November 02, 2007
Secret source of phony Iraq intel outed
WASHINGTON - The Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball," whose false tales of biological weapons labs bolstered the U.S. case for war, wasn't the prominent chemical engineer he claimed to be and invented stories to help his case for asylum in Germany, a new report says."Curveball" is Rafid Ahmed Alwan, who did study chemical engineering but made poor grades and never managed a biological weapons facility, according to CBS' "60 Minutes," which will broadcast on Sunday a report describing how Alwan became a secret intelligence source.
Although known publicly only by his code name, Curveball has been repeatedly discredited by investigations of the United States' faulty prewar intelligence and became an embarrassment to U.S. spy agencies. A presidential intelligence commission found that Curveball, who mostly told his stories to German intelligence officials who passed them on to the U.S., was a fabricator and an alcoholic.
"60 Minutes" reports that Alwan arrived at a German refugee center in 1999 and began spinning his tales of a facility making mobile biological weapons in an effort to gain asylum. The ploy apparently achieved his goal, and Alwan is assumed to be living in Germany today under an assumed name.
Although German intelligence officials warned the CIA that Curveball's claims of mobile bioweapons labs were unreliable, and U.N. inspectors determined before the war began in 2003 that parts of his story were false, the Bush administration continued to promote the existence of such mobile labs for months after the invasion, until it was widely accepted that they could not be found.
Posted by Mike at 01:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 27, 2007
So much for clapping harder
Troops Cheer Call For Iraq Withdrawal
A call by Puerto Rico's governor for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq earned a standing ovation from a conference of more than 4,000 National Guardsmen.Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila said Saturday that the U.S. administration has "no new strategy and no signs of success" and that prolonging the war would needlessly put guardsmen in harm's way.
"The war in Iraq has fractured the political will of the United States and the world," he said at the opening of the 129th National Guard Association general conference. "Clearly, a new war strategy is required and urgently."
Acevedo said sending more troops to Iraq would be a costly blunder.
Posted by Mike at 05:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 22, 2007
Intelligence community predicted civil war in Iraq
From Walter Pincus at the Washington Post:
Assessments Made in 2003 Foretold Situation in Iraq
Intelligence Studies List Internal Violence, Terrorist ActivityBy Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 20, 2007; Page A06Two intelligence assessments from January 2003 predicted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and subsequent U.S. occupation of Iraq could lead to internal violence and provide a boost to Islamic extremists and terrorists in the region, according to congressional sources and former intelligence officials familiar with the prewar studies.
The two assessments, titled "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq" and "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq," were produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and will be a major part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's long-awaited Phase II report on prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq. The assessments were delivered to the White House and to congressional intelligence committees before the war started.
The committee chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), and the vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), announced earlier this month that the panel had asked Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell to declassify the report for public release. Congressional sources said the two NIC assessments are to be declassified and would be part of a portion of the Phase II report that could be released within the next week.
The assessment on post-Hussein Iraq included judgments that while Iraq was unlikely to split apart, there was a significant chance that domestic groups would fight each other and that ex-regime military elements could merge with terrorist groups to battle any new government. It even talks of guerrilla warfare, according to congressional sources and former intelligence officials.
The second NIC assessment discussed "political Islam being boosted and the war being exploited by terrorists and extremists elsewhere in the region," one former senior analyst said. It also suggested that fear of U.S. military dominance and occupation of a Middle East country -- one sacred to Islam -- would attract foreign Islamic fighters to the area.
The NIC assessments paint "a very sobering and, as it has turned out, mostly accurate picture of the aftermath of the invasion," according to a former senior intelligence officer familiar with the studies. He sought anonymity because he is not authorized to speak about still-classified assessments.
The former senior official said that after the NIC papers were distributed to senior government officials, he was told by one CIA briefer that a senior Defense Department official had said they were "too negative" and that the papers "did not see the possibilities" the removal of Hussein would present.
A member of the Senate committee, without disclosing the contents of the studies, said recently that the release will raise more questions about the Bush administration's lack of preparation for the war's aftermath.
In his book, "At the Center of the Storm," former CIA director George J. Tenet discussed the NIC assessments as well as prewar intelligence analyses his own agency prepared on the same issues. Some of the language in the CIA reports that Tenet describes are similar to judgments in the NIC assessments because the agency is a major contributor to such papers, according to present and former intelligence analysts.
While Tenet admits that the CIA expected Shiites in southern Iraq, "long oppressed by Saddam, to open their arms to anyone who removed him," he said agency analysts were "not among those who confidently expected coalition forces to be greeted as liberators."
Tenet writes that the initial good feeling among most Iraqis that Hussein was out of power "would last for only a short time before old rivalries and ancient ethnic tensions resurfaced." The former intelligence analyst said such views also reflected the views in the NIC paper on post-Hussein Iraq.
The NIC assessments also projected the view that a long-term Western military occupation would be widely unacceptable, particularly to the Iraqi military. It also said Iraqis would wait and see whether the new governing authority, whether foreign or Iraqi, would provide security and basic services such as water and electricity.
Tenet wrote that the NIC paper on Iraq said that "Iraqi political culture is so imbued with norms alien to the democratic experience... that it may resist the most vigorous and prolonged democratic treatments."
The senior intelligence official said that the prewar analysis of challenges in post-Hussein Iraq contained little in the way of classified information since it was an assessment of future situations and was almost all analysis. The assessment of regional consequences of regime change in Iraq would require deletions since it contains "comments on the policies and perspectives of some friendly governments."
The committee focused on the two NIC assessments -- rather than analyses by the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency or the State Department -- because they were written under the supervision of national intelligence officers and coordinated with all intelligence agencies. Such papers are similar to more formal National Intelligence Estimates except they are not finalized and approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board, made up of the heads of the agencies.
Posted by Mike at 04:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 30, 2007
"You and I could walk through those neighborhoods today"
Posted by Mike at 01:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 21, 2006
Well, that settles it then
Let's go to the video tape.
QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing.
Video via Crooks and Liars.
Posted by Mike at 05:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 06, 2006
Update on Iraq
From Robert Dreyfuss at TomPaine.com:
Ironically, in response to Maliki’s less-than-forthcoming initiative, what appears to be a majority bloc of the Iraqi resistance made an offer of their own. The resistance, they said, would halt the fighting, stopping all attacks on U.S. occupation forces and the Iraqi government, in exchange for a U.S. pledge to leave Iraq in two years. For the United States, fighting a war-without-end in Iraq, that ought to have been seen as a good deal. But it was rejected out of hand.The offer by the resistance, a ceasefire in exchange for an end to the occupation in 2008, also got little U.S. media attention. And, although I may have missed it, not a single U.S. political leader from the left nor those who are calling for a U.S. withdrawal—not Russ Feingold, not John Kerry, not Jack Murtha—took note of the offer. None had the guts to say to Bush: we ought to accept this deal. No editorial writer at the New York Times took up his pen to support it. No thinktanker at the Brookings Institution or the Center for American Progress had the courage to say: “What the Iraqi resistance is saying is a good idea.”
