Hot and fresh from al-Iraqiya TV...
Finally! The interior minister Jawad al-Bolani just announced that an arrest warrant has just been issued against Harith al-Dhari, head of the association of Muslim scholars.
If you're not familiar with the name, al-Dhari and his organization are the only party that totally rejected the political process, never denounced Saddam's regime, explicitly praised al-Qaeda and is believed to be responsible for sponsoring a great deal of the activity of terror groups and insurgents loyal to the Ba'ath regime.
Al-Bolani said the decision was made according to the 'national safety law' and anti-terrorism legislations and described the arrest warrant as a message to all other warlords and men who incite sectarian violence.
Actually the minister's words were an indirect threat to Muqtada al-Sadr, or more like a direct one because he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "there are two neighboring countries that are causing trouble in Iraq and anyone who cooperates with these countries will not be safe from prosecution"
Al-Bolani acknowledged that al-Dhari is currently outside Iraq but reassured that the government has the tools to reach him and have him arrested.
Update: "Not an arrest warrant, but an interrogation warrant"
Says Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman of the government.
This means they are not ready yet to press charges against al-Dhari and at the moment all they can do through this type warrant is demand he appears before an 'investigation officer' to answer questions.
However, and as far as I know, the procedures here are that if the subject person refuses to show up after three notifications, an arrest warrant might be issued for him.
New points of view about the future of Iraq and the Middle East.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Iran flexes muscles in Baghdad.
The mass abduction that shocked Baghdad yesterday was intended to be a clear message from Tehran-through its surrogates in Baghdad-to anyone who thinks productive dialogue with the Islamic republic over Iraq and Middle East peace is a possible option.
The operation was a show of victory and it was so smooth and perfect that neither the MNF nor the Iraqi military could do a thing to stop it.
And today the show continues with the assassination of the colonel who's in charge of internal investigation in the department of national police, also known as the police commandos, one day after an investigation was ordered.
Perhaps choosing a ministry like the higher education (which belongs to the Sunni Accord Front) is also a warning message to Sunni politicians who are preparing to send a delegation to Washington especially that the Accord bloc announced recently that they were looking forward to "clear the misunderstanding and mistrust" between them and the US administration to search for solutions for the situation in Iraq.
Did Iran misunderstand the American democracy?
Absolutely yes and Tehran is planning and working according to this faulty impression.
Iran now considers itself the victor and it will not negotiate for peace but instead will try to impose conditions to accept America's surrender.
The operation was a show of victory and it was so smooth and perfect that neither the MNF nor the Iraqi military could do a thing to stop it.
And today the show continues with the assassination of the colonel who's in charge of internal investigation in the department of national police, also known as the police commandos, one day after an investigation was ordered.
Perhaps choosing a ministry like the higher education (which belongs to the Sunni Accord Front) is also a warning message to Sunni politicians who are preparing to send a delegation to Washington especially that the Accord bloc announced recently that they were looking forward to "clear the misunderstanding and mistrust" between them and the US administration to search for solutions for the situation in Iraq.
Did Iran misunderstand the American democracy?
Absolutely yes and Tehran is planning and working according to this faulty impression.
Iran now considers itself the victor and it will not negotiate for peace but instead will try to impose conditions to accept America's surrender.
Monday, November 13, 2006
And the new peacemaker of the middle east is...Iran!
Well, well, well
It's seems our friend Blair is planning to seek help from Syria and Iran to stem the violence in Iraq…I'm truly shocked to see this unprecedented level of impotent thought coming out from London and from no less than Blair.
Take a look at this:
Not only that, he's going to ask Washington to do that same and it seems the latter is considering it.
Am I missing something here or what?
Hello Blair! These are the very two countries where trouble is coming from and the two most hardcore anti-Israel regimes in the region.
Hell, Tehran wants to wipe Israel off the map and Blair thinks they can be persuaded to cooperate with America and the UK to build peace in the Middle East?!
Oh, I forgot, he's going to make clear there would be consequences if they refuse to cooperate, sure, why not.
Well consequences my ass, ok?
What kind of consequences are we supposed to expect here and why should we think Iran and Syria are going to listen this time when they've been getting tons of empty warnings with consequences for years?
Maybe I'd have taken that seriously if it was said three years ago when the war was still young and when the Mullahs were shitting their pants watching the Talibans and Saddam fall…but not now.
Iran is bragging about going on with their nuclear program defying the UNSC and the will of the world and the security council can't even reach consensus on imposing economic penalties, so there's no reason whatsoever to think that "consequences' in this case would be any tougher from those already in place.
Sorry, I forgot…Iran so far faced no consequences for what it's been doing whether in Iraq or in their nuclear basements.
Mr. Blair, what you're suggesting is replacing conventional war with a nuclear one through trying to reason with people who are ready and willing to destroy themselves and others without any hesitation or remorse once they have the power they need.
Iran is not china or the soviets who understood the deterrence balance, and instead of 120 killed in three years you will never have an accurate body count when the next war starts.
Unless by "consequences" you mean the use of power-which is the only concept Tehran and Damascus understand-then only lousy economic penalties come to mind and I have to remind you that it was under these empty threats and economic penalties where NKorea built its bomb and Saddam built his palaces and butchered his people.
It doesn't work this way…sorry.
Update:
President Bush calls for global isolation of Iran:
Again, and correct me if I'm wrong, global isolation did not stop North Korea from building nuclear weapons, did it?
And it just gets better!
Now give me a break, if finding "rational" people inside Tehran's government is what you're hoping for Mr. President then I assure you this, your disappointment will be huge, and this this disappointment will be costly, very costly.
It's seems our friend Blair is planning to seek help from Syria and Iran to stem the violence in Iraq…I'm truly shocked to see this unprecedented level of impotent thought coming out from London and from no less than Blair.
Take a look at this:
Blair will argue the need for a Middle East strategy that includes making clear to Damascus and Tehran how they can help in the region while warning them of the consequences of hindering peace, a spokeswoman said.
Not only that, he's going to ask Washington to do that same and it seems the latter is considering it.
Am I missing something here or what?
Hello Blair! These are the very two countries where trouble is coming from and the two most hardcore anti-Israel regimes in the region.
Hell, Tehran wants to wipe Israel off the map and Blair thinks they can be persuaded to cooperate with America and the UK to build peace in the Middle East?!
Oh, I forgot, he's going to make clear there would be consequences if they refuse to cooperate, sure, why not.
Well consequences my ass, ok?
What kind of consequences are we supposed to expect here and why should we think Iran and Syria are going to listen this time when they've been getting tons of empty warnings with consequences for years?
Maybe I'd have taken that seriously if it was said three years ago when the war was still young and when the Mullahs were shitting their pants watching the Talibans and Saddam fall…but not now.
Iran is bragging about going on with their nuclear program defying the UNSC and the will of the world and the security council can't even reach consensus on imposing economic penalties, so there's no reason whatsoever to think that "consequences' in this case would be any tougher from those already in place.
Sorry, I forgot…Iran so far faced no consequences for what it's been doing whether in Iraq or in their nuclear basements.
Mr. Blair, what you're suggesting is replacing conventional war with a nuclear one through trying to reason with people who are ready and willing to destroy themselves and others without any hesitation or remorse once they have the power they need.
Iran is not china or the soviets who understood the deterrence balance, and instead of 120 killed in three years you will never have an accurate body count when the next war starts.
Unless by "consequences" you mean the use of power-which is the only concept Tehran and Damascus understand-then only lousy economic penalties come to mind and I have to remind you that it was under these empty threats and economic penalties where NKorea built its bomb and Saddam built his palaces and butchered his people.
It doesn't work this way…sorry.
Update:
President Bush calls for global isolation of Iran:
WASHINGTON-President Bush, responding to concerns Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert brought to the White House, called on Monday for worldwide isolation of Iran until it "gives up its nuclear ambitions."
Again, and correct me if I'm wrong, global isolation did not stop North Korea from building nuclear weapons, did it?
And it just gets better!
"If they continue to move forward with the program, there has to be a consequence," Bush said. "And a good place to start is working together to isolate the country. And my hope is, is that there are rational people inside the government that recognize isolation is not in their country's interest."
Now give me a break, if finding "rational" people inside Tehran's government is what you're hoping for Mr. President then I assure you this, your disappointment will be huge, and this this disappointment will be costly, very costly.
Friday, November 10, 2006
The American elections from a middle eastern perspective...
The midterm American elections were followed with great interest by Arabs this time and the media here designated a great space to cover this event.
It is usual to see such interest at every presidential election but this time the circle of interest extended to involve midterm congressional elections and that is something interesting and indicates that what used to be considered "minor" changes in the political arena in America is now viewed to have major influence on the course of events in this part of the world.
I will try to talk about what happened before and after the elections and the way people here handled the news and their reactions to democratic win.
It was obvious that a majority here were in favor of a change, not because they think the democrats have a better agenda but because folks here wanted to see Bush and his party lose.
There had been attempts to give the public here the impression that the democratic party as a whole is opposed to the war as a whole and not only opposed to the way war was being managed so far. And the media here, pretty much like the media in the west, were focusing on the democrats' criticism of the Bush administration without saying anything about whether the democrats had alternative plans, together with an exaggeration of the idea that democrats are going to go ahead with an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
However, this tone changed a bit after the elections were over and now there's kind of a warning tone that suggests that "nothing has changed" and that US policy is one and no elections can change the large image. Media and politicians are back to reminding the public that democrats are even better friends of Israel than republicans are.
This, I think, is an attempt to put America as a whole back in its place as the enemy regardless of who's in charge in Capitol Hill, which means the regimes and their media here had to put the people back "on track" so they don't go far in their expectations or prepare to deal with anything American…what happened had to portrayed as a defeat for the American nation, not only for the republicans.
I would like to remind again that claiming that America's policies are the cause of anti-Americanism is crap, because the hatred is for the nature of the American democratic system which contrasts the nature of regimes here.
That explains why there's rarely an opposition to China or Russia in the middle east and that's because neither has a systems that threatens the totalitarian ideology of governance that prevail in the Arab world.
