February 2003 Archives

Interesting. Iraq has agreed "in principle" to destroy its al-Samoud II missiles starting tomorrow, and chief U.N. weapons inspector Has Blix says this is "very significant." President Bush, however, dismisses this out of hand and for the first time explicitly says war is coming and there's no way to stop it.

"My attitude about Saddam Hussein is that if he had any intention of disarming, he would have disarmed," Bush said. He added later: "We will disarm him now."

...

Late Thursday, Iraq agreed "in principle" to fulfill the U.N. request but asked for U.N. guidance on how to proceed. Bush had pre-emptively dismissed the move: "Whatever you see him say now will be attempts to delay or deceive the world."

And yet the Security Council is wracked by division as the U.S. and Britain attempt to strong-arm members to get the nine votes and no veto necessary for passage of the resolution introduced Monday that most of the major U.S. media has said would authorize war. (Actually, it doesn't; it restates Resolution 1441 passed back in November which warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq didn't comply -- but only after the Security Council had decided on what the serious consequences would be.)

The U.S. and Britain have both said the U.N. will become irrelevant if it doesn't "stand up" to Saddam and enforce its resolutions. Fine, there's some validity to that, but won't it also become irrelevant if the dominant member goes to war in defiance of the majority of the Council and the rest of the world body? None of that matters, anyway, as Bush said back in November that the United States would not be bound by "unproductive debate," which, presumably, is how he and the rest of the hawks would view the current hand-wringing of the Council.

"The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country," he said. "If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."

OK. So many may be asking why did Bush bother to introduce a second resolution Monday if the United States is determined to go ahead in defiance of the Council? And why is it working so hard to get the nine votes if Council approval is nice but not necessary, as the White House has repeatedly claimed?

Because the polling numbers on the home front are not good. Many people say the public supports this war, pointing to numbers that say about 59 percent favor the war. That's true, but the same Gallup Poll that reveals that figure reveals a shallow support that could easily shift. But most important, they reveal a public that really, really wants this to go down, if it must, with the U.N.'s blessing.

The first question, "Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?" reveals a flat 59 percent in favor -- mostly unchanged over the last five months -- 37 percent opposed and 4 percent with no opinion. But it's more complicated than that.

A later question shows why Team Bush is working the Council so hard. "As you may know, the U.S., Great Britain, and Spain plan to submit a resolution to the United Nations that says that Iraq is in serious violation of prior U.N. resolutions that required Iraq to disarm. Do you think the United States should invade Iraq with ground troops ? [ROTATED: only if the U.N. approves this new resolution, even if the U.N. does not approve this new resolution], or do you think the United States should not send ground troops to Iraq at all?" This is where the support "goes wobbly" as Maggie Thatcher might say. Forty percent favor an invasion if the U.N. approves, 38 percent even if the U.N. doesn't approve and 3 percent have no opinion. Nineteen percent don't think the U.S. should send troops at all.

And if Iraq destroys its missiles? Support for invasion, even if Iraq destroys its missiles, drops to 33 percent. Twenty-six percent might be opposed if Iraq destroys the missiles and 22 percent oppose war no matter what.

So you start to see the breakdown. "About half the public -- 47%-- say they could change their mind on invading Iraq, while 49% say their mind is already made up. The 49% whose mind is made up comprises 32% who favor invading and 17% who oppose, while the 47% who could change their mind currently show a slight preference for invading (27%) over not invading (20%)."

The bottom line is that roughly four in five Americans would favor war if the United Nations approved it, but only two in five, roughly, would favor war no matter what.

The poll was conducted Feb. 24-26, with most interviews completed prior to President George W. Bush's national address on Iraq Wednesday night. The sample was a randomly selected group of 1,003 adults, 18 years and older. It has a 95 percent confidence and a maximum error of plus or minus 3 points.

These numbers show the rush behind the push, since Bush knows that support will drop off heavily if there's no resolution. One wonders if Saddam can read polling results as well, and figures that he might be able to further soften Bush's war support by dismantling the missiles.

While the Bush White House may warn of -- and secretly hope for -- the irrelevancy of the United Nations, the American public seems to be making it more relevant by the day.

As the United States, with the exception of New York City, steps down from ThreatCon Orange (high) to ThreatCon Yellow (elevated), MEMRI is reporting that the Islamist Web sites, www.alfjr.com and www.arabforum.net have published a "religious exhortation" announcing a coming terrorist attack, apparently within 10 days and apparently within the United States. The post was published Feb. 24.

Throughout the post, the author -- calling himself The Prince of Philosophy -- claims an attack is imminent ("the train of death is on its way... nothing will stop its riders.") Two pictures are published, one showing a ghostly Osama bin Laden hovering over the burning World Trade Center.

The translation, courtesy of MEMRI, follows:

'Here is Victory Appearing on the Horizon... Here is the Dawn of Islam'

"Allah Akbar [Allah is the greatest], Allah Akbar. Here is victory appearing in the horizon."

"Allah Akbar, here is the dawn of Islam that has arrived to bring an end to the night of unbelief, collaboration [with foreign powers], and hypocrisy."

"Allah Akbar, die with your anger, oh herds of error. Allah Akbar, die with your wrath, oh gangs of [unjust Muslim] rulers. Allah Akbar, oh slaves: all of you are big slaves and small slaves, you and your masters."

"Your shrouds are woven with gun powder and smoke, and your coffins are shells of fire and spearheads."

"There is no rescue, nor escaping the earth, with all of its width and length [it] belongs to our Lord, the skies and their horizons belong to our Lord. You have nothing, oh slaves of the cross and slaves of the Dirham and Dinnar [currency used in the Arab world]."

'Our Dead Go to Paradise and Yours Go to Hell... Rejoice, Oh Lovers of the Hur [i.e. the Black-Eyed Virgins of Paradise] and the Gardens [of Paradise]'

"Allah is our ally and you have no ally. Our dead go to Paradise and yours go to Hell, and how bad is their fate."

"Allah Akbar. It is Paradise, a paradise as wide as the whole skies and earth. Rejoice, oh lovers of the Hur [i.e., the black-eyed virgins of Paradise] and the gardens [of Paradise]"

"Allah Akbar, it is the clear victory and the great triumph [promised by Allah]. By Allah, if you knew what I know, you would laugh much and you would go to your trenches crying with extreme joy, while you carry your arms."

"Allah Akbar, here are the heroic soldiers of the Truth. They have taken their positions and raised their swords and they shielded themselves with the protection and support of Allah."

"Here Are the Lions Ready to Set Out, Waiting to Hear the [Battle Cry] 'Allah Akbar' Coming from their Commander"

"Allah Akbar. Here are the lions ready to set out, waiting to hear the [battle cry] 'Allah Akbar' coming from their commander, to assault with speed, with the heat of a volcano, and the bombardment of thunders."

"Allah Akbar, how long was the dark night, its darkness will no longer besiege us."

"Oh the raiders for Allah, hurry on your way to crush this unbelief, oh the raiders for Allah."