Meanwhile, back in Iraq, Maliki made it clear exactly what “conditional amnesty” means. While offering to talk to Sunni tribal elders and to minor elements of the resistance that he believes he can co-opt, the government of Iraq issued “Wanted” notices and rewards for 41 resistance leaders. It was a bitter irony. The list of 41 was a Who’s Who of the Iraqi resistance; in other words, the regime was offering rewards of up to $10 million for the capture or killing of precisely the people it ought to be negotiating a truce with! Among them were Raghad Hussein, the daughter of Saddam, who is living in Jordan; Saddam’s wife, Sajida Hussein, who lives in Qatar; Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top Iraqi official who is widely believed to be a leader of the underground; and at least a dozen other top former Baathists, Iraqi military and intelligence officials, and others. The issuance of the list underscored the fact that neither Khalilzad nor Maliki are seeking a deal with the real Iraqi resistance, merely attempting to corral a few more stray Sunni leaders into the regime.
The list of 41 received an immediate rebuke from Jordan. Since 2003, Raghad Hussein has lived in Jordan under the protection of the government of Jordan and King Abdullah. Asked whether Jordan would turn her over to the Iraqi government, Amman slapped Baghdad in the face. A spokesman for the king of Jordan said bluntly: “She is the guest of the Hashemite royal family.”
The Jordanians added that, in their opinion, Raghad is not violating the terms of her asylum agreement, according to which she is supposed to refrain from political activity. Of course, it is widely believed that she, along with many other top Iraqi officials in Jordan, are helping to direct, support and finance the Iraqi resistance. Although the Jordanian government prefers to maintain the polite fiction that Iraq’s resistance has no base in Jordan, it does. And Jordan’s rebuff of Iraq means that even this erstwhile American ally is prepared to challenge the U.S.-Iraqi regime of quislings in Baghdad.
Jordan’s stance makes it even clearer that no end to the fighting can occur until and unless an international conference is convened to involve Iraq’s neighbors (including Iran), the Arab League, and the United Nations (including Russia and China) in helping to stabilize Iraq politically. Part One of ending the war is a deal with the resistance, and Part Two is the internationalization of the peace. So far, there is not the slightest hope that the Bush administration is prepared to accept either. “We will stay. We will fight. And we will prevail,” Bush told troops at Fort Bragg on Sunday.
Posted by Mike at 10:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 28, 2006
Take the offer
If the US really wants to separate the insurgents from the terrorists, here is the only plausible means to do so:
Eleven Sunni insurgent groups have offered an immediate halt to all attacks — including those on American troops — if the United States agrees to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq in two years, insurgent and government officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Withdrawal is the centerpiece of a set of demands from the groups, which operate north of Baghdad in the heavily Sunni Arab provinces of Salahuddin and Diyala. Although much of the fighting has been to the west, those provinces are increasingly violent and attacks there have crippled oil and commerce routes.The groups who've made contact have largely shunned attacks on Iraqi civilians, focusing instead on the U.S.-led coalition forces. Their offer coincides with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's decision to reach out to the Sunni insurgency with a reconciliation plan that includes an amnesty for fighters.
The Islamic Army in Iraq, Muhammad Army and the Mujahedeen Shura Council — the umbrella group that covers eight militant groups including al-Qaida in Iraq — were not party to any offers to the government....
In addition to the withdrawal timetable, the Iraqi insurgents have demanded:
• An end to U.S. and Iraqi military operations against insurgent forces.
• Compensation for Iraqis killed by U.S. and government forces and reimbursement for property damage.
• An end to the ban on army officers from Saddam's regime in the Iraqi military.
• An end to the government ban on former members of the Baath Party — which ruled the country under Saddam.
• The release of insurgent detainees.
The 1920 Revolution Brigades, the umbrella for seven other groups, was established in the so-called Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad shortly after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Its name refers to Iraq's historical fight against British colonialism.
Posted by Mike at 08:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
March 04, 2006
They picked this guy to run the World Bank?
For some reason I find this excerpt from a speech Paul Wolfowitz gave in May of 2001 highly amusing. On a related note, I'm also thinking of renaming my "Rebuilding Iraq" category to "Bad News from Baghdad":
Not long ago I spoke to the American Turkish Council and I took a bold risk, reciting an old Turkish saying in Turkish, a feat that I won't attempt for you today. I'll do it in English. The saying goes, "bad news comes back, even from Baghdad." Ten years after the Gulf War we're still getting bad news from Baghdad, from the same tyrannical regime. This regime which has meant bad news for so many for so long poses one of today's most pressing obstacles to peace. It has become clear that there is no cost-free or risk-free option in dealing with that regime.We must see Saddam without illusion if we are to know how to deal with the dangers that he creates. We cannot appease him. His appetites cannot be satisfied. There will be no peace in the region and no safety for our friends there--Arabs or Israelis, Kurds or Turkamons--as long as he remains in power. ...
As Secretary of State Powell has said, "Saddam Hussein is sitting on a failed regime that is not going to be around in a few years' time. The world," Secretary Powell said, "is going to leave him behind and his regime behind as the world marches to new drummers, drummers of democracy and of free enterprise." And let me add to that, it is our obligation to help this forward march in every way that we can. ...
Today the tyrannical regime in Baghdad is the root cause of the most immediate dangers that we face in the Persian Gulf. Hope for Iraq and hope for peace in the region rests on the liberation of that country from the tyranny of Saddam's regime. .... Again, to quote our Secretary of State, "We believe a change in the regime in Iraq would be in the interests of all concerned."
All concerned? Think he meant Al Qaeda, Syria, and Iran? It's clear now that it's in all of their interests for Iraq to remain unstable.
Posted by Mike at 03:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 10, 2006
Flawed intelligence or flawed policy?
Paul Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 at the CIA, speaks out:
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar said in an article written for the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs and posted on the magazine's Web site on Friday."If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath," he said.
Pillar was not immediately available for comment. A CIA spokesman said Pillar was expressing his own personal point of view and not the official views of the spy agency.
The CIA and other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community have been widely criticized for prewar Iraq intelligence including the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was a main justification for the war. No such weapons have been found.
The full article by Pillar is worth the read:
The most serious problem with U.S. intelligence today is that its relationship with the policymaking process is broken and badly needs repair. In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized. As the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, I witnessed all of these disturbing developments.Public discussion of prewar intelligence on Iraq has focused on the errors made in assessing Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons programs. A commission chaired by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Senator Charles Robb usefully documented the intelligence community's mistakes in a solid and comprehensive report released in March 2005. Corrections were indeed in order, and the intelligence community has begun to make them.
At the same time, an acrimonious and highly partisan debate broke out over whether the Bush administration manipulated and misused intelligence in making its case for war. The administration defended itself by pointing out that it was not alone in its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and active weapons programs, however mistaken that view may have been.
In this regard, the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services. But in making this defense, the White House also inadvertently pointed out the real problem: intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs did not drive its decision to go to war. A view broadly held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept "in his box," and that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place. That the administration arrived at so different a policy solution indicates that its decision to topple Saddam was driven by other factors -- namely, the desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East and hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.
If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades.
Posted by Mike at 01:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 09, 2006
Why politics and religion don't mix
Cartoon controversies aside, Riverbend sums up the situation in Iraq:
At the end of the day, people who follow these figures tell themselves that even if the current leader isn’t up to par, the goal and message remain the same- religion, God’s word as law. When living in the midst of a war-torn country with a situation that is deteriorating and death around every corner, you turn to God because Iyad Allawi couldn’t get you electricity and security- he certainly isn’t going to get you into heaven should you come face to face with a car bomb.The trouble with having a religious party in power in a country as diverse as Iraq is that you automatically alienate everyone not of that particular sect or religion. Religion is personal- it is something you are virtually born into… it belongs to the heart, the mind, the spirit- and while it is welcome in day to day dealings, it shouldn’t be politicized.
