AlterNet
Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation
By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on May 9, 2007, Printed on May 9, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51624/
On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.
It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).
Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.
What is clear is that while the U.S. Congress dickers over timelines and benchmarks, Baghdad faces a major political showdown of its own. The major schism in Iraqi politics is not between Sunni and Shia or supporters of the Iraqi government and "anti-government forces," nor is it a clash of "moderates" against "radicals"; the defining battle for Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed, so far, by the United States and Britain.
The continuing occupation of Iraq and the allocation of Iraq's resources -- especially its massive oil and natural gas deposits -- are the defining issues that now separate an increasingly restless bloc of nationalists in the Iraqi parliament from the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government is dominated by Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish separatists.
By "separatists," we mean groups who oppose a unified Iraq with a strong central government; key figures like Maliki of the Dawa party, Shia leader Abdul Aziz Al-Hakeem of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq ("SCIRI"), Vice President Tariq Al-Hashimi of the Sunni Islamic Party, President Jalal Talabani -- a Kurd -- and Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish Autonomous Region, favor partitioning Iraq into three autonomous regions with strong local governments and a weak central administration in Baghdad. (The partition plan is also favored by several congressional Democrats, notably Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.)
Iraq's separatists also oppose setting a timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, preferring the addition of more American troops to secure their regime. They favor privatizing Iraq's oil and gas and decentralizing petroleum operations and revenue distribution.
But public opinion is squarely with Iraq's nationalists. According to a poll by the University of Maryland's Project on International Public Policy Attitudes, majorities of all three of Iraq's major ethno-sectarian groups support a unified Iraq with a strong central government. For at least two years, poll after poll has shown that large majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want the United States to set a timeline for withdrawal, even though (in the case of Baghdad residents), they expect the security situation to deteriorate in the short term as a result.
That's nationalism, and it remains the central if unreported motivation for many Iraqis, both within the nascent government and on the streets.
While sectarian fighting at the neighborhood and community level has made life unlivable for millions of Iraqis, Iraqi nationalism -- portrayed as a fiction by supporters of the invasion -- supercedes sectarian loyalties at the political level. A group of secular, Sunni and Shia nationalists have long voted together on key issues, but so far have failed to join forces under a single banner.
That may be changing. Reached by phone last week, nationalist leader Saleh Al-Mutlaq, of the National Dialogue Front, said, "We're doing our best to form this united front and announce it within the next few weeks." The faction would have sufficient votes to block any measure proposed by the Maliki government. Asked about the Americans' reaction to the growing power of the nationalists, Mutlaq said, "We're trying our best to reach out to the U.S. side, but to no avail."
That appears to be a trend. Iraqi nationalists have attempted again and again to forge relationships with members of Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House but have found little interest in dialogue and no support. Instead, key nationalists like al-Sadr have been branded as "extremists," "thugs" and "criminals."
That's a tragic missed opportunity; the nationalists are likely Iraq's best hope for real and lasting reconciliation among the country's warring factions. They are the only significant political force focused on rebuilding a sovereign, united and independent Iraq without sectarian and ethnic tensions or foreign meddling -- from either the West or Iran. Hassan Al-Shammari, the head of Al-Fadhila bloc in the Iraqi parliament, said this week, "We have a peace plan, and we're trying to work with other nationalist Iraqis to end the U.S. and Iranian interventions, but we're under daily attacks and there's huge pressure to destroy our peace mission."
A sovereign and unified Iraq, free of sectarian violence, is what George Bush and Tony Blair claim they want most. The most likely reason that the United States and Britain have rebuffed those Iraqi nationalists who share those goals is that the nationalists oppose permanent basing rights and the privatization of Iraq's oil sector. The administration, along with their allies in Big Oil, has pressed the Iraqi government to adopt an oil law that would give foreign multinationals a much higher rate of return than they enjoy in other major oil producing countries and would lock in their control over what George Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" for decades.
Al-Shammari said this week: "We're afraid the U.S. will make us pass this new oil law through intimidation and threatening. We don't want it to pass, and we know it'll make things worse, but we're afraid to rise up and block it, because we don't want to be bombed and arrested the next day." In the Basrah province, where his Al-Fadhila party dominates the local government, Al-Shammari's fellow nationalists have been attacked repeatedly by separatists for weeks, while British troops in the area remained in their barracks.