'The People of Islamic Lands... Have Left to Encounter the Enemy'

"Allah Akbar, oh the people of Islamic lands, your brethren have left to encounter the enemy with firm resolve and conviction of victory, Allah willing."

"You should offer supplications. Continue with [supplications] and do not stop. Do not stop asking Allah's forgiveness and recite His name, so that victory should come from Him,"

"Oh lions of Islam, may our appointed time be tonight and every night in the prayer niches of the Exalted One so that we align our feet before Allah, He who has all power, kingship, and greatness."

'The Coming Blows... Meet the Enemy Inside His Own Home [Country]'

"We beseech Him and humble ourselves before Him and implore Him to direct the coming blows [right to the targets] and to protect our brethren who went out to meet the enemy inside his own home [country]."

'It is Only a Matter of a Few Days, a Little More'

"You, our brethren, be firm and keep the path and hide in waiting and prostration [as in prayer] for it is only a matter of a few days, a little more than ten or less until we hear the cry announcing to us the good tidings of Allah's victory [coming] by the hands of our brethren, the Jihad fighters. This is a serious matter and not a joke."

'The Operations Have Already Been Set and the Lions Have Taken their Positions'

"The operations have already been set and the lions have taken their positions and everything is complete. They are only waiting for permission from the heroic commander."

"Whatever the enemy may do, he will never be able, Allah willing, to thwart anything. The brigades for the main missions are ready. They are supported by their brethren, members of the supporting brigades and the reserve brigades. The alternative plans are ready."

"Hence, whatever the enemy of Allah may do, he shall not be able to harm us, Allah willing."

'The Train of Death is on its Way'

"The train of death is on its way. Its riders are steadfast. Nothing will stop them or turn them back, Allah willing, from the goal: neither the bushes of the enemy nor his weeds, neither his reptiles [nor] his lizards will stop its progress."

"There is no force or advancement, except from Allah, the All-Powerful..."

"It is only a matter of a few days so be patient. We will come out and announce to you the news of the great victory."

"And so I repeat: supplications, supplications, supplications, supplications to Allah..."

"We implore Allah, to protect them [the Jihad fighters]... and to take away from them [the enemies'] hearing and sight."

'Oh Allah, This is America... Destroy it and Shake it and All who Walk in its Line'

"Oh Allah, this is America... destroy it and shake it and all who walk in its line and entrenches with it... There is no god but you, the exalted..."

Obviously, the question is, "Is this genuine?" Arabforum.net has been the recipient of bin Laden's messages before, most recently his latest tape released earlier this month calling on Muslims to defend Iraq. American intelligence reports have labeled that tape "almost certainly" genuine.

The original post, in Arabic, can be found here. Perhaps someone who reads Arabic is willing to check it against MEMRI's translations? (Although MEMRI is usually very good.)

General Tommy Franks, the man who will run the war against Iraq, arrived Tuesday at his command post in Qatar, according to Reuters. Camp As Sayliyah will be the forward position for commanding U.S. and allied forces against Saddam Hussein's army when hostilities begin. Normally based in Tampa, Fla., the commander of Central Command is expected to stay in Qatar "until the Iraq crisis was over," according to officials in Florida.

But a senior Central Command official said Franks would be returning to Florida in a few days. "Modern command and control does not require him to be here all the time," the official said. "Don't place a lot of importance on where he is ... Good military commanders focus on strategic surprise."

Moreover, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that U.S. troops are in position and ready. More than 200,000 troops are in the region, with 105,000 in Kuwait alone. More will surely follow, assuming Turkey approves the deployment of up to 62,000 troops (although it will take a couple of weeks to bring them up to speed.)

Stratfor engages in some intriguing speculation concerning the confluence of events and people in the region:

... achieving strategic surprise in this war is going to be tough. What can be a surprise in this war is timing. Everyone is focused on mid-March as the beginning of the war. While it is not necessary for the senior commander to be present at the battlefield, it has certainly been standard practice in the U.S. military that the commander be as close to the battlefield as possible. Even with superb information flows, a commander needs to be seen by his troops, and he must have the ability to move about the battlefield to absorb realities that the finest digitized information doesn't provide. Finally, given the culture of the U.S. military, it is just hard to imagine a senior commander staying behind in Tampa while a multidivisional force under his command engages the enemy. It just isn't the way it's done.

This brings me back to March 1 as the preferred attack date, as it's a new moon. Furthermore, as the moon waxes, it will remain below the Iraqi horizon until 4 a.m. or so until mid-March. Many signals will be gleaned from Franks' travels. If he does return to Florida in a few days, it's unlikely an attack will occur in early March and mid-March is the likely date. But if he stays...

Of course, Franks' jetsetting could be part of a plan to throw Iraq off balance, as they're quite capable of making the same analysis of the general's movements as Stratfor and others are. And while it's preferable for Franks to be in the region when the battle is joined, it's not a requirement, especially as he could be there in hours. With America's emphasis on blitzkrieg-like "shock and awe" battle tactics, if I were Saddam and knew Franks was on his way over, I'd skip town. By then, however, it will probably be too late.

A word on "shock and awe:" I'm all for ending wars quickly and with the minimum amount of people dead, but this strategy looks like one that has been drawn up by someone who has never seen ground combat. Significantly, the only member of Bush's War Council who is actively for the war and has seen active duty is Rumsfeld, who was a navy pilot from 1954-1957, conveniently missing the Korean War. Rumsfeld is also one of the architects of the "shock and awe" theory of modern warfare. As a friend of mine in the infantry told me, "Things look a whole lot different on the ground than when you're looking at a little computer screen at 20,000 feet. They don't know what it's like."

Of course, inter-branch rivalries are well know, but he has a point. The current plan, as published, calls lfor 800 Tomahawk attacks on Baghdad and 3,000 smart bomb attacks across the country in 48 hours. Assuming a 90% accuracy for the smart bombs and Tomahawks, that's still 80 stray cruise missiles and 300 mistakenly bombed targets. And hell, since the "smart" in smart bombs and cruise missiles relies on accurate intelligence data, 90% accuracy is probably giving a lot more credit than is due. Remember that little matter of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade back in the last war? The bomb hit precisely where it was supposed to go, but the military had the wrong information on the target. And that was one foul-up. How many will there be in Baghdad, a city the size of Paris with 4.5 million people? As I said, 80... At least.

I know civilians die in war. It's tragic but also unavoidable. (Unless you don't go to war at all, but that's not very likely is it?) But when al-Jazeera broadcasts footage of the victims of bombed mosques, hospitals and orphanages to the world, angry Muslims won't care that Saddam placed military targets next to a mosque and thus shares responsibility for its destruction and civilian deaths. All they'll see is a bomb casing with a "Made in the U.S.A." label on it. And we'll have made al Qa'ida's recruiting job easy.

Greetings all. It seems there has been a lot of people commenting on various posts at Back to Iraq. And that's great. Debate is good. Even from you, Casca. So I'm considering starting a discussion forum based on phpBB where you all can go at each other's throats in a central arena, although there will be no wagering. Would there be any interest in this? To vote, send an email to one of the two links below corresponding to yes and no votes. I'll make a decision in the next week or so.