Theocracies (and we seem to be standing on the verge of an Iranian influenced one), grow stronger with time because you cannot argue religion. Politicians are no longer politicians- they are Ayatollahs- they become modern-day envoys of God, to be worshipped, not simply respected. You cannot challenge them because for their followers, that is a challenge to a belief- not a person or a political party.
You go from being a critic or ‘opposition’ to simply being a heathen when you argue religious parties.
Americans write to me wondering, “But where are the educated Iraqis? Why didn’t they vote for secular parties?” The educated Iraqis have been systematically silenced since 2003. They’ve been pressured and bullied outside of the country. They’ve been assassinated, detained, tortured and abducted. Many of them have lost faith in the possibility of a secular Iraq.
Then again… who is to say that many of the people who voted for religious parties aren’t educated? I know some perfectly educated Iraqis who take criticism towards parties like Da’awa and SCIRI as a personal affront. This is because these parties are so cloaked and cocooned within their religious identity, that it is almost taken as an attack against Shia in general when one criticizes them. It’s the same thing for many Sunnis when a political Sunni party comes under criticism.
That’s the danger of mixing politics and religion- it becomes personal.
I try not to dwell on the results too much- the fact that Shia religious fundamentalists are currently in power- because when I do, I’m filled with this sort of chill that leaves in its wake a feeling of quiet terror. It’s like when the electricity goes out suddenly and you’re plunged into a deep, quiet, almost tangible darkness- you try not to focus too intently on the subtle noises and movements around you because the unseen possibilities will drive you mad.
Posted by Mike at 03:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
February 01, 2006
From murdered to savior of democracy?
Call me skeptical of Al Sadr, who I still think assassinated Mohammed Baqir Al Hakim. Regardless, it seems clear that he is now the leading political force in Iraq, and he wants Americans troops out - or he will take up arms against them:
The Sadrist lawmakers will have about 30 of the Shiite coalition's 128 seats in the new Iraqi parliament, a number equal to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), generally thought to be the most powerful Shiite party.But a splinter Shiite group, known as the Risalyoon, or Messengers, took two additional seats, and is expected to ally with the Sadrists in coming days.
Already Sadr has pushed the Shiite coalition and other Iraqi politicians to take a more intransigent stance on key issues. Agreement to his 14-point code of honor was his precondition to join the Shiite slate. The code demands a short-term timetable for US withdrawal, recognizes the right of armed resistance should it stay, and rejects ties with Israel.
Along with his fellow Shiites, some 200 Iraqi politicians signed on to the document. This support that Sadr has attracted could erode the traditional alliance between other Shiite politicians and the US - a relationship that has helped legitimize the continued American presence in Iraq.
You could look at this as a good thing. Less risk of civil war, and fewer soldiers coming home in flag draped coffins. On the other hand, it's not exactly a beacon for liberty and freedom in the world:
"He will be very extreme, a real die-hard fundamentalist in terms of religion and state issues, and the US occupation, but at the same time when it comes to making some concessions to the Sunnis he can be a moderating force," says Amatzia Baram, an Iraq expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington....Since ending his armed struggle, Sadr, whose critics say he is simply riding his late father's coattails, has kept a low profile while other Shiite factions compete for control of prestigious government posts....
"The health ministry serves half a million people a day. The transportation ministry serves 200,000 to 300,000 people," says Mr. Arraji. "But what does the foreign or interior ministry do for poor Iraqis? These ministries are under the control of the occupation; we have no use for them."
...Baram, the Iraq expert in Washington, calls the Sadrists' approach brilliant grassroots politicking, and warns that four years down the road they're likely to have doubled their strength in parliament.
"In all these ministries they are planting their people on the grassroots social level," says Baram. "They'll control huge government budgets and when they spend this money they'll get all the credit, and it will be very difficult to uproot them later on."
For now, Sadr and his legions are pleased with their piece of the pie, but they clearly have loftier ambitions. "We are like Hamas," says Mr. Rubaie, the Sadrists political tactician. "We will bear arms and will not compromise our right to resistance, but we also help the people and win elections."
Posted by Mike at 12:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 22, 2006
Only the best for our troops
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails."We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated," said a July 15, 2005, memo written by William Granger, the official for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.
"The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River," Granger wrote in one of several documents. The Associated Press obtained the documents from Senate Democrats who are holding a public inquiry into the allegations Monday.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who will chair the session, held a number of similar inquiries last year on contracting abuses in Iraq. He said Democrats were acting on their own because they had not been able to persuade Republican committee chairmen to investigate.
The company's former water treatment expert at Camp Junction City said that he discovered the problem last March, a statement confirmed by his e-mail the day after he tested the water.
While bottled water was available for drinking, the contaminated water was used for virtually everything else, including handwashing, laundry, bathing and making coffee, said water expert Ben Carter of Cedar City, Utah.
Another former Halliburton employee who worked at the base, Ken May of Louisville, said there were numerous instances of diarrhea and stomach cramps — problems he also suffered.
The first memo on the problem — written by Carter to Halliburton officials on March 24, 2005 — was an "incident report" from tests Carter performed the previous day."It is my opinion that the water source is without question contaminated with numerous micro-organisms, including Coliform bacteria," Carter wrote. "There is little doubt that raw sewage is routinely dumped upstream of intake much less than the required 2 mile distance.
"Therefore, it is my conclusion that chlorination of our water tanks while certainly beneficial is not sufficient protection from parasitic exposure."
Carter said he resigned in early April after Halliburton officials did not take any action to inform the camp population.
The water expert said he told company officials at the base that they would have to notify the military. "They told me it was none of my concern and to keep my mouth shut," he said.
Posted by Mike at 05:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 21, 2006
They still don't need the Sunni votes
The first official results in Iraq's landmark December elections showed Friday that the Shiite and Kurdish coalitions once again dominated the voting, but came up just short of the two-thirds majority needed to form a government on their own.
Let's review.
Hakim controls 130 votes
United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite): 128
Risalyoon (non-UIA al-Sadr supporters): 2
Talabani controls 58 votes
Kurdish Alliance: 53
Islamic Union of Kurdistan: 5
Dulaimi controls 87 votes
Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni): 44
Iraqi List (secular Allawi): 25
Dialogue Front (al-Mutlaq): 11
Musalaha wal Tahreer (al-Juboori): 3
Turkman Front: 1
Rafidain (Assyrian): 1
Yazidi Movement (non-Islamic minority religion): 1
Mithal al-Alusi (Sunni politician): 1
It would be good for all parties involved if the UIA reached out to Dulaimi, but the truth is that they do not really need his votes. Of course, Al Sadr is the wild card. Unlike Hakim and the Kurds, he has voiced support for a strong central government, which is more in line with the thinking of the Sunni alliance than his own UIA slate. Allawi could change sides too, but I doubt he will.
Remember, Al Sadr has 1/4 of the UIA seats, not just those extra two.
Posted by Mike at 03:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 20, 2006
Chalabi was shut out!