The nationalists in parliament will now press their demands for withdrawal. At the same time, the emerging nationalist bloc is holding hearings in which officials from the defense and interior ministries have been grilled about just what impediments to building a functional security force remain and when the Iraqi police and military will be able to take over from foreign troops. Both ministries are believed to be heavily infiltrated by both nationalist (al-Sadr's Mahdi Army) and separatist militias (the pro-Iranian Badr Brigade).
The coming weeks and months will be crucial to Iraq's future. The United States, in pushing for more aggressive moves against Iraqi nationalists and the passage of a final oil law, is playing a dangerous game. Iraqi nationalists reached in Baghdad this week say they are beginning to lose hope of achieving anything through the political process because both the Iraqi government and the occupation authorities are systematically bypassing the Iraqi parliament where they're in the majority. If they end up quitting the political process entirely, that will leave little choice but to oppose the occupation by violent means.
Raed Jarrar is Iraq Consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle.
OK!
Let's ask the Iraqi government what they want America to do.
Do they want us to stay or leave?
If they want us to stay, then what do they want us to do?
If they want us to leave, then when do they want us to leave?
cicerone imposter wrote:Hey, ican, if you expect me to read all that, you ain't learned anything. Summarize, cause I ain't gonna read all that stuff you post.
AHAA! That explains why you are so ignorant. I should have guessed.
The primary goal of the USA is to deprive al-Qaeda places in Afghanistan and Iraq to train terrorists. Attainment of that primary goal of the USA requires that the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq achieve their goal of protecting their people. . .
"The Sunni extremist surge seems to be having more effect than the American one "
Despair stalks Baghdad as plan falters
By Andrew North
BBC News, Baghdad
Trying to get into the centre of Baghdad earlier this week offered one view of how far away the Americans and Iraqi authorities are from gaining control here.
We were at the airport. Just before we were due to leave, the entrance car park was hit by a car bomb.
US troops and private security forces who guard the perimeter locked the whole area down for the next four hours. No traffic was allowed in or out.
While we waited with scores of other vehicles, mortars were fired at the airport. Fortunately for us they landed on the other side of the runway, plumes of smoke shooting into the air.
You won't have heard about any of this because at the same time a series of other far more serious attacks was taking place.
One was at the Sadriya market in the city centre, where a massive car bomb killed more than 140 people.
"The Sunni extremist surge seems to be having more effect than the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American one "
--------------------
It was placed at the entrance to a set of barriers put up around another part of the market where a previous single bomb, in February, claimed more than 130 lives.
The market blast "did not penetrate the emplaced barriers" a later US military press release helpfully pointed out, ignoring the fact that the bombers had yet again adapted their tactics with vicious perfection - setting off their device at the point where crowds congregated outside and at the very moment when they were busiest.
Bombers 'organised'
As we drove into the city, we counted six blast holes left by recent roadside bombs along just one 100-metre stretch of road.
A large patch of damaged, blackened Tarmac on a bridge spoke of another attempt to destroy a key crossing.
The Sunni extremists held to be responsible for these attacks seem to be making a mockery of the US and Iraqi security plan, which is now into its third month.
So far, their surge seems to be having more effect than the American one.
Last month alone there were more than 100 car bombings, and the number of attacks has continued at a similar rate so far this month. This indicates a high level of organisation.
This despite the fact that there are many extra US and Iraqi troops in the city now. There are more raids and patrols.
On our drive into the city, we encountered several Iraqi army checkpoints. But almost every vehicle - including ours - was being waved through.
Many new checkpoints have been set up across Baghdad.
But what is their purpose, many Iraqis ask, when they seem to stop so few people?
It is not always encouraging when they do - a couple of times we have been pulled over by Iraqi soldiers who ask us if we have any bullets to give them.
Optimism fading
Just a month ago there was a cautious - very cautious, but still real - sense of optimism among many Baghdadis that the plan was starting to work.
The daily count of bodies found around the city - mostly Sunni victims of targeted sectarian killings - had dropped off significantly.