Stratfor and the Associated Press are reporting that former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, supposedly a personal friend of Saddam Hussein, visited Baghdad on Feb. 23. The purpose and results of the meeting remain secret, but a statement from Moscow reveals that the Iraqi president was asked -- and agreed -- to cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors.

Saddam has apparently agreed to destroy Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missiles, the ones causing such a stink in Washington for exceeding the 93-mile limit by less than 20 miles. Stratfor goes further, saying that Saddam has also agreed to a version of the Franco-German plan to introduce a flood of U.N. troops to back up weapons inspectors within in the next 10 days to show the Security Council that Iraq has been unconditionally disarmed.

Saddam Hussein will "do anything that he reasonably can that is honorable and protective of the sovereignty of his people to prevent war," said former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark after meeting with Hussein on Monday. Clark is active in the anti-war movement.

(In an interview prior to Primakov's visit, Saddam told CBS' Dan Rather that Iraq would not destroy the al-Samoud 2 missiles and instead challenged the U.S. president to a televised debate. Perhaps Primakov reality checked Saddam?)

Still... Stratfor also mentioned a request from Saddam to Russian President Vladimir Putin to deliver a secret communiqué to U.S. and British energy companies, inviting them back to Iraq after 30 years of being kept out. If Washington calls off the dogs of war, the companies will be allowed to immediately return. A Russian envoy is expected to deliver the terms of this deal to Bush in the coming days.

French president Jacques Chirac was reportedly enthusiastic for the deal, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair was said to have reacted favorably. Washington has had no reaction yet, of course, and there's no way to ascertain how genuine this offer from Saddam is. Has Saddam blinked, as he sometimes has in the past? And given that it's likely this proposal will embolden France, Russia and China, all "P-5" members of the UNSCR to throw up more diplomatic roadblocks, will U.S. president George W. Bush accept this proposal as a face-saving plan to avoid an unpopular and costly war?

Initial statements from White House spokesman Ari Fleischer indicate that the White House will reject this idea. (This is probably another exchange between Helen Thomas of Hearst Newspapers and Fleischer, but it's unclear from the Feb. 24 briefing.)

The U.N. weapons inspectors have determined that Iraq has this missile which exceeds limits that it agreed to, or were imposed on it by the U.N. Hans Blix has said it should be destroyed. If Iraq destroys those missiles, why isn't that concrete progress toward disarmament?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, we expect that Saddam Hussein will destroy those missiles. The United Nations Security Council has called on it to do so, and unless he engages in further defiance, we expect that he will. But, number two, as the President said over the weekend, that would just be the tip of the iceberg. And the reason for that is when a criminal holds a gun to your head and takes one bullet out of the chamber, you still have to worry about all the rest of the bullets in the chamber, because they can kill you, too.

And the fact is, with Saddam Hussein, he still has not shown the world that he has disarmed from the VX, the nerve agents, the botulin, the anthrax, all of which the United Nations found that he had in his possession in the late 1990s, which he has yet to account for. That's the fear about what's in the rest of the gun, in the other chamber -- in the chamber in the gun.

So there's no way that Iraq can do anything, really, to avoid war? Because if they begin to dismantle their weapons, the President still believes that they've got other bullets in the chamber and is --

MR. FLEISCHER: Under Security Council Resolution 1441, which was passed in November last year, Iraq had an obligation to immediately and fully disarm from all the weapons that were prohibited -- and I just cited several of them. So if Iraq were to take one missile out of the chamber that they left in the chamber -- VX, sarin, botulin, anthrax -- the world still has a lot to worry about.

I understand. And you won't wait to see whether the French proposal or any other proposal could get them to take those bullets out of the chamber -- you aren't willing to take "yes" for an answer here on the missiles and anything else?

MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that the resolution passed in November and called for full and immediate compliance, "yes" has not been a word that anybody has heard out of Iraq.

The White House will likely reject this idea for a number of reasons:

1. It doesn't achieve the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Perle plan for the Middle East as a collection of satrapys friendly to United States energy and security needs;
   
2. The world would breathe a sigh of relief not only because war was averted but also because American hegemony was thwarted. Even though Washington could back down gracefully by saying the U.S. military build-up pressured Iraq into complying and accepting peacekeeping troops, other nations ruled megalomaniacal madmen -- yeah, I'm talkin' to you, North Korea -- with nukes would likely see this as a sign of weakness;
   
3. The American domestic political backlash could be fierce.

The last item deserves special mention. And I will get to it.

But first, some will say Saddam is not serious, because if he allows blue-helmets all over the country and fully disarms, he will appear weak to his own people, to other Arab leaders and would not be long for this world. His dream of establishing himself as a modern-day Saladin would be over -- and so, too, would his presidency.

But Saddam is a canny old fox, still, and here I veer into speculation, although of the informed sort. The Iraqi people are dreading war and the destruction it would bring. While they would not be happy to see Saddam stay in power, they likely would be happy not to be blown up by American JDAM bombs. The Iraqis I met while traveling were fairly fatalistic. They've suffered this long, they feel, the next life will be better.

(The INC and other members of the Iraqi opposition will scream bloody murder, of course, but no one takes them that seriously anyway. The Kurds also would not be happy with this and might -- I repeat, might -- declare independence.)

The leaders of the rest of the Arab world already hate Saddam and know that he's effectively defanged by U.N. sanctions. And while they no doubt feel sympathy for the suffering Iraqi people, Arab leaders would consider the plight of suffering Iraqis like they do the suffering of the Palestinians -- very useful for distracting their publics from toppling their own authoritarian governments, assuming the U.N. sanctions regime is continued.

And lastly, if Saddam remains in power after a U.S. military build-up, even if it results in U.N. troops all over Baghdad, it will still be seen as a victory for him and a humiliating loss for George W. Bush. Bush can't allow that to happen. Partly out of conviction and partly out of political necessity, Bush has positioned himself on the side of angels in this looming war with his evangelical rhetoric of good and evil. The Christian Right, neocons and other hawks who have taken a hard-line on Iraq believe they are doing God's work, more or less, and if you've got God on your side, you don't dicker with the devil. Bush, himself, may be willing to cut a deal and get this whole mess over with, but I don't think his right flank will allow him to do that. He's very conscious of the suspicion with which the Christian right viewed his father. And he's likewise aware of how Bush I's "no new taxes" pledge came back and bit him in the ass. If Bush II leaves Saddam in power, he will be facing a double whammy with his base for leaving an evil tyrant in power and for breaking a commitment to "regime change."

This won't cause evangelicals and others on the hard right to vote for a Democrat of course, but if the economy continues to shuffle along, and North Korea continues to thumb its nose at the United States, Bush's numbers likely will continue their gravitationally assisted movement. A primary challenger could emerge from Bush's right, siphoning off his base. And if the current weakness of the Democratic field stays steady (Kucinich? Kerry? Give me a break), red-meat conservatives might not be so afraid to take a chance with another GOP candidate.

