← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 5161 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2003-02-22
2003-02-22 06:52 | User Profile
IRAQ: A WIDE WAR
By MICHAEL LEDEEN
February 21, 2003 -- SHAKESPEARE wrote elegantly about "a tide in the affairs of men," and the actress once remarked to the bishop that "timing is everything," as we and our alliance of the willing are about to discover. For the war we are about to fight is not the war we wanted, and its intensity and its dimensions are likely to be far greater than we anticipated when the strategy was first designed. We have waited too long, and our enemies have prepared a common strategy.
A year ago, it might have been possible to deal with Iraq, and Iraq alone - but no more. The Iranians, Syrians, Saudis and North Koreans know that a free and successful Iraq will undermine their legitimacy by demonstrating that a Shi'ite Arab country is quite capable of managing its own affairs without a vicious dictatorship.
To survive, they believe they must do everything possible to deny us a clear victory in Iraq, or pin us down there for an extended period of time and hope that we lose our stomach for prolonged conflict, or engage us in a war on two continents, hoping to deliver a devastating blow either in Iraq or in Korea.
Iran and Syria have already prepared a terrorist campaign against the allied forces in Iraq. Not for nothing did Iran's hardline Hashemi Rafsanjani proclaim last week that the presence of American troops in Iraq would be worse than Saddam Hussein.
This was a clear declaration of war on us, and we should expect attacks from the full panoply of terrorist groups, from the dreaded Hezbollah to Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda, Hamas and the rest. Thus the war in Iraq will very quickly become a regional conflict.
The terrorists' task would be aided considerably if they were seen by the Iraqi people to be fighting against an imperial American presence, for they could credibly claim to be resisting a foreign occupier. But it would be impossible for them to claim to be freedom fighters if the allies quickly empowered an Iraqi government led by men who have long been fighting against Saddam for the liberation of the country.
Better yet, a government representing all major groups in Iraq would be able to call upon the Iraqi people to hunt down the terrorists in their midst, thereby turning the tables on Iran and Syria. Instead of providing support for the terrorists, the Iraqi people would support allied forces, and create a model for the war against terrorism throughout the region: Free countries don't support terrorism. They fight it.
Ahmad Chalabi, the talented leader of the Iraqi National Congress - the umbrella organization that unites all segments of Iraqi society - is alarmed by the talk coming from some of our top diplomats of late, suggesting that the Bush administration is contemplating an American-led military government in Iraq that would last at least a couple of years.
Chalabi rightly describes this as insulting to the Iraqi people, and a betrayal of the president's promise that U.S. troops are fighting to liberate countries, not to dominate them.
He is certainly right on both counts, and the plan for a long-term military government is strategically foolish as well, both because it would help the terrorists gain popular support within Iraq and, perhaps worst of all, because it would discourage popular uprisings in the neighboring countries.
This sort of strategic confusion stems from our obsessive focus on Iraq to the exclusion of the other sponsors of terrorism. If we understand that we are facing a regional challenge, it is easier to see that we want to see a free Iraq, governed by Iraqis, as quickly as possible.
That is because we also want to see a free Iran and a free Syria, along with a free and moderate Saudi Arabia, and a North Korea freed of its weird dictatorship.
Many people call such a strategic vision overly ambitious and unrealizable, but in fact it is quite realistic and entirely appropriate to the war we are waging. The common denominator of our enemies is tyranny, surely not Islam (Kim Jong Il is no Muslim, and Saddam and the Assads in Syria came to power as secular radical socialists).
We are not engaged in a "clash of civilizations," but rather in the same fundamental struggle between freedom and tyranny that created the United States in the first place.
If we just act like Americans, supporting the freedom fighters and fighting the tyrants, we'll do fine.
Michael Ledeen is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The War Against the Terror Masters."
I heard Limbaugh fawning all over this column earlier today. After reading it, I can see why. Ledeen is saying what some of us have known all along about this.
A year ago, it might have been possible to deal with Iraq, and Iraq alone - but no more.
Ledeen is lying here. He knows quite well that the end objective was never just the defeat of Iraq, but a bigger war waged on behalf of Israel. The rest of his column simply tells some of us something we have always known, that going into this snakepit is going to bring all sorts of people out of the woodwork to engage in guerrilla warfare against U.S. occupying forces.
What I love about this column is Ledeen`s solution. We should support the "freedom fighters" of the Iraqi National Congress led by that modern day George Washington of Iraq--"Ahmad Chalabi, the talented leader of the Iraqi National Congress"! :lol:
It figures that Ledeen would be stupid enough to think that most of the readers of the N.Y. Post would believe this, but some of us get our news from sources besides talk radio and the Murdoch newspapers. [url=http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j073102.html]Ahmad Chalabi[/url] is a crook who is wanted in [url=http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j091602.html]Jordan for embezzling money from his own bank.[/url] Yes, I can see why the ruling class would want this guy. He reminds them of themselves when they were younger and like them is just as amoral.
s former jails where they freed a number of "democrats." The problem with them was that no one really looked to see why they were in jail in the first place. It ultimately turned out they were former members of the Mafia that had been jailed by a prefect of police named Cesare Mori sent down there by *il Duce* to clean up the island. In WW II that mistake could be attributed to ignorance. Today, there is no excuse and I bet Ledeen is aware of Chalabis background as well.Happy Washington`s Birthday and Deo Vindice!
