10-11 July  2004

Anti-Occupation Forces Reject National Congress
Juan Cole
Informed Comment, 11 July 2004
EXCERPT: A National Congress of 1,000 notables will be held for 3 days later in July. It will elect an advisory body of 100, which will have a veto power over some decisions of Prime Minister Allawi. This weak, Duma-like council was proposed by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi as a means of involving a wide spectrum of the Iraqi political forces in the transitional government. Ash-Sharq al-Awsat reports that some significant political figures and forces have announced that they will boycott the congress, holding that it is an institution of the on-going Occupation. They say they will run for office when Iraq is truly independent. Among the rejectionists are Muqtada al-Sadr and many members of his movement, which is important in East Baghdad's slums. Another Shiite cleric, Muhammad al-Khalisi, has also refused to be involved. Likewise Jawad al-Sari, leader of the Arab National Party, and the prominent political scientist at Baghdad University, Wamidh Nadhmi.

War unnecessary because Iraq was clearly in a downward spiral...
Panel Describes Long Weakening of Hussein Army
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
New York Times, 11 July 2004
EXCERPT: The Senate's report on prewar intelligence about Iraq, which asserts that warnings about its illicit weapons were largely unfounded and that its ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous, also undermines another justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein's military posed a threat to regional stability and American interests. In a detailed discussion of Iraq's prewar military posture, the report cites a long series of intelligence reports in the decade before the war that described a formerly potent army's spiral of decay under the weight of economic sanctions and American military pressure.

Bush Supports Martial Law in Iraq
Mark Rothschild
The Progressive, 8 July 2004
EXCERPT: All right, it's come to pass, but where's the outrage about the newly minted martial law for Iraq? Dr. Allawi, the veteran CIA man who is now undercover as Iraq's prime minister, wasted no time in office before shredding the final fall-back rationale for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was, as you'll remember, to bring democracy to Baghdad. Well, Dr. Goodwrench has installed a martial law instead. Barely a week into office, Allawi signed a law granting himself extraordinary powers to "restrict the freedoms of citizens or foreigners," to ban groups, to barge into homes, and to hold suspects indefinitely. And guess who will be enforcing martial law? Not the Iraqis. They don't have enough troops. And they aren't reliable, anyway. No, this task will fall to the Americans, who have been essentially performing it already. And Bush and his generals are more than happy to keep handling the job.

CIA Iraq 'Failures' Condemned
Senate Investigators Say Case for War Was Based on Flawed Intelligence
By Greg Miller and Mary Curtius
LA Times, 10 July 2004
EXCERPT: The United States went to war with Iraq on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments that "either overstated or were not supported by" the underlying evidence on Baghdad's weapons programs, according to a scathing report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday. The report documented sweeping and systemic failures at the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies that led to erroneous conclusions that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its efforts to build a nuclear bomb. CIA analysts suffered a case of groupthink that rendered them incapable of considering that Iraq might have dismantled its weapons programs, the report said. Ambiguous intelligence intercepts and satellite photos were treated as compelling evidence of illicit activity. Unable to recruit its own spies in Iraq, the CIA came to depend on dubious accounts from defectors and questionable information from foreign intelligence services. And information that didn't fit the agency's preconceived notions about Iraq was simply discarded. The report amounted to such an indictment of prewar intelligence that lawmakers from both parties questioned whether the invasion would have occurred if information on Iraq's weapons programs had been accurate. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and an ally of the Bush administration, acknowledged that Congress might not have authorized the use of force had it been given correct information.
"I think the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein," Roberts said. But at a minimum, without intelligence indicating Iraq had stockpiles of banned weapons, he said, "I think the war would have been different." Rather than a full-scale invasion, Roberts said, "it would have been on a comparison to, say, Bosnia and Kosovo," where the United States opted to conduct only an air campaign and didn't engage in ground battles or occupation. As in Kosovo, Roberts said, the case for war would have hinged on humanitarian concerns for people brutalized by a repressive regime, not a threat to the United States. Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the vice chairman of the committee, was categorical in comments on the costs of invading a country based on flawed intelligence. "There is simply no question that mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq rank among the most devastating losses and intelligence failures in the history of the nation," Rockefeller said. "The intelligence failure set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come. Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow." With accurate intelligence, Rockefeller said, "we in Congress would not have authorized that war.
SEE ALSO:
Senate Select Intelligence Committee report on the Iraq intelligence failure (NYT)