And that could be Saddam's game, in effect becoming the Fidel Castro of the Middle East. If he can't liberate Jerusalem, Saddam might be satisfied with humiliating both Bush I and II, especially if his continued survival was a deciding factor in ending both presidencies. Yeah, I think he'd be quite happy with that.

Which is why the White House can't allow him to stick around.

OK. Looks like the March 1 war timetable fer shootin' is slipping thanks to those pesky French and Turkish demands to see some ID with President Bush's check(s). It's now looking more and more like March 15 or so, as George over at Warblogging argued.

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice apparently agrees, saying that Bush is "willing to wait until Hans Blix, one of two United Nations chief weapons inspectors, reports on Iraqi compliance on March 7." A vote would come the next week, and then Bush can have his war, or, as the Times put it, "other officials strongly hinted that military action could come immediately thereafter."

I still think I would have been right, calling March 1 as the start of hostilities. I just didn't expect the Turks to hold out like they did.

Over the weekend, I heard from a couple of friends in the region about goings on there. The first is from a journalist buddy based in Iraqi Kurdistan working for a major newsmagazine. (I don't want to scotch his access, so I won't print his name.) The second is from Aykut Uzun, my driver, translator and fixer when we were being tailed by the Turkish police south of Diyarbakir. My journo buddy tells me that I'm "not missing much so far." Also, the Kurds are overwhelmingly pro-war. "Talk to the Kurds about the reckless geopolitical games W is playing and you are met with a blank stare and a story about Halabja," he writes. "Ask the KDP, PUK or INC about the same thing and you get a lecture about the nefarious interests of the French." He also provides good logistical information and some alarming news. The Syrian and Turkish borders are closed right now, which I knew, but the route through Iran is open -- for freakishly huge bribes. (He mentions $5,000.) There's also a rumor that Turkey is about to open the border, but that is, as yet, just a rumor. Aykut in Ankara is more pessimistic. He works mostly as a tour guide, for which he got a four-year degree and it's usually good money, since tourism is the biggest industry in Turkey. Not now. "Due to this fuc...g war, tourism business is very bad in Turkey now," he writes. "So I can't say that personally I am doing well." He does mention the rumor that Turkey will open the border, but it may be only for five days. Then he comes to the Turkish preparations for war and America's deal-making. "I don't give any chance to the possibility of Turkey's rejection of U.S. troops," he writes. (Well, it looks like he's right. Monday may see the deal consummated.) "If she [Turkey] doesn't allow, the economic program that has been continued with IMF after the last crisis in 2001 will be damaged very badly. As everybody knows, the U.S. is very efficient [he means influential] with the IMF, and Turkey needs the help of it."

It seems Turkey is about to overestimate U.S. patience, but still I believe U.S. needs Turkey for this war. The other possibilities are much more expensive and difficult... Some analysts claim that U.S. can do the operation without Turkey, but this would cost 40 or 50 billion dollars more to her. So you see we are fair. We want half of this... Turkey is driving such a hard bargain, because we took a big lesson [I think he means "loss"] from the first Gulf War. U.S. had promised us to reimburse our losses which would occur after the war. You are the one who knows Turkey's losses. You talked with the people in southeast Turkey. Now the Turkish government wants a "written agreement."

After he wrote this email, the Turks and Americans seemed close to an agreement that would give Turkey $5 billion grants and $10 million in loans, with a bridge loan immediately available to help pump the Turkish economy once the shooting starts. It's worth noting that the cash figures mentioned in the Times story are less than were being reported earlier this week. And the story never comes out and says a deal for Iraqi Kurdistan is in the works, but considering the quotes from Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis, it's pretty obvious that's what's happening. "A Kurdistan should not be set up," Yakis said. The Times also heavily reports Turkish concerns regarding Iraqi Kurdistan. Two concerns were that U.S. weapons don't fall into Kurdish hands and that Turkish troops be under Turkish command (This is a big one, and contradicts reports from earlier this week that Turkish troops would be under American command.) Things are quickly getting nasty in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"No one wants another fight, of course," Hoshiyar Zebari, spokesman for the Kurdish Democratic Party, one of the two main Kurdish political groups, told reporters in Arbil on Sunday. "But if there's a forced incursion, done under the pretext of 'I'm going to give you forced aid', then believe me there will be uncontrolled clashes," he said. "And it will be bad for the image of the United States, Britain and other countries who want to help Iraq, to see two of their allies, Turkey and Kurdistan, at each other's throats." In Tehran, Iranian Kurd parliamentarians also voiced concern about Turkish intentions in Iraq and accused Ankara of seeking to control Kirkuk and Mosul, once part of the Ottoman empire. The 22-strong Iranian Kurdish parliamentary faction wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, European Union leaders and Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. "Who in the world does not know that Turks have a desire for Kirkuk oil and annexation of Kirkuk and Mosul to their soil?" the letters said. "Authorizing a Turkish military presence in Iraqi Kurdistan means authorizing genocide and termination of Iraq's territorial integrity."

And as things get nastier in Kurdistan, Iraqi National Congress frontman Ahmed Chalabi is getting increasingly bitter over what looks to be a rapidly decreasing role for himself and his organization. Two weeks ago, the White House said Chalabi will be leader of a transitional coalition government that will take over from Gen. Tommy Franks when the shooting stops. However, the Washington Post reported a few days ago that "Once security was established and weapons of mass destruction were located and disabled, a U.S. administrator would run the civilian government and direct reconstruction and humanitarian aid." Chalabi is, predictably, distressed by this turn of events. In an op-ed for Daily Telegraph, he wrote, "The leadership and governance of Iraq is, without exception, an exclusive right of the Iraqi people ... There must be no gap in the sovereignty over Iraq by Iraqis. We reject notions of foreign military government or United Nations administration for Iraq." He continues and writes that his transitional government should assume sovereignty "the moment" Saddam is removed, but admitted that his government would be willing to work with the U.S. military to establish order, secure the border, etc. He dismisses the idea of Iraq as an Arab Yugoslavia as a "myth" borne of the "convenient preconception that fits the Western image of unruly and warring tribes." "There is no record in the history of our land of a Shia village attacking a Sunni village or an Arab quarter attacking a Kurdish quarter," he writes. (Yes, but there is a lot on record about Kurds attacking other Kurds when the PUK and the KDP warred over smuggling tariffs in 1995-96.) It should be noted that the Guardian story reports him as angry over the installation of a military governor, presumably Franks. If the Iraqi opposition objects to a military governor post-Saddam, they likely will be even less happy with a U.S. civilian administrator as a further step to be taken before the country is handed over to the INC. Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, leader of the Iran-backed Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), who recently ordered 5,000 SCIRI troops into Iraqi Kurdistan, said Iraqis would resist, perhaps violently, any attempt to impose a government on them. "If the Americans do this, they will discover this is a mistake," Hakim said. So what's the White House's game? Why are these "plans" and "blueprints" getting leaked especially when the media reports of the plans are sending the Iraqi opposition into a grand mal tizzy? The Iraqi opposition, divided as it is, doesn't appear qualified enough to run a taco stand, much less run a country that's been devastated by two, coming up on three, wars and 12 years of sanctions since 1980. And that's pretty much been the State Department's objection to the Iraqi opposition all along. Furthermore, Chalabi is distrusted by the Department of State, the CIA and most of the rest of the foreign policy establishment. He seems a bit too eager, for someone convicted in Jordan of financial fraud and sentenced to 22 years of hard labor, to get his hands on the levers of power -- and the purse strings -- of oil-rich Iraq. But the civilian hawks running the war planning, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, are big-time backers of Chalabi. Could the leaking of the rebuilding ideas be part of the ongoing war between Colin Powell at State and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz at the DoD and Perle at the Defense Policy Board? Since the administration of Iraq would, presumably, fall to the State Department after the military is done with it, perhaps the goal may be to discredit the INC -- and Chalabi in particular -- so that State, which never wanted this headache to begin with, can have a freer hand in running the place without having to deal with the INC.

