Melik Kaylan writes a fawning piece on Ahmad Chalabi for the _Wall Street Journal_’s op-ed page, calling him the “nearest thing Iraqis currently possess to a genuine walk-and-talk democratic politician.” For many Americans, that may be hard to stomach, as the guy has been roundly criticized for peddling false WMD information to eager listeners at the Pentagon. (He once said, “As far as we’re concerned we’ve been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. … We are heroes in error.”) In Chalabi’s views, everything would have been hunky-dory in Baghdad if the Americans had just let the Iraqis run the show, presumably with him in charge. (Which was pretty much the plan until those meddlin’ State Department kids showed up.) Furthermore, without once mentioning that Chalabi is Shi’ite himself, Kaylan says Chalabi recognizes the realities of Iraq and its ethnic makeup, admitting that Shi’ites will be dominant. Well, other than Sunni insurgents, does anyone really dispute that? Kaylan seems to have been snookered by Chalabi, who thrills Iraqis by wandering amongst the people. Admirable yes, but Chalabi has almost zero support in Iraq and perhaps the reason he’s able to walk and talk relatively safely in public is because no one takes him seriously anymore.

The quote from Chalabi that I reference can be found here, way back from February 2004.

[Iraqi translators] have been treated terribly. They’ve been killed. They have not been protected. They have not received visas or anything. They’re being killed at very high rates. The result is many people now in Iraq think if you work with the coalition you’re an idiot, because you’re working with someone who doesn’t care about you, and then you’re killed.

I’ve known a few ‘terps, as they’re called, and my friend George Packer has made this “one of his major concerns”:http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061127&s=packer112706. It should be one that makes every feeling American — whether you supported the war or not — ashamed at how we’re treating these people.
Anyway, it’s a good interview. Thanks for the tip, Dustin!

HORRORS OF WAR LINGER IN LEBANON

MAROUAHINE, Lebanon — For 34 days this summer, the Israeli and Hezbollah rockets and mortars whistled through the little villages like this one all across Southern Lebanon. More than 1,000 people, including many Lebanese women and children, were killed. Farther north, concrete cities were flattened. And then, the war ended on Aug. 14.
Or did it?
Nearly two months after a fragile cease-fire was announced and nine days after Israeli promised it had withdrawn the last of its troops from Lebanon, citizens in these southern villages are skeptical. And angry.

You will have to enter some demographic information to see the whole story, but it’s not too odious a requirement.

Technorati Tags: Cluster Bombs, Current Affairs, Israel, Journalism, Lebanon, Middle East

NOTE: If you’d like to reprint this in your publication, please contact me for negotiation of fees. If you’d like to donate, please hit the link below or to the right.

Technorati Tags: Middle East, Military, Lebanon, Israel, Cluster Bombs, Current Affairs

BAGHDAD — Well, it was bound to happen. Australian papers and news shows are publishing 60 new photos from Abu Ghraib. They snapshots were attained by the American Civil Liberties Union after a federal judge ordered their release. That was delayed however because the U.S. government appealed the ruling.
And yet the photos were leaked.
That the government sat on these photos for almost two years is stupid and pointless. _Of course_ they would get out. Did they really think they wouldn’t? They should have released all of them immediately and taken their blows. (A little fit of humility or even — gasp — an apology would have been nice, too.) Even better: NOT TORTURING OR ABUSING PEOPLE TO BEGIN WITH.
These photos are already being spun as “isolated incidents” that are no longer occurring, and that may be true. The Americans may be “scared straight” by the reaction around the Muslim world to the photos.
Alas, the same can’t be said for their allies in the Iraqi government whose Shi’ite-dominated security forces are torturing Sunni men to death and dumping their bodies at sewage plants in southeast Baghdad. Yeah, at least the U.S. never did that.
God, how did the bar get set so low?
These photos come at a bad time, obviously. The Danish cartoon furor is still going on and the British have been caught on video beating the snot out of teenagers in Basra. This will do little to calm things down. And I don’t even want to think how this may complicate things with Jill Carroll, the American journalist currently being held in Iraq. (I’m not sure what to make of this report, though, in which Iraqi officials say the United States actually “delayed the release of several women”:http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32147 prisoners — the key demand of Carroll’s kidnappers — so as not to appear to be negotiating with terrorists. _Disclaimer: Jill is a friend of mine and I know her pretty well._)
But this is just par for the course for this administration. When faced with choosing between secrecy and openness, stubbornness and a willingness to get things done, the Bush people will always choose the secret, stubborn path — even if the easy thing to do is also the right thing to do. If they can’t turn back the clock and undo the torture at Abu Ghraib, then by all means come clean and get it out of the way. When faced with the kidnapping of an American civilian, they could get her out by either speeding up prisoner releases or at least not impeding it. They were going to happen anyway! In both cases, doing the right thing is, well, the right thing to do and it’s good politics.
But that’s too complicated for these guys.

Technorati Tags: Baghdad, Iraq, Journalism

What is your opinion about the number of the armed fighters in Iraq?