The rulers in the region consider the change in America a victory for them because time is precious right now and many here think the next two years will be stagnation phase rather than action phase for America…I personally doubt this but I can say Iran, Syria and some powers in Iraq think they just won the truce they need.
But is that really god for them? What if the calls for dialogue between them and America over Iraq materialize? And what will the requirements and implications be?
I think Syria and Iran will be in an embarrassing position…so far they were saying that America doesn't accept dialogue and the administration is one of war and only war but now things will change and we'll see faces in Washington that call for dialogue, so what will they do then.
I tend to think they will accept dialogue as a principal (or pretend to accept it at least) but on what basis?
Will it be like Saddam's dialogue with the UN, or a serious effort to solve a crisis?
Will the Iranians really consider dropping their nuclear program and move to build friendly relationships with America, the west, accept Israel's existence and stop messing with Iraq's affairs? And is Syria willing to consider changing its totalitarian repressive internal policy and stop the interference in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories?
What about some of the radical parties in Iraq, are they willing to replace violence with dialogue and accept the concept of sharing power?
I put more emphasis on the position of regional players rather than domestic political powers in Iraq because it's become clear that many of the latter do not follow a patriotic agenda and that the "engine" of chaos inside Iraq resides across the border.
The dialogue, if there's going to be any, shall tell although I had learned a lesson not to trust a dictator or a cleric; neither respect deals or promises. They don't respect their people and everyone opposed to their ways is an enemy in their eyes.
A fruitful dialogue can be held when the person on the other end believes in dialogue and that's what is missing in the middle east, again because neither dictators nor clerics accept dialogue. They preach or make speeches and people must listen. Sometimes people are allowed to ask questions but are never allowed to criticize or oppose the words of the divine ruler/cleric.
To them, dialogue is a one-way exchange and that's what we learned over centuries.
It is usual to see such interest at every presidential election but this time the circle of interest extended to involve midterm congressional elections and that is something interesting and indicates that what used to be considered "minor" changes in the political arena in America is now viewed to have major influence on the course of events in this part of the world.
I will try to talk about what happened before and after the elections and the way people here handled the news and their reactions to democratic win.
It was obvious that a majority here were in favor of a change, not because they think the democrats have a better agenda but because folks here wanted to see Bush and his party lose.
There had been attempts to give the public here the impression that the democratic party as a whole is opposed to the war as a whole and not only opposed to the way war was being managed so far. And the media here, pretty much like the media in the west, were focusing on the democrats' criticism of the Bush administration without saying anything about whether the democrats had alternative plans, together with an exaggeration of the idea that democrats are going to go ahead with an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
However, this tone changed a bit after the elections were over and now there's kind of a warning tone that suggests that "nothing has changed" and that US policy is one and no elections can change the large image. Media and politicians are back to reminding the public that democrats are even better friends of Israel than republicans are.
This, I think, is an attempt to put America as a whole back in its place as the enemy regardless of who's in charge in Capitol Hill, which means the regimes and their media here had to put the people back "on track" so they don't go far in their expectations or prepare to deal with anything American…what happened had to portrayed as a defeat for the American nation, not only for the republicans.
I would like to remind again that claiming that America's policies are the cause of anti-Americanism is crap, because the hatred is for the nature of the American democratic system which contrasts the nature of regimes here.
That explains why there's rarely an opposition to China or Russia in the middle east and that's because neither has a systems that threatens the totalitarian ideology of governance that prevail in the Arab world.
The rulers in the region consider the change in America a victory for them because time is precious right now and many here think the next two years will be stagnation phase rather than action phase for America…I personally doubt this but I can say Iran, Syria and some powers in Iraq think they just won the truce they need.
But is that really god for them? What if the calls for dialogue between them and America over Iraq materialize? And what will the requirements and implications be?
I think Syria and Iran will be in an embarrassing position…so far they were saying that America doesn't accept dialogue and the administration is one of war and only war but now things will change and we'll see faces in Washington that call for dialogue, so what will they do then.
I tend to think they will accept dialogue as a principal (or pretend to accept it at least) but on what basis?
Will it be like Saddam's dialogue with the UN, or a serious effort to solve a crisis?
Will the Iranians really consider dropping their nuclear program and move to build friendly relationships with America, the west, accept Israel's existence and stop messing with Iraq's affairs? And is Syria willing to consider changing its totalitarian repressive internal policy and stop the interference in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories?
What about some of the radical parties in Iraq, are they willing to replace violence with dialogue and accept the concept of sharing power?
I put more emphasis on the position of regional players rather than domestic political powers in Iraq because it's become clear that many of the latter do not follow a patriotic agenda and that the "engine" of chaos inside Iraq resides across the border.
The dialogue, if there's going to be any, shall tell although I had learned a lesson not to trust a dictator or a cleric; neither respect deals or promises. They don't respect their people and everyone opposed to their ways is an enemy in their eyes.
A fruitful dialogue can be held when the person on the other end believes in dialogue and that's what is missing in the middle east, again because neither dictators nor clerics accept dialogue. They preach or make speeches and people must listen. Sometimes people are allowed to ask questions but are never allowed to criticize or oppose the words of the divine ruler/cleric.
To them, dialogue is a one-way exchange and that's what we learned over centuries.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Egyptian Blogger Kareem Arrested...Again!
I had met him in Cairo and before that I met his thoughts through his blog.
Abdul Kareem is an "Azhari" who was dismissed and punished for his rejection of the old ways and for his work to free his mind and the minds of others from the prison of obsolete traditions and doctrines.
Abdul Kareem does not represent a majority in the lands of sands but he stands as a hope; a hope for Egypt and a hope for me here in Iraq and for you out there who support reform and open mindedness. People like him work to turn our societies into civilized societies that appreciate liberty and respect the right of the other to be different.
Abdul Kareem was arrested again by the repressive authorities in his country but you can help set him free by adding your voice and signing this petition.
Check out Sandmonkey for more about Kareem's case.
Tom Palmer also wrote about this and he provides the adrress and contact info of the Egyptian embassy in D.C, so you can go ahead and give them a call or write to them.
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt
3521 International Court, NW, Washington DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 895 5400
Fax: (202) 244-4319
E-mail: embassy@egyptembdc.org
URL: http://www.egyptembassy.us
Abdul Kareem is an "Azhari" who was dismissed and punished for his rejection of the old ways and for his work to free his mind and the minds of others from the prison of obsolete traditions and doctrines.
Abdul Kareem does not represent a majority in the lands of sands but he stands as a hope; a hope for Egypt and a hope for me here in Iraq and for you out there who support reform and open mindedness. People like him work to turn our societies into civilized societies that appreciate liberty and respect the right of the other to be different.
Abdul Kareem was arrested again by the repressive authorities in his country but you can help set him free by adding your voice and signing this petition.
Check out Sandmonkey for more about Kareem's case.
Tom Palmer also wrote about this and he provides the adrress and contact info of the Egyptian embassy in D.C, so you can go ahead and give them a call or write to them.
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt
3521 International Court, NW, Washington DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 895 5400
Fax: (202) 244-4319
E-mail: embassy@egyptembdc.org
URL: http://www.egyptembassy.us
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Interior ministry presses torture charges against senior officers.
From the Washington Post:
Site 4 is the same secret detention facility that was discovered in Jadiriya; the same district of Baghdad that hosts the HQ of the SCIRI and its Badr militia, so there's every reason to believe that many, if not most, of the officers in charge of that facility were members or affiliates of the SCIRI.
Although this move came late and it addresses only one case of atrocity I must say that I'm impressed that the interior ministry, with all the influence SCIRI has on it, has made this action.
Building rule of law is much more of a difficult task than breaking the law is and the transformation from jungle law to civil law requires patience and determination.
What makes me feel good about this is that we're now moving to prosecute the criminals of the present just like we prosecuted the criminals of the past.
Gangs and militias are stronger today than they were three years ago and the same can be said about the legitimate foundations and institutions of the state, even more, the latter are growing stronger at a faster rate even though that might not be so visible.
Anyways, I think if law-enforcement apparatus, judicial and military alike, are allowed to retain the momentum, then maybe in a year we will be discussing al-Sadr and al-Dhari verdicts.
Iraq's Interior Ministry has charged 57 employees, including high-ranking officers, with human rights crimes for their roles in the torture of hundreds of detainees once jailed in a notorious eastern Baghdad prison known as Site 4, officials announced Monday.
The charges marked the first time the present Iraqi government has taken criminal action against members of its own security forces for operating torture chambers inside Interior Ministry prisons, said Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, a ministry spokesman.
Site 4 is the same secret detention facility that was discovered in Jadiriya; the same district of Baghdad that hosts the HQ of the SCIRI and its Badr militia, so there's every reason to believe that many, if not most, of the officers in charge of that facility were members or affiliates of the SCIRI.
Although this move came late and it addresses only one case of atrocity I must say that I'm impressed that the interior ministry, with all the influence SCIRI has on it, has made this action.
Building rule of law is much more of a difficult task than breaking the law is and the transformation from jungle law to civil law requires patience and determination.
What makes me feel good about this is that we're now moving to prosecute the criminals of the present just like we prosecuted the criminals of the past.
Gangs and militias are stronger today than they were three years ago and the same can be said about the legitimate foundations and institutions of the state, even more, the latter are growing stronger at a faster rate even though that might not be so visible.
Anyways, I think if law-enforcement apparatus, judicial and military alike, are allowed to retain the momentum, then maybe in a year we will be discussing al-Sadr and al-Dhari verdicts.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
The Day of Justice.
Now, Saddam is officially going down the toilet!
I wish I could have live-blogged the proceedings and the announcement of the verdict but I was facing some technical difficulties.
Anyways, you can go over to Pajamas Media where you can find a good roundup of related news and opinion including Mohammed's first reaction.
I wish I could have live-blogged the proceedings and the announcement of the verdict but I was facing some technical difficulties.
Anyways, you can go over to Pajamas Media where you can find a good roundup of related news and opinion including Mohammed's first reaction.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Counting hours...
Baghdad is living tense hours awaiting the announcement of a verdict by the special tribunal against Saddam.
First, the defense ministry announced canceling all leaves and vacations for all personnel then the government declared a curfew for tomorrow in Baghdad, Salah Addin, Diyala and Anbar.