2003-02-23 09:43 | User Profile
Speak of the devil, here is Mr. Chalabi himself, courtesy of the plutocrats of the Wall Street Journal.
AT WAR
Iraq for the Iraqis After the invasion, leave it to us to establish democracy.
BY AHMAD CHALABI Wednesday, February 19, 2003 SULEIMANIYAH, Iraq--We the Iraqis are ready to embark on a final journey to fulfill our destiny as a dignified and free nation.
Here in northern Iraq, I am surrounded by fellow Iraqi patriots, many of whom are now gathering in this liberated zone. We have long been united around the goal of claiming our country from the hands of tyranny. Our struggle for freedom has been a long epic, but our hour of liberation is now beginning.
While the day of Iraq's freedom is at hand, a day of reckoning for U.S.-Iraqi relations is also close by. After decades of struggle the Iraqi people, with the assistance of the U.S., have a chance finally to construct a free and democratic society at peace with itself and with the world. This cooperation between the Iraqi people and the U.S. also has the potential of being a historical watershed between the Arab and Muslim world and America.
No doubt the U.S. will carry the heavy burden of the immediate military campaign. However, we in the democratic Iraqi opposition have been carrying the equally heavy burden of the political struggle against Saddam for many long and lonely decades. The polite term of "regime change" is new in the American political vocabulary. But the idea of democracy in Iraq and liberty for the Iraqi people have been in the conscience of Iraqis for three generations. We have sought it, dreamed of it, and fought for it--always paying a high price in lives lost.
As deliverance approaches, we therefore intend to be full participants in shaping the future Iraq. American help is essential--and is welcomed--in winning the fight against Saddam. But the liberation of our country and its reintegration into the world community is ultimately a task that we Iraqis must shoulder.
This is why the proposed U.S. occupation and military administration of Iraq is unworkable and unwise. Unworkable, because it is predicated on keeping Saddam's existing structures of government, administration and security in place--albeit under American officers. It would ultimately leave important decisions about the future of Iraq in the hands of either foreign occupiers or Saddam's officials. Unwise, because it will result in long-term damage to the U.S.-Iraq relationship and America's position in the region and beyond.
The current U.S. plan proposed for Iraq, as outlined by senior officials in congressional testimony and in discussions with the Iraqi opposition, calls for an American military governor to rule Iraq for up to two years. American officers would staff the top three levels of Iraqi government ministries with the rest of the structure remaining the same. The occupation authorities would appoint a "consultative council" of hand-picked Iraqis with non-executive powers and unspecified authority, serving at the pleasure of the American governor. The occupation authorities would also appoint a committee to draft a constitution for Iraq. After an unspecified period, indirect elections would be held for a "constituent assembly" that would vote to ratify the new constitution without a popular referendum.
Here in Iraqi Kurdistan, it is easy to sense the people's mood of jubilation as President Bush moves closer to ending Saddam and his Baath party's 35-year reign of terror over Iraq. The Baathist ideology is rooted in the racist doctrines of 1930s fascism and Saddam has used the Baath to create a one-party totalitarian state.
For Iraq to rejoin the international community under a democratic system, it is essential to end the Baathist control over all aspects of politics and civil society. Iraq needs a comprehensive program of de-Baathification even more extensive than the de-Nazification effort in Germany after World War II. You cannot cut off the viper's head and leave the body festering. Unfortunately, the proposed U.S. plan will do just that if it does not dismantle the Baathist structures.
We deserve better. The U.S. has a moral obligation to Iraqis to fight for more. Apart from the practical and ethical problems in terms of loss of Iraqi sovereignty, it is a recipe for disaster on two grounds. First, it puts Americans in the position of having to defend Baathists. What will happen when Iraqis step forward to accuse Baathist officials of torture and crimes? Will American soldiers protect these officials?
Second, it forces American officers to make difficult decisions about Iraqi society and culture with very little knowledge. For example, will an American colonel at the ministry of education decide on the role of Islam in school curricula? How will American officials determine issues of compensation and restitution for the hundreds of thousands of displaced people returning to their homes, which may be occupied by others? Will America have a seat at OPEC and the Arab League, or the Islamic Conference? Will it redesign Iraq's flag--or, even worse, keep the existing one, which was created by Saddam?
The truth is, there is more to the liberation of Iraq than battlefield victory or the removal of Saddam and his top-tier cadre of torturers. The transition to democracy--the task of exorcising Saddam's ghosts from the Iraqi psyche and society--can only be achieved through self-empowerment and a full return of sovereignty to the people. This is our job, not that of a foreign officer. We are a proud nation, not a vanquished one. We are allies of the U.S. and we welcome Americans as liberators. But we must be full participants in the process of administering our country and shaping its future.