World Court Says Israel Should Demolish Barrier
The nonbinding ruling calls the West Bank fortification a 'de facto annexation' of land that violates the rights of Palestinians.
By Jeffrey Fleishman and Laura King
LA Times, 10 July 2004
EXCERPT: The International Court of Justice ruled here Friday that Israel's separation barrier in the occupied West Bank violated freedom of movement and should be demolished because it threatened a "de facto annexation" of Palestinian lands for Jewish settlements. The court's nonbinding decision — issued after hearings requested by the United Nations — harshly criticized the massive barrier of trenches, fences and concrete that Israel said was necessary to stop suicide bombers and others from launching attacks. Israel's security concerns, the world court found, do not condone seizing land that restricts the ability of Palestinians to move about and "severely impedes" progress toward their self-determination.

Terrorism:
We've got them right where they want us
By GWYNNE DYER
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8 July 2004
EXCERPT: This is what enables President George W. Bush to explain away why the United States was attacked with the simple phrase, "They hate our freedoms," and avoid any discussion that delves into the impact of American foreign policy in the Middle East on Arab and Muslim attitudes towards the United States. It also blinds most Americans to the nature of the strategic game into which their country has been tricked into playing a role. In fact, the Sept. 11 attacks were not aimed at American values, which are of no interest to the Islamists one way or another. They were an operation broadly intended to raise the profile of the Islamists in the Muslim world with the further specific goal of luring the United States into invading Muslim countries. The true goal of the Islamists is to take power in Muslim countries, and their problem until recently was that they could not win over enough local people to make their revolutions happen. Getting the United States to march into the Muslim world in pursuit of terrorists was a potentially promising stratagem, since such an invasion would produce endless images of American soldiers killing and humiliating Muslims. That, in turn, might push enough people into the arms of the Islamists to get their long-stalled revolutions off the ground. Specifically, the al-Qaida planners expected the United States to invade Afghanistan and get bogged down in the same long counterguerrilla war that the Russians had experienced there, providing years of horrifying images of American firepower killing innocent Muslims. Osama bin Laden and his colleagues were simply trying to relive their past success against the Russians and get some more mileage out of the Afghan scenario. In fact, their plan failed: The United States conquered Afghanistan quickly and at a very low cost in lives. Even now, despite huge American neglect, Afghanistan has not produced a major anti-American resistance movement. The reason al-Qaida is still in business is that the Bush administration then invaded Iraq. If the Islamists were astonished at that turn of events, they still knew how to exploit the opportunity handed to them. So the real game continues while public debate in the United States is conducted in terms that have only the most tangential contact with strategic reality.

9 July  2004

All Unquiet on the Western Front
By Norman Birnbaum
Asia Times, 9 July 2004
EXCERPT: ...many European conservatives find Bush's America repellent. They are often Christians with a sense of social obligation or liberals with a firm belief in civil rights. Forced to choose between an alliance with the US or the inner cohesion of their own societies, they opt for their own continent. (The EU's founders, in the late 1940s and 1950s, were profoundly conservative). When he received Bush in Rome, the Pope told him that he could find no moral justification for the war on Iraq. The imprecations addressed to the Europeans by the ideologues of the Bush regime have confirmed the Europeans' belief that they represent a different civilization. Told that after two wars they are afraid to fight, they respond that they know the moral costs of war - and its frequent political and social destructiveness. Mocked for their alleged appeasement of Islam because of their own Muslim immigrant populations, they reply that a good deal less demonization of Islam and more knowledge of it would greatly improve US policy in much of the world. Attacked because their criticism of Israel supposedly expresses anti-Semitism, they declare that their own memories of the Holocaust do not allow them to encourage Israel on its present path of self-destruction. Above all, they think that their past has taught them how to deal with the rest of the world in a post-imperial mode. That, they think, is something our own nation has yet to learn.