Baghdad's international airport will also be closed from Sunday morning "until further notice" according to al-Iraqiya state TV.
Today, heavy presence of police forces is visible in Baghdad and a few districts like Adhamiya and Ghazaliya are, partially or completely, locked from the rest of the capital with roadblocks and checkpoint.
However, the situation is relatively calm in general but the public is expecting an escalation in attacks by insurgents tomorrow.
Households are preparing for the curfew and stashing extra amounts of fuel and food and there are particularly long lines of people at bakeries waiting for bread. This is all out of fear that the curfew would be extended for several days incase massive unrest break out.
I personally don't see this exaggerated anxiety necessary; of course an upsurge in violence is expected but that would be limited in duration and geographic distribution. Perhaps we will also see some armed demonstrations in certain places in Baghdad and Salah Addin where Saddam loyalists are abundant but this cannot lead to massive chaos because those Saddam loyalists are again limited in power and geographic distribution.
The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are looking forward to seeing justice be served tomorrow which will give the fascist dictator, who brutalized and abused millions of people and their homeland for decades, give him what he deserves.
We have been dreaming for such a day to come and it will be a true turning point, not only for Iraq but for the middle east, for it will be the first time a ruler gets paid back for what he'd done by a court of law.
Saddam's trial is a trial for all tyrants who oppressed their peoples and a tough warning to whose who think they have the right to control nations with fire and steel and get away with it. It is just a one trial in a series of trials yet to come; there are many more criminals in our land and they will eventually meet the same fate as Saddam's.
This is the beginning to build the foundations for the state of law and accountability we're fighting to establish, and the verdict we expect to come tomorrow will only shake the thrones of other middle east tyrants but will also send a strong message to some of the current mini-Saddam's of Iraq who will also have their own days someday.
I'm speaking about the leaders who try to hinder the process of building the nation of pluralism and rule of law; those are just as criminal as Saddam and even if we bore with them so far for one reason or another this patience will not last indefinitely.
We had waited for thirty years to see Saddam in the cage and we will wait again to see the rest of criminals meet the same just fate.
We had made the first step and we will go on….
Tonight is going to be a very, very long one for Saddam but that won't slow the ticking clock and tomorrow he will face the truth he's been avoiding.
Although I was long opposed to the death penalty but this time I must admit that can't wait to hear an execution statement.
Let's turn the darkest page of Iraqi's history forever and let's bury with it the sick dreams of the crazy Baathist minions who still think they can seize power again.
It's not only me despise this pathetic, irrational "solution" of Saddam's orphans but that's a common attitude among Iraqis, in spite of our difficult situation most of us would like to hear the words "The accused was found guilty and will get the death penalty….".
Update:
Add Mosul to the provinces that will be under curfew tomorrow. (story in Arabic)
First, the defense ministry announced canceling all leaves and vacations for all personnel then the government declared a curfew for tomorrow in Baghdad, Salah Addin, Diyala and Anbar.
Baghdad's international airport will also be closed from Sunday morning "until further notice" according to al-Iraqiya state TV.
Today, heavy presence of police forces is visible in Baghdad and a few districts like Adhamiya and Ghazaliya are, partially or completely, locked from the rest of the capital with roadblocks and checkpoint.
However, the situation is relatively calm in general but the public is expecting an escalation in attacks by insurgents tomorrow.
Households are preparing for the curfew and stashing extra amounts of fuel and food and there are particularly long lines of people at bakeries waiting for bread. This is all out of fear that the curfew would be extended for several days incase massive unrest break out.
I personally don't see this exaggerated anxiety necessary; of course an upsurge in violence is expected but that would be limited in duration and geographic distribution. Perhaps we will also see some armed demonstrations in certain places in Baghdad and Salah Addin where Saddam loyalists are abundant but this cannot lead to massive chaos because those Saddam loyalists are again limited in power and geographic distribution.
The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are looking forward to seeing justice be served tomorrow which will give the fascist dictator, who brutalized and abused millions of people and their homeland for decades, give him what he deserves.
We have been dreaming for such a day to come and it will be a true turning point, not only for Iraq but for the middle east, for it will be the first time a ruler gets paid back for what he'd done by a court of law.
Saddam's trial is a trial for all tyrants who oppressed their peoples and a tough warning to whose who think they have the right to control nations with fire and steel and get away with it. It is just a one trial in a series of trials yet to come; there are many more criminals in our land and they will eventually meet the same fate as Saddam's.
This is the beginning to build the foundations for the state of law and accountability we're fighting to establish, and the verdict we expect to come tomorrow will only shake the thrones of other middle east tyrants but will also send a strong message to some of the current mini-Saddam's of Iraq who will also have their own days someday.
I'm speaking about the leaders who try to hinder the process of building the nation of pluralism and rule of law; those are just as criminal as Saddam and even if we bore with them so far for one reason or another this patience will not last indefinitely.
We had waited for thirty years to see Saddam in the cage and we will wait again to see the rest of criminals meet the same just fate.
We had made the first step and we will go on….
Tonight is going to be a very, very long one for Saddam but that won't slow the ticking clock and tomorrow he will face the truth he's been avoiding.
Although I was long opposed to the death penalty but this time I must admit that can't wait to hear an execution statement.
Let's turn the darkest page of Iraqi's history forever and let's bury with it the sick dreams of the crazy Baathist minions who still think they can seize power again.
It's not only me despise this pathetic, irrational "solution" of Saddam's orphans but that's a common attitude among Iraqis, in spite of our difficult situation most of us would like to hear the words "The accused was found guilty and will get the death penalty….".
Update:
Add Mosul to the provinces that will be under curfew tomorrow. (story in Arabic)
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Iraq's Army to receive additional 18,800 soldiers.
A plan to increase the numbers of Iraqi security forces was announced yesterday and the plan was immediately approved and endorsed by defense secretary Rumsfeld.
There was still some controversy and uncertainty about the number of troops that are intended to be added.
But according to this fresh press release from the Iraqi cabinet (from Voice of Iraq/Arabic) the planned increase will include adding 18800 soldiers to the units of the army overseen by the defense ministry. It remains unclear how many troops will be added to the police forces or border guards.
The press release mentioned that those 18800 troops will be distributed over several wide regions of the country including; Kirkuk, Anbar, Diyala, Salah Addin, Baghdad, Middle Euphrates and the Southern region.
The existing units that will benefit from this increase include:
3 Division headquarters
5 Brigade headquarters
20 Battalions
1 Special Forces Battalion
There was still some controversy and uncertainty about the number of troops that are intended to be added.
But according to this fresh press release from the Iraqi cabinet (from Voice of Iraq/Arabic) the planned increase will include adding 18800 soldiers to the units of the army overseen by the defense ministry. It remains unclear how many troops will be added to the police forces or border guards.
The press release mentioned that those 18800 troops will be distributed over several wide regions of the country including; Kirkuk, Anbar, Diyala, Salah Addin, Baghdad, Middle Euphrates and the Southern region.
The existing units that will benefit from this increase include:
3 Division headquarters
5 Brigade headquarters
20 Battalions
1 Special Forces Battalion
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
The Sultans' Preachers.
Recently I have been spending much more time reading than writing and I must admit I found myself amidst a difficult conflict between the urge to blog more and the need to read more but reading won at the end, especially that I hardly read a half dozen books during the last three years while I was busy writing several hundreds of posts.
I consider myself particularly lucky that I could read some very interesting books, thanks to the three bookworms in the family; Mohammed, Ali and the ITM father.
They were excited that I decided to do more reading and flooded me with recommendations for books they consider must reads.
One of the best books I read lately was the one jewel of a book "The Sultans' Preachers" by late Dr. Ali al-Wardi, Iraq's 20th century's brilliant sociologist and sharp, straightforward thinker.
This book, unfortunately not available in English so far, is in my opinion a must read for anyone who wants to build good understanding of the Arab and Muslim countries and the factors that shaped the culture over centuries until it reached what we see today.
The author in this book takes a close look at the conflict that arose between the Bedouin culture of pre-Islam desert Arabs and the teachings of Islam and sheds light on what he calls the "double personality" of Muslim Arabs which was the most visible and destructive outcome of that psychological conflict.
The best thing about the book is the direct and frank way it tackled the relationship between rulers and clerics; the two wings of the unholy alliances that controlled, persecuted and abused the peoples of the region for so long, each with its own special tools.
I'm not good at writing reviews but all I can say is that this was the most informative and mind-opening book about Iraq and the Arabic Islamic culture I've ever read; especially when it comes to analyzing the relationship between religion and the state and exposing the role of clerics in facilitating the atrocities that were committed against humanity in the name of the Islamic faith.
And I believe it can be so handy to researchers, politicians and anyone interested in Middle Eastern culture, history and politics, so if there's anyone reading this and has the capability and interest in making a valuable book available for western readers then I encourage them to consider this one.
I consider myself particularly lucky that I could read some very interesting books, thanks to the three bookworms in the family; Mohammed, Ali and the ITM father.
They were excited that I decided to do more reading and flooded me with recommendations for books they consider must reads.
One of the best books I read lately was the one jewel of a book "The Sultans' Preachers" by late Dr. Ali al-Wardi, Iraq's 20th century's brilliant sociologist and sharp, straightforward thinker.
This book, unfortunately not available in English so far, is in my opinion a must read for anyone who wants to build good understanding of the Arab and Muslim countries and the factors that shaped the culture over centuries until it reached what we see today.
The author in this book takes a close look at the conflict that arose between the Bedouin culture of pre-Islam desert Arabs and the teachings of Islam and sheds light on what he calls the "double personality" of Muslim Arabs which was the most visible and destructive outcome of that psychological conflict.
The best thing about the book is the direct and frank way it tackled the relationship between rulers and clerics; the two wings of the unholy alliances that controlled, persecuted and abused the peoples of the region for so long, each with its own special tools.
I'm not good at writing reviews but all I can say is that this was the most informative and mind-opening book about Iraq and the Arabic Islamic culture I've ever read; especially when it comes to analyzing the relationship between religion and the state and exposing the role of clerics in facilitating the atrocities that were committed against humanity in the name of the Islamic faith.