Today, members of the Iraqi opposition and representatives of the many resistance groups inside government-controlled areas are gathering for a conference that marks the beginning of the final phase of our struggle. The biggest joke here is the criticism from our opponents in the West that we are fractured. Iraq is a diverse society and this multifaceted nature of the opposition is not its weakness--it is our core strength on the road to democracy.
In embarking on a journey toward freedom in Iraq, the U.S. does not need to handpick a successor to Saddam, nor does it need to predetermine every single step in the post-Saddam era. But we expect the U.S. to make a full commitment to accepting the will of the Iraqi people and not fail us in our desire for justice. The idea that those who struggled against tyranny with blood and lives should have less of a say than those who have found a way to get by inside the tyranny is outrageous. We hope Washington and other allies of the Iraqi people will hear the message from this conference. We are ready to assume responsibility for the transition to democracy.
Mr. Chalabi is head of the Iraqi National Congress.
[url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003091]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110003091[/url]
Suleimaniyah? More like the Hilton in Istanbul, I bet.
You cannot cut off the viper's head and leave the body festering.
No, the Neo-cons intend to remove one viper`s head and replace it with another-- Yours!
**We deserve better. The U.S. has a moral obligation to Iraqis to fight for more. Apart from the practical and ethical problems in terms of loss of Iraqi sovereignty, it is a recipe for disaster on two grounds. **
You`ll get what "we" give you, Chalabi, and shut up about it. As for sovereignty, why should we care about that when we are in the process of giving up our own? In fact, the former editor of this paper, Robert Bartley, wrote that he considered sovereignty something obsolete. It interferes with "global capitalism." (and the global hiring hall as well.)
*In embarking on a journey toward freedom in Iraq, the U.S. does not need to handpick a successor to Saddam, nor does it need to predetermine every single step in the post-Saddam era.*
I wonder if Chalabi has considered how he become the so-called "leader" of the opposition? Either this man is a fool or a knave, and I believe it to be the latter. He certainly didnt get to this position by universal acclaim. No, his role was determined before hand on just how useful he could be as a puppet for the Zionists and their Neo-con allies. Id also bet that embezzling charge against him also played a big role in picking him. Chalabi can squawk all he wants, he`ll do exactly as he is told.
2003-02-24 13:35 | User Profile
French veto at UN will not stop US war on Iraq, Perle warns Sunday, 23-Feb-2003 4:00AMÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ Story from AFP Copyright 2003 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet) DUBAI, Feb 23 (AFP) - The United States will attack Iraq even if France uses its veto to block a new resolution in the UN Security Council, top Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said in an interview published Sunday.
The Bush administration hawk also indicated that after overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein Washington might set its sights on Syria's Bashar al-Assad.
If Paris vetoed a resolution backing war, "We will go (to war) without an international resolution," the Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat quoted him as saying in an interview.
"No American president can allow a French head of state to set American policy," said Perle, a long-time supporter of a US-led invasion to oust the Baghdad regime.
The US occupation of Iraq under General Tommy Franks would be only "for an interim period ... not for a period of 10 years as some say", Perle said. The administration hawk also offered support for Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress opposition umbrella group, as a successor to President Saddam Hussein.
"The State Department is not very keen on Chalabi because he's an independent," Perle noted.
"The experience in Iraq will be a prelude to reforms in the region," Perle warned. "I hope Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will consider reforms, otherwise" he may say to himself, "'I could be the second target.'"
[url=http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/bv/Qiraq-us-perle.R8i7_DFN.html]http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/bv/Qiraq-us...e.R8i7_DFN.html[/url]
**The administration hawk also offered support for Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress opposition umbrella group, as a successor to President Saddam Hussein. **
But of course!
**"The State Department is not very keen on Chalabi because he's an independent," Perle noted. **
:lol: :lol: :lol:
"Surely you jest, Richard!"
2003-02-24 19:18 | User Profile
Is this ledeen a *ew? Or just a shabbos goy? There is another neocon fink: Mansoor Ijaz is a FOX News Channel expert and real CFR CIA Mossad tight creep
2003-02-24 20:47 | User Profile
Malachi,
Hes a kosher "conservative" and just as disloyal as you can get despite his disavowal of Pollards spying. Check this out. These people know whose kosher and who isn`t.
[url=http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1993/063093.htm]http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1993/063093.htm[/url]
Check his photo out too, when you run across it.
2003-02-25 12:35 | User Profile
Wintermute,
Thanks for posting the information about Ledeens background. While I was aware of Perles treason while working for the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, I didnt know that Ledeen got Pollard his job. When you consider that Pollard was rather outspoken about his Zionist views, you almost wonder why the Navy didnt investigate Ledeen as well as a possible security risk. Almost, but we know why this wasn`t done.