THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Without cutting off the head of the organization, you never stop it. Ever.

I agree Ican, and I think George Bush envisions that happening if we are successful in pushing and helping the Iraqis into a free and open society with opportunities for all.

Frank A found this. I'm McTag and I approve this message.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

The Guardian
John Le Carré

Quote:

Maybe ... ours.

© David Cornwell 2004
· John Le Carré is a novelist.

After the release of the Iraq Survey Group's Duelfer report, the headlines blazed "No WMD Found." Most stories continued by saying that Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to the U.S. and thus the U.S. was wrong to eliminate that threat. This reflects the notion that Iraq was only a threat if it had military munitions filled with WMD. The claim "Iraq was not an imminent threat" was also expounded by pundits that seemingly crawled out of the woodwork as well as those opposed to President Bush. But have these individuals read carefully the report before engaging in such anti-Bush rhetoric?
* * *
While no facilities were found producing chemical or biological agents on a large scale, many clandestine laboratories operating under the Iraqi Intelligence Services were found to be engaged in small-scale production of chemical nerve agents, sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, ricin, aflatoxin, and other unspecified biological agents. These laboratories were also evaluating whether various poisons would change the texture, smell or appearance of foodstuffs. These aspects of the ISG report have been ignored by the pundits and press. Did these constitute an imminent threat? Perhaps it depends how you define "threat."

The chemical section reports that the M16 Directorate "had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe." Are we to believe this plan existed because they liked us? Or did they wish to do us harm? The major threat posed by Iraq, in my opinion, was the support it gave to terrorists in general, and its own terrorist activity.

The ISG was also told that "ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol" in various munitions. Such development was not just for assassination. If Iraq was successful in developing an aerosolizable ricin, it made a significant step forward. The development had to be for terrorist delivery. Even on a small scale this must be considered as a WMD.

Biological agents, delivered on a small scale (terrorist delivery) can maim or kill a large number of people. The Iraqi Intelligence organizations had a history of conducting tests on humans with chemical and biological substances that went beyond assassination studies. While many of these were in the 1970s and 1980s, multiple documents and testimony indicate that such testing continued through the 1990s and into the next millennium, perhaps as late as 2002. Do we wait until such weapons are used against our domestic population before we act? Is that the way that some people wish to have the U.S. protected from terrorist activity?

It is asserted that Iraq was not supporting terrorists. Really? Documentation indicates that Iraq was training non-Iraqis at Salman Pak in terrorist techniques, including assassination and suicide bombing. In addition to Iraqis, trainees included Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese.

As for the U.N. inspection system preventing such R&D, why did Iraq not declare these clandestine laboratories to Unscom and Unmovic and why did these inspection agencies not discover these laboratories? Might it have been that there were multiple informants working inside Unscom and Unmovic that kept the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed as to what sites were to be inspected? Information collected by ISG indicates that this was the case. In late 2002 and early 2003, equipment and materials were removed from several sites 24 hours before U.N. inspections. Such informants were said to be active since 1993. Ergo, no surprise inspections.

Furthermore, sanctions were rapidly eroding. Unscom was aware of this erosion but not to the degree that apparently developed post 1998. The accounts of bribery of officials from several countries that were pushing for lifting or weakening sanctions are legend and have been extensively reported this past week. Inspections can not be effective without the full support of the U.N. Security Council. Such full support did not exist from late 1996 onward. Perhaps, now we know why. Iraq exploited the power of wealth in the form of oil to buy influence in the Security Council and within governments throughout the World. This has now been well documented.

Was Iraq an imminent threat? With the regime's intention and the activity of its intelligence organizations, and with the proven futility of uncovering its clandestine laboratory operations by the U.N. inspectors, it is hard to draw any other conclusion. Regretfully, terrorism is the wave of the future. The report by Charles Duelfer is unclassified and makes very interesting reading for those who really want to know. For those with a closed mind, it will be a waste of time.

Was Iraq an imminent threat? With the regime's intention and the activity of its intelligence organizations, and with the proven futility of uncovering its clandestine laboratory operations by the U.N. inspectors, it is hard to draw any other conclusion. Regretfully, terrorism is the wave of the future. The report by Charles Duelfer is unclassified and makes very interesting reading for those who really want to know. For those with a closed mind, it will be a waste of time.

The question most certainly is whether Saddam harbored al Qaeda prior to the invasion because that is a pretext of the US administration for its war against Iraq--that Saddam had operational ties to al Qaeda.

The 9/11 commission arrived at its conclusions using the same information that the US administration used in trumping up ... "WMD's in Iraq"? "Osama and Saddam partners"? Please.