Iraqi Insurgency Far Larger Than Previously Believed, Led by Angry Sunnis
By Jim Krane
AP in Boston Globe, 8 July 2004
EXCERPT: The Iraq insurgency is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at its core, U.S. military officials say, and it's being led by well-armed Iraqi Sunnis angry at being pushed from power alongside Saddam Hussein. Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces to as high as 20,000 -- an estimate reflected in the insurgency's continued strength after U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 in April alone. And some insurgents are highly specialized -- one Baghdad cell, for instance, has two leaders, one assassin, and two groups of bomb-makers. The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state. "We're not at the forefront of a jihadist war here," said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official and others told The Associated Press the guerrillas have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated. ...Civilian analysts generally agreed, saying U.S. and Iraqi officials have long overemphasized the roles of foreign fighters and Muslim extremists. Such positions support the Bush administration's view that the insurgency is linked to the war on terror. A closer examination paints most insurgents as secular Iraqis angry at the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops. "Too much U.S. analysis is fixated on terms like 'jihadist,' just as it almost mindlessly tries to tie everything to (Osama) bin Laden," Cordesman said. "Every public opinion poll in Iraq ... supports the nationalist character of what is happening." ...Analysts learned that ridding Iraq of U.S. troops was the motivator for most insurgents, not the formation of an Islamic state. [BWUSA itlaics]

Revisited
Suddenly Bin Laden's a high priority again...
July Surprise?: Pakistan for Bush
By John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari
The New Republic, 7 July 2004
EXCERPT: ate last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda. This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said. This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar.

Bush and the Muslim Predicament
By Ehsan Ahrari
Asia Times, 7 July 2004
EXCERPT: One of the greatest ironies of these strange times is that US President George W Bush pleaded with America's North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies on June 29 to pull his chestnut out of the fire, and save him from the disastrous outcomes of two failed states over which his administration is currently presiding: Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush knows the chances of his reelection in November depend to some extent on the Iraq situation, which continues to be engulfed in violence. At the same time, the awesome task of rebuilding Afghanistan is running into serious dead ends, and even the involvement of 6,500 NATO forces cannot seem to help. The all-powerful American military has not been able to bring the peace and stability to Iraq or Afghanistan, denying Bush the chance to present them as "trophies" to the American people to help him earn a second term in the White House. Even his diplomatic endeavors could not persuade NATO members at the recent Istanbul summit to commit troops in Iraq - instead they will help with training and equipping local troops.

America's children have been left behind!
Among Hungarian Teens Bush Liked Less than Saddam, Bin Laden
Reuters, 7 July 2004
EXCERPT: President Bush is disliked by more Hungarian secondary school children than former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, according to an opinion poll published on Wednesday. Bush also topped the list of most-liked foreigners with eight percent of the vote, ahead of Pope John Paul with six percent. The survey of 34,000 students, aged 16-18, from 655 high schools showed Adolf Hitler was the most disliked foreign personality with 25 percent of the vote, followed by Bush with 23 percent and Bin Laden with 16 percent. Bush was even more unpopular than former Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, according to the poll.

US Christian Right's Grip on Middle East Policy
By Stephen Zunes
Asia Times, 8 July 2004
EXCERPT: By mobilizing rightist religious leaders and adopting conservative positions on highly charged social issues such as women's rights, abortion, sex education and homosexuality, Republican strategists were able to bring millions of fundamentalist Christians - who as a result of their lower-than-average income were not otherwise inclined to vote Republican - into their party. Through such organizations as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, the Republicans promoted a right-wing political agenda through radio and television broadcasts as well as from the pulpit. Since capturing this pivotal constituency, Republicans have won four out of six presidential races, have dominated the Senate for seven out of 12 sessions, and have controlled the House of Representatives for the past decade. As a result of being politically wooed, those who identify with the religious right are now more likely than the average American to vote and to be politically active. The Christian Right constitutes nearly one out of seven US voters and determines the agenda of the Republican Party in about half of the states, particularly in the South and Midwest. A top Republican staffer noted: "Christian conservatives have proved to be the political base for most Republicans. Many of these guys, especially the leadership, are real believers in this stuff, and so are their constituents."

8 July  2004

Shockingly unexpected???
Falluja Pullout Left Haven of Insurgents, Officials Say
By DEXTER FILKINS
New York Times, 8 July 2004
EXCERPT: American and Iraqi officials say that a decision in April to pull back American forces from Falluja inadvertently created a safe haven for terrorists and insurgents there. But officials are reluctant to send American troops back into the city for fear of touching off another uprising. The officials say they are unsure how to proceed, but agree they merely postponed the problem when the Americans halted an attack in April, brokering a deal to keep Americans out of Falluja and allow local Iraqis to police the city instead. Iraqi and American officials say they would prefer to re-enter the city with a sizable force of Iraqi soldiers, perhaps backed up by Americans. But they concede that an Iraqi force capable of mounting an effective assault on Falluja, a city of 250,000 people, is months or even years away. As a result, the Americans and the new Iraqi government are faced with a growing danger that - as long as they adhere to the agreement to stay out of the city - they are nearly powerless to confront.