The Shia militia of Moqtada Sadr, which was blamed for most of these murders, was largely obeying orders to put away its weapons and co-operate with the security plan.
But there is a deadly and familiar equation here.
With official security forces apparently unable to protect Shia communities, pressure is growing on the militias to do so again.
And there are signs their death squads have returned to work. The body count is creeping up again. Twenty were found yesterday.
Dealing with the car bomb is "our top priority", says US military spokesman Lt Col Chris Garver.
But as ever it is a game of cat and mouse, played with insurgents who are "very adaptive", and very well-funded.
A man arrested by US soldiers after placing a truck bomb which failed to go off told interrogators he had been paid $30,000 (£15,000) for the task.
Lt Col Garver says the US believes it is up against several "car bombing networks".
"If there was just one, we might be able to pull the string and unravel it," he says.
People still have to be patient, he warns, adding a note of optimism.
"We are still not fully staffed," he says - there are another two months to go until all the extra US troops are in Baghdad.
Exhaustion
But there is frustration too among the Americans at the Iraqi government's lack of progress on reconciliation - ultimately the only solution to the conflict, most believe.
Key issues include the need to implement a new law on sharing oil revenues, an amnesty programme and limiting the scope of the de-Baathification process. All of these are crucial to winning over Sunnis.
The idea was that the security drive in Baghdad would create "space" for such efforts to get going. But although new laws have been drafted they are a long way from being approved.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates stepped up the pressure over these issues on his visit to Baghdad. In the meantime, the young men and women sent out here to implement President Bush's plan are paying a heavy price.
An average of 80-90 Americans die each month. And US personnel have just had their tours extended by another three months.
But, as it has always been since the 2003 invasion, it is the Iraqis who suffer most.
No-one knows the exact figures, but at the end of another week of unspeakable, random carnage, hundreds more Iraqi families are grieving.
Exhaustion and despair hang over the country.
And there are no signs of change.
Ican, this one's for you:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/
Quote:AlterNet
Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation
By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on May 9, 2007, Printed on May 9, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51624/
On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.
...
Ican Wrote:
Quote:OK!
Let's ask the Iraqi government what they want America to do.
Do they want us to stay or leave?
If they want us to stay, then what do they want us to do?
If they want us to leave, then when do they want us to leave?
You are getting your answers, Ican, and should be prepared to back an immediate withdrawl per the requests of the Iraqi gov't.
Cycloptichorn
ican711nm wrote:
The primary goal of the USA is to deprive al-Qaeda places in Afghanistan and Iraq to train terrorists. Attainment of that primary goal of the USA requires that the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq achieve their goal of protecting their people. . .
...
Iraq had nothing to do with the training of terrorists until the US invaded that beset nation.
...
American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges an a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."
page 519:
"[The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all. "
Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.
If the above is true, and
a majority of the Iraqi government want us to leave, then when do they want us to leave?
Tony Blair today announced he was stepping down after 10 years as prime minister and 13 as Labour leader.
The prime minister returned to his political roots in the north east for his swansong, telling supporters at Trimdon Labour club he would stand down as PM on June 27. He will tender his resignation to the Queen on that day.
In an emotional 17-minute speech, he said the judgment on his 10-year administration was "for you, the people, to make". Mr Blair paid special tribute to his wife and children "who never let me forget my failings".
And he apologised for "the times I have fallen short".
But he concluded: "Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong - that's your call. But I did what I thought was right for our country.
"This country is a blessed country. The British are special. The world knows it, we know it, this is the greatest country on earth."
In Washington, president Bush said Mr Blair was a "remarkable person. And I consider him a good friend."
He added: "When Tony Blair tells you something - as we say in Texas - you can take it to the bank.
"He's a political figure capable of thinking over the horizon. He's a long-term thinker."
Mr Brown, who led tributes to Mr Blair at this morning's cabinet meeting, said: "I think I spoke for millions of people when I said to the cabinet today that Tony Blair's achievements are unique, unprecedented and enduring."
He praised Mr Blair's responses to the 9/11 terror attacks and the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. "At all times he tried to do the right thing," said the chancellor.