Hey all. Just a reminder that if you donate via Amazon, please be sure and tell me that you did. (There's a little box to the right after you've compeleted the transaction that says "Tell the person you donated" or something like that.) Amazon doesn't provide me with any contact information, so I can't add you to the mailing list, which is one of the main benefits of donating. (By the way, I've started pricing tickets and sussing out entry and exit strategies.)

Alternately, you can drop me an email and let me know. Be sure and include your name, email and amount. Also, if you'd like to be listed on the "Angel Investors" list on the right, let me know. Otherwise I'll assume you prefer anonymity.

Again thanks to everyone who donated. The plans are looking better and better, and I'm thinking my original goal of $8,000 to $10,000 might not be necessary for a six week trip. Instead, $6,000 to $7,000 (with half from me, half from donations) might be more in line, especially if I can get some equipment donated.

Again, thanks to everyone for their support.

Curtiss, over at Hector Rotweiler Jr's Web Log, has an excellent article about the fuzziness of our national memory regarding the goals of the first Gulf War, Bush the Younger's mangling, possibly deliberate, of his father's stated goals and the level of political discourse of our national punditocracy.

Would that I could hire Curtiss to write for me.

This is from Agence France Press by way of CommonDreams.org, and it's good.

Bruce Jackson, a U.S. lobbyist and former DoD employee helped draft the Vilnius 10's statement of support for President Bush on Iraq.

Jackson, of course, said his role "vastly exaggerated." However, the International Herald Tribune quoted Kestutis Jankauskas, deputy chief of mission at the Lithunian embassy in Washington, as saying Jackson had a "considerable role" and helped "initiate the text."

Kind of makes you wonder if French president Jacques Chirac had some basis for his pique, especially if he thought the Americans were meddling in EU business...

The Washington Times is reporting that war planners have pushed back the start of Gulf War Redux to mid-March due to diplomatic snags and difficulty in moving heavy infantry divisions.

In addition to the roadblocks thrown up by France and Germany, as well as continued foot-dragging by other members of the U.N. Security Council, NATO ally Turkey is upping its demand for aid in return for the stationing of up to 40,000 American troops in a northern front.

Washington has reportedly offered Ankara grants of $6 billion and loans of up to $20 billion in exchange for its support, and has expressed frustration over Turkey's failure to accept the deal. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said he wants an answer by the end of the day.

The Turks are being exceptionally savvy, however.

"We have found the figures insufficient and we are not looking favourably at the offer," Economy Minister Ali Babacan told the Cumhuriyet newspaper. He also concern that while the Washington has told Ankara that any war would be short, congressional approval for the grants and loans could take between six and eight weeks.

"What if the operation is over before the completion of the congressional process and Congress tells us 'Sorry'?" he said. "That is why a written deal is a must."

The Turks probably watched how the United States dealt with Pakistan. In exchange for help in Afghanistan and against Al Qa'ida, Pakistan was rewarded with terror attacks and the continuation of strict limits on Pakistan-made clothes. Mind you, this was after Bush personally promised Gen. Musharraf that the United States would lift import restrictions. Instead, Bush dropped the plan in Dec. 2001 when, facing imminent defeat in the House of his broad package of trade legislation, he decided to woo six lawmakers from textile states by promising them he would stiff Pakistan.

The Washington Times says time is of the essence for the Americans, however, because heavy armor must be shipped across the Atlantic. I've been told however, that much of the heavy armor used has been pre-positioned throughout the 1990s in order to avoid this kind of broadly telegraphed buildup. I'm not sure what to make of this bit of data.

I promised a big announcement a couple of days ago and here it is. Starting immediately, readers of Back to Iraq, Warblogging, Daily Kos, The Agonist and Stand Down will no longer be forced to skip from site to site for news on the war on Iraq, terrorism and civil liberties. I'm pleased to announce the creation and launch of Warblogs.CC, a concept from myself, George at Warblogging and Sean-Paul at Agonist.

Warblogs,cc, consolidates the latest headlines from member sites and others to follow into a single convenient package that's perfect for setting as your homepage. The page is updated with new blog posts in real time (you just have to reload the page to get the latest news from all these blogs) and every few minutes with headlines from the syndicated news sources. I like to think of it as a "coalition of the unwilling" -- unwilling to go to war with Iraq unnecessarily, unwilling to stand for further assaults on civil liberties and unwilling to stand by while the war on terror goes unprosecuted.

Warblogs.CC does not take the place of our individual sites, as you will see when you visit. It simply gathers the content you've come to enjoy into a single page, along with headlines from the AP, the New York Times, the Middle East Newsline and the BBC. Warblogging's popular Index of Evil is also available. Other blogs will be added as well.

Please check it out. I'm very proud of it, and I think readers will find it a valuable service. I hope you will agree.

A couple of days ago, I mentioned that Baghdad was code named "Phase-1 Houston." Well, additional sources in the government and military have told me that all targets in Baghdad have code names based on places in ... Texas.

I'll let that sink in for a moment.

Still with me? if it doesn't worry you, if it doesn't call into question the seriousness of the war planners, it should.

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with code names for targets. It's SOP for the military and Omaha Beach at Normandy is probably the most famous, I'd guess. But you really have to wonder at either the immaturity or the profound political tone deafness of war planners who code name targets in Baghdad after places in the commander-in-chief's home state. President Bush already suffers around the world, and especially in the Arab world, from the perception that he's finishing his father's business, that this is a personal vendetta against the man who tried to kill his dad.

Vendettas are fine, I suppose, if you live in 17th century France where personal slights were settled by duels, but they aren't kosher when you're the president of the United States commanding a terrible arsenal.

OK. Let's assume this isn't some kind of Hatfields and McCoys with mustaches (well, one mustache, anyway.) Let's assume this really is about the security of the United States. If you're at all concerned about world opinion, especially in the region you're about to bomb the hell out of and kill thousands of innocent people, shouldn't you be a little more, I don't know, concerned about how this all looks?