U.S. Soldiers Still on Job in Baghdad
By IAN FISHER
New York Times, 8 July 2004
EXCERPT: On paper, the change seemed straightforward enough. After the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis last week, the American military would slowly recede to the background, to be called on as needed as Iraqi soldiers performed more patrols. But here is what it looked like on the ground on Wednesday: ..."Freedom and security for the United States are not easy."
SEE ALSO:
For Iraqis, Patrol Turns Into Combat
By Doug Struck
Washington Post, 8 July 2004
EXCERPT: Members of the new Iraqi National Guard ventured into a tough neighborhood of Baghdad on Wednesday to show that they did not need U.S. troops to keep the peace. Their first test came quickly. Grenades rained down from the roofs of high-rise buildings and automatic gunfire spit at them from every direction, the guardsmen said. "It was a battlefield," said one of the guardsmen, who was shot in the leg. "Even when the Americans came into Baghdad, there wasn't resistance like this."

Pakistan for Bush
July Surprise?
by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari
The New Republic, 7 July 2004
EXCERPT: Late last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

When pigs fly...
U.N. Says Sharon Is Ready to Discuss Nuclear Program
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8 July 2004
EXCERPT:  Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is ready to discuss a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East as part of future peace talks, the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency said Thursday. Mohamed ElBaradei, on a three-day trip to Israel, said Sharon made the commitment during a meeting Thursday in Jerusalem. ``The prime minister affirmed to me that Israeli policy continues to be that in the context of peace in the Middle East, Israel will be looking forward to the establishment of a nuclear-weapons free zone in the Middle East,'' ElBaradei said. Such talks are likely far down the road. ...ElBaradei has suggested that the Israelis should at least consider loosening their ``no-show, no-tell'' policy on their nuclear capabilities as part of any long-term Middle East settlement that would rid the region of such weapons. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which would force it to declare itself a weapons state and curb its nuclear activities. Evidence that Israel has nuclear arms is overwhelming, much of it based on details and pictures leaked in 1986 by Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, as well as research and statements made by Israeli leaders. Israel is believed to be the only country in the region to have nuclear missiles ready to launch. Experts say it may already have as many as 300 warheads as well as the capability of building more quickly. ...Israel has not budged from its stance of neither confirming nor denying it has such weapons...

How Does the Saudi Relationship With the Bush Family Affect U.S. Foreign Policy?
Craig Unger
Slate, 6 July 2004
EXCERPT As far as I'm concerned, the elephant in the living room in American politics is that never before has a president of the United States been tied so closely to a foreign power that harbors and supports our mortal enemies. I'm talking about the Bush family relationship with the Saudis, of course. I believe that insofar as the Saudis have played a key role in fostering Islamist terrorism, Bush is compromised in leading a real war against terror. Don't get me wrong. I understand that we're an oil-dependent nation that has to have a strong relationship with the oil-rich Saudis. But that shouldn't mean we have to give the Saudis a free pass. Bush has done exactly that and continues to—even though he is posing as Mr. Macho Tough Guy Wartime President.