In his speech to supporters at lunchtime, Mr Blair dealt directly with Iraq, many people's perception as his ultimate legacy, saying: "The blowback since ... has been fierce, unrelenting and costly."
But he insisted: "The terrorists will never give up if we give up."
Although he did not mention the US president by name, he made clear the importance he had attached throughout his premiership to the so-called "special relationship", saying Britain should "stand shoulder to shoulder with our oldest ally, and I did so out of belief".
Mr Blair admitted that in May 1997, when Labour took over after 18 years of Tory rule, "expectations were too high".
But he added: "I would not want it any other way. I was, and remain, an optimist."
Pointing to Africa, climate change and globalisation, he declared Britain had changed under his 10-year leadership, saying: "Britain is not a follower, Britain is a leader."
He made no reference as to whether he would stay on as backbench MP for Sedgefield.
Tomorrow Mr Blair will fly to Paris to meet the president-elect, Nicolas Sarkozy, where he is also expected to endorse Gordon Brown as his successor.
Tributes to the PM's 10 years quickly flooded in, although the Tory leader, David Cameron - in a webcast reaction - said it was "putting it mildly" to say hopes had been disappointed in Mr Blair's 10 years in office.
He added there was "so much promise and so little delivery". Mr Blair was "desperate to secure his legacy" but doing it by "sitting in Downing Street pulling levers".
The president of the EU commission, José Manuel Barroso, said the PM "took Britain from the fringes to the mainstream of the European Union".
Mr Blair acknowledged he had been accused of "messianic zeal", but said as prime minister, over issues such as Sierra Leone, Kosovo and then Afghanistan and Iraq, you were "alone with your instinct".
Simultaneously, John Prescott announced in Hull he too would be stepping down, firing the starting pistol on a deputy leadership race. Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland secretary, and justice minister Harriet Harman had both secured the necessary 44 nominations by the end of the day.
The other candidates are Hazel Blears, Hilary Benn, and Alan Johnson.
Earlier, the PM had confirmed to cabinet he would announce his plans to step down, joking it was "not quite a normal day".
The meeting ended with the entire cabinet "thumping" the table in appreciation, according to Mr Blair's official spokesman.
The two leftwing challengers for the Labour leadership, John McDonnell and Michael Meacher, were due to announce this afternoon which if either of them would stand - but postponed a press conference declaring it was "too close to call".
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats demanded an immediate snap election to legitimise Mr Blair's successor.
The party leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, has tabled a Commons motion calling on the Queen to dissolve parliament immediately, since Mr Blair promised to serve a "full third term" in 2005.
Mr Brown, facing a financially straitened Labour party and poor polls, is highly unlikely to grant that request.
Mr Blair was unique among Labour leaders in winning three successive elections. Although announcing before the 2005 contest he would serve a "full third term", a mini-putsch by both Blairite and Brownite backbench MPs last autumn forced him to confirm he would stand down within a year.
A letter from Iraq to Tony Blair
------------------------------------
By Jim Muir
BBC News
One issue threatens to overshadow Tony Blair's legacy, affecting his image and standing at home and abroad, the decision to go to war in Iraq.
I have never written to a politician in my life. But I very nearly made an exception for Tony Blair.
It was towards the end of 2002, when it was already clear that the invasion of Iraq was only a matter of time.
I found myself deeply torn. I had no illusions about the nature of Saddam Hussein. I had followed his brutal antics for years. I had been to his Iraq, and felt the all-pervasive fear instilled by his vigilant and ruthless police state.
What a relief it was to get on the plane and feel that oppressive weight lifted off your shoulders, an experience that most Iraqis were denied.
But when Saddam's excesses were at their worst, during the war with Iran in the 1980s, he was actually being discreetly supported by the Americans.
Washington was turning a blind eye to human rights reports from its own State Department detailing how Iraqi children were being tortured in front of their parents to get them to confess or inform.
In 1988, when the Iraqi air force dropped chemical bombs which killed thousands of Kurds at Halabja, I remember phoning the Pentagon, and being told: "We think it was the Iranians who did it."
Bad man
So on a personal level, I would be glad to see the end of Saddam Hussein and his harsh dictatorship.