I'm so excited, I'm taking the entire weekend off. From Iraq the Model:
The Final Results!Here are the results as announced by Safwat Rasheed of the board of the election committee in a press conference in Baghdad:
UIA ~ 5021000….109 seatsfrom the province +19 compensatory=128
Accord Front :~1840000 votes…37 from the province +7 compensatory=44
Dialogue Front (al-Mutlaq) : ~499000 votes… 9 seats from the province+2 compensatory=11
Iraqi List (Allawi) :~977000 votes….21seats from the provinces+4 compensatory=25
Kurdish Alliance : ~2642000 votes…43 seats from the rpovinces+10 compensatory=53
Islamic Union of Kurdistan : ~157000 votes 4 seats from the provinces+1 compensatory=5
Risalyoon: ~145000 votes 1 from the provinces +1 compensatory =2
Musalaha wal Tahreer (Misha’an al-Juboori) : ~129000 ...votes 3 seats from the provinces.
Rafidain (Assyrian): ~ 47000 votes…. 0 seats from the provinces+1 compensatory=1 seat.
Turkman Front: ~ 87000 votes….1 seat
Mithal al-Alusi : ~32000 votes…1 seat from the provinces
Yazidi Movement: ~ 21000 votes…1 seat (compensatory)
TOTAL 275 Seats.
Update:Ironically, the first objection to the results came from the UIA!
Al-Arabiya TV reported that Ammar al-Hakeem (AbdulAziz’s son) and Hussein al-Shahristani announced that the UIA objects to the way seats were distributed among provinces and they think that this “unfair distribution has cut down the UIA’s share by 10 seats”.
Al-Hakeem and al-Shahristani reportedly said that they’ll be writing a memo with their objections to the electoral authorities.
There is a more readable table here:
United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite): 128 (46.5%)
Kurdish Alliance: 53 (19.3%)
Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni): 44 (16.0%)
Iraqi List (secular Allawi): 25 (9.1%)
Dialogue Front (al-Mutlaq): 11 (4.0%)
Islamic Union of Kurdistan: 5 (1.8%)
Musalaha wal Tahreer (al-Juboori): 3 (1.1%)
Risalyoon (non-UIA al-Sadr supporters): 2 (0.7%)
Turkman Front: 1 (0.4%)
Rafidain (Assyrian): 1 (0.4%)
Yazidi Movement (non-Islamic minority religion): 1 (0.4%)
Mithal al-Alusi: 1 (0.4%)
Posted by Mike at 02:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 19, 2006
Iraqi election results
There is still no official announcement, but Reuters has the latest:
Electoral Commission sources say the Shi'ite Islamist Alliance will win about 128 of the assembly's 275 seats. The main Sunni bloc should get 43 or 44 seats, with another Sunni group taking 11 and a third three.The main Kurdish bloc secured 52 seats, the sources said, secular former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's group 25 seats.
Some doubt remains over a handful of seats distributed by a complex system of allocation under proportional representation.
To summarize:
Unified Iraqi Coalition of Hakim 128
Kurdistani Gathering of Talabani 52
Tawafoq Iraqi Front of Dulaimi 44
Iraqi National List of Allawi 25
Hewar National Iraqi Front of Mutlak 11
Unnamed Sunni Political Party 3
Total number of seats listed 263
Others parties who won seats:
Islamic Union of Kurdistan
Iraqi Turkuman Front
Progressives
Liberation and Reconciliation Gathering
There are 12 seats up for grabs among these and other small parties - including the Iraqi National Congress - who did not get enough votes to earn a seat, but still get one thanks to the complex election law.
In my view, it would be better for those seats to be redistributed among the parties who did get enough votes to earn a set, but I am still not sure if I understand the seat allocation rules correctly.
Overall, the Sunnis did better as well as I had expected. The UIA and Kurds are the ones who should be disappointed. The UIA lost five to ten seats due to the odd means of allocating the remainers. The Kurds were doomed from the start, due to the regionial allocations and relatively mixed population in two of the four Kurdish provinces.
Posted by Mike at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
January 09, 2006
Election results? What election results?
Iraq's final election results may not come for 2 weeks
BAGHDAD - Final results from Iraq's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections may not be announced for another two weeks, and an international team reviewing election complaints has begun its work, an official from Iraq's election commission said Tuesday.The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has finished reviewing complaints filed after last month's elections and will announce the findings on Wednesday, commission member Hussein Hindawi told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
But the IECI won't announce final election results until the international team finishes its work, meaning results might not be ready for two weeks, said IECI member Safwat Rashid.
Officials had previously said final results would be announced in early January.
Posted by Mike at 11:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 19, 2005
Ahmed who?
Well, it looks like Chalabi could get shut out. Lacking enough support in any of the provinces to win a single seat would indeed prevent him from becoming prime minister and hurt his chances for Oil Minister or Finance Minister, as well. Which is to say nothing of his conviction for bank fraud in Jordan, or the fact that most Iraqis hate his guts. I should probably hold off on the celebration until the official results are released, but I would bet Mahdi will be PM.
Here are preliminary returns from Al Jazeera:
In Baghdad province, results from 89% of the ballot boxes showed the Shia United Iraqi Alliance ahead with 58% of the vote in Iraq's biggest electoral district.The electoral commission said the alliance received 1,403,901 votes, followed by the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accordance Front with 451,782 votes, and the Iraqi National List ticket of Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister, with 327,174 votes....
Results from southern Basra province, also mixed but predominantly Shia, saw the clergy-backed alliance significantly ahead, winning 612,206 votes with 98% of ballot boxes counted. Allawi's group was in second place with 87,134 votes, while the Iraqi Accordance Front trailed with 36,997.
Kurdish parties were overwhelmingly ahead in their three northern provinces.
In Dahuk, results from 93% of ballot boxes showed the Kurdistan Coalition List, an alliance consisting of the two main Kurdish parties, received 344,717 votes representing 89% of votes counted.
The Kurdistan Islamic Union followed with 28,401 ballots, while the Rafidian party, which represents Assyrian Christians, trailed with 4696.
Allawi's group received 2327 votes.
In Arbil, results from 76% of ballot boxes showed the Kurdish alliance winning 570,098 votes, or 95%. The Kurdistan Islamic Union won 19,612, or 3.24%, while Allawi's ticket had 2420.In Sulaimaniya, results from 98% of ballot boxes showed the Kurdish alliance ahead with 671,814 votes, followed by the Kurdistan Islamic Union with 83,208 - and trailed by Allawi's National List with 1806.
By comparison, the United Iraqi Alliance received less than 8 percent in Saddam Hussein's home province of Salahuddin and Allawi garnered about 10 percent. Nearly all the rest went to Sunni Arab groups.Although no detailed overall figures were provided and results were partial, the turnout seemed to be large. Officials have estimated that 11 million people went to the polls, or up to 70 percent of the country's 15 million registered voters....
A senior official in the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the main groups in the United Iraqi Alliance, said the alliance was expecting to get about 130 seats.
"The United Iraqi Alliance strongly believes that all the various components of the Iraqi people should participate in the decision making, including forming the upcoming government. This means that the new Iraqi government will be a national unity government," Redha Jawad Taqi said.
