Iraqi Legislator Mithal al-Alusi: Punished for visiting Israel.
So how is Iraq’s experiment in Western-style democracy coming along, a curious American might ask?
Judging from the recent dust-up over Iraqi legislator Mithal al-Alusi, who decided to visit Israel to attend an anti-terror conference - Iraqis is still have a long way to go. Mr. al-Alusi has been stripped of his parliamentary immunity and is about to be charged with treason for traveling to the Jewish state - all of which has sparked a debate in Iraq about the potential benefits of relations with Israel and the suggestion by some - that Israel would be a better ally for Iraq than Iran.
But according to this article from Iraq’s Kitabat newspaper, there is something more sinister at play: It’s all part of Washington’s ploy to acclimatize Iraqis to something that not long ago would have been unthinkable.
Al-Alusi, who is so loyal to the occupation, which is where he came from and where he will return, like all the others in the National Assembly of donkeys, serve only one religion - complete submission to Uncle Sam. They differ in their support for this or that minor item, but their one and only master is the Lord of the Green Barn [referring to the fortified Green Zone], which is also the Lord of his chosen people [Israel] and the rapist of occupied Palestine.
It’s the game of the American occupation that steers the debate over which side would be better to follow and collaborate with - Iran or Israel. … Now the question of “visits to Israel” and calls to “reestablish relations with her” is a viable topic of debate, whereas before it was the most taboo of taboos. … Friends of Iran have sparked the uproar over this friend of Israel [Al-Alusi], but it’s all just electoral clatter being permitted by the American master to create a huge debate about the advantages of friendship with Israel.
Once again, the inimitable Khadir Taahar has thrown a textual grenade into the Iraqi body politic by suggesting to his readers that - horror of horror - Israel would be a far better friend to Iraq than Iran ever will be.
And as we have pointed out before, how representative Taahar’s views are of the Iraqi population is open to question. But we do know that he is regularly published in this Sunni-leaning Baghdad daily.
“Israel is keen on the success of the American project in Iraq to extend security, stability, reconstruction and progress. Its goals are identical to those of America, and anyone who denies that America wants progress and development in Iraq is absolutely a victim of the polluted and demagogic slogans of the hostile mob that we mentioned before. … For a thousand years we have gotten nothing from Iran but war, death, destruction and interference in Iraqi affairs; throughout history, Iran has been the number one enemy of the Iraqi people.”
Now that Iraq’s Sunni ‘Awakening Councils’ appear to have vanquished al-Qaeda in Iraq, is the United States prepared to ‘throw them under the bus’ as it were, in order to obtain a much-desired long-term security agreement with the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad?
“There are sure signs that the “Awakening” project will be abandoned and its participants left to an unknown fate. After all the animosity that has occurred, these people can’t return to pre-Awakening days, nor will they be able to become effective political players, particularly because unlike the militias that work and operate in and around the government, they have no foreign support. They are the subjects of a deal being made to satisfy those in power. ”
“Despite the disclosure of some of the contents of the Convention, there is much that remains unknown to the Iraqi public. Since no harm would result if Iraq’s government made the contents of the draft-Convention public before it is finalized, that is exactly what it should do. That would be in the interest of creating a national consensus and would show the Iraqi people how the agreement is compatible with their own aspirations. It would also allay the fears of those who oppose the deal, even though many of these people were opposed to the agreement even before its first letters were written.”
He also writes that an agreement on a U.S. withdrawal remains elusive, that the Iraqi government has too many officials confusing the public by offering differing views of the agreement.
“For a long while as they ranted about democracy, Iraqi politicians were also laughing to themselves. And they have been backed up by the greatest laughers of them all, the Americans - and the might of the U.S. Army. In fact, since the Americans created the racist, sectarian Governing Council on the first day of their occupation, everyone has been laughing to themselves over the ‘democracy; that Iraqis have been practicing.”