It was clear, long before it happened, that this was going to be a terrible mess. It had to be
But the impending invasion was clearly not about to happen because he was a bad man.
It might be the right thing, but it was being done for the wrong reasons - reasons that had more to do with the global ambitions of the ascendant neo-conservatives in Washington, and their desire to engineer a New Order in the Middle East.
The chosen pretexts for the war - Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction and links with international terror - turned out to be simply invalid.
I have often thought, over these past four years, of that regular cartoon slot in the satirical magazine Private Eye, entitled "Things We Seldom See".
It features situations which would be blindingly logical, but just never happen.
I wanted to propose one where President Bush addresses Saddam Hussein and says:
"Mr Hussein, you were right. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and no links with terrorism. We'd like to apologise, and give you your country back."
Apart from misgivings about Washington's real motives and objectives, it was clear, long before it happened, that this was going to be a terrible mess. It had to be.
Confessional cocktail
Iraq is a patchwork country, an ethnic and confessional cocktail, of Arabs and Kurds, Turkomans and Chaldaeans, Sunnis and Shiites.
Such countries are usually held together by a strong centralised dictatorship, which could be benign or tyrannical.
As soon as you admit the concept of democracy and take the lid off, it is bound to be difficult and chaotic in the best of conditions, in a place with no democratic traditions or culture.
To blow the regime and all its control mechanisms away virtually overnight, through the massive use of force by people from halfway around the world, would inevitably plunge the country and the region into a long period of chaos, whatever exact form it would take.
That is why I lay sleepless in my bed in Tehran, mentally composing that letter to Tony Blair that I never wrote.
I was going to tell him, on the basis of three decades living and working in the region, that he was on the brink of a massive historical blunder.
I never sent it, because I knew of course that it would not make a blind bit of difference, apart from perhaps salving my own conscience, and allowing me to say: "I told you so" - something that would bring no satisfaction at all.
And so, four years on, look at what a terrible mess Mr Blair can now say goodbye to, and hand on to Gordon Brown.
Long nightmare
Where there used to be tight state control, there is massive terrorism on a daily basis. The Americans have been bombing Baghdad again, to quell Sunni militants and Shiite militias.
At the end of the day, the British are minor players, politically important partners brought in on the coat-tails of the Americans
They are building walls to separate districts, euphemistically calling them "gated communities". Millions of Iraqis have fled the country.
In the south, British troops are trying to stifle Shiite militias which know they only have to wait, because the British will be gone before long.
A transition of leadership in London is not going to make much difference on the ground in Iraq.
Gordon Brown will be locked into a situation which he might or might not have chosen to get into in the first place, but will now be stuck with, and his options will be limited.
At the end of the day, the British are minor players, politically important partners brought in on the coat-tails of the Americans.
It is the outcome of their last-ditch struggle to control Baghdad and central Iraq that is crucial to the country's future.
If it does not work, the coalition troops may start pulling out and we may find that Iraq's long nightmare has only just begun.
From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Thursday, 10 May, 2007 at 1100 GMT on BBC Radio 4.
ican, Do you read the stuff you post?
From Wikipedia: "...Ansar al-Islam (Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group..."
It's a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group. Do you know how long the Kurds lived in that part of Iraq?
ANSAR AL-ISLAM
Ansar al-Islam (Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border. It has used tactics such as suicide bombers in its conflicts with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and other Kurdish groups.
Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar became the leader of the merged Ansar al-Islam, which opposed an agreement made between IMK and the dominant Kurdish group in the area, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).
Ansar al-Islam fortified a number of villages along the Iranian border, with Iranian artillery support. [1]
Ansar al-Islam quickly initiated a number of attacks on the peshmerga (armed forces) of the PUK, on one occasion massacring 53 prisoners and beheading them. Several assassination attempts on leading PUK-politicians were also made with carbombs and snipers.
Ansar al-Islam comprised about 300 armed men, many of these veterans from the Afghan war, and a proportion being neither Kurd nor Arab. Ansar al-Islam is alleged to be connected to al-Qaeda, and provided an entry point for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Afghan veterans to enter Iraq.[/b][/color]
Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.