Posted by Mike at 05:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 08, 2005
AEI and Iran endorse Chalabi for PM
The San Antonio Express News has the details:
Here is a summary of the five major alliances, based on Arab press reporting of the Raphaeli analysis:The Iraqi National Alliance includes the two major Shiite political parties that won the greatest number of seats last January and the party of current Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
This alliance received the blessing of al-Sistani last time, and it also includes the movement of Shiite radical Muqtada al-Sadr. Ahmad Chalabi had been part of the alliance, but will not be this time.
The alliance has become increasingly loyal to Iran, which supports it, but it is viewed as less likely to do well this time.
Americans who hope to see a pluralist, democratic Iraq should not support its efforts.
The National Congress Party, which Chalabi created, is "10 entities of a liberal and secular orientation, representing Shia, Sunni and Turkmen," according to Raphaeli.
Although Iran supports the Iraqi National Alliance, it has endorsed Chalabi as prime minister.
The Iraqi Accord Front is the major Sunni alliance. The alliance head is pressuring Sunnis to vote rather than boycott, as they did last January, and to participate in the political process rather than support the insurgency.
The Kurdish Alliance includes, as the name suggests, the major Kurdish political parties, which likely will lose some proportion of their representation if Sunnis participate this time.
Americans should hope that the Iraqi National List does well in this election. Former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi heads the list, which includes both Shiite and Sunni secular and nonsectarian political figures. It also includes many leaders of the women's movement in Iraq.
Allawi and Chalabi could pick up a seat or two from several of the southern or even northern provinces, and a handful in Baghdad. For the most part, the seats will be split among the three major ethnic alliances however, with votes cast mainly along ethnic lines. It is interesting to note that Al Sadr will receive one quarter of the seats allocated to the main Shia list, the Iraqi National Alliance. The real question is whether Chalabi and Allawi can buy, I mean win, enough votes to prevent the Shia list from winning a majority in the new Parliament. If so, they could form a voting block with the Sunnis and Kurds that theoretically shuts the Shia out.
I don't think it's likely but Allawi got 40 seats last time. Why not?
What caught me off guard was the part about Iran - not just the American Enterprise Institute - backing Ahmed Chalabi for Prime Minister. Well, I guess now we know, "What is the price of oil?"
Posted by Mike at 06:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
December 07, 2005
Iraqi Election Predictions
One interesting thing about the elections next week is that 230 of the 275 seats will be awarded to each province, instead of from a national pool. The remaining 45 will be awarded from the full pool. This guarantees the Sunnis dozens of seats in the new parliament, regardless of voter turnout. I was worried because instead of being based strictly on population, the number of seats per province is determined based on the number of registered voters. However, based on the chart below it looks like a pretty fair breakdown of seats.
Here are the numbers from the IEC web site combined with the census data posted by FAAIR.org for 2003:
Province - Registered out of Total for Guaranteed Seats
Baghdad - 3,664,922 of 6,386,067 for 59 seats
Nineveh - 1,197,940 of 2,473,727 for 19 seats
Sulaymania - 914,441 of 2,159,803 for 15 seats
Arbeel - 795,291 of 1,845,166 for 13 seats
Basra - 1,035,055 of 1,760,984 for 16 seats
Babylon - 694,192 of 1,444,372 for 11 seats
DheeQar - 778,574 of 1,427,220 for 12 seats
Deyala - 624,099 of 1,373,862 for 10 seats
Anbar - 574,138 of 1,280,011 for 9 seats
Salahadeen - 498,017 of 1,077,785 for 8 seats
Najaf - 493,808 of 946,251 for 8 seats
Karbala - 409,081 of 755,994 for 6 seats
Wasit - 494,955 of 941,827 for 8 seats
Qadisiya - 486,827 of 866,695 for 8 seats
Tameem - 576,048 of 839,121 for 9 seats
Maysan - 417,273 of 743,409 for 7 seats
Dahouk - 429,182 of 616,609 for 7 seats
Muthanna - 295,326 of 536,264 for 5 seats
Total - 14,379,169 of 27,475,167 for 230 seats
Based on the referendum results, and breakdown of Sunni to Shia and Arab to Kurd, I would say we can expect to see the following approximate breakdown of all 275 seats, by ethnic faction, assuming the overall seats go 5 Turkoman, 10 Sunni, 10 Kurd, 20 Shia:
5 Turkoman or Chaldean ethnic minorities
55 Sunni (Anbar, Salahadeen, 1/2 Deyala, 1/2 Nineveh, 1/4 Baghdad)
75 Kurd (1/2 Deyala, 1/2 Nineveh, Tameem, Sulaymania, Dahouk, Arbeel)
140 Shia (3/4 Baghdad plus all the remaining nine southern provinces)
Once again, the Shia will win a slim majority, but now they will have the option of forming a coalition with either the Sunnis or the Kurds.
Posted by Mike at 01:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 21, 2005
Cheney must have no sense of irony
"The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight. But any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false," Cheney said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.
Here is a quick pop quiz. Which of the following are true about AEI?
A) Cheney used to work there and his wife still does.
B) Main backers of Chalabi who also gave a speech there recently.
C) Supplied most of the "researchers" for the Office of Special Plans.
D) All of the above.
If you answered D, you're right, but D is for dishonest so you ought to be ashamed of yourself:
At the same time, Cheney pressed the administration's high-voltage attack on war critics, particularly Senate Democrats who voted in October 2002 to give Bush authority to go to war in Iraq and who now oppose his policy, calling them "dishonest and reprehensible."
Posted by Mike at 03:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 20, 2005
Lying for a just cause?
We will hear a lot more of this in the months and years to come. Two responses come to mind. First, when you have a secret strategy that no one knows about, what happens if you are wrong? Second, how do you reconcile lying to justify a war and this small oath the President took in January 2001? As prescribed in the Constitution:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
A lie for a just cause...What if Bush did lie, big time? What, exactly, would that mean? If you listen to Bush's critics, serious and moonbat alike, the answer is obvious: He'd be a criminal warmonger, a failed president and — most certainly — impeachment fodder. Even Bush's defenders agree that if Bush lied, it would be a grave sin. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently accused Harry Reid & Co. of becoming "Clare Boothe Luce Democrats" for even suggesting that Bush would deceive the public. Luce, a Republican, had insisted that FDR "lied us into war." And this, the Journal editorialized, was a "slander" many paranoid Republicans took to their graves.
...Even the most cursory reading of any presidential biography will tell you that statesmanship requires occasional duplicity. If great foreign policy could be conducted Boy Scout-style — "I will never tell a lie" — foreign policy would be easy (and Jimmy Carter would be hailed as the American Bismarck). This isn't to say that the public's trust should be breached lightly, but there are other competing goods involved in any complex situation.
Now, you might say that Iraq was no WWII, Saddam was no Hitler, and 9/11 was no Pearl Harbor. Those are all fair arguments with varying degrees of merit. But WWII wasn't "the good war" in our hearts until after Pearl Harbor and even until after the Holocaust, and a lot of Hollywood burnishing.
The Bush Doctrine is not chiefly about WMD and never was. Like FDR's vision, it balances democracy, security and morality. Still, the media and anti-Bush partisans have been bizarrely unmoved by the revelations of Hussein's killing fields, his torture chambers for tots and democracy's tangible progress in the Middle East.
If Bush succeeds — still a big if — the painful irony for Bush's critics is that he will go down in history as a great president, even if he lied, while they will take their paranoia to their graves.
As a reminder, here is the definition of faithful:
faith·fuladj.