And I believe it can be so handy to researchers, politicians and anyone interested in Middle Eastern culture, history and politics, so if there's anyone reading this and has the capability and interest in making a valuable book available for western readers then I encourage them to consider this one.
Friday, October 27, 2006
The Battle for the Middle East.
I had read some arguments about how the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general are as critical as WWII or the cold war were to the western world.
Of course the differences between those conflicts are numerous and obvious but they all are the same when it comes to the threats they carried/carry to the present and future of our world, and in all three wars the conflict was about eliminating the threat of extremely dangerous doctrines; fascism, Nazism, communism and now violent religious extremism and tyranny.
I will try to keep this as short and straightforward as I can and I will try to view the situation from as far as I can from the focus of the conflict, I mean I will try to speak as just one other human being who lives in this small village we call earth.
One of our biggest problems here is that many of us and of our politicians in particular seem to have lost the ability to strategic vision and allowed themselves to indulge in details and are satisfied by looking at only one corner of the image that they are no longer able to comprehend the magnitude of this critical conflict of our time.
I am an Iraqi so naturally I am only interested in what's going on within the borders of my country or even the city where I live, just like most people in the third world are, and this is fine and expected.
But what's neither fine nor acceptable is to see politicians and decision-makers, who are supposed to be the leaders of the new world order, think and behave in the same manner as third world citizens.
All they seem to think about is how to get away from this debilitating conflict in Iraq no matter what the outcome would be. Even worse, few people seem to realize what the amplifications of a defeat in Iraq would be on the Middle East and the rest of our small global village.
The situation is bad in Iraq, it's bad for both Iraqis and Americans alike and looking at the way the war is being managed right now makes me extremely worried about the future of our world. I am that worried that I feel I, or the next generations of my people, won't be safe in this world even if we were born and lived elsewhere.
It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Iraq might turn into a second Somalia within a year if the situation is allowed to keep descending the way it's doing now.
The Islamic Sharia courts are ruling now in Somalia while in Iraq they function undercover and it's still in our hands to stop them from extending their influence and from becoming the rule instead of the exception they are today.
Let's call the battle for middle east, and I think politicians do not need anyone to explain to them what this part of the world means…the outcome of war in Iraq does not affect Iraq alone, a victory means disrupting the ring of terror and extremism the enemies are trying to establish while failure would be equal to allowing them to establish that huge ring, or should I say that gigantic octopus of terrorists and terror-supporting regimes that would extend from Afghanistan in the east to Libya in the west and from Iraq in the north to Sudan and Somalia in the south.
And instead of creating islands of democracy and liberty, connecting them and extend from there to change the world to the better, the enemies would engulf those islands and add them to their multi-jointed entity of terror.
We need the decision-makers to rise above the rhetoric of who's right and who's wrong and focus on protecting the world from falling prey to the vicious enemies of civilization.
We are in the middle of this situation now and losing is not an option.
You know what, maybe the world isn't going to harvest direct benefits from winning the battle of Iraq but the world still has to spare no effort to win this battle, again not because winning will bring direct benefits but because losing here will bring subsequent losses that would no doubt be great.
Of course the differences between those conflicts are numerous and obvious but they all are the same when it comes to the threats they carried/carry to the present and future of our world, and in all three wars the conflict was about eliminating the threat of extremely dangerous doctrines; fascism, Nazism, communism and now violent religious extremism and tyranny.
I will try to keep this as short and straightforward as I can and I will try to view the situation from as far as I can from the focus of the conflict, I mean I will try to speak as just one other human being who lives in this small village we call earth.
One of our biggest problems here is that many of us and of our politicians in particular seem to have lost the ability to strategic vision and allowed themselves to indulge in details and are satisfied by looking at only one corner of the image that they are no longer able to comprehend the magnitude of this critical conflict of our time.
I am an Iraqi so naturally I am only interested in what's going on within the borders of my country or even the city where I live, just like most people in the third world are, and this is fine and expected.
But what's neither fine nor acceptable is to see politicians and decision-makers, who are supposed to be the leaders of the new world order, think and behave in the same manner as third world citizens.
All they seem to think about is how to get away from this debilitating conflict in Iraq no matter what the outcome would be. Even worse, few people seem to realize what the amplifications of a defeat in Iraq would be on the Middle East and the rest of our small global village.
The situation is bad in Iraq, it's bad for both Iraqis and Americans alike and looking at the way the war is being managed right now makes me extremely worried about the future of our world. I am that worried that I feel I, or the next generations of my people, won't be safe in this world even if we were born and lived elsewhere.
It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Iraq might turn into a second Somalia within a year if the situation is allowed to keep descending the way it's doing now.
The Islamic Sharia courts are ruling now in Somalia while in Iraq they function undercover and it's still in our hands to stop them from extending their influence and from becoming the rule instead of the exception they are today.
Let's call the battle for middle east, and I think politicians do not need anyone to explain to them what this part of the world means…the outcome of war in Iraq does not affect Iraq alone, a victory means disrupting the ring of terror and extremism the enemies are trying to establish while failure would be equal to allowing them to establish that huge ring, or should I say that gigantic octopus of terrorists and terror-supporting regimes that would extend from Afghanistan in the east to Libya in the west and from Iraq in the north to Sudan and Somalia in the south.
And instead of creating islands of democracy and liberty, connecting them and extend from there to change the world to the better, the enemies would engulf those islands and add them to their multi-jointed entity of terror.
We need the decision-makers to rise above the rhetoric of who's right and who's wrong and focus on protecting the world from falling prey to the vicious enemies of civilization.
We are in the middle of this situation now and losing is not an option.
You know what, maybe the world isn't going to harvest direct benefits from winning the battle of Iraq but the world still has to spare no effort to win this battle, again not because winning will bring direct benefits but because losing here will bring subsequent losses that would no doubt be great.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Amara lesson.
What will happen if the MNF are withdrawn prematurely before the job is done?
Perhaps the lesson from the recent troubles in Amara when militias took over large parts of the city gives a clear answer and offers Iraqis and the allies a forecast of what the future holds for us should we make the wrong decisions.
I think the decision to announce a phased withdrawal of troops (which is now dubbed as a phased handover of security responsibility) was made without putting in consideration the developments on the ground. And I think pressures on the American and British governments accelerated the process in a reactionary protective manner rather than a rational pragmatic one.
I suspect the allies and the Iraqi government were fully aware of that time bomb called militias but they turned their backs on this fact and acted as if the mission is moving forward smoothly without any disruptions.
It is easy to do it on paper…It takes no more than a small celebratory ceremony…lower this flag, fly the other one and invite officials, generals and journalists to publicize the meaningless event.
But at the same time the other camp represented by the militias was watching cheerfully and celebrating their riddance of an obstacle that was preventing them from taking over cities like Amara.
What happened in Amara for example was not unexpected and it should be a lesson for those who keep saying that the problem is in the "occupation" and that when foreign presence ends the country would live in peace and stability.
But what took place on the ground reveals and confirms once again who is really responsible for disrupting peace and creating chaos.
And it's also a warning signal to the leaders of the coaltion of what might happen if troops are withdrawn before the job is done or if the job is done incorrectly.
There would be utter mess and death and all the blood and treasure that were spent would be wasted. Even worse, the world will have to face a new additional body of extremism and Iraq will be a threat to stability instead of an example of democracy and liberty.
If that is allowed to happen the world will have yet bigger challenges to face and confronting those threats then will be much more difficult and costly than trying to win the war we had already gone a long way in.
These shortcomings and setbacks occurred because the responsible parties have not dealing efficiently enough with the situation and are allowing political pressure to force them to look for quick exits which are often entrances to deeper and worse problems.
Time is certainly a critical factor in this war and a quick response to stop the deterioration is needed here. I mean I want this war to end as soon as possible and I wish we can get the Iraqi troops to handle the security responsibilities in 6 months instead of 12 or 18 but we must be logical with our plans and expectations.
And we must not allow the virtual lines of time guide our decisions or force us to make steps that damage our interests.
What we need our leaders to do now is to agree on plans and measures and work together to achieve our mutual goals but the reason why I'm worried is that I see that the American government and our PM Maliki still need to work around some of their obvious differences.
Action must be based upon a clear, well studied strategy combined with determination to acknowledge and correct mistakes rather than running away from them or just whining about them which seems to be the strategy of many these days.
Perhaps the lesson from the recent troubles in Amara when militias took over large parts of the city gives a clear answer and offers Iraqis and the allies a forecast of what the future holds for us should we make the wrong decisions.
I think the decision to announce a phased withdrawal of troops (which is now dubbed as a phased handover of security responsibility) was made without putting in consideration the developments on the ground. And I think pressures on the American and British governments accelerated the process in a reactionary protective manner rather than a rational pragmatic one.
I suspect the allies and the Iraqi government were fully aware of that time bomb called militias but they turned their backs on this fact and acted as if the mission is moving forward smoothly without any disruptions.
It is easy to do it on paper…It takes no more than a small celebratory ceremony…lower this flag, fly the other one and invite officials, generals and journalists to publicize the meaningless event.
But at the same time the other camp represented by the militias was watching cheerfully and celebrating their riddance of an obstacle that was preventing them from taking over cities like Amara.
What happened in Amara for example was not unexpected and it should be a lesson for those who keep saying that the problem is in the "occupation" and that when foreign presence ends the country would live in peace and stability.
But what took place on the ground reveals and confirms once again who is really responsible for disrupting peace and creating chaos.
And it's also a warning signal to the leaders of the coaltion of what might happen if troops are withdrawn before the job is done or if the job is done incorrectly.
There would be utter mess and death and all the blood and treasure that were spent would be wasted. Even worse, the world will have to face a new additional body of extremism and Iraq will be a threat to stability instead of an example of democracy and liberty.
If that is allowed to happen the world will have yet bigger challenges to face and confronting those threats then will be much more difficult and costly than trying to win the war we had already gone a long way in.
These shortcomings and setbacks occurred because the responsible parties have not dealing efficiently enough with the situation and are allowing political pressure to force them to look for quick exits which are often entrances to deeper and worse problems.