I know, I know. Military target codes aren't for public consumption and political considerations don't really enter into it. OK, then. Obviously, naming the Ba'athist Party HQ after Austin or Saddam's palace after Nacogdoches is a little nod to your commander-in-chief. It's a little, "Hey! We're thinking of ya!" from the planners. In short, it's an inside joke.

War is no joke. People will die, probably in the thousands, and the places where they will soon be incinerated are a bit of a bon mot to the CinC.

At the peace protests over the weekend, I saw signs that read, "Bomb Texas -- It Has Oil Too." I found it clever; now I just feel sick.

You know, every night I go to sleep thinking that the events of the day had pissed me off to such an extent that there was no way I could get more disgruntled at the venality of the Bush administration. And every morning I get up, read the newspapers and wires and I'm inevitably proven wrong.

The White House has said Iraq's oil wealth will be used to pay for its own reconstruction following a U.S. invasion.

"Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety (of) means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."

Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. Yes, and why should the Iraqis be forced, in effect, to pay for the bombs that will soon rain down upon their heads? And this nugget from Fleischer: "It is, of course, the intention of the United States government to make certain the people of Iraq are not the victims in a war that would have been started by their leaders."

I stand, mouth agape, at the audacity of the emphasized quote. Last time I checked, Bush was arguing for "pre-emptive defense," which sure sounds like a rationale for starting a war.

But I digress. "Fleischer also pointed out that once Iraq is disarmed and Saddam is out of office, there will be no reason to continue to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad and trade will be reopened with Iraq."

What he actually said was, "Once sanctions are lifted from Iraq, that provides a lot more means for the rebuilding and the reconstruction of Iraq."

This is a exactly what the Iraqi opposition does not want. As Feisal al-Istrabadi, a founding member of the Iraqi Forum for Democracy said last Monday at Columbia, the U.N. should not lift the sanctions but instead suspend them. The ultimate lifting of the sanctions is the incentive for Iraq to truly democratize.

Note that Fleischer didn't say "suspend;" he said "lifted." And the give and take of the press conference yesterday, at which all of this came about, leaves one with the impression that the White House is all about lifting the sanctions as opposed to suspending them. This is a crucial point, obviously, because the sanctions allow for the United Nations to manage the finances of Iraq as a trust. While Saddam has managed to squirrel away billions, by and large the national budget is not fully controlled by his government.

Istrabadi wants to avoid making the provisional government, presumably headed by financier Ahmed Chalabi, "provisional" in the Iraqi sense of the word -- i.e., in power for years and years. (Since 1968, the constitutions governing Iraq have been provisional constitutions and not permanent. Thus, there is no permanent rule of law.) By lifting the sanctions immediately, you grant a temporary government access to billions in oil revenues, presumably to do with what they will.

"You cannot hand over the purse strings of Iraq," Istrabadi warned. "Saddam did not immediately rule by fear. He co-opted the elite during the 1960s and ?70s by drowning them in cash."

So let's look at the smoke signals from Washington and other places:

1. Chalabi is in Iraq and prepared to declare a provisional government in Erbil;
   
2. The Kurds (and others) are under the impression that there will be no democracy immediately forthcoming; (Peter W. Galbrait has his thoughts on this subject here. He basically blames the Turks);
   
3. Fleischer's advocacy for lifting the sanctions, in order to get the Iraqi oil wells online quickly so that Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction, will deliver the funds precisely to the people with a shady history financial history and a high stake in remaning in power since they've been in the political wilderness for 20+ years (in the case of Chalabi.)

Fleischer deftly sidestepped just this question of oil money and Iraqi governments in this exchange:

Q If the Iraqi people are going to largely be responsible for paying for their own reconstruction, will they be given a lot of freedom, in terms of how that reconstruction is going to be carried out? Or are we going to kind of guide them and tell them what needs to be done?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think what's going to emerge will be a government of the Iraqi people that comes from both inside Iraq and outside Iraq. There are no shortage of people who are dedicated to a different route for Iraq. And I think also one of the great issues that will be seen -- if this does come to war -- is how, when people have the ability to be free, they exercise that right to be free. The Iraqi people have lived under tyranny and under dictatorship. And as the nations of East Europe have shown us just recently, when the yolk of dictatorship is removed, people's God-given rights to freedom emerge. And the President believes that that will be the case in Iraq.

Fleischer's dodge and the previous points add up a weak puppet government easily controlled, dependent upon the United States and democractic in name only. Hardly the beacon of freedom to the rest of the Middle East that the White House claims Iraq can become. But then, a beacon of freedom and self-determination doesn't fit neatly with the administration's plans for the region.

Northern Iraq is getting a bit crowded. About 5,000 Iraqi opposition troops, backed by Iran, have entered the PUK’s territory in Iraqi Kurdistan ostensibly to secure the border when war breaks across the region. Its real purpose, however, may be to repel attacks by the People’s Mujahideen Organization (MKO), an anti-Iranian group based in Iraq and strongly backed by Saddam Hussein. The Iranian troops are part of Ayatollah Sayed Mohammed Baqir Al-Hakim’s Badr brigade, which is made up of Shi’ites opposed to Saddam Hussein. Hakim is the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a mainly Shia Muslim group that fought in the failed 1991 uprising against Baghdad in southern Iraq. More recently, SCIRI has taken part in talks between the Iraqi opposition and the U.S.. According to the Web site for the SCIRI, “Hakim has an historical and warm relation with the Kurdish Movements in Iraq since his father gave a religious decree (Fatwa) which forbade the Iraqi army from fighting against the Kurds in Iraq. A mutual agreement as been signed by SCIRI with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) headed by Jalal Talabani to work against Saddam’s regime. A similar agreement was signed with the Kurdish [sic] Democratic Party (KDP) headed by Masood Barzani several years ago.”

This might be true, but one of the reasons the United States didn’t support the 1991 Iraqi intifada that started in Basra was because it was mainly a Shi’ite movement with heavy backing by Iran. (The opposition in the north was, of course, an effort led by the Kurds, who had been waiting for an opportunity to rebel since the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.) Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, alarmed at the prospect of Iranian influence expanding to their borders and figuring a weakened Saddam was preferable to the ayatollahs, agreed with the United States that no support to the mainly Shi’ite rebels would be given.

How the Badr brigade fits into the political and military intrigues of Iraqi Kurdistan remains to be seen. Not only does the region play host to the PUK and the KDP, but also to various Islamic parties, Ansar al-Islam, U.S. special forces, several thousand Turkish troops (with more soon to come) the MKO and now the Badr brigade. I honestly don’t know what’s going to happen, but it can’t be good for U.S. planning.

Or perhaps it doesn’t care. One of the biggest stories yet to be carried by the mainstream American press is the apparent abandonment of democracy in Iraq post-Saddam. Kanan Makiya, author of “Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq” and a leading Iraqi dissident, penned a savage criticism of the Bush administration’s plans to replace Saddam and his cronies not with democratic government but with American generals and soldiers where Ba’ath functionaries once sat. “The plan, as dictated to the Iraqi opposition in Ankara last week by a United States-led delegation, further envisages the appointment by the U.S. of an unknown number of Iraqi quislings palatable to the Arab countries of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia as a council of advisers to this military government.”