It is dubious and it matters to the people of the world who would approach the fight against terrorist groups in an intelligent manner rather than the simplistic, propagandistic approach of the US government that willfully ignores its own hand in enabling and supporting these organizations.

Mullah Krekar's credibility has not been tested in regard to his claims. The US government's claims have been exposed to be ideologically motivated, based on self-admittedly unreliable information, and a case for war was propagandized to the US public thereof thusly corrupting its own credibility.

The US has a long history of both covert and overt dealings with persons and outfits and governments of ill repute and abominable deeds. I'm surprised that you, ican, find Krekar's claims hard to believe given the US' history with these types of individuals and organizations.

I don't know Krekar, or whether he's on the circulation list for Saddam's latest pronouncements, but doubt that Ican is on that list <G>

Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Sistani Calls for Independent Slate

AFP/ ash-Sharq al-Awsat report that a spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani said Monday that the spiritual leader supports the formation of a committee of "independents" to form a party ticket to contest the elections scheduled for January.
Hamid al-Khaffaf said at a gathering at the Sadr Center in Najaf that "A committee of independents has been formed, the mission of which to to help everyone be represented on a unified list that would gain the confidence of the supreme Shiite leadership."

The election is now slated to be held in accordance with the principle of proportional representation, such that if a party get 20 percent of the vote it gets 20 percent of the seats. Since no indpendent candidate is likely to get more than a fraction of a percent, this way of proceeding disadvantages independents.

Al-Khaffaf admitting that no ideal parliament could be elected under such an election system. He warned that the grand ayatollahs would not hesitate to bring people into the streets for the sake of a good result in the elections such that the righteous win their rights.

What is relevant to the future security of my and others' grandchildren is whether or not al Qaeda were harbored in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were!

That's a gross falsification. The 9/11 Commission claims no WMD's in Iraq. No member of the Commission to my knowledge claims Osama and Saddam were partners. I claim al Qaeda were harbored in Iraq. Whether or not Saddam knew about it, they had to be destroyed. To accomplish that we had to invade Iraq. To accomplish that we had to remove Saddam.

But avoid high fidelity mirrors.

oth before and after the war, the danger facing Israel was a particularly strong factor driving Jewish opinion.

"Most people spoke as Americans first, although many people saw it through the lens of Israel," Schwartzman said of discussions among her temple members. "The question of whether we're creating a more secure Middle East was important to them as it relates to Israel."

The piece also quotes Tom Neumann, the head of the ultra-hawkish and very well-connected "Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs", as saying:

"It's not over yet. The war will go on for many decades... This Iraq war is everything the president said it was: It's a war against terrorism. It's not some guy in a foxhole, it's seven or eight countries supporting terrorism."

That's a view that apparently continues to prevail among national Jewish groups, despite growing grassroots opposition. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been unstinting in supporting the war; in his speech to the AIPAC policy conference in May, Bush earned his biggest cheers when he mentioned Iraq.

In June, the American Jewish Committee awarded Australian Prime Minister John Howard its "Liberties Medallion," in large part for his role in defying his own public's opinion and allying with the United States in Iraq.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations never formally endorsed the war, but its daily e-mail bulletin to constituents often links to articles supporting the war.

Such expressions of support derive from a tradition of American Jewish deference to two governments: Jewish leaders reflexively heed the sitting Israeli government, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is glad to have the United States on board as an ally against Arab recalcitrance; and the Bush administration's "with-us-or-against-us" posture on Iraq has cowed Jewish groups that value White House access.

Still, there are signs that Jewish organizational leaders are beginning to edge toward a degree of criticism. The Anti-Defamation League, which expressed its support for Bush administration policy before the war, said in May that it was "deeply troubled" by allegations of prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. So did the Reform movement and the National Council of Jewish Women.

Berkley, the Nevada representative, suggested that a sense of betrayal underlies the growing anger.

A former AIPAC board member, Berkley recalls asking Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney before the war how Israel would factor into any invasion plan.

"The vice president explained in great detail at that meeting in the White House that they knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were located in Iraq that were aimed at Israel, and he assured me that when we went in, those missiles would be the first that the United States takes out," she said. "In retrospect, this administration had absolutely no idea what we were getting into."

"They deceived themselves, and in doing so they deceived the rest of us," she said.

So there's another important story the "major mainstream media" has so far not picked up on. Thank God for the blogosphere, eh?

The previous post and quoted article conveniently overlooks the fact that Israel was the only (ONLY) country where a majority favored an attack on Iraq.