The US, UN & Iraq III

Setanta,

Thanks for the comprehensive response. It is true that I didn't offer proofs or backup for most of my statements. I regard each as a testable, but eminently defensible observation or estimate of the events in question.

In particular;

It is a fact that prior to the Administration's "Regime Change" announcement there was extensive dialogue, both in the Security Council and in the public statements of the Governments of France, Russia and others supporting the removal or reduction of the sanctions. Indeed the UN sponsored Oil for food regime was itself an intermediate step in that direction. I believe the pressures to lift the sanctions would have grown over time and, had we not announced an intent to bring about Regime Change, we would have faced great difficulty in resisting these pressures in the face of the humanitarian arguments. We, of course, now know beyond doubt that Saddam would not have hesitated to use the moneys so earned for his own military and political purposes without regard to the economic needs of his people. That was the inescapable alternative to regime change, and I believe strongly that it was a significant consideration in the minds of the administration strategists.

The attitudes and intent of the supporters of al Qaeda with respect to the United States was made utterly clear on 9/11. There was indeed nothing to be lost with them. Moreover I believe that the upswelling of new support for them, forecast by so many, has not yet materialized and is not likely to occur. Time will tell on this aspect of the matter, but I have learned many times that weakness and unclear purpose beget more opposition than resolve and action. There are numerous and well-known historical examples of this principle.

We cannot know the future for Iraq, but I believe there is a substantial historical and current factual basis on which to believe that a tolerant, largely secular government will emerge from the current situation. It would certainly be very difficult for the future evolution of that country to yield anything worse than Saddam. Again the uncertainty is undeniable, bit the arguments in support of this possibility are well-known and factually based.

It seems to me that the beneficial spill over effects of the Iraqi campaign on the situation in North Asia are self-evident. We have fundamentally and favorably changed the terms of this dialogue among all of the players involved.

And i disagree

c.i., your statement has once again been proven in its truth, but Setanta doesn't seem to be smitten

Mr Stillwater,

In reply to your post of Thu May 22, 2003 1:48 am in which you state:



No, a stable society embodying basic human needs, as I stated in my post of Wed May 21, 2003 7:19 pm, is a necessary foundation for any society (Even Saddam's regime had the rule of law). In order for Iraq to become a viable economic nation it must develop a strong middleclass. People will not attempt to better their position in a society that cannot guarantee their acquired property or their personal safety. Most Middle Eastern nations (Israel excluded) are devoid of this class and for this reason are more susceptible to Islamic Fundamentalist political forces. One only needs to look to Saudi Arabia and Iran to see this. The former has always had the ruling minority and the vast majority of lower class who are always leaning towards fanaticism to improve their lot. In Iran the middle class has given rise to a very large University Student population that are now pushing for more democratic and other types of reforms. Iran's current president is constantly doing a high wire act to try to keep peace between the old and the new factions. The development of a middleclass is probably much more important than oil revenues for both economic and political reasons. (See Fareed Zakaria's "The Future of Freedom").

Regarding:



The concept of "War Reparations" has been discredited since the "Treaty of Versailles" that ended WWI. The debt assigned Germany flowing from that agreement only served to foment revenge towards the victorious powers. Germany's main purpose, besides a hidden rearmament program, was to circumvent the reparations even to the point of letting its inflation rate soar sky-high so that it paid back the debt with almost worthless Deutsh Marks (One of a number of things allowing the rise of Adolph Hitler). Conversely, Marshall-like plans, when instituted, rewarded the victors of WWII with healthier and happier nations who, in turn, became allies themselves, less likely to start more expensive warlike conflicts.