Punishment? Article 15 given the instigators...no jail time.
Iraqi: U.S. Soldiers Laughed at Drowning
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 6 July 2004
EXCERPT: The 19-year-old Iraqi's swimming skills were no match for the Tigris. ``Marwan, save me!'' Zaidoun Fadel Hassoun screamed to his cousin, himself struggling to stay afloat. The teenager drowned; his cousin made it to shore. ``I could hear them laughing,'' Marwan Fadel Hassoun said, recalling how U.S. soldiers pushed the young men into the river. ``They were behaving like they were watching a comedy on stage.'' The U.S. military said last week that three soldiers, now back in their base at Fort Carson, Colo., have been charged with involuntary manslaughter in the Jan. 3 drowning of an Iraqi detainee. A fourth soldier faces charges of pushing a second man, who survived, into the same river. The military identified the victims only as Mr. Fadel and Mr. Fadhil. The four soldiers face between 5 1/2 years and 26 1/2 years in prison if convicted on all charges. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003. Some of them perished in the U.S.-led air and ground campaign. In the 15 months since the fall of Baghdad, many more have died in car bombings, or when caught in the crossfire as American troops battled insurgents or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Emphasis on "officials say"
C.I.A. Held Back Iraqi Arms Data, Officials Say
By JAMES RISEN
New York Times, 6 July 2004
EXCERPT: The Central Intelligence Agency was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the C.I.A. failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials. The existence of a secret prewar C.I.A. operation to debrief relatives of Iraqi scientists -- and the agency's failure to give their statements to the president and other policymakers -- has been uncovered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The panel has been investigating the government's handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq's unconventional weapons and plans to release a wide-ranging report this week on the first phase of its inquiry. The report is expected to contain a scathing indictment of the C.I.A. and its leaders for failing to recognize that the evidence they had collected did not justify their assessment that Mr. Hussein had illicit weapons. C.I.A. officials, saying that only a handful of relatives made claims that the weapons programs were dead, play down the significance of the information collected in the secret debriefing operation. That operation is one of a number of significant disclosures by the Senate investigation. The Senate report, intelligence officials say, concludes that the agency and the rest of the intelligence community did a poor job of collecting information about the status of Iraq's weapons programs, and that analysts at the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did an even worse job of writing reports that accurately reflected the information they had. Among the many problems that contributed to the committee's harsh assessment of the C.I.A.'s prewar performance were instances in which analysts may have misrepresented information, writing reports that distorted evidence in order to bolster their case that Iraq did have chemical, biological and nuclear programs, according to government officials. The Senate found, for example, that an Iraqi defector who supposedly provided evidence of the existence of a biological weapons program had actually said he did not know of any such program.
In another case concerning whether a shipment of aluminum tubes seized on its way to Iraq was evidence that Baghdad was trying to build a nuclear bomb, the Senate panel raised questions about whether the C.I.A. had become an advocate, rather than an objective observer, and selectively sought to prove that the tubes were for a nuclear weapons program.

Officials Detail a Detainee Deal by 3 Countries
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and TIM GOLDEN
New York Times, 4 July 2004
EXCERPT: American officials agreed to return five terrorism suspects to Saudi Arabia from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, last year as part of a secret three-way deal intended to satisfy important allies in the invasion of Iraq, according to senior American and British officials. Under the arrangement, Saudi officials later released five Britons and two others who had been convicted of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, the officials said. British diplomats said they believed that the men had been tortured by Saudi security police officers into confessing falsely. Officials involved in the deliberations said the transfer of the Saudis from Guantánamo initially met with objections from officials at the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. Those officials questioned whether some detainees were too dangerous to send back and whether the United States could trust Saudi promises to keep the men imprisoned.

The folly of thinking 'Saddamists' vice 'nationalists'
Ex-Occupation Aide Sees No Dent in 'Saddamists'
By DAVID E. SANGER
New York Times, 2 July 2004
EXCERPT: More than a year of intensive efforts by the American military and the Central Intelligence Agency to destroy the insurgency in Iraq has failed to reduce the number of ``hard-core Saddamists'' seeking to destroy the interim Iraqi government, a former senior official of the just-dissolved American-led occupation authority said in an interview on Thursday. The senior official, speaking with a small group of reporters near the White House, said he was repeatedly ``disappointed we haven't had better insight into the command and control of the insurgents.'' ...Taken together, the description of the paucity of intelligence still available to the 138,000 American troops in Iraq and the assessment of how few inroads have been made at reducing the insurgency sounded a very different note from the optimistic-sounding messages that President Bush has been sending all week about the prospects of the new Iraqi government.
SEE ALSO:
Saddam and His Trial Irrelevant to Iraqis
Michael Ware on Late Line
ABC Net (Austrailia), 2 July 2004
EXCERPT: Look, to the insurgency, the supposed June 30 transition to Iraqi sovereignty, and this trial of Saddam Hussein, mean absolutely nothing. I mean, this whole Saddam circus the theatre of Saddam is irrelevant to the real dynamic at play now in the war here in Iraq. Even to the Iraqi people. As you well point out, it's only a symbolic value. Saddam no longer impacts on their lives nor the political or military dynamic that's taking place here. The Iraqis themselves, I don't think they care a great deal, certainly not those in the street and those in positions of power who are talking to me. The trial is more for us, or more pointedly for the Bush administration. As far as they're concerned, it's a done deal, as a senior, very senior member of the Iraqi intelligence service said to me yesterday, "His fate is sealed, let's just put him against a wall and put a bullet in his head. Then we televise it". That's the attitude of most Iraqis too, let's just get on with it and go. But to the insurgency, equally, it means nothing. I was with a group of Iraqi Nationalist guerrillas, former military officers fighting the coalition last year when Saddam was captured. I was with them, I saw the impact of the capture as it washed over them, there was a mixed bag of reactions, but to every man they said, "This is a body blow, this hurts but it's emotional. This is not what we're fighting for, we're fighting for Iraq, not for this man." Now these same men are fighting for global jihad, Saddam has nothing to do with that.