Adhering firmly and devotedly, as to a person, cause, or idea; loyal.
Having or full of faith.
Worthy of trust or belief; reliable.
Consistent with truth or actuality: a faithful reproduction of the portrait.
Posted by Mike at 07:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Former General Odom on the Iraq War
The former head of the NSA lists nine reasons people say we have to stay the course:
1) We would leave behind a civil war.2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.
7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.
Then he explains why the opposite is true in every single case.
Finally, he concludes:
The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);
2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);
3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)
I disagree. The invasion itself is not the problem. The occupation is the problem. Why is their an occupation? The real reason for the invasion was to "strength our position in the region" not to liberate Iraq. They were so fearful of giving up control of the occupation to the UN that they failed to realize the UN - or NATO - was in fact the only possible path to strengthen our position in Iraq, not weaken it.
Posted by Mike at 01:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 03, 2005
Coming full circle on Iraq
What possible better location could there be for a speech by the future democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi?
Apparently Scooter Libby had a prior engagement and will not be available to make the introduction.
An Insider's View: Democratic Politics at Work in Iraq
A Foreign Policy Briefing from Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi
Start: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 2:30 PM
End: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 3:45 PM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
In the last year, Iraqis successfully elected a transitional government and overwhelmingly approved a new constitution. Despite continuing security challenges and a deepening sectarian divide, Iraqis are moving toward a functioning democracy. And while sectors of Iraq continue to lag, there is an untold story of economic reform.
Will the constitution provide the foundation for a democratic system that can be a model for the Middle East? What can be expected of the upcoming December parliamentary elections? Is Iraq moving beyond sectarian politics, or does the federalism model in the new constitution deepen the divide?
To address these and other issues, AEI welcomes Ahmad Chalabi, deputy prime minister of Iraq, to deliver his first public speech in the United States in more than two and a half years.
2:15 p.m. Registration
2:30 Introduction: Christopher DeMuth, AEI
Keynote Address: Ahmad Chalabi, deputy prime minister of Iraq
3:45 Adjournment
Posted by Mike at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 02, 2005
Did Chalabi pass on the Niger forgeries?
SISMI's War in Iraq: The Iranian Connection...Twenty men are gathered around a large table, covered by maps of Iraq, Iran and Syria. The big cheese are Lawrence Franklin and Harold Rhode of the Office of Special Plans, Michael Ledeen of the AIE, a SISMI chief accompanied by his assistant (the former is a balding man between 46 and 48 years of age; the latter is younger, around 38, with braces on his teeth) and some mysterious Iranians.
Pollari confirms the meeting to La Repubblica: When [Defense Minister Martino] asked me to organize the meeting, I became curious. But it was my job and I wasn't born yesterday. It's true—my men were also present at the meeting. I wanted to know what was cooking. It's also true that there were maps of Iraq and Iran on the table. I can tell you those Iranians were not exactly "exiles". The came and went from Tehran with their passports with no difficulty whatsoever as if they were transparent to the eyes of the Pasdaran.
So the Iranians were not exiles. They were not opponents of the regime of the ayatollahs. These men are members of the regime, sent by Tehran. If someone in Washington is wondering what the devil they were doing there on the eve of the invasion, in Rome, elbow-to-elbow with people from the Pentagon, we can supply some elucidation. But to make some sense out of the confusion, you have to listen to an American intelligence source, who has requested anonymity. He tells us: You Italians have always underestimated the work of conversion carried out Ahmed Chalabi, the chairman of Iraqi National Congress. You tend to omit this chapter from your side of the story because you think Ahmed concerns only the Americans. But that's not the way it is: he is also your business, far beyond anything you currently believe or imagine....
The bogus Italian dossier on the Niger uranium turns up [at the meeting] also—and we don't know exactly why--because Chalabi is in possession of it. Brooke is responsible for liaison between Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz and between the Pentagon and the Iraqi National Congress. He is more heeded in Tehran than Chalabi.
Hmm. Early 2002 was not exactly the "eve of the invasion" unless you count the Downing model. Which we might need to consider. It's also possible they got the date wrong. Anyway, see more details and speculation here.
Posted by Mike at 05:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This is not good news
From the Washington Post's blockbuster tomorrow:
More than 100 suspected terrorists have been sent by the CIA into the covert system, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials and foreign sources. This figure, a rough estimate based on information from sources who said their knowledge of the numbers was incomplete, does not include prisoners picked up in Iraq.
In other words, some of the prisoners are from Iraq. Here's hoping they were Al Qaeda transplants, not insurgents, or you could argue that's a war crime. Of course, you could argue Abu Ghraib was too, but it's a little harder to say this one didn't come from the top.
Posted by Mike at 12:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 01, 2005
Ahmed Chalabi - The Great Peacemaker
Please read this whole post or you will miss the punchline.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Politically savvy and a sharp dresser with a perpetual grin, Ahmad Chalabi has gone from Washington insider, to alleged Iranian spy, to someone the Bush administration cannot afford to ignore — all in the space of two years.
Chalabi, a deputy prime minister, plans to travel this month to Washington to refurbish a reputation tainted by the since-discredited claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. At home, Chalabi has quit a Shiite political alliance criticized for its strong ties to Iran.All this points to one thing: Chalabi is maneuvering to become Iraq's next prime minister after elections in less than two months.
That might seem a long-shot for Chalabi, an MIT graduate and former banker who is a controversial figure at home and abroad. But his political acumen and ability to survive leave both friends and foes in awe....
In Washington, administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to make announcements to the media, said efforts were under way to arrange meetings for Chalabi with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Chalabi's top aide, Haider al-Mousawi, said meetings with Treasury Secretary John Snow and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley also were in the works....
"Chalabi is entertaining hopes of an alliance between his new coalition, the Sadrists and Fadhila," said Ali al-Adeeb, a senior official of Dawa party. "He knows that it's the Islamic trend and not the liberals who will prevail in Iraq."
Chalabi is contesting the election on a single ticket that includes his Iraqi National Congress, a group that supports restoration of the monarchy and small Kurdish and Turkomen factions.
It's too late for other groups to join Chalabi before the election since the deadline for registering candidacies passed last Friday. But others such as Fadhila and the al-Sadr movement could forge an alliance in the new parliament.
These days, when the U.S.-run administration in Baghdad takes confidential polls to gauge public support for its hand-picked Iraqi Governing Council, Chalabi's approval ratings are "the most negative by far" among the 25 members, says an official who's perused the results. "The numbers I've seen run around 60 percent negative to 30 percent positive." (March 8, 2004)
Iraqis have long seen him as an American puppet with no constituency at home; in polls, they have given Chalabi approval ratings lower than those for Saddam Hussein. (May 29, 2004)
For an added bonus, ask Doug Feith:
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Salem Chalabi has been to the Hague and he's looked at post-war tribunals in Bosnia, Rwanda and the Balkans.Now he's been appointed Director-General of the new Iraqi tribunal. He's appointed the seven judges and four prosecutors who will try Saddam Hussein and other from his regime who will be charged by the new tribunal.
SALEM CHALABI: We're trying to meet international standards of due process of law, so we don't want to do this in a very quick fashion. We have to organise it, we have to prepare it, we have to get the judges trained, we have to get the investigative judges to review the evidence – this is a long process.
RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Salem Chalabi may be a controversial choice. Many Iraqis are already frustrated with their inability to reach those in power, and the man running the tribunal is seen by some as one of those special few who access and control the corridors of power.