Besides, oil revenues will probably not go too far to help in any proposed reparations program. In addition, this would only be viewed as "War for Oil" even though this claim is economically bereft. It has been estimated that revenues so generated would probably amount to only 70-80 billion/yr. Iraq's reconstruction has been estimated at between 350 to 750 billion/yr for the next 5-10 years. The revenue from oil might be better invested in social projects such as educating Iraqi children and University students (before and in his early years as president, Saddam's Iraq had a significant middle class and academic community). This education effort might also stem the tide of Islamic "propaganda" we see in various Islamic schools in the ME. The last thing Iraq needs is to give Islamic fundamentalist another war cry they can use to rally the uneducated poor masses thus turning them into a herd of lemmings ready, willing, and able to leap off another cliff of destiny.

Respectfully,

JM

JM - thanks for thoughts on this. I hope I didn't seem too glib there.

Where is this 'middle-class' will come from? You seem to have the idea that there is a unified country called Iraq where everyone shares the same values and aspirations. Not so. More than half the population are Shiites kept down for decades by the rule of the Sunni population (and not just the Ba'athists), there is a sizeable Kurdish population with plans to break away as a new nation.

I can't see that any of these groups are going to share whatever gains they've made from the fall of the regime with each other voluntarily. Autonomy for the Shiites and Kurds (ie local rule) will be at the expense of 'Iraq', with plenty of opportunity for conflicts that nearby nations will seek to exploit. I think the ultimate outcome will be partition.

Saddam Prepares For Guerilla War With 40,000 Fighters
by Free Arab Voice (FAV)
www.globalresearch.ca 22 May 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FAV305A.html

Editors' Note:

The following article released by the Free Arab Voice (quoting a number of Middle East news sources) was published in English by the Information Clearing House . While it is not fully corroborated by other mainstream and alternative news sources , it constitutes, nonetheless, a useful text, which we are now bringing to the attention of our readers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muhit An intelligence report received by the American Central Intelligence Agency has disclosed on the authority of their secret sources that the deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is still alive and has formed a new secret leadership in preparation for waging a Vietnam-style guerrilla war against American forces to be launched next 17 July with 40,000 fighters. The force is to be led by the Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad.

The magazine al-Watan al-'Arabi in its issue coming out tomorrow said that the date for the beginning of the guerrilla war coincides with the anniversary of the Baathist revolution and seizure of power, and the anniversary of Saddam Hussein's ascension to the Iraqi presidency in 1979 as the successor of Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr. Until now, no one has conclusive proof as to the fate of Saddam Hussein and his two sons. It is said that he was killed during an air raid on a place where he was meeting with his commanders in the Baghdad district of al-Mansour. But there were sightings of him after that, in the A'zamiyyah district of the Iraqi capital on the same day that American forces entered Baghdad airport. Rumors have circulated that he attended Friday congregational prayer in the Mosque of Abu Hanifa an-Nu'man, and that he promised the worshippers there a surprise. There are also rumors that he had appeared elsewhere too, but there is no proof of the truth of any of these rumors.

Intelligence sources confirm information that Saddam Hussein and his two sons are still alive, still in Iraq, and that the forces that are still loyal to Saddam Hussein number 40,000 fighters. They are deployed throughout various regions of the country. The President, who is still in hiding, still has power and specific means at his command, and he has kept secret hiding places where he can disappear in a number of provinces. In addition he controls secret hiding places that contain weapons and ammunition, military supplies, foodstuffs, and other necessities. The contents of these secret storehouses is sufficient for waging a long and bitter war.

The great surprise that the message disclosed is that Saddam Hussein and his group of supporters who represent a secret leadership not composed of the familiar military and Baath Party personalities, are busily engaged in putting the finishing touches on a plan for a great confrontation with the Anglo-American forces deployed on Iraqi territory. The UAE newspaper "al-Bayan" reported on the authority of information that has reached "al-Watan al-'Arabi" that Saddam Hussein has designated 17 July of this year as the date on which the great jihad will begin. In addition to the symbolic significance of this date, preparations should be completed by that time. In addition, Iraqi citizens will have come to understand the what the presence of foreign forces on their soil means. They will have come to understand the extent of changes that will take place in their way of life, contrary to their social, cultural, and religious heritage. Some of the considerations that justify putting off the date by about three months until July are likelihood that ethnic and sectarian fighting might erupt in the country by then, and the struggles of the different aspirants for power should have risen to the surface. This is likely to create an unbalanced situation in Iraq, keeping the occupation forces busy, and giving the forces loyal to Saddam Hussein an opportunity to score major breakthroughs in enemy security by waging Vietnam-style guerrilla warfare with "hit-and-run" tactics.