Time is certainly a critical factor in this war and a quick response to stop the deterioration is needed here. I mean I want this war to end as soon as possible and I wish we can get the Iraqi troops to handle the security responsibilities in 6 months instead of 12 or 18 but we must be logical with our plans and expectations.
And we must not allow the virtual lines of time guide our decisions or force us to make steps that damage our interests.
What we need our leaders to do now is to agree on plans and measures and work together to achieve our mutual goals but the reason why I'm worried is that I see that the American government and our PM Maliki still need to work around some of their obvious differences.
Action must be based upon a clear, well studied strategy combined with determination to acknowledge and correct mistakes rather than running away from them or just whining about them which seems to be the strategy of many these days.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Air Strikes in Baghdad.
Looks like there's something big going on in Baghdad to night.
Flares are filling the skies and fighter jets are striking targets in the city.
In the last 30 minutes I could see several aircrafts launching missiles and within seconds explosions would follow.
I will try to keep you updated once I learn more about this.
11:20 pm
No further explosions can be heard now but the jets of the US airforce still maintain heavy presence over the east, northeast parts of the city.
11:55 pm
Air activity has faded...seems that what happened in the past hour was likely a limited operation in sectors of Baghdad in and around Sadr city.
What I still can't figure out is the thing with flares. Flares usually indicate that ground forces are involved but so far there have been no reports on ground action.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
That Mecca document.
Shia and Sunni Iraqi clerics were in Mecca last night to sign a document (or decree or treaty or whatever its name is!).
In my opinion choosing Mecca was not only for religious or spiritual reasons, actually I tend to believe that Saudi Arabia offered to host the meeting with such enthusiasm only to improve its image and change the general impression about it so that it's viewed as a country that supports peace and tolerance instead of a country that breeds extremism.
What the clerics agreed upon in that paper was no more than the fundamental fact and the first (or second) commandment in all religions; that is "murder is wrong".
How absurd and demeaning is that! As if they had to go to Holy Mecca to realize that murder is a crime. And as if they were admitting that until last night each sect's clerics didn't consider it a crime to murder someone from a different sect. Frankly I suspect there was never a time when they considered it a crime and I don't think signing that paper changed a thing.
With very rare exceptions, clerics are hypocrites who wear different faces for different times, situations and places, so all in all, I'm not expecting anything from that paper. Like Saudi Arabia, I think they went there and signed that paper also merely to improve their image and to pretend that they were/are not the ones to blame for the daily bloodshed in Iraq.
They want to satisfy their dead conscience and convince themselves that they had done their part of the job by signing that paper and that it's up to the people now to stop killing each other! As if it wasn't the militias they run and tensions they create that are causing the sectarian violence.
There's one other important point about the meeting that makes it rather impossible to expect it to make a difference on the ground; the two most vicious murderous factions that are responsible for most of the sectarian violence, i.e. al-Qaeda and Sadr's militia will not drop their weapons or stop their crimes just because some clerics signed a decree.
However, the document can possibly be of practical value only if it gets used in the right way; that is since the document alienates anyone who violates the points stated within, the MNF and the reluctant PM Maliki can take advantage of it and do what they have to do with people like Sadr who had long enjoyed unwritten immunity.
I mean if Sadr or certain Sunni groups refuse to abide by the articles of the decree and continue doing their daily dirty job then clerics and religious parties that signed the decree will have the pretext to stop the government or the MNF from taking action against them.
Still, this is just in theory.
In my opinion choosing Mecca was not only for religious or spiritual reasons, actually I tend to believe that Saudi Arabia offered to host the meeting with such enthusiasm only to improve its image and change the general impression about it so that it's viewed as a country that supports peace and tolerance instead of a country that breeds extremism.
What the clerics agreed upon in that paper was no more than the fundamental fact and the first (or second) commandment in all religions; that is "murder is wrong".
How absurd and demeaning is that! As if they had to go to Holy Mecca to realize that murder is a crime. And as if they were admitting that until last night each sect's clerics didn't consider it a crime to murder someone from a different sect. Frankly I suspect there was never a time when they considered it a crime and I don't think signing that paper changed a thing.
With very rare exceptions, clerics are hypocrites who wear different faces for different times, situations and places, so all in all, I'm not expecting anything from that paper. Like Saudi Arabia, I think they went there and signed that paper also merely to improve their image and to pretend that they were/are not the ones to blame for the daily bloodshed in Iraq.
They want to satisfy their dead conscience and convince themselves that they had done their part of the job by signing that paper and that it's up to the people now to stop killing each other! As if it wasn't the militias they run and tensions they create that are causing the sectarian violence.
There's one other important point about the meeting that makes it rather impossible to expect it to make a difference on the ground; the two most vicious murderous factions that are responsible for most of the sectarian violence, i.e. al-Qaeda and Sadr's militia will not drop their weapons or stop their crimes just because some clerics signed a decree.
However, the document can possibly be of practical value only if it gets used in the right way; that is since the document alienates anyone who violates the points stated within, the MNF and the reluctant PM Maliki can take advantage of it and do what they have to do with people like Sadr who had long enjoyed unwritten immunity.
I mean if Sadr or certain Sunni groups refuse to abide by the articles of the decree and continue doing their daily dirty job then clerics and religious parties that signed the decree will have the pretext to stop the government or the MNF from taking action against them.
Still, this is just in theory.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Censorship and freedom of speech in Iraq: The Azzaman case.
Perhaps one of the hottest debates in the media community and its surroundings in Iraq these days is the one that was sparked by a controversial call from the speaker(s) of the parliament to the government to shut down al-Sharqiya channel.
The fury among the parliamentarians behind this call was apparently a reaction to the way the channel and its sister newspaper Azzaman covered and handled the story of the federalism law that was instated by the parliament last week.
Actually there was a particular report on Azzaman that went way far from objectivity and where the editor(s) obviously let the anger speak for them that they portrayed the MP's who turned the tide in that session as traitors who sold the country, blah blah blah.
I frankly do not like Al-Sharqiya channel nor I put much trust in Azzaman, or let's say I do not like its inclinations rather than its programs and reports, or at least some of them.
The channel and newspaper (both run by the same man Saad al-Bazzaz, once was the press advisor of Saddam) have a Baathist tone that is clear to the keen spectator/reader and it's one of those channels that are long time criticizers of America and the four Iraqi administrations that ruled the country since the fall of Saddam.
However, the channel has its admirable qualities as well. It now stands among the most popular Iraqi TV channels and it's the only secular one so to speak. It also gives entertainment a fair share of the broadcast time in contrast with most other channels that sound like a funeral house.
Anyway, I would not, by any means, support a campaign or a decision to silence this channel or its sister paper.
The diversity in voices and approaches is what makes today's Iraq different from what it used to be under a totalitarian regime and among the important forms of this diversity is that of media.
I was for the decision to put a ban on al-Jazeera a couple years ago because the damage al-Jazeera caused and poisons and provocations it spewed were so outrageous that made the ban sound very fair to me, but I was then against punishing al-Arabiya when the government ordered it to close its offices for a month.
Although al-Arabia is far from being perfectly objective, it hadn't done something that deserves a ban as a punishment.
Actually my greatest fear in this regard now is that this practice of arbitrary bans becomes systematic within the government and spreads to abolish the margin of freedom of speech we began to enjoy only three years ago.
Al-Sharqiya and Azzaman do spend most of their words and time on blaming America and the government or everything that went wrong in Iraq yet for a very long time they seemed to be rarely, if ever, willing to put some of the blame on the various factions of insurgents, and terrorists. Only recently they began to focus more on the atrocities committed by militias, especially Shia religious ones.
Al-Sharqiya and Azzaman do not support violence and this is something I admire in them, yet what I don't admire is that they tend to ignore the original sources of the violence that is sweeping large portions of our country.
Professor Cole wrote briefly about this and he wonders why the Communist Part and the Sadrists would defend Azzaman and al-Sharqiya (it's not al-Iraqiya Professor!).
I don't agree with Cole it's about posturing because I think the motives of the Sadrists are clear, first the ban was requested by the Sunni Islamist speaker of parliament Mashhadani, the National Iraqi List and the rival Shi SCIRI who both supported the vote and second because al-Sharqiya and Azzaman, like the Sadrists are both anti-American and anti-federalism.
On the other hand, it seems Mr. Cole didn't see clearly what the position of the Communist Party is regarding this issue. If you can read Arabic you will see, from the same Azzaman article that Cole referred to, that the Communist Part is clearly mad at al-Sharqiya and Azzaman but favors relatively more civilized measures in dealing with them. If I'm not mistaken, I read somewhere that the Communists want to sue Azzaman for what they published about the secretary general of the party, this can also be inferred from the same above link.
Perhaps what the editorial board of another Iraqi paper, al-Mada, wrote this morning presents the best understanding of the reasons why such conflicts between the government and the media keep happening.
Al-Mada reminded us and drew our attention to the fact that the press here does not have a functioning code of work ethics and that in general our press does not have clear lines to separate between reports and columns and opinion pieces.
In the same time, the executive and legislative authorities are yet to have the clear fair policy or the appropriate legislations that govern the way in which these authorities can deal with the press when they feel the press did something wrong.
I can say that both parties think and believe they were right in what they did and that their freedom grants them the right to do that but apparently they don’t realize that freedom without laws will be a mess.
Maybe it's time for both sides to start developing better standards of work and clear guidelines on how to coexist and do the service they are expected to do, and I hope this case motivates them to do so.
The fury among the parliamentarians behind this call was apparently a reaction to the way the channel and its sister newspaper Azzaman covered and handled the story of the federalism law that was instated by the parliament last week.
Actually there was a particular report on Azzaman that went way far from objectivity and where the editor(s) obviously let the anger speak for them that they portrayed the MP's who turned the tide in that session as traitors who sold the country, blah blah blah.
I frankly do not like Al-Sharqiya channel nor I put much trust in Azzaman, or let's say I do not like its inclinations rather than its programs and reports, or at least some of them.
The channel and newspaper (both run by the same man Saad al-Bazzaz, once was the press advisor of Saddam) have a Baathist tone that is clear to the keen spectator/reader and it's one of those channels that are long time criticizers of America and the four Iraqi administrations that ruled the country since the fall of Saddam.