Iraqis want the tribunal and they want Saddam Hussein on trial, but the tribunal's critics say any perception it's an American creation, not genuinely independent, could diminish the public perception of its power.
According to the US newspaper The Hill, Chalabi's business partner Mark Zell runs a law firm with the US Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith, a key neo-conservative architect of the Iraq war. Feith's Pentagon office oversees the distribution of those reconstruction contracts.
But Salem Chalabi is confident the tribunal will be accepted. (April 22, 2004)
Chalabi for the Nobel Peace Prize...At some point there is silence. This is the point when both sides are convinced that the other one is completely inane and ridiculously intractable. It’s sort of a huffy silence, with rolling eyes and lips drawn into thin slits of scorn.
I’ve learned the best way to mediate these arguments is to let them develop into what they will. Let the yellers yell, the shouters shout and the name-calling and innuendos ensue. The important part is the end- how to allow the debating parties to part friends or relatives, or (at the very least) to make sure they do not part sworn enemies for life. It’s simple, no matter what their stand is, all you have to do is get a couple of words in towards the end. The huffy silence at the end of the debate must be subtly taken advantage of and the following words murmured as if the thought just occurred that moment:
“You know who’s really bad? Ahmed Chalabi. He’s such a lowlife and villain.”
Voila. Like magic the air clears, eyebrows are raised in agreement and all arguing parties suddenly unite to confirm this very valid opinion with nodding heads, somewhat strained laughter and charming anecdotes about his various press appearances and ridiculous sense of fasion. We’re all friends again, and family once more. We’re all lovey-dovey Iraqis who can agree nicely with each other. In short, we are at peace with each other and the world.
And that is why Ahmed Chalabi deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. (March 9, 2005)
Chalabi for Prime Minister! 99.11% YES!!!
Posted by Mike at 11:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 05, 2005
Good news from Iraq for a change
The Iraqi government has been shamed into reversing their rule change:
Iraq's Parliament voted today to cancel a last-minute rule change that would have made it almost impossible for Iraq's new constitution to fail in the upcoming national referendum.The reversal came a day after United Nations official in Baghdad told Shiite and Kurdish leaders that the new rule was a violation of international election standards. Sunni Arab leaders who oppose the constitution had also criticized the rule change, saying it amounted to rigging the referendum in advance.
The Shiite and Kurdish leaders capitulated today, with 119 of 157 legislators voting to cancel the rule change. But Shiite leaders said they were still deeply concerned about whether the vote would be fair, and they left the door open to challenging the results if the constitution fails on Oct. 15.
The Shiite leaders said they believed insurgents might manipulate the vote through selective violence. They said they had agreed to cancel the change only after securing a promise from the Iraqi government that it would prevent that from happening.
Posted by Mike at 04:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 03, 2005
Talk about rigging an election
In Iraq, not showing up to vote counts as voting. By simply being registered to vote, you count towards the 1/3 of registered voters who "do not reject" the constitution, thereby allowing it to pass in the critical Sunni provinces. The only way the constitution will not pass is if the Kurds suddenly decide to vote it down, which I doubt.
I've already fallen off the Newsaholic wagon, but this is an important development:
Meanwhile, the parliament decision Sunday was the latest instance of the Shiite-dominated government making a favorable interpretation of rules on the constitution.Those rules state that the constitution is defeated if two-thirds of voters in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces reject it, even if an overall majority across the country approve.
Iraq's Sunni Arab majority has been counting on those rules to defeat the charter at the polls. There are four provinces where Sunni Arabs could conceivably make the two-thirds majority "no" vote.
But instead, parliament, which has only 16 Sunni members, approved an interpretation stating that two-thirds of registered voters - rather than two-thirds of all those who cast ballots - must reject the constitution for the rules to apply.
The change effectively raises the bar to reach the two-thirds mark.
Saddam would be proud of these guys:
Of about 8.56 million votes cast in the election, the UIA received 4.08 million, the combined Kurdish parties garnered 2.17 million and the Iraqi list of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi got 1.17 million.CNN calculates that those numbers would give the UIA about 130 seats on Iraq's 275-seat National Assembly, the Kurds about 70 seats, and the Iraqi list about 40 seats.
Some 58 percent of Iraq's registered voters turned out for the elections, despite violence that killed more than 40 people.
It is virtually impossible for the Iraqi constitution to fail now.
Consider that 2/3 turnout among registered voters is considered high here in the US, where we've had considerably longer to get the hang of this democracy thing, and you might understand why no Sunni will accept the legitimacy of the constitution now. Civil War could well erupt, or Iraq could simply fall apart into three distinct parts. There is a word for that - Balkanization:
Balkanization is a geopolitical term originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region into smaller regions that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other. The term has arisen from the conflicts in the 20th-century Balkans. The first Balkanization was embodied in the Balkan Wars, and the term was further reaffirmed in the Yugoslav wars.
Posted by Mike at 01:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
October 02, 2005
Iraqi President asks Prime Minister to resign
Iraq's Kurdish president called on the country's Shiite prime minister to step down, the spokesman for the president's party said Sunday, escalating a political split between the two factions that make up the government.
President Jalal Talabani has accused the Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance, which holds the majority in parliament, of monopolizing power in the government and refusing to move ahead on a key issue for Kurds, the resettlement of Kurds in the northern city of Kirkuk."The time has come for the United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdistan coalition to study Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's stepping aside from his post," said Azad Jundiyani, a spokesman for Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. "This is for the benefit of the political process."
Jundiyani would not say whether the Kurds would withdraw from the government if the Shiite alliance does not back them in removing al-Jaafari. Talabani has made indirect threats to withdraw from the coalition if Kurdish demands are not met.
As always, Juan Cole has more details:
The wrangling between President Jalal Talabani (a Kurd) and Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari (a religious Shiite) may after all threaten the stability of the government. Aljazeerah says, "Kurdish officials warned on Saturday they would consider pulling out of the government if their demands are not met. That would cause the collapse of the government and put a new layer of political instability and fragmentation between Iraq's main communities." The Kurds are angry because they say the Shiite government had pledged to begin a major resettlement of Kurds in Kirkuk, but has not. Kirkuk is about a quarter Turkmen (mostly Shiites), a quarter Arab and a half Kurdish. Many Kurds and Turkmen were expelled from the city by Saddam Hussein, who brought in Arabs (many of them Shiites from the south) as settlers to "Arabize" Kirkuk, a major petroleum producer. The pledge given by the Shiite majority to resettle the expelled Kurds would threaten the interests of the Shiite Turkmen and the Shiite Arabs, and they surely have put enormous pressure on PM Ibrahim Jaafari to drag his feet on it.There will eventually be a referendum on the future of Kirkuk in which Kirkuk residents will vote, according to the interim constitution. The Kurdish parties are desperate to flood the city with their supporters, so that when the referendum is held it will go in their favor (i.e. Kirkuk province would join the Kurdistan provincial confederacy along with Irbil, Dohuk, and Sulaimaniyah. The Shiites, by holding up resettlement, are placing that outcome in doubt. The Turkmen and the Shiite Arabs desperately do not want to be in Kurdistan, and the Turkmen have demanded a semi-autonomous Iraqi Turkmenistan instead if it looks as though that might happen.