After venting a bit on Iraq’s political class and foreign interference, Abdusalam adresses what Iraqi leaders need to do to make things right:
“Now all of Iraq must show the courage necessary to stop this democracy game that has been exposed, and for which we Iraqis have paid so heavily with our priceless blood. The question is: what’s the solution?What’s the alternative to the false democracy with which all Iraqis ‘comfort’ themselves today? For if the new Iraq is to rise up, Iraqis must take hold of the only choice - real democracy - which doesn’t submit to racial or sectarian influence, regardless of which side it comes from.”
According to yesterday’s edition of Iraq’s Al-Sabaah newspaper, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have tentatively agreed to the withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2011, the return of American troops to their barracks and rules of engagement for American troops and Iraqi citizens until the U.S. withdrawal.
“According to a memorandum of understanding to be signed by the two parties after a summary of results is presented to political leaders, Baghdad and Washington have set a time limit for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq during the years 2010 and 2011, subject to change according to circumstances.”
“Well-informed sources told Al-Sabah: “the two teams of experts - American and Iraqi - will present a summary of their discussions to political leaders of their respective countries over the next few days, stressing that, “negotiations are continuing between the two parties and are near a conclusion, which may permit the rapid signing of the Status of Forces Agreement [SOFA].”
There are some people in this world who think President Bush has been a great president - even in France. One such person is French historian Alexandre Adler - also known as France’s foremost neocon. In this article, Adler makes a very convincing case for President Bush’s legacy and his ‘unparalleled service to Europe.’
“At a time when “Obamania” is in full swing, why not say all the good things we can about George W. Bush, if not about the eight years he spent battling terrorism? Indeed, a certain amount of false evidence has been laid at the doorstep of the current U.S. president. … The first such item is in the process of crumbling before our eyes: not only was the destruction of the Baathist regime in Iraq not a failure for the United States, but it’s now turning into a genuine success. First of all, because indeed, Saddam Hussein did a good job organizing what was left of Iraq’s state apparatus into an unwavering support system for terrorist operations that America found intolerable. Then, because the current transformation of Iraq has had a considerable medium-term impact: Iraqis have voted freely three times since 2003, although to be sure, these free elections are not yet entirely pluralist. Nevertheless, they have played a role in helping assess the actual size of the three major communities in the country [Sunni, Shiite and Kurd] and have also allowed the real political majority to emerge in Iraq [Shiites rather than Sunnis].”
“We now see that by maintaining strong growth, and even at this moment, by keeping America from entering a recession that the bursting of the subprime bubble clearly provoked, George Bush, helped mightily by [FED Chairman] Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, his remarkable treasury secretary, has done unparalleled service to the whole of Europe.
Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, the already-mentioned Hank Paulson, and General Petraeus in Baghdad, as well as Zalmay Khalilzad, ambassador and a veritable patron of Afghanistan, will in time come to be seen as true statesmen whose achievements are simply impressive.”
Adler also looks at the situation in the wider Middle East, Latin America, China and North Korea - and although significant blunders are mentioned, he gives President Bush high marks.
The success of the ‘Surge’ and the drop in American casualties in Iraq is much in the news of late. But how significant is this to the life of the ordinary Iraqi?
“Today there are ongoing military operations in most of Iraq’s provinces, and worryingly, those will be followed with more as long as security forces are used to address any and all of Iraq’s problems. … What guarantees of security do Iraqi citizens have? Can citizens trust government agencies more than they fear armed factions from across the border or which are spawned within our borders?”
“No one in Iraq’s cantons of power studies the trends in public life for the next six months, to say nothing of the next year, five years or thirty years, the way authorities in the West do. After all, how could such a study and review take place in the shadow of political wrangling and the absence of responsibility in the part of the governing parties, where bickering over minor issues is the rule?”
One might call it the $2 trillion question: Of all of the people, parties and sources of information in Iraq, who should Obama turn to for ‘accurate information’ about what’s really going on there?