However, the channel has its admirable qualities as well. It now stands among the most popular Iraqi TV channels and it's the only secular one so to speak. It also gives entertainment a fair share of the broadcast time in contrast with most other channels that sound like a funeral house.
Anyway, I would not, by any means, support a campaign or a decision to silence this channel or its sister paper.
The diversity in voices and approaches is what makes today's Iraq different from what it used to be under a totalitarian regime and among the important forms of this diversity is that of media.
I was for the decision to put a ban on al-Jazeera a couple years ago because the damage al-Jazeera caused and poisons and provocations it spewed were so outrageous that made the ban sound very fair to me, but I was then against punishing al-Arabiya when the government ordered it to close its offices for a month.
Although al-Arabia is far from being perfectly objective, it hadn't done something that deserves a ban as a punishment.
Actually my greatest fear in this regard now is that this practice of arbitrary bans becomes systematic within the government and spreads to abolish the margin of freedom of speech we began to enjoy only three years ago.
Al-Sharqiya and Azzaman do spend most of their words and time on blaming America and the government or everything that went wrong in Iraq yet for a very long time they seemed to be rarely, if ever, willing to put some of the blame on the various factions of insurgents, and terrorists. Only recently they began to focus more on the atrocities committed by militias, especially Shia religious ones.
Al-Sharqiya and Azzaman do not support violence and this is something I admire in them, yet what I don't admire is that they tend to ignore the original sources of the violence that is sweeping large portions of our country.
Professor Cole wrote briefly about this and he wonders why the Communist Part and the Sadrists would defend Azzaman and al-Sharqiya (it's not al-Iraqiya Professor!).
I don't agree with Cole it's about posturing because I think the motives of the Sadrists are clear, first the ban was requested by the Sunni Islamist speaker of parliament Mashhadani, the National Iraqi List and the rival Shi SCIRI who both supported the vote and second because al-Sharqiya and Azzaman, like the Sadrists are both anti-American and anti-federalism.
On the other hand, it seems Mr. Cole didn't see clearly what the position of the Communist Party is regarding this issue. If you can read Arabic you will see, from the same Azzaman article that Cole referred to, that the Communist Part is clearly mad at al-Sharqiya and Azzaman but favors relatively more civilized measures in dealing with them. If I'm not mistaken, I read somewhere that the Communists want to sue Azzaman for what they published about the secretary general of the party, this can also be inferred from the same above link.
Perhaps what the editorial board of another Iraqi paper, al-Mada, wrote this morning presents the best understanding of the reasons why such conflicts between the government and the media keep happening.
Al-Mada reminded us and drew our attention to the fact that the press here does not have a functioning code of work ethics and that in general our press does not have clear lines to separate between reports and columns and opinion pieces.
In the same time, the executive and legislative authorities are yet to have the clear fair policy or the appropriate legislations that govern the way in which these authorities can deal with the press when they feel the press did something wrong.
I can say that both parties think and believe they were right in what they did and that their freedom grants them the right to do that but apparently they don’t realize that freedom without laws will be a mess.
Maybe it's time for both sides to start developing better standards of work and clear guidelines on how to coexist and do the service they are expected to do, and I hope this case motivates them to do so.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Me in the new Islamic State!
Nothing changed in my life as a Baghdadi since my city was announced a part of the Islamic State of al-Qaeda.
Of course I did not expect an improvement in electricity, security or other services but I was at least expecting a change in life style under the leadership of the new caliph Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (Abu who??).
I didn't see the women being forced to wear the chador nor did I see men switching to wear the official outfit of terror (the short dishdasha and the bushy dirty beard)!
And I did not see Mutawwa-like men carrying heavy sticks to beat people who break the laws of Sharia like we see in Saudi Arabia.
There's no ban on TV, sculptures, arts or wearing jeans!
I can notice even an increased presence of the government's security forces and I wonder how they could stay in Baghdad despite the declaration of the Islamic state!
Not only that, we did not see the policemen and soldiers executed in public as traitors and they were not even dismissed from service. On the contrary, their chief in the interior ministry is talking about reforms in the structure and force of the ministry and said he dismissed over 3,000 employees who were found not professional enough or not loyal enough to the county.
And the parliament still meets to agree or disagree and the PM still gives his statement through national TV and asks Bush whether he would be allowed to remain in office for another two months and Bush reassures him that he's an elected leader and will remain in office as long as the Iraqi people approve of his performance.
The Islamic State did not abolish the controversial federalism law that was instated after long debates and arguments, in fact it seems like it endorsed the law by announcing its own autonomous region in provinces that are supposed to be sympathetic r loyal to al-Qaeda despite the "lies" in the polls that say only 2% of Iraqis approve of al-Qaeda.
Offices and institutions did not change their regulations or functions and school curriculums are still the same and children go to schools by the millions against the will of the terrorists and n contrary to the press that claim no one can live here or practice any activity outside walls of their homes.
Yes of course living here is so tough beyond the imagination of many of outside spectators but this did not deter civil servants or students in their bulk from going on with their lives.
So what has changed then since the declaration?
Really, what was the cost or the effect on the ground other than the ink they used to print their announcement or the pennies they paid al-Jazeera to spread the news?!
To me it looks like the position of al-Qaeda has gotten so bad after the heavy blows it received at the hands of our liberators in the MNF and our brave brothers in our army and the patriots who rejected al-Qaeda and its agenda.
I think this was what forced those losers to make this meaningless announcement of a fake state. It reflects the undeniable desperation and the abandoning of their original ambitions, from a victory that drives away the Americans and the Iraqis who believed in the change to a pathetic maneuver such as this one.
But we are still here, at least the majority of us are,
Our liberators and allies are still here,
The voters are still here and the elected are still here.
The al-Qaeda is left with nothing but to fantasize about creating a caliph state as long as they still have a foothold in the country and hope that some locals would change their mind and side with them.
Ok fine, let them make their announcement but the indisputable fact remains that their state does not anywhere except for in their own sick minds.
Only two incidents can be counted among the amplifications of this move, the first was their failed assault against the offices of the local government in Mosul which left dozens of the assailants dead or arrested and the second was the attack in Salah Addin province that resulted in nothing but calls from the locals for further support from the government to assist them in abolishing the terror groups and in more reconciliation meetings between tribal leaders to forge unity against the takfiris.
There's no going back thirty years to the days of Saddam an there's no going back a thousand yeas to the days of the Caliphs.
It's over…
We have accepted the rough road and the outcome will not be in the benefit of the criminals. The war is tough, painful and hard but I have no doubt of the outcome that will mean the end for the supporters of tyranny and extremism.
Surrendering is much closer to them than it is to us and history will remember with pride those who sacrificed for the freedom of Iraq…
Maybe I will not live long to see that day but my children will certainly see it.
Sorry whiners, losers and pessimists. I only know to accept a challenge when I face one and I recognize only victory as an end.
Related comments from other Iraqi bloggers:
1-Al-Qaeda declares government, Islamic state in Iraq.
2-The Islamic state in Iraq!
Of course I did not expect an improvement in electricity, security or other services but I was at least expecting a change in life style under the leadership of the new caliph Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (Abu who??).
I didn't see the women being forced to wear the chador nor did I see men switching to wear the official outfit of terror (the short dishdasha and the bushy dirty beard)!
And I did not see Mutawwa-like men carrying heavy sticks to beat people who break the laws of Sharia like we see in Saudi Arabia.
There's no ban on TV, sculptures, arts or wearing jeans!
I can notice even an increased presence of the government's security forces and I wonder how they could stay in Baghdad despite the declaration of the Islamic state!
Not only that, we did not see the policemen and soldiers executed in public as traitors and they were not even dismissed from service. On the contrary, their chief in the interior ministry is talking about reforms in the structure and force of the ministry and said he dismissed over 3,000 employees who were found not professional enough or not loyal enough to the county.
And the parliament still meets to agree or disagree and the PM still gives his statement through national TV and asks Bush whether he would be allowed to remain in office for another two months and Bush reassures him that he's an elected leader and will remain in office as long as the Iraqi people approve of his performance.
The Islamic State did not abolish the controversial federalism law that was instated after long debates and arguments, in fact it seems like it endorsed the law by announcing its own autonomous region in provinces that are supposed to be sympathetic r loyal to al-Qaeda despite the "lies" in the polls that say only 2% of Iraqis approve of al-Qaeda.
Offices and institutions did not change their regulations or functions and school curriculums are still the same and children go to schools by the millions against the will of the terrorists and n contrary to the press that claim no one can live here or practice any activity outside walls of their homes.
Yes of course living here is so tough beyond the imagination of many of outside spectators but this did not deter civil servants or students in their bulk from going on with their lives.
So what has changed then since the declaration?
Really, what was the cost or the effect on the ground other than the ink they used to print their announcement or the pennies they paid al-Jazeera to spread the news?!
To me it looks like the position of al-Qaeda has gotten so bad after the heavy blows it received at the hands of our liberators in the MNF and our brave brothers in our army and the patriots who rejected al-Qaeda and its agenda.
I think this was what forced those losers to make this meaningless announcement of a fake state. It reflects the undeniable desperation and the abandoning of their original ambitions, from a victory that drives away the Americans and the Iraqis who believed in the change to a pathetic maneuver such as this one.
But we are still here, at least the majority of us are,
Our liberators and allies are still here,
The voters are still here and the elected are still here.
The al-Qaeda is left with nothing but to fantasize about creating a caliph state as long as they still have a foothold in the country and hope that some locals would change their mind and side with them.
Ok fine, let them make their announcement but the indisputable fact remains that their state does not anywhere except for in their own sick minds.
Only two incidents can be counted among the amplifications of this move, the first was their failed assault against the offices of the local government in Mosul which left dozens of the assailants dead or arrested and the second was the attack in Salah Addin province that resulted in nothing but calls from the locals for further support from the government to assist them in abolishing the terror groups and in more reconciliation meetings between tribal leaders to forge unity against the takfiris.
There's no going back thirty years to the days of Saddam an there's no going back a thousand yeas to the days of the Caliphs.
It's over…
We have accepted the rough road and the outcome will not be in the benefit of the criminals. The war is tough, painful and hard but I have no doubt of the outcome that will mean the end for the supporters of tyranny and extremism.