The Iraqi government is unlikely to fall, since 54 percent of the delegates in parliament are religious Shiites who will support Jaafari, and a government can remain in power with a simple majority. But if even a few Shiites defected, Jaafari could be vulnerable to a vote of no confidence. For the Iraqi government to fall at this point might well hurl the country into a maelstrom of political discontent and even more violence. Kirkuk is a powderkeg.
Al-Hayat: The Sunni Arab members of the constitution drafting committee said Saturday that they are negotiating with US Ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad to make some final amendments to the new Iraqi constitution. Ali Saadoun, a member of the National Dialogue Council (Sunni), said that Khalilzad "promised to add these amendments to the draft that is printed, and to broach them through an appendix to it." But the head of the constitution drafting committee in parliament, Shiite cleric Humam Hammoudi, objected that "These are not alterations or additions but are rather just affirmations and clarifications in the draft language, especially with regard to the unity of Iraq and its Arab identity." In an interview with Aljazeerah, he was in fact alarmed at Khalilzad's maneuvering, and angrily said that no changes could be made to the constitution at this late date.
The UN is supposed to be printing millions of copies of this document, a certified final text of which nobody has yet seen outside parliament, so that the Iraqi public can study it before the October 15 referendum.
Posted by Mike at 05:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 29, 2005
Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Photos
This could definitely complicate a Gonzales nomination:
At the end of the process, the leading contenders include current and former high-ranking administration officials with long ties to Bush: Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and White House Counsel Harriet Miers, as well as former Deputy Atty. Gen. Larry Thompson, who is now the general counsel of Pepsico and would be the court's third African-American justice.Bush has long said he would like to name the first Hispanic to the high court, and Gonzales is the only prospect to emerge at the end of the summerlong selection process.
Of course, Hellerstein has made similar rulings in the past only to be outsmarted by the Pentagon yet again. Who knows what will happen.
Saying the United States "does not surrender to blackmail," a judge ruled Thursday that pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the release of certain pictures in a 50-page decision that said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they "do not need pretexts for their barbarism."
The ACLU has sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes taken at the prison as part of an October 2003 lawsuit demanding information on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture. The ACLU contends that prisoner abuse is systemic.
The judge said: "Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command. Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."
Ah, here is an updated version of the story, with this key sentence:
The ruling was expected to be appealed, which could delay a release for months.
Ultimately, the appeal will go to the Supreme Court, so in many ways this whole post is just one big circular argument.
Posted by Mike at 02:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 28, 2005
Cliff May is an idiot
This is like Jeffrey Dahmer saying, "Newsflash: There are some bodies in the fridge and it looks like something hinky might be going on!"
So how do you think they got there, Cliff?
NEWS FLASH: AL-QAEDA “SEEN AS MAIN THREAT” IN IRAQ [Cliff May]That’s according to a story in the Washington Post this morning.
“U.S. military leaders say they now see [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi's group of foreign fighters and Iraqi supporters, known as al Qaeda in Iraq, as having supplanted Iraqis loyal to ousted president Saddam Hussein as the insurgency's driving element.”
Some of us have suspected as much. (One clue: Baathists do not eagerly volunteer for suicide bombing missions; they tend to be a tad skeptical about the whole 72 virgins deal.)
Posted by Mike at 09:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 22, 2005
Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts
Saudi Minister Warns U.S. Iraq May Face Disintegration
Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said Thursday that he had been warning the Bush administration in recent days that Iraq was hurtling toward disintegration, a development that he said could drag the region into war."There is no dynamic now pulling the nation together," he said in a meeting with reporters at the Saudi Embassy here. "All the dynamics are pulling the country apart." He said he was so concerned that he was carrying this message "to everyone who will listen" in the Bush administration.
Prince Saud's statements, some of the most pessimistic public comments on Iraq by a Middle Eastern leader in recent months, were in stark contrast to the generally upbeat assessments that the White House and the Pentagon have been offering....
Prince Saud, who is in Washington for meetings with administration officials, blamed several American decisions for the slide toward disintegration, though he did not refer to the Bush administration directly.
Primary among them was designating "every Sunni as a Baathist criminal," he said....
Prince Saud said he met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week and added that American officials generally responded to his warnings by telling him that the United States successfully carried off the Iraqi elections and "they say the same things about the constitution" and the broader situation in Iraq now. On Thursday, in fact, the senior administration official said, "The forward movement of the political process is the best answer."
Prince Saud argued: "But what I am trying do is say that unless something is done to bring Iraqis together, elections alone won't do it. A constitution alone won't do it." Prince Saud is a son of the late King Faisal and has been foreign minister for 30 years.
The prince said he served on a council of Iraq's neighboring countries - Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait as well as Saudi Arabia - "and the main worry of all the neighbors" was that the potential disintegration of Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish states would "bring other countries in the region into the conflict."
Turkey, he noted, has long threatened to send troops into northern Iraq if the Kurds there declare independence. Iran, he asserted, is already sending money and weapons into the Shiite-controlled south of Iraq and would probably step up its relationship, should the south become independent. Saudi Arabia has long been wary of Iran's influence in the region, given that it is a Shiite theocracy.
"This is a very dangerous situation," he said, "a very threatening situation."
Can you say "Regional Conflict"?
Posted by Mike at 11:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 01, 2005
Bush: We went to war to keep Osama out of Iraq
It's very simple: We are drawing Osama and Al Qaeda out to fight us in Iraq, killings tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the process, in order to keep Osama and Al Qaeda out of Iraq and keep them from recruiting any new supporters.
I think Bush said it best himself yesterday:
"If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq," he said, "they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions, they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition."
Of course, last week, Bush also said:
Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy. They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail.
Got it?
Posted by Mike at 12:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 31, 2005
The Daou Report and the three R's
Peter Daou is wrong. There was a moral justification for the Iraq War. Liberation is indeed a worthy moral cause. Unfortunately, that is not what the Bush administration really had in mind. Instead of liberation, they wanted revenge, resources, and a chance to "reshape" the region. Bush, and most Iraq War hawks, saw freedom and democracy as "spreading our ideals" and "creating an ally in the heart of the Middle East" - none of which is in the true interests of the Iraqi citizens or indicative of a free people governing themselves as they see fit. The reason we haven't been treated as liberators is that we have not been liberators! Instead of bringing in Iraq's neighbors and the international community after we captured Baghdad, we simply dismissed the rest of the world - especially Iraq's neighbors. For two years, the insurgency grew, while we clung to the same selfish, arrogant idea that Iraq was ours to control. Surely, we don't want Iraq's neighbors propping up their own puppet regimes in Baghdad, but by giving the appearance of propping up our own, Bush has shown the true face of his designs on Iraq. Revenge, resources, and reshaping the region are not morally justifiable goals.
Posted by Mike at 01:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 26, 2005
A New Kind of Liberation?
Well, I guess this is one way to keep people from fleeing the chaos that has taken hold in Iraq. "We freed your country, now go and live there."
Britain is host to around 7,000 Iraqi asylum seekers, of which 250 are currently in detention centres, Jamal said....A Home Office spokeswoman told AFP that Iraqis are beginning to be returned, in line with nationals from other countries with no permission to stay.
"We can confirm that we are now detaining Iraqi nationals with no leave to remain as we work towards preparations for enforcing removals to Iraq," she said.
What's next?
Posted by Mike at 07:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)