The leaked information also discloses the make-up of the group that has gathered around Saddam Hussein and his two sons. It is composed of 'Abd Hammoud and 'Ali Hasan al-Majid who succeeded in escaping from Basra and disappearing, of Taha Yasin Ramadan, of the Defence Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad, and Latif Nasif Jasem. Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri, who headed the northern sector, has disappeared, as has the commander of the Middle Euphrates sector Mazban Khidr Hadi. The group surrounding Saddam now comprises elements from Tikrit, Samarra, and Mosul.

The intelligence report does not exclude the possibility that the new group around Saddam Hussein was the source of the leaked information that led to the arrest or surrender of certain former officials, because their roles had come to an end and there was no place for them in the new plan, and in order to keep the Americans occupied with interrogating them about events in the past, diverting the Americans' attention from planning for what is to happen in the near future.

The information suggests that Saddam Hussein still has bases located in the cities, towns, and villages of Iraq, where the fighters look like ordinary citizens, but are waiting to carry out the orders that they will be given, and are meanwhile carrying out reconnaissance and observation of the enemy and bringing information and intelligence from the leadership to the base.

The intelligence information also confirms that the locations where Saddam and his new aides are located are very well protected and surrounded in total secrecy which no spying or detection devices, however advanced, can penetrate. Also noteworthy is the presence of retired Russian experts in some of these locations, men practiced in guerrilla warfare with great expertise in this field.

Strangely, the intelligence report discloses the precise details, known to the American intelligence agencies in Baghdad, of a meeting ostensibly held by Saddam Hussein with his aides on 7 April, the day that American forces entered the environs of Baghdad. The details of the meeting include the fact that Saddam Hussein confirmed at the opening of the meeting, which was held in a secret and protected location, that a great betrayal had taken place in the Republican Guard and Special Forces. He spoke of a high-ranking military personality with deep hatred, and said that this person had known all the secrets, the methods of issuing orders, and their secret codes. This person was the one who led the act of treachery and issued the orders for the forces to withdraw, as if they had come from Saddam Hussein personally. It was in this way that immediate and sudden withdrawals took place from all positions at one stroke, their weapons being taken away. The withdrawal covered the Republican Guard, the Special Forces, and all the regular and semi-regular forces, leaving no one to defend Baghdad except a few hundred Arab volunteers who were not included in those orders and who were not integrated into the leadership's chain of command.

The intelligence report indicated that Saddam said that those persons think that they will occupy important positions under the American administration of Iraq. The message that they used said that Saddam Hussein had been killed with his commanders and that there was no longer any hope of resistance. The person who stands at the head of the betrayal knew the secret password and was thus able to issue the orders to retire from the battle.

The sources reported Saddam as saying during the meeting that the date 9 April is the day of treachery and treason in Baghdad, (which confirms that the meeting took place after that date), the date of shame and humiliation for those traitors who sold out Arabism, and sold out Baghdad for some derisory sum. It was a great betrayal in which high-ranking officers of an Arab army were involved, an army that we had thought had regained its senses and returned to its Arab Nationalist position, that we had considered a loyal friend that had opened the door to jihad together with us. But it stabbed us in the back. Saddam added: "we have done our sums, and we still have great potential. We are accustomed to the most difficult conditions. We have experience in secret resistance from before the revolutions of 1963 and 1968, and we have the ability to wage battle and we are prepared for the confrontation and have the wherewithal to carry on for years."