Surrendering is much closer to them than it is to us and history will remember with pride those who sacrificed for the freedom of Iraq…
Maybe I will not live long to see that day but my children will certainly see it.
Sorry whiners, losers and pessimists. I only know to accept a challenge when I face one and I recognize only victory as an end.
Related comments from other Iraqi bloggers:
1-Al-Qaeda declares government, Islamic state in Iraq.
2-The Islamic state in Iraq!
Sunday, October 15, 2006
There are heroes, and there are criminals. The two never equate as victims.
There is one video I wish I can find on the web. It's a short video that was shown on al-Iraqiya last Friday evening and was replayed several times that night.
Until I can find a way to get a copy of the video and put it up I will try to share with you a description of what I saw…
It's about a police station somewhere in Iraq, the place was about to be hit by a suicide bomber riding a vehicle laden with explosives.
The driver approaches the entrance to the station which is surrounded by concrete walls. Several police officers open fire from their ak-47's on the incoming suicide bomber but he keeps closing in.
As the vehicle passes through the gate and past the last barricade all of the officers run away seeking shelter…except for one extraordinary man.
One police officer held his position and was still standing in the way of the terrorist and kept on firing his rifle at the windshield until the vehicle was just meters from the officer, then…BOOM.
End of video….
I watched the video over and over again and my amazement grew with every time I watched it…this is incredible…this is heroic…this is happening.
2 dead, (n) injured in a car bomb. That's what we would read in the news next day and then someone would come to make a body count and make a study about the human cost of the war and list the two men from the two extremes of this conflict, both as victims of the war!
So the policeman is a victim and the bomber too is a victim?…it sounds so cruel and unfair. A man who died to save his colleagues and a beast who killed himself to kill others cannot and must not be both counted as victims.
One is an anti-life criminal while the other is a hero, but on paper, some idiots describe them both as victims of the war.
Who knows?! Maybe there are some other idiots who count the 4,000 foreign terrorists whom al-Qaeda confessed were killed in Iraq as victims too!
Until I can find a way to get a copy of the video and put it up I will try to share with you a description of what I saw…
It's about a police station somewhere in Iraq, the place was about to be hit by a suicide bomber riding a vehicle laden with explosives.
The driver approaches the entrance to the station which is surrounded by concrete walls. Several police officers open fire from their ak-47's on the incoming suicide bomber but he keeps closing in.
As the vehicle passes through the gate and past the last barricade all of the officers run away seeking shelter…except for one extraordinary man.
One police officer held his position and was still standing in the way of the terrorist and kept on firing his rifle at the windshield until the vehicle was just meters from the officer, then…BOOM.
End of video….
I watched the video over and over again and my amazement grew with every time I watched it…this is incredible…this is heroic…this is happening.
2 dead, (n) injured in a car bomb. That's what we would read in the news next day and then someone would come to make a body count and make a study about the human cost of the war and list the two men from the two extremes of this conflict, both as victims of the war!
So the policeman is a victim and the bomber too is a victim?…it sounds so cruel and unfair. A man who died to save his colleagues and a beast who killed himself to kill others cannot and must not be both counted as victims.
One is an anti-life criminal while the other is a hero, but on paper, some idiots describe them both as victims of the war.
Who knows?! Maybe there are some other idiots who count the 4,000 foreign terrorists whom al-Qaeda confessed were killed in Iraq as victims too!
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Responding to the Lancet lies...
Pajamas invited us to respond to a study full of lies made by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health that claimed 665,000 Iraqis were killed since 2003. The disgraceful study is expected to be published on the website of The Lancet, a medical journal today.
The response was published last night on Pajamas, and here it is now in case you missed it.
******
Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people. I’m talking here about those researchers who used the transparency and open doors of the new Iraq to come and count the drops of blood we shed.
Human flesh is abundant and all they have to do is call this hospital or that office to get the count of casualties, even more they can knock on doors and ask us one by one and we would answer because we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.
We believe in what we’re struggling for and we are proud of our sacrifices.
I wonder if that research team was willing to go to North Korea or Libya and I think they wouldn’t have the guts to dare ask Saddam to let them in and investigate deaths under his regime.
No, they would’ve shit their pants the moment they set foot in Iraq and they would find themselves surrounded by the Mukhabarat men counting their breaths. However, maybe they would have the chance to receive a gift from the tyrant in exchange for painting a rosy picture about his rule.
They shamelessly made an auction of our blood, and it didn’t make a difference if the blood was shed by a bomb or a bullet or a heart attack because the bigger the count the more useful it becomes to attack this or that policy in a political race and the more useful it becomes in cheerleading for murderous tyrannical regimes.
When the statistics announced by hospitals and military here, or even by the UN, did not satisfy their lust for more deaths, they resorted to mathematics to get a fake number that satisfies their sadistic urges.
When I read the report I can only feel apathy and inhumanity from those who did the count towards the victims and towards our suffering as a whole. I can tell they were so pleased when the equations their twisted minds designed led to those numbers and nothing can convince me that they did their so called research out of compassion or care.
To me their motives are clear, all they want is to prove that our struggle for freedom was the wrong thing to do. And they shamelessly use lies to do this…when they did not find the death they wanted to see on the ground, they faked it on paper! They disgust me…
This fake research is an insult to every man, woman and child who lost their lives.
Behind every drop of blood is a noble story of sacrifice for a just cause that is struggling for living safe in freedom and prosperity.
Let those fools know that nothing will stop us from walking this road and nothing will stop our friends and allies from helping us reach safe shores. There’s simply no going back even if it cost us more and their fake statistics will not frighten us…our sacrifices, like I said, make us proud because our bloods are not digits in those ugly papers. Our sacrifices are paving the way for future generations to live the better life we couldn’t live.
The response was published last night on Pajamas, and here it is now in case you missed it.
******
Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people. I’m talking here about those researchers who used the transparency and open doors of the new Iraq to come and count the drops of blood we shed.
Human flesh is abundant and all they have to do is call this hospital or that office to get the count of casualties, even more they can knock on doors and ask us one by one and we would answer because we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.
We believe in what we’re struggling for and we are proud of our sacrifices.
I wonder if that research team was willing to go to North Korea or Libya and I think they wouldn’t have the guts to dare ask Saddam to let them in and investigate deaths under his regime.
No, they would’ve shit their pants the moment they set foot in Iraq and they would find themselves surrounded by the Mukhabarat men counting their breaths. However, maybe they would have the chance to receive a gift from the tyrant in exchange for painting a rosy picture about his rule.
They shamelessly made an auction of our blood, and it didn’t make a difference if the blood was shed by a bomb or a bullet or a heart attack because the bigger the count the more useful it becomes to attack this or that policy in a political race and the more useful it becomes in cheerleading for murderous tyrannical regimes.
When the statistics announced by hospitals and military here, or even by the UN, did not satisfy their lust for more deaths, they resorted to mathematics to get a fake number that satisfies their sadistic urges.
When I read the report I can only feel apathy and inhumanity from those who did the count towards the victims and towards our suffering as a whole. I can tell they were so pleased when the equations their twisted minds designed led to those numbers and nothing can convince me that they did their so called research out of compassion or care.
To me their motives are clear, all they want is to prove that our struggle for freedom was the wrong thing to do. And they shamelessly use lies to do this…when they did not find the death they wanted to see on the ground, they faked it on paper! They disgust me…
This fake research is an insult to every man, woman and child who lost their lives.
Behind every drop of blood is a noble story of sacrifice for a just cause that is struggling for living safe in freedom and prosperity.
Let those fools know that nothing will stop us from walking this road and nothing will stop our friends and allies from helping us reach safe shores. There’s simply no going back even if it cost us more and their fake statistics will not frighten us…our sacrifices, like I said, make us proud because our bloods are not digits in those ugly papers. Our sacrifices are paving the way for future generations to live the better life we couldn’t live.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Massive explosions rock Baghdad!
Over the past 90 minutes or so, massive explosions could be heard in Baghdad and actually I'm hearing more of them while I'm typing.
When the first few bangs happened I thought they were just the usual dose of mortars for the night but more and more explosion kept happening!
I went up to the roof to see if anything could be seen from there and I was able to see several flashes coming from the south, south-west side of the city.
Using the simple method of measuring the lag between seeing the flash and hearing the sound I figured out the explosions are taking place somewhere in the area between Karrada and Dora, yet the explosions are very loud that they can be heard in the northern parts of Baghdad!
I'm searching the news for a clue about what's going on but I found nothing so far.
Update (12:35 am):
First news report on the situation is just in.
Reuters says the explosions were caused by a fire that broke out at "an ammunition dump at a U.S. base in southern Baghdad" apparently in the Dora district of Baghdad.
And yes, explosions can still be heard as of now.
Update (1:00 am):
It's been two hours since the first explosions were heard but I still hear more of them.
Right now I can hear several explosions a minute but they got milder than they were in the beginning, i.e. they are fairly loud but they no longer make doors and window shields shake in a 10 mile radius!
I can only imagine what it's been like over there and I can only pray that it did not cause casualties among US military or Iraqi civilians living nearby.
Update (2:20 am):
Less and less explosions can be heard now, I can say the frequency now is at about one every 5-10 minutes instead of 5-10 seconds, so I assume soon there will be no more explosions to hear.
I hope I'm right about my assumption because I really need to have a few hours of uninterrupted sleep...
When the first few bangs happened I thought they were just the usual dose of mortars for the night but more and more explosion kept happening!
I went up to the roof to see if anything could be seen from there and I was able to see several flashes coming from the south, south-west side of the city.
Using the simple method of measuring the lag between seeing the flash and hearing the sound I figured out the explosions are taking place somewhere in the area between Karrada and Dora, yet the explosions are very loud that they can be heard in the northern parts of Baghdad!
I'm searching the news for a clue about what's going on but I found nothing so far.
Update (12:35 am):
First news report on the situation is just in.
Reuters says the explosions were caused by a fire that broke out at "an ammunition dump at a U.S. base in southern Baghdad" apparently in the Dora district of Baghdad.
And yes, explosions can still be heard as of now.
Update (1:00 am):
It's been two hours since the first explosions were heard but I still hear more of them.