New Swell of Insurgent Violence Rolls into Baghdad
By EDWARD WONG
New York Times, 2 July 2004
EXCERPT: A new swell of insurgent violence in Iraq rolled into Baghdad today, as a botched rocket attack on two hotels used by foreigners paralyzed the city center. Deadly attacks over the past two days show that the insurgency is still robust despite the formal transfer of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government on Monday and the formal beginning of Iraqi legal proceedings on Thursday against Saddam Hussein, whose image on television transfixed people throughout the country. This morning, about 3,000 Shiites rallied here calling for the execution of Mr. Hussein, according to the Agence France-Presse news agency. And in the Sunni stronghold of Samarra, north of here, hundreds demonstrated against what some marchers called the "ridiculous" trial of Mr. Hussein, and pledged support for the ex-president, the news agency reported. In the heart of the capital this morning, insurgents in a bus used a homemade launcher to fire rockets next to a mosque in Firdos Square, where in April 2003 a towering statue of Mr. Hussein was pulled down by American troops as they took the city. One of the launchings misfired and destroyed the bus, according to Iraqi police and private security officials.

BOOK REVIEW
The case for withdrawal
Exiting Iraq: Why the US Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against al-Qaeda
by Christopher Preble
Reviewed by David Isenberg
Asia Times, 3 July 2004
EXCERPT: ...the Cato Institute, a Washington, DC think-tank which advocates libertarian policies. On June 30 it published the book Exiting Iraq: Why the US Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against al-Qaeda. The book, the product of a special task force of 10 foreign policy experts, calls for the expeditious withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. This process, they argue, should begin now that the new Iraqi government has taken power, and end no later than January 31 next year, the time of nationwide elections. According to task force director Chris Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the institute, the invasion of Iraq has been bad for America. "We're worse off in two senses: We've weakened ourselves militarily and by diverting resources." He noted, "Neo-cons love to quote Teddy Roosevelt's famous saying about carrying a big stick, but always manage to neglect mentioning the first part of it, which is to speak softly." The point of the book is straightforward. A long-term military presence in Iraq undermines the very goals that the US hopes to achieve there. "It emboldens anti-American terrorists to expand their operations, both against the forces in the neighborhood and ultimately on American soil. And the presence of an American military garrison in Iraq weakens the forces of democratic reform by undermining an indigenous government's authority and credibility."

US Leaves Iraq Running on Empty
By Emad Mekay
Asia Times, 2 July 2004
EXCERPT:  A barrage of binding decrees passed during the United States occupation of Iraq, combined with a lack of resources, heavy debt and the continuing presence of a massive US force, provide clear evidence that the recent handover of authority to Iraqis does not equal real control over the economy. Just before former US administrator L Paul Bremer left Iraq on June 28, he said that one of his biggest achievements was to transform Iraq into a market-based economy, citing lower tax rates and import duties, and more liberal foreign investment laws. In May 2003, Bremer declared Iraq "open for business" and for the past 14 months the now defunct Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) promoted major changes to the country's regulatory and legal frameworks, entered into long-term contracts and appointed oversight committees with multi-year terms. As a result, the country's economy looks set on a path that Iraqis will find hard - if not impossible - to alter. A report by the Institute of Policy Studies estimated that Bremer had passed nearly 100 orders that, among other things, give US corporations "virtual free rein over the Iraqi economy while largely excluding Iraqis from a reconstruction effort which has failed to provide for their basic needs". Iraqis have had little input into those changes imposed by the authority, the report said. Most of the benefits of the reconstruction contracts signed under the occupation also went to US companies that appear to have secured future maintenance and reconstruction contracts in massive, capital-intensive infrastructure projects.

Back to Archive Index