After that, according to the intelligence information, Saddam Hussein returned to the topic of the betrayal and treachery and spoke with bitterness of the husband of his youngest daughter Halla, Jamal Mustafa al-'Umar, who surrendered to American forces, a fact indicating his involvement in the treason.

Saddam added, "We had prepared for a great battle against the Americans in Baghdad. Our planning was excellent. We had prepared a pincer attack. What sadness I have for those youth. What sadness I have for those traitorous scoundrels who forsook Iraq, and Arabism, and Islam. They did not forsake Saddam Hussein. And now we have become the survivors. We are the elite of the Iraqi people, and the historical responsibility for liberating our people has fallen on us. You will discover that the way is open before us, We will make America pay the price, God willing, albeit belatedly. We have grown used to struggle. We have lived it, and will continue to do so. The reports you have heard about chaos in the streets of Iraq today will mark the important beginning of the revolution." He continued saying: "Our date is in July. That is a historic date that has its own aims, significance, and associations that we will use in the fight. You need to be aware that the members of the Bedouin tribes and federations have not been treacherous. They have not turned traitor. When I determined what those contemptible officers had done, I wrote to the tribes to tell them to be calm and await the appointed day. And I asked some of them to go along with the American invader for the sake of our noble goal."

Saddam Hussein said, "And to those who talk about the Shi'a, I say that the Shi'a will prove to everyone in our coming battle that they are the noble vanguard, and the battles of liberation will be waged in an-Najaf, and Karbala and the queen of cities Umm Qasr."

Saddam Hussein, had called on the Iraqi people to rise up in intifada against the American occupation forces, saying that it is the foreign occupation and not Sunni or Shi'i that is the "only issue that your great Iraq is living through," as he put it. This call came in a hand-written letter from Saddam to the Iraqi people and the sons and daughters of the Arab Nation and the Islamic world community, and to honorable people everywhere. Dated 28 April, his birthday, the message was obtained by the London-based al-Quds al-'Arabi newspaper. Sources close to Saddam confirmed the authenticity of the handwriting and the signature, pointing out that the conditions of his underground existence do not currently permit anything more than sending hand-written letters, due to security considerations.

The Leadership of the Resistance and Liberation of Iraq had stressed the day before yesterday in an exclusive letter sent to al-Quds al-'Arabi that Saddam Hussein had survived the bombing and that he would deliver an address to Iraqis and the Arab Nation within 72 hours. In the letter, Saddam accused the countries surrounding Iraq of working against the resistance and said that the traitors had allowed themselves to speak out loud about their treachery, despite its being a disgrace, in a reference taken to refer to Kuwait. Saddam said that treason lay behind the fall of Baghdad, saying "the enemy was not victorious over you, you who reject occupation and humiliation, you who have Arabism and Islam in your hearts and minds, it was not victorious over you except by means of treason."

Perhaps they will bring back Baghdad Bob to report the news.

As long as the US and UK has 200,000 troops in Iraq, Saddam will remain a hidden thorn. Why anybody thinks Iraq will become a secular democracy any time soon probably doesn't understand the history of Iraq. When I hear any ideas coming out of the GWBush administration on how they're going to create a democracy in the middle of the Middle East is laughable at best, and ignorant at worst. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I wonder how future presidents of this country are going to handle Iraq? c.i.

Foreign policy is been so badly messed up, future Presidents will have a lot more to staighten out than this affair.

BillW, Politics is not so predictable. Of all things, France and Russia approved the UN Resolution to stop the sanctions against Iraq today - even with the proviso that the US and the UK will lead the reconstruction efforts. c.i.

Ohhhhhhhhhh, if was just that easy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Tatarin

Thanks for the interesting post from the Arab Free Voice.

I can't help but think it is exceedingly generous of Saddam to give advance notice of his surprise attack on 17th July. AM or PM?

Now this most interesting document has come into my possession.

