept of torture.

Let's hope that Army judge Col. James Pohl has a better understanding of decency than the lawyers on both sides.

2005-04-28T13:48:00.000-07:00

The new Iraqi government:

1. Prime minister: Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Shi`i Arab

2. Deputy prime minister: Rowsch Shaways, Kurd

3. Deputy prime minister: Ahmed Chalabi, Shi`i Arab

4. Deputy prime minister posts: unfilled.

5. Deputy prime minister posts: unfilled.

Shi`a

1. Interior minister: Bayan (Baqir) Jabr

2. Construction and housing minister: Jassim Ja`far

3. Finance minister: Ali Allawi

4. Education minister: Abdul Falah Hassan

5. Higher education minister: Sami al-Mudhaffar (the best choice ever)

6. Health minister: Abdul Mottalib Ali

7. Agriculture minister: Ali al-Bahadli (excellent choice)

8. Justice minister: Abdul Hussein Shandal

9. Minister of transport: Salam al-Maliki

10. Migration and displacement minister: Suhaila Jaafar (female)

11. Minister of state for national security: Abdul Karim al-Inizy

12. Minister of state for civil society: Ala` Kadhim (not related to me)

13. Minister of state for archaeology: Hashim al-Hashimi

14. Minister of state for National Assembly affairs: Safa' al-Safi

Kurds

1. Foreign minister: Hoshyar Zebari

2. Planning and development cooperation minister: Barham Salih

3. Communications minister: Jwan Maasoum (female)

4. Labor and social affairs minister: Idris Hadi

5. Water resources minister: Abdul Latif Rashid

6. Municipalities and public works minister: Nasreen Berwari (female)

7. Environmental minister, Narmin Othman (female)

Sunni Arabs

1. Trade minister: Abdul Bassit Mawloud

3. Culture minister: Nouri Farhan al-Rawi

4. Minister of state for women affairs: Azhar al-Sheikhli (female)

5. Minister of state for provinces affairs: Saad al-Hardan

Christian

1. Science and technology minister: Bassima Boutros (female)

Turkmen

1. Youth and sports minister: Talib Aziz Zayni

Acting Ministers:

1. Acting defense minister: Ibrahim al-Jaafari (will go to a Sunni)

2. Acting electricity minister: Rowsch Shaways (will go to a Shi`i)

3. Acting oil minister: Ahmed Chalabi (will go to a Shi`i)

4. Acting human rights minister: Narmin Othman (was a Kurd)

5. Acting industry and minerals minister: Muslih al-Jubburi (will go to a Sunni)

2005-04-26T22:47:00.000-07:00

It seems that the new government will see light very soon.

It will be the largest in Iraqi history, because they had to create too many ministries to accommodate Iraq's 290 factions -- and to hell with the election results. If you have a gun and the will to use it, you are a minister.

They even had three deputies for the prime minister. All of this for a government that is supposed to last for 5 months.

2005-04-26T01:20:00.000-07:00

First Afghan (female) governor, first Afghan (female) hairdresser, first Afghan (female) taxi driver, first Iraqi (female) cheeseburger maker...

And the list of Guinness [Afghanistan and Iraq] Records continues!

2005-04-26T00:40:00.000-07:00

"US investigators have found that American troops who shot dead an Italian agent at a Baghdad checkpoint on March 4 committed no wrongdoing and will not be disciplined, an Army official said.
Italy disagrees."

Abbas Kadhim *Calling It Like It Is*

Abbas Kadhim Calling It Like It Is