“We are told that Obama has three hundred advisers. But the advisers he needs are Iraqis who played no part in the Bush Administration’s bitter experiment. He has to find people outside the group that provided information on the Iraqi issue before, during and after the war began. These advisers should not be from the leadership of any of the Iraqi parties, which have enough trouble just managing their own affairs. And they should certainly not be from organs of the current, previous or future Iraqi government.”
“He must find his advisers on the Iraqi street, in factories, on farms or next to the huts and tents of immigrants and displaced people or perhaps in an elementary school. It is here that Obama will be able to derive accurate information which will truly reflect the truth. Only here will he encounter the “wisdom” that is completely missing from Iraq’s unstable political environment.”
So how are people in other parts of the world, for example Brazil, interpreting Barack Obama’s global tour. And is this trip - as John McCain charges - simply an ‘electoral caravan’ on the part of Obama’s campaign? And if it is, does it matter?
“John McCain is right when he says that his adversary is only committed to running an electoral caravan. And so what? One gets a good sense of what this sensational candidate (Obama, of course) has to say about the changes he seeks to impose on American foreign policy. And they don’t seem to amount to all that much change.”
“As his main stage, Obama chose Berlin - the capital of Germany, immediately sparking jealousy in London and Paris, which are considered more ‘Atlanticist’ (especially by Sarkozy, of course), than the ’suspect’ Germans, who have understandings, particularly with Moscow and other obscure places to the east. … Even in Germany, Obama’s monumental number of advisors (700 aides!) acted with a level of subtlety that, as far as the Europeans were concerned, wasn’t discrete enough. Obama will speak in front of the Victory Column - which is decorated with cannons that Napoleon used during several campaigns, and that later, during the wars that led to the founding of the first German empire in 1870, the Germans took from the French. In other words the following day, it will be an awkward note to arrive in Paris on. And London frankly feels itself ignored by the American Democratic candidate.”
Is the Bush plan to meet with Iran’s nuclear negotiator a significant change in policy? And if so, why - and why now?
Say what one will about the French - they are no strangers to political intrigue and bureaucratic gamesmanship.
According to this Le Figaro editorial by Pierre Rousselin, this was a major change in policy - not the minor adjustment claimed by the White House. And the reason it’s coming now is to boost John McCain’s fortunes.
“The fact remains that the American administration has made an about-face: it has agreed to participate in discussions, even if those are presented as preliminary to Iran even accepting its conditions.”
“It comes particularly in the context of the U.S. election campaign. Negotiating with Iran is a demand put forward by Democratic candidate Barack Obama. In making this decision, the Republican Administration means to cut the grass out from under his feet and promote John McCain.”
“The Islamic Republic wants to be recognized by the United-States as an indispensable interlocutor. It can seize its chance now or wait for the next American president. But if it waits, escalating tensions could resume quickly.”
It’s good news, isn’t it, he pointedly notes, that our troops’ sacrifices have got the Iraqis to a point when their government might actually be about ready to take off the training wheels and ride off without us holding the handlebars? (NYT)
And whether they are ready are not — see this BBC article clarifying the quote on which Obama relied — isn’t it about as clear as it could possibly be that we can’t go on babysitting them indefinitely, or even very much longer, without severe strain to major muscle groups?
But while McCain temporizes about when, and maybe even whether, we should leave Iraq, Obama is being called out for ‘flip-flopping’ because he has said that his 16 month withdrawal date was only ever aspirational. At least he is committed to leaving.
“We have created a system of corruption far more corrupt than anything that existed during Saddam Hussein’s regime, and which is unprecedented in Iraqi history.”
“In essence, the prevailing corruption is due to America’s mismanagement in administering Iraqi affairs, and the emboldening of corrupt leaders who prey on the public interest.”