Right now I can hear several explosions a minute but they got milder than they were in the beginning, i.e. they are fairly loud but they no longer make doors and window shields shake in a 10 mile radius!
I can only imagine what it's been like over there and I can only pray that it did not cause casualties among US military or Iraqi civilians living nearby.
Update (2:20 am):
Less and less explosions can be heard now, I can say the frequency now is at about one every 5-10 minutes instead of 5-10 seconds, so I assume soon there will be no more explosions to hear.
I hope I'm right about my assumption because I really need to have a few hours of uninterrupted sleep...
Monday, October 09, 2006
On this and that...
This blog was not updated since Thursday and I personally did not write anything since last Monday and this really sucks.
I start to get this weird itchy feeling when I don’t write for some time, so here I am now in my pajamas trying to write mostly for the sake of writing, so unless you are as bored as I am and have 5 minutes to waste I do not recommend you go on and read more of this post. I'm sure you can find something more interesting than this.
Call it the week in review, call it a rambling…to me it's just my fix of blogging.
There were no big news from Iraq in the past few days…well, maybe there were some but they aren't considered big news for us anymore. You know, when today's headlines are almost the same as yesterday's and those of the day before you begin to lose interest in them and you just read them apathetically to stay in the loop.
Anyway, let’s take a look at some of the recent bigger stories. First there were the clashes in Diwaniya which can be seen as relatively good news since the operations led to the arrest of a vicious criminal who ordered the slaughter of a dozen Iraqi soldiers who ran out of ammunition during previous clashes back in August.
The funny thing is that Sadrists say it was not them who clashed with the raiding force and insist it was the residents of Diwaniya who did! Yeah sure, civilian residents organized 10 RPG teams out of the blue to attack that Abrams tank and defend the militia lieutenant! Ironically even the rival Badr leader Hadi al-Amiri insists it wasn't the Mehdi militia.
The IA and US army say it was Sadr's militia, the international media says so too and people in Iraq and especially in Diwanaiya know that too…Do they want us to buy their claims that such organized and heavily armed groups can find a place and act independently against the government and the MNF in provinces where the Sadrists and other politico-religious factions virtually control everything?
So who are they trying to fool? I have no idea!
Before that were the news about the national police brigade that was dismantled or sent for retraining after ties were discovered between the brigade's ranks and death squad activities. Some think this was a good first step but many still think many more similar decisions (and more radical ones) are needed because the defect seems to be systematic.
Today the brother of vice president Tariq al-Hashimi was assassinated (al-Hashimi lost another brother and a sister earlier this year in similar attacks) and I saw news reports indicating that gunmen in uniforms came in 10 official-looking vehicles and assassinated the man in a neighborhood that is supposed to be the jurisdictions of the IA, not the national police.
This raises concerns about the efficiency of the IA in this part of the capital which was the scene of heavy clashes last week, and of course suggests other national police units are likely still carrying out illegal operations.
Then there's the talk about the Iraq study group's possible recommendation to turn Iraq into three autonomous regions.
We talked about this some time ago and said that this would be very unlikely because supporters of federalism make up hardly a half of Iraq's parliament, so they have a rather poor chance at passing a legislation that gives too much power to the regional authorities at the expense of the central government.
I think also tough Sunni opposition for putting federalism into action and the strong rivalries among Shia parties, who are divided over this issue, will slow down if not kill the project.
However, a change in the political map in Iraq can change the equation in a way that allows federalism to be implemented, but that change would have to be dramatic, i.e. federalism in the form of three highly autonomous regions can only see the light under a parliament other than the one we have now.
This leads me to the other ambiguous headline I read yesterday about the American administration setting a deadline for Maliki's government to fix up things in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.
I must say that I feel there IS some kind of deadline because this is not the first time we hear of this sort of things.
If I'm not mistaken, a few weeks back in September Lee Hamilton from the Iraqi study group did say that Maliki's government has got three months to improve security and restore basic services in Baghdad and now, almost a month after that, ambassador Khalilzad says that the time is down to two months, and this makes me think the clock is already ticking.
But it remains very difficult at this point to predict what the administration in D.C had planned for when the deadline is due; is it just a warning shot for Maliki to motivate him to work harder and make the tough decisions the US wants him to make regarding issues like disbanding militias?
Or if there are plans for "critical action" as Khalilzad said, what kind of action would that be, military or political, or both? And how "critical" would that action be?
We can only speculate at this point, some people here suspect America will start to disengage from Iraq if things remain as bad as they are by the end of the year while others believe the exact opposite is going to happen and think America will push forward with even more power and launch a wide and relentless military campaign that might even target political factions that are part of the current government.
Meanwhile and far away from Baghdad, our old friend from the axis of evil tested his first nuke.
I read on the news that the power of the explosion was little more than half a kiloton which sounds like a very small device compared to the multi-megaton devices owned by the US or Russia but I'm very interested to know the dimensions and mass of the device and I hope experts and intelligence can reveal some information about that because the smaller the device the easier it becomes to transport and deploy it.
I can't believe the world leaders let this happen! Now the world is under the mercy of a crazy man and his oppressive communist regime who wanted the bomb so badly that they let their people starve in this crazy pursuit for power.
What's going to be next? Will the world move to disarm North Korea? Will there be measures to stop it from sharing the bomb with terrorists?
I don't even want to think of it because looking at how our world works today I can see headlines coming two or three years from now telling us that Iran tested a bomb…well I think we'll be lucky if we got to read the news instead of being part of it.
I start to get this weird itchy feeling when I don’t write for some time, so here I am now in my pajamas trying to write mostly for the sake of writing, so unless you are as bored as I am and have 5 minutes to waste I do not recommend you go on and read more of this post. I'm sure you can find something more interesting than this.
Call it the week in review, call it a rambling…to me it's just my fix of blogging.
There were no big news from Iraq in the past few days…well, maybe there were some but they aren't considered big news for us anymore. You know, when today's headlines are almost the same as yesterday's and those of the day before you begin to lose interest in them and you just read them apathetically to stay in the loop.
Anyway, let’s take a look at some of the recent bigger stories. First there were the clashes in Diwaniya which can be seen as relatively good news since the operations led to the arrest of a vicious criminal who ordered the slaughter of a dozen Iraqi soldiers who ran out of ammunition during previous clashes back in August.
The funny thing is that Sadrists say it was not them who clashed with the raiding force and insist it was the residents of Diwaniya who did! Yeah sure, civilian residents organized 10 RPG teams out of the blue to attack that Abrams tank and defend the militia lieutenant! Ironically even the rival Badr leader Hadi al-Amiri insists it wasn't the Mehdi militia.
The IA and US army say it was Sadr's militia, the international media says so too and people in Iraq and especially in Diwanaiya know that too…Do they want us to buy their claims that such organized and heavily armed groups can find a place and act independently against the government and the MNF in provinces where the Sadrists and other politico-religious factions virtually control everything?
So who are they trying to fool? I have no idea!
Before that were the news about the national police brigade that was dismantled or sent for retraining after ties were discovered between the brigade's ranks and death squad activities. Some think this was a good first step but many still think many more similar decisions (and more radical ones) are needed because the defect seems to be systematic.
Today the brother of vice president Tariq al-Hashimi was assassinated (al-Hashimi lost another brother and a sister earlier this year in similar attacks) and I saw news reports indicating that gunmen in uniforms came in 10 official-looking vehicles and assassinated the man in a neighborhood that is supposed to be the jurisdictions of the IA, not the national police.
This raises concerns about the efficiency of the IA in this part of the capital which was the scene of heavy clashes last week, and of course suggests other national police units are likely still carrying out illegal operations.
Then there's the talk about the Iraq study group's possible recommendation to turn Iraq into three autonomous regions.
We talked about this some time ago and said that this would be very unlikely because supporters of federalism make up hardly a half of Iraq's parliament, so they have a rather poor chance at passing a legislation that gives too much power to the regional authorities at the expense of the central government.
I think also tough Sunni opposition for putting federalism into action and the strong rivalries among Shia parties, who are divided over this issue, will slow down if not kill the project.
However, a change in the political map in Iraq can change the equation in a way that allows federalism to be implemented, but that change would have to be dramatic, i.e. federalism in the form of three highly autonomous regions can only see the light under a parliament other than the one we have now.
This leads me to the other ambiguous headline I read yesterday about the American administration setting a deadline for Maliki's government to fix up things in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.
I must say that I feel there IS some kind of deadline because this is not the first time we hear of this sort of things.
If I'm not mistaken, a few weeks back in September Lee Hamilton from the Iraqi study group did say that Maliki's government has got three months to improve security and restore basic services in Baghdad and now, almost a month after that, ambassador Khalilzad says that the time is down to two months, and this makes me think the clock is already ticking.
But it remains very difficult at this point to predict what the administration in D.C had planned for when the deadline is due; is it just a warning shot for Maliki to motivate him to work harder and make the tough decisions the US wants him to make regarding issues like disbanding militias?
Or if there are plans for "critical action" as Khalilzad said, what kind of action would that be, military or political, or both? And how "critical" would that action be?
We can only speculate at this point, some people here suspect America will start to disengage from Iraq if things remain as bad as they are by the end of the year while others believe the exact opposite is going to happen and think America will push forward with even more power and launch a wide and relentless military campaign that might even target political factions that are part of the current government.
Meanwhile and far away from Baghdad, our old friend from the axis of evil tested his first nuke.
I read on the news that the power of the explosion was little more than half a kiloton which sounds like a very small device compared to the multi-megaton devices owned by the US or Russia but I'm very interested to know the dimensions and mass of the device and I hope experts and intelligence can reveal some information about that because the smaller the device the easier it becomes to transport and deploy it.
I can't believe the world leaders let this happen! Now the world is under the mercy of a crazy man and his oppressive communist regime who wanted the bomb so badly that they let their people starve in this crazy pursuit for power.
What's going to be next? Will the world move to disarm North Korea? Will there be measures to stop it from sharing the bomb with terrorists?
I don't even want to think of it because looking at how our world works today I can see headlines coming two or three years from now telling us that Iran tested a bomb…well I think we'll be lucky if we got to read the news instead of being part of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)