“We Iraqis hoped and said to our Arab and Middle Eastern brethren, over and over again, that American mistakes of the past did not have to be repeated in the future,” writes Makiya. “Were we wrong? Are the enemies of a democratic Iraq, the ‘anti-imperialists’ and ‘anti-Zionists’ of the Arab world, the supporters of ‘armed struggle’, and the upholders of the politics of blaming everything on the U.S. who are dictating the agenda of the anti-war movement in Europe and the U.S., are all of these people to be proved right?”

Most ominously:

We, the democratic Iraqi opposition, are the natural friends and allies of the United States. We share its values and long-term goals of peace, stability, freedom and democracy for Iraq. We are here in Iraqi Kurdistan 40 miles from Saddam’s troops and a few days away from a conference to plan our next move, a conference that some key administration officials have done everything in their power to postpone.

None the less, after weeks of effort in Tehran and northern Iraq, we have prevailed. The meeting will take place. It will discuss a detailed plan for the creation of an Iraqi leadership, one that is in a position to assume power at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place. We will be opposed no doubt by an American delegation if it chooses to attend. Whether or not they do join us in the coming few days in northern Iraq, we will fight their attempts to marginalise and shunt aside the men and women who have invested whole lifetimes, and suffered greatly, fighting Saddam Hussein. (Emphasis added.)

But unless the opposition can seize the oilfields from the American governors, they stand little chance of success in wresting the destiny of their country away from their new masters because they’ll have no money. There is no budget in the State Department for the Iraqi opposition groups next year.

“We don’t feel it’s necessary to fund it any longer,” said Christopher Burnham, assistant secretary for resource management.

In fact, the war has not been budgeted at all! No one seems to know very much at all about what the war will cost, what will come after Saddam and how to manage the damn place after the shooting dies down a bit.

“Conquerors always call themselves liberators,” said Sami Abdul-Rahman, deputy prime minister of the Kurdish administration, in a reference to Mr. Bush’s speech last week in which he said U.S. troops were going to liberate Iraq.

Mr. Abdul-Rahman said the U.S. had reneged on earlier promises to promote democratic change in Iraq. “It is very disappointing,” he said. “In every Iraqi ministry they are just going to remove one or two officials and replace them with American military officers.”

Last summer, I interviewed Mr. Abdul-Rahman. He gave me the copies of the two Kurdish constitutions the Kurdistan regional government had drafted. At the time, he could not have been more gracious and hopeful, assuring me, the skeptical reporter, of America’s good intentions. The irony should be obvious.

The cynicism should be as well. Tony Blair made what many felt was the clearest moral case this weekend for removing Saddam, for “liberating” the Iraqi people. In his State of the Union address in January, Bush said, “I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.”

By not supporting a democratic Iraq, by appointing a controversial figure such as Ahmed Chalabi as provisional leader, by inviting Turks to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan and promoting some gauzy ill-thought-out vision of a democratic Middle East imposed by force of arms, the Big Idea idealism, which never rested comfortably on the shoulders of a president who detests complexity, comes off as callow, cynical and … what are the words? Oh, yes: “Absolute bullshit.” The ideas and principles upon which the United States was founded — “liberty,” “freedom,” “justice for all” — and for which we allegedly fought and won two world wars and the Cold War, have become mere words, talking points and awkwardly mouthed slogans used to make a case for a war that no one except for a small junta in Washington wants.

People in the pro-war camp often scoff at the “peaceniks” and “appeasers” of the ant-war crowd, calling them na�ve and saying they are consigning the Iraqis to oppression if they are opposed the war. But who are really the na�ve ones, I wonder, if the hawks believe this is a war of liberation?

(By the way, readers can find a piece I wrote back in November on the mixed signals given by the United States regarding democracy in Iraq here.)

France lashed out at EU-applicants for siding with the United States over Iraq, indicating that a dispute over national interests and security has become personal and is edging into the realm of a slapfest in a playground sandbox between the the class bully (Bush) and the transfer student (Chirac.)

Mr Chirac, whose support for enlargement is, as French officials admit, as shallow as his empathy for Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, called the candidate countries "childish" after they had signed two declarations that supported US policy over Iraq.

It was also "dangerous, reckless, not very well-behaved". The candidate countries, he said, "had missed a great opportunity to shut up". He warned their entry to the EU depended on member states ratifying the accession treaties.

Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, the Polish foreign minister, expressed his government's position: "We respect the right by France to present its opinion. We expect the same for our side."

The applicant countries, which include nations such as Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania, are in a bit of a tight spot because they also want to join NATO as well as the EU and, as the article points out, they need U.S. Congressional approval to do so. With U.S. representatives calling for a boycott of French products and the Pentagon pulling out troops to punish German 'treachery,' it would seem they know where their bread is buttered, and the bread is not a croissant.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought one of the key points of the EU was to formulate a common foreign policy to go along with a common agricultural policy, monetary policy, etc. If Poland, Czech Republic and other applicant nations are pursuing their own foreign policy with the idea of protecting their unique national interests -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- doesn't that kind of, you know, undermine the whole idea of the EU as a single political unit? Many Germans I know would roll their eyes at the naïvité of this question. Probably a lot of French people would to. Anyway, this whole row just shows you how un-united "Europe" still is.

And another thing, why does it seem we're already at war with Europe as a prelude to war with Iraq? Was this part of the plan? A friend of mine offered this unique theory, tongue planted firmly in cheek: "We always knew the Republicans hated the U.N., so it's no surprise they want to trash it. But do they hate NATO, too, because Bill Clinton used it in Kosovo so well? It's almost like they want to pick up the china sets that Clinton ate off and smash them, just because Clinton used them."

Of course, I don't believe that, but hell, it makes as much sense as anything else as to why Team Bush has allowed this situation to spin so madly, stupidly out of control.

Big surprise here. President Bush "respectfully" told the millions of anti-war protesters to take a hike and that he would not be deterred by anti-war slogans, marchers or any other speed bump on the road to Baghdad.

Well, I guess this proves one thing: Deterrence really doesn't work to stop madmen.

Bush took a moment to out of his busy schedule to condescend to the protesters who turned out by the millions on Saturday and who could, conceivably, cost Tony Blair his premiership.

"Democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to express their opinion," Bush said. I just don't have to listen, he thought to himself.

I'd like to think that Bush et al. will pay a price for this come 2004, but I worry that the memory of the American voter is short, too short, and easily erased, like an etch-a-sketch shaken hard, by smart bomb footage and gauzy CNN films of GIs receiving flowers from Iraqi children.

If things go wrong, as they very well could, the fallout could be devastating for America. If that's the case, Bush's political career deserves to be "collateral damage."