Officially call them terrorists because they are doing terrorism against the people and they are outlaws. Their number is between 20,000, 30,000, in the whole of Iraq, distributed in the Sunni area. The people who live in this area emotionally support them, and they are about 200,000 without offering them money or logistic support. For example, they don’t give any information about their activities if they have this information.

That means those 200,000 do not fight with the fighters?

It’s impossible that the fighters’ numbers reach 200,000. These are those who live in those areas where the fighters are active–for example the right side of Mosul is completely out of control–and in this area, the terrorist are very active without any information about them from the local people, and very often they offer them shelter (hospitality).

Are those fighters from one group or many different groups?

They are from the remnants of the Ba’ath Party, from Islamic extremists and others.

The Iraqis and Americans have claimed the Jordanian extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is behind this terrorism, but recently they’ve started pointing to the Ba’ath party and its leaders. Is there any changes or some new facts?

There are no changes, but the Ba’ath Party has been organized for a long time. What happened is they reorganized themselves and they are getting money and support from their leaders in Syria. Their operations are well-developed because or their large number, their experience and their financing ability.

How many Ba’athists are involved in the armed operations now?

I can’t tell the exact number but we expect the Ba’athists before numbered two million and if we expect 20% of them are involved now that mean the number is very huge and all of them are well-organized and armed and some start working with them after they found themselves jobless. Most of them are from the former Iraqi army.

Who leads these organizations now?

As we know the Ba’ath Party divided into many parts, and now there are three wings, the most powerful wing, which belongs to the former regime, got a large quantity of money.

Who are those leaders?

There is Izzat al Douri, Mohammed Unis al Ahmed, who is moving between Syria and Iraq and Sabawi al Hassan and other Ba’ath leaders who live in Syria.

Do you think that there is foreigner or Arab support?

They don’t need financial support. The Ba’ath Party, as you know, was the richest party in the world, and was gaining 5% from the oil benefits since 1970 for the party budget.

Has the Iraqi government asked the Syrian government to hand them over?

There have been such attempts, but there are no results so far.

But hasn’t the Syrian government denied their existence in their territories?

No. We are sure that they are in Syria and they are moving easily between Syria and Iraq border,

Are there any other Ba’ath leaders?

There is a group that split itself from the former regime under the leadership of the Taih Abdul Karim and Naim Hadad and both working inside Iraq.

Did the American military operations in Fallujah lead to a decrease in terrorist operations?

It became less only in Fallujah.

And in the rest of Iraq?

In gangs war which acted by the terrorism groups we can’t get the results as we get in the organized army war, or the traditional war. The goal from Fallujah operation was to destroy the terrorism gangs or to capture their members but the results in Fallujah we could not capture the terrorists or kill their leaders, we did not see or hear about capturing or killing any big leader of terrorism, all the leaders of the terrorism have left Fallujah before the operations started already.

And they went working in other sites or hiding outside Fallujah in each fight there is a goal and the goal of Fallujah operation was to destroy the terrorist and their leadership but the goal was not done actually in spite of the full controlling of Fallujah.

What are the sources of the armed group?

The Ba’ath Party, extremist Islamist organization like Ansar al-Sunna, Tawhid w’al-Jihad, Ansar al-Islam, the 1920 Revolution and other from these names and its reached about 12 groups.

All these groups you mentioned are Sunnis. Are there any Shi’ite groups?

The group of Moqtada al-Sadr was fighting just like the others before, but now there is no Shi’ite group carrying weapons against the government.

The statement of the Iraqi officials pointed to Iran and Syria consider them the two sources of supporting these operations, is there any changes in this subject?

I am personally did not notice any changes in their attitudes and the problems still coming from those two countries because the borders are open and the support is still coming in.

What are the effects of the armed operations on the elections process?

For sure there is a negative effects on the elections. Some of the Iraqi people will not be able to reach voting centers, and this will affect the election process.

What is the need for the intelligence system in a democratic regime?

There is no country in the whole world that has no intelligence system to protect the country and the people and monitoring the gangs like drug gangs and all other cases to stop them including all the cases that is related to the security of the country. Usually we observe and collect information to be delivered to the security forces so security forces can do its duties to protect the country.

Do you think that the armed operation will increase or decrease?

It depends on the election. We have to wait for the result and then we will see. As a security system we expect this kind of operations will decrease within one year.

What are the most unsecured areas in Iraq now?

Mistakenly, they call it the Sunni triangle, but there are other unsecured areas like Diyala, which has 50% of its population Shi’ite and also the north of Babylon, which is extended to reach Sowera and Salman Pak. All these areas are very difficult to reach, for example the area between Hadhar and Mosul its out of control and those armed group in the streets searching the people and also the area which extend from Sharqat down to Baiji and Samara. All these areas are unsecured in addition to Ramadi, Fallujah and its surrounding areas, while inside Baghdad there is Haifa street and Adhamiya and Dora and Ghazaliya and Airport road and all these areas are unsecured and dangerous and may God give those terrorists their punishment.