“If for political and tactical reasons, the American administration won’t announce the terms of the Convention; if some of the terms of the deal adversely affect Iraqi “sovereignty and dignity”; and if as Nouri al-Maliki has said, talks are at a standstill, then why doesn’t the Iraqi government or it’s representatives at the talks reveal to the Iraqi people the items that they say so detrimentally affect Iraqi sovereignty and dignity, to help win popular support for the government’s position so that all can understand how the government defines its “sovereignty and dignity”? … Do we truly live in the era of transparency and democracy, as our esteemed government leaders, members of Parliament and party leaders claim? Or is this only talk - the sowing of seeds of illusion within the minds of this pitiful people, whose field of dreams is desolate and barren, and for whom the hoped-for heaven is instead a living hell?”
“Someone should explain the meaning of the absolute secrecy that has surrounded the draft Convention - and the meaning of the non-disclosure of the names of those on the negotiating team … Are negotiators afraid to shoulder the blame, or are they concerned they can’t stand up to the Arabic or Iranian backlash? The legs of the negotiators tremble when it comes to accepting responsibility for their actions.”
“… not only to repel the conflicting ambitions of Arabs, Turks and Iranians, but also to prevent a civil war, the flame of which has yet to be extinguished. For there are thousands who continue to blow on the embers - embers that are mainly due to the presence of political Islam at the head of the state and the spread of sectarian thinking in politics, culture and different types of Arab media.”
“That attitude of some parties, politicians and religious authorities are just an echo of the sectarian forces outside of Iraq, that don’t care about Iraq nor the people of Iraq, except to the extent that it’s in harmony with their wasteful, selfish interests. Hence we can understand why so many are opposed to the Iraqi-American agreement, because their opposition isn’t based on the national interest. Rather, they oppose it on the basis of sectarian motivations, decided by people outside of Iraq.”
Writing for Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, Abdulsalam suggests that the government’s four-year policy of coddling and cooperating with militias and ‘falling into the orbit of foreign powers’ has resulted in a nation as ungovernable as it is insecure.
“There is a clear and resurgent determination to carry out attacks within Baghdad and some of the provinces. These attacks serve to re-ignite the conflict between religious communities that had only recently settled down. This is the reality created by ‘politicians’ and ‘parties’ that took four years to wake-up to the fact that this method of seed-planting doesn’t germinate very well politically.”
“What’s the point of operations with fancy names if the chaos roars back as soon as police and military forces are withdrawn? … If government leaders and their counterparts across the table in Parliament are caught up in the orbit of other countries [Iran]; and if their proposals fail serve the nation during its current trials; all steps taken to put Iraq on a safe and secure path will fail to take hold. The impact of such steps won’t survive even an hour after they’re completed.
In the great competition now taking place between Iran and the United States for influence in Iraq, who’s ahead? Centering his column around the long-term security agreement now under negotiation with the United States, Fateh Abdusalam writes for Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper:
“It seems that Iran’s project to compete with America for the approval of Iraq’s shattered heart is slowly gaining impetus. Politicians and nationalists are busy discussing the security agreement with the United States, which has met with categorical Iranian refusal even before an Iraqi one. … Read the rest of this entry »
“As expected, the demagogues have begun shouting hostile ideological slogans without taking a moment to consider the advantages that the United States offers a devastated country like Iraq. Read the rest of this entry »
“In this region, George Bush has failed as few American presidents before him. His diplomatic balance sheet is pure calamity - and his last tour of the Middle East this week was a reminder of it. … With him, the United States has definitively moved passed the role of even-handed mediator to that of hallucinating prosecutor. But even more incredible is that he still believes in a peace agreement between the Israeli and the Palestinians before his departure next January.
“The Republican president even took the opportunity of his tour to engage in domestic politics. Without naming him, he lashed out at Democratic candidate Barack Obama, likening him to those who wanted to “talk to the Nazis” because he believes that the United States has more to gain by talking to Iran and Syria. … In any case, this is something the French and British have already understood. After having followed Bush for too long, they recently resumed contact with Hamas. Secretly.” Read the rest of this entry »