A few days ago, I mentioned I would publish my thoughts on the real reasons for the Bush administration’s drive to attack Iraq. My apologies for the delay. I’m a one-man operation here and sometimes I have to do other stuff, like sleep.

There are several theories floating around about the need to attack Iraq, some coming from the White House and others coming from various sources. The most common argument for attacking Iraq, that given by the administration, is a mish-mash of worries about weapons of mass destruction, disregard for U.N. Security Council resolutions, ties to al Qa’ida and Saddam’s wickedness. Of these reasons, the WMD rationale seems to have gained the most traction in the minds of many Americans. This is hardly surprising, as the White House has been relentlessly on message regarding Saddam’s weapons programs until recently, when Osama bin Laden (remember him?) conveniently popped up to exhort Muslims to defend their Iraqi brothers through martydom operations against Western interests worldwide if the United States assaults Baghdad.

Despite bin Laden’s sneering references to Saddam as a “socialist” and an “apostate,” the White House lept upon the tape as proof that Saddam and bin Laden were playing footsie when the West wasn’t looking. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said bin Laden’s reference to “our mujahideen brothers” inside Iraq and his appeal to Muslims to prepare for jihad suggested a “strong statement of alliance” between Iraq and al Qa’ida.

We have just topped $1,200 in donation in five days, and folks, that's just incredible. Thanks so much to everyone.

In other news, I've got a lead on possible donation of a satellite phone and I'm going to see about the donation of a new laptop that is lighter, tougher and more versatile than the Apple G3 PowerBook I took before. (Don't get me wrong, it's great machine and I'm more than a little sentimentally attached to the black beast that crossed the Tigris with me. I just need something a little lighter.)

But the best thing that has come out of Back to Iraq is the realization that for the first time in my 13 years as a journalist, I'm able to practice journalism with only one responsibility -- to the readers. No editors to impress, no advertisers to stroke, no colleagues to compete against. (Well, except for George over at Warblogging. Heh.) The support all of you have shown is tremendous, and I take the responsibility to provide you with news, commentary and context from the war and the following occupation very seriously. Again, thank you for supporting me in the my efforts to do that.

Also, in the coming days, look for a big announcement that will make your site surfing for war news easier. I won't say much now, but watch this space.

By the way, I've had to create new GPG keys for private communications. Anyone interested in my public key can find it here. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I've heard from an undisclosed source that Baghdad is "Phase-1 Houston" in U.S. military parlance and that it will be getting a visit from the air "very soon." This is all I know, except that it jibes with a March 1 (or slightly later) start to the campaign to oust Saddam.

This is starting to get tricky. I'm starting to get information specific to war plans and which, if published, could conceivably endanger United States forces. Just to be clear: I will not be publishing any information that could get people killed. If I have advanced information of troop movements, you won't see it here. I may oppose the war, but I won't do anything to harm people in the field. I have friends in the military, and they have a tough job. Most them don't want this war any more than peace activists do and they don't have the opportunity to march in the streets saying "no." However, they do make it possible for everyone else to march by nature of their service to their country.

Therefore, what follows is speculation. I have no data that the following is accurate, but I think it makes sense.

The massive buildup in Kuwait and in other Gulf countries such as Qatar is a Calais-style feint. Just as in the first Gulf War, when Marines practiced an amphibious invasion that turned out to be a ruse only to mount a massive "left hook" by armored divisions, the United States is hoping to convince Iraq that the majority of its attack will be from the south. However, two other fronts could be open without the American media being informed.

Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan: Much has been said about the reluctance of Turkey to allow U.S. forces to open up a northern front in order to tie down Iraqi forces from racing to defend Baghdad. Recent article have mentioned further foot-dragging on the part of the Turkish Parliament. This is likely a ruse. I think it's probable there is already a modest build-up of American forces larger than previously admitted but smaller than what the United States is publicly asking for. The situation is probably even more stabilized in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Washington Post reported on Jan. 30 that "small numbers" of American military forces are operating in Iraqi Kurdistan. Jalal Talabani, chairman of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan made a laughable distinction between the"personnel"and"troops." My theory is that the numbers are much greater in Iraqi Kurdistan than anyone is admitting. The northern front, despite its public disarray is probably in pretty good shape.

Jordan and Saudi Arabia: There have been consistent rumors of American troops "training" in Jordan. It's not unreasonable for the one Arab country with a free-trade agreement with the United States and a peace treaty with Israel to have allowed a modest build-up in the eastern desert ready to launch into Iraq's vast western provinces to seize SCUD sites and advance on Baghdad. There are already troops in Saudi Arabia and the desert kingdom's public protests, reluctance to allow the use of its bases and declarations that the Americans will be expelled after the war could very well be a head-fake on Saddam. The government-controlled media could be easily brought to heel, as evidenced by protests that rocked the country months ago and which were never reported in the newspapers.

in each region I've mentioned, the media are either tightly controlled or can quickly be censored. My speculation mirrors a war plan that was leaked to the New York Times in July 2002 but which was quickly disowned by the Americans and the regional powers. Turkey and Jordan, especially, said quickly that their territories would not be used. I'm skeptical of these claims, especially considering the leverage the United States has on Ankara and Amman.

Again, this is speculation, but considering the history of the United States using massive build-ups to distract enemies only to hit them hard from another direction, it makes sense. There are also signs that Iraq may be wise to this tactic. Along an Iraqi army post about 100 yards from the Kuwaiti border, "there is no sign here that Iraq is doing much to prepare itself militarily against an invasion. A stray tank or two can be seen farther north, off the road from Basra to Baghdad, but otherwise there is little evidence of any real military presence near the zone."

In two weeks or so, we'll see how close I was in my predictions. Any takers?

[UPDATE: I swear I didn't read this article in the Boston Globe before I wrote this entry. But the two pieces seem to jibe pretty closely, eh?]

About 100,000 people -- more by some estimates -- filled the east side of Manhattan on a bitterly cold Saturday afternoon to let Bush know that the country is not united behind him in his drive to war. The crowd milled along mostly peacefully, except for a few scattered incidents, one involving horses. "Take your horses out of here, you c***suckers!" roared one bearded protesters after a phalanx of mounted police officers crossed 2nd Ave. going east. The mood was upbeat and even playful, despite the weather and the grim mission that brought so many out today.

Although the city denied the organizers the right to march on the United Nations, the police had closed off all the streets, forcing us to walk up Lexington, 3rd and 2nd avenues before hitting 69th St. and finally turning east where we could walk down 1st Ave. This resulting in three smaller marches uptown as protesters mainly ignored police warnings to stay on the sidewalk and instead spilled out onto the streets. Many grumbled that the cops were preventing people from getting to the rally, hoping to disrupt it. If that was the case, they failed, as instead of single long procession and rally on 1st Ave., they got the smaller marches previously mentioned, tangling the entire East Side.

[UPDATE: George over at Warblogging.com has a nice entry on the protest, and he is more effusive than I. As I said, I'm not reporting much on this as I was a participant rather than acting as a journalist. He saw a lot more police action than I did...]

I took