CONFIDENTIAL

PRIME MINISTER

FROM RT HON THE LORD GOLDSMITH QC ATTORNEY GENERAL

IRAQ: AUTHORISATION FOR AN INTERIM ADMINISTRATION

Paras 1-5 deleted

6. Finally and in any event, it must be borne in mind that the lawfulness of any occupation after the conflict has ened is still governed by the legal basis for the use of force. As you know, any military action pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (1990) must be limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the resolution, namely Iraqi disarmament, and must be a proprtionate response to that objective. The Government has concluded that the removal of the current Iraqi regime from power is necessary to secure disarmament, but the longer the occupation of Iraq continues, and the more the tasks undertaken by an interim administration depart from the main objective, the more difficult it will be to justify the lawfulness of the occupation. So in the absence of a further Security Council resolution, in addition to the issues rased in paragraph 2 above, it is likely to be difficult to justify the continued occupation of Iraq once the disarmament requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions have been completed.

...................


So what does this mean? Simple. Attempts to impose a new regime in Iraq are illegal. Everything that the US led Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance has attempted to do - from the efforts to form an interim Iraqi administation to control of the supply and sale of ol, and the award of lucrative reconstruction contracts to US corporations with links to the Bush administration - may, under a British reading of the law, be invalid.

Now of course we have the further UN resolution, but the point is the above memo was written on 26th March. The British Government condoned action in Iraq by the Americans which its own chief law officer was describing as illegal under International Law.

Where does this get us? No idea, probably gaol for me if I keep reproducing this stuff...

Note for British Security Agencies. I didn't nick it honest guv. You can read the full story on page 16 of today's New Statesman magazine.

Could it be, Saddam laughs last?

I don't think there is much to these stories of an Iraqi intifada - resistance - underground liberation army - call it what you will.

I saw a programme recently about the Vietnamese resistance to the American invasion of Vietnam. Hundreds of miles of tunnels, living off a few drops of water and grains of rice. Living fighting and dying underground for weeks at a time. Now THAT was resistance. I don't think the Arabs are prepared for that level of sacrifice, (they probably have more sense).

The Return Of Saddam may be accompanied by the music of Gilbert and Sullivan. Its main value (to me, anyway!) lies in the inherent ridicule of Our Imperial President. Two corrupt and idiotic blowhards having a face-off.

David Marquand writes:-

However there is no point in crying over spilt milk. Tony Blair's shameful disloyalty to his fellow Europeans has ensure that, for the foreseeable future, the European Union will not be a serious force in global politics. If Britain is going to sneak off into the welcoming embrace of the US whenever the going gets tough, talk of a European foreign policy is so much hot air.

Nice touch, Tartarin:

I am the very model of a modern Major General . . .

This presumes that only international efforts condoned or mandated by the UN are "legal". I disagree. (In fact, I find it absurd.)

This comes, via Global Research, from an Asia Times report of the latest "Bilderberger" meeting at Versailles this past week -- FYI:

THE ROVING EYE
The masters of the universe
By Pepe Escobar

It may be instructive to learn what US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle were doing last weekend...

...the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War...

...the US does not need or even want a stable, legitimate central government in Iraq. When that happens, there will be no reason for the US to remain in the country. Europe's elite see the US establishing "facts on the ground": establishing a long-term military presence and getting the oil flowing again under American control. This could go on for years, as long as the Americans can guarantee enough essential services to prevent the Iraqi people from engaging in a war of national liberation.

It was also extremely hard at the Versailles meeting to forge a consensus on the necessity of a European Union army totally independent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The US establishment, of course, is against the EU army. But so are some Europeans, starting with anti-army cheerleader Lord Robertson, NATO's secretary general. Europe's elite can't stand US domination of NATO any more. Some Europeans suggest a separate force, but controlled by NATO. Americans argue that a separate EU force would dissolve NATO's role as the UN's world army. And Americans insist that NATO is no longer confined to the defense of Europe: its troops now could go anywhere in the world, directed or not by the UN Security Council. The impasse remains....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html