War erupted Wednesday night as the United States launched dozens of Tomahawk cruse missiles and aimed 2,000-pound bombs at Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and other “leadership targets” in Baghdad.
The strike was aimed as “decapitating” Saddam’s regime and specifically targeted him, his two sons and other senior leaders of the Baath party and Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council, according to a senior Bush official.
President Bush, addressing the nation from the Oval Office about 45 minutes after the first attacks said, “On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war.”

– Knight-Ridder Newspapers

(You can read Bush’s Oval Office address from last year here. What we know now…) Moments before the camera began broadcasting to the nation, Knight-Ridder reports that Bush pumped his fist and said, “Feels good.“
“B2I was busy.”:http://back-to-iraq.com/archives/2003_03_19.php
A year later, however, things don’t feel so good.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq, his administration predicted, would come at little financial cost and would materially improve the lives of Iraqis. Americans would be greeted as liberators, Bush officials predicted, and the toppling of Saddam Hussein would spread peace and democracy throughout the Middle East.
Things have not worked out that way, for the most part. There is evidence that the economic lives of Iraqis are improving, thanks to an infusion of U.S. and foreign capital. But the administration badly underestimated the financial cost of the occupation and seriously overstated the ease of pacifying Iraq and the warmth of the reception Iraqis would give the U.S. invaders. And while peace and democracy may yet spread through the region, some early signs are that the U.S. action has had the opposite effect.

On the major plus side, Saddam Hussein and his piggish sons are captured and dead, respectively. The people of Iraq have a future, but of what kind remains to be seen.
But the rationales for going to war have been proven — every one — to be transparently wrong and/or fraudulent. There were no terror ties. There were no WMDs, nor the ability to produce them. There was no threat to the region because Saddam was effectively caged. Meanwhile, the real problem, Pakistan, has been shown to be promiscuous with its nuclear technology. Its chief nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, was pardoned with nary a peep from the Bush Administration. In fact, Pakistan had its ally status upgraded, opening the door to new weapons sales! Hey, guys: The Pakistani ISI is _not_ your friend. They like Osama.
And speaking of Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda’s No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri seems to have slipped the net the Pakistanis were attempting to draw around him for the last two days.

The frenzied speculation was triggered by the sighting of a foreigner being whisked away at high speed in a bullet-proof vehicle Tuesday when paramilitary units were searching for tribesmen wanted for sheltering Al Qaeda fugitives.
The vehicle burst out of a tribal compound, two others emerged to protect it, and scores of fighters appeared from several directions, hurling grenades and firing at the Pakistani troops.
The entire unit of 50 troops was “virtually wiped out,” the official said. Fifteen were killed, 22 were injured and another 13 are still missing.

Back in Washington, Bush addressed the nation today and, in typical form, 1) made no distinction between the war against al Qaeda and Iraq; 2) refused to acknowledge that the job in Afghanistan is incomplete and that the Taliban control a third of the country, again; 3) implied that Spain, South Korea and others who are reconsidering their participation in the Iraqi adventure are appeasing bin Laden and 4) while admitting that his policies have split traditional alliances and alienated friends, papered over the depths to which the U.S. has fallen in the eyes of many.
“There have been disagreements in this matter, among old and valued friends,” he said. “Those differences belong to the past. All of us can now agree that the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence, aggression, and instability in the Middle East.“
Can we? Actually, the biggest source of instability is the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which some in the White House said the Iraq war would solve. It’s worse than ever with Bush having done little to push it forward. His “roadmap” is in tatters because of Bush’s unwillingness to stand up to Ariel Sharon and his settlement plans.
“Who would prefer that Saddam’s torture chambers still be open?” Bush asked. “Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?“
Well, no one is. What’s being begrudged is the way Bush screwed up the march to war in the United Nations, the lack of post-war planning and the sheer arrogance the White House has shown to anyone who disagrees with them. When John Kerry said more/foreign leaders supported his candidacy, it was a gaffe not because it isn’t true, but because it is.
So good on ya, Mr. President, that Saddam is gone. And I sincerely mean that. I was in Iraq in July 2002 and saw the front between the Kurds and the Iraqi troops. I talked with survivors of the Halabja massacre. I met with “families who had fled Kirkuk”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000118.php when Saddam “Arabized” them out of their homes. I was there during the war, and saw “how happy”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000351.php#000351 many Iraqis — Kurds and Arabs alike — were that Saddam was gone.
But things are not going well now, and that’s mostly your fault, Mr. President. I didn’t oppose the war in Iraq because I’m a pacifist — I wholeheartedly supported Afghanistan. And I didn’t oppose it because I’m a supporter of tyrants. I opposed it because it was poorly planned from the get-go, cynically sold to the American people, alienating to American allies and a distraction from the real enemy — al Qaeda and its constellation of terror groups. You have yet to convince me that toppling Saddam was worth the deaths of 676 coalition troops and thousands of Iraqi conscripts and civilians despite the immediate benefits of the war. A year later, I’m not alone in still wrestling with this conundrum, and your simple black and white, “no neutral ground” statements don’t make the issue any clearer.
“Feels good”? It didn’t then, and it doesn’t now.