Al-Anizi: The US is Training an Insubordinate Iraqi Army
Sistani Blows off Bush
Guerrillas shot dead 8 oil workers at the Baiji refinery north of Baghdad. The guerrillas have for some time had a strategy of cutting the capital off from fuel and electricity as far as they can, and their sabotage in Baiji is for this purpose. At the same time, they siphon off the fuel and smuggle it out to fund the insurgency.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has blown off the president of the United States. Bush sent Sistani a letter asking him to intervene to help end the gridlock in the formation of a new Iraqi government. Asked about his response, an aide said that Sistani had not opened the letter and had put it aside in his office.
Sistani does not approve of the American presence in Iraq, and certainly disapproves of the Bush administration's attempt to unseat Ibrahim Jaafari as the candidate of the United Iraqi Alliance. Middle Easterners have had Western Powers dictate their politics to them for a couple of centuries and are pretty tired of it.
It is rumored that after the December 15 elections, Bush told Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish President of Iraq, that he would prevent the Shiite coalition from taking power this time, which encouraged Talabani to try to unseat Jaafari. Bush's plan, however, would only work if the neo-Baathists, the Sunni fundamentalists, the Kurds and the secular Shiites can consistently work together, and if a substantial number of Shiites defects from the United Iraqi Alliance to help elect a president by 2/3s majority. Pigs will fly first.
Meanwhile, Bush's tinkering with Iraqi politics has contributed mightily to the gridlock in forming a government. Jaafari's bargaining position has been perhaps fatally undermined. And Washington is blaming the Iraqis! At least Bush is a consistent foul-up.
Reuters points out that Sistani is not only highly influential in Iraq but also in Pakistan.
KarbalaNews.net reports that Dr, Qusay al-Suhail, a member of parliament from the Sadr Bloc, denied Thursday that the Sadrists or the United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite fundamentalist coalition) has any intention of changing their candidate for prime minister. (The current candidate, elected by a party vote, is Ibrahim Jaafari, but the Bush administration and the Kurds and Sunnis have been trying to unseat him.) Al-Suhail said, "The position of the Alliance is clear and frank, and talk of changing its candidate is incorrect. It is possible that the Alliance may discuss the issue of Jaafari's candidacy today, but not for the purpose of chaning it. Rather, it will be to review the new demands put forward by the Iraqi Accord Front [Sunni fundamentalist] and the Kurdistan Alliance about changing Jaafari."
He added, "The Alliance agreed that there will be a committee that will go to the Iraqi National List [headed by Iyad Allawi), the Iraqi Accord Front, and the Kurdistan Alliance to discover the causes of their objections and to clarify their position-- [though] it is clear that a large proportion of them have backed off from their objections with regard to some issues, and that the matter is confused, and the causes are unknown and various. . . there is a clear insistence on the part of the United Iraqi Alliance on retaining its candidate, and America has now denied that it desires to see Jaafari step down; Zalmay Khalilzad has denied that desire." 
courtesy KarbalaNews.net
Rumors circulated earlier on Thursday that the Sadr Bloc was reconsidering its commitment to Jaafari. Jaafari won the internal party vote because he was backed by the two branches of the Dawa Party and by the 32 Sadrists. Jaafari's candidacy has been rejected by three of the other major parties representing Kurds, Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites.
Another source within the United Iraqi Alliance told KarbalaNews.net that Jaafari might not be able to win a vote of confidence in the whole parliament,a nd that he might be replaced by Ahmad Chalabi. The source maintained that a clique of parliamentarians had attempted to convince Muqtada al-Sadr to accept this substitution."
[Cole: Chalabi did not win a seat in parliament, so I don't understand how he could be prime minister!]
The Fadhila or Virtue Party, a branch of the Sadrists that follows Shaikh Muhammad Ya`qubi and dislikes Muqtada al-Sadr and Ibrahim Jaafari, is suggesting that Jaafari's candidacy be submitted to the whole parliament. A source told KarbalaNews.net that 75% of the members of the UIA (Shiite religious parties) agree with this proposal.
Jaafari's candidacy is one issue that is holding up the formation of a new government. Another such issue is which parties will get which ministries. The United Iraqi Alliance is trying to keep control of the security ministries, on the grounds that they should be controlled by the prime minister and his party. They are trying to convince the Sunni religious coalition that this is only fair.
Minister of the Interior Bayan Jabr argues that the guerrilla insurgency is led by 16,000 Iraqi ex-Baathists.
Al-Hayat reports on remarks of Abdul Karim al-Anizi [Ar.], leader in parliament of the Dawa Party - Iraqi Organization, which has about 15 seats. He is also minister of national security. He denied that Iran is contributing to instability in Iraq. He also accused the United States of training "an Iraqi military force loyal to it, which does not submit to the authority of the Iraqi government." He said that the recent US and British escalation of military action against the Sadr Bloc is "unjustified." He also criticized the remarks of Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa about the Arab role in Iraq.
Al-Anizi told al-Hayat that "a new army has appeared on the Iraqi scene, recruited by the Coalition forces, which does not receive its orders from the Iraqi government." He affirmed the existence of intelligence documents proving that members of the Iraqi Forces who are primarily loyal to the US have commited crimes, disguising themselves in civilian dress.
He referred to ongoing investigations, which he said might result in prosecutions. He said that US and other Coalition forces has damaged the sovereignty of Iraq and have undertaken a role in Iraq that exceeds their legal charge. He referred to UN resolution 1546, which prescribed coordination and cooperation between the foreign forces and the Iraqi government, and which did not grant the occupying powers absolute freedom of movement. The UN resolution required the Americans to get the permission of the Iraqi prime minister for any military operation in the country.
Al-Anizi warned about "the unexpected consequences of attacks on and arrests of elements of the Sadr Movement by American and British forces, and unjustified attacks on them, assaults on centers belonging to parties who play an important role in the political process, which damages the political process and exceeds the prescribed role of these forces in combatting terrorism."
He revealed the existence of 15,000 detainees in Coalition prisons, many of them innocents who have no connection to terrorism. At the same time, he said, the number of detainees in the prisons of the ministries of interior and defense does note exceed 900 persons.
Al-Anizi complained that some personalities in parliament had deep links with the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement ("the terrorists").
He characterized the reports that spoke of a new political bloc encompassing the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Kurdistan Alliance, and the Iraqi Islamic Party) as a mere "public relations trial balloon")


9 Comments:
Are We Getting Into Sudden Death Here?
One would normally expect the Minister of National Security to be aware if a foreign power (here, the US) is funding and organizing a separate, insubordinate armed force within his country. As the investigation he mentioned proceeds, perhaps other Ministers, and the Prime Minister, may weigh in.
As political maneuvering among the parties in Iraq, and their various backers, partners, funders, trainers, advisors, and critics moseys along toward the end of April time frame mentioned by Prime Minister and Prime Minister-candidate Jafaari for the time by which a new government may be formed, it may be helpful to recall what might be termed the UN Mandate Card.
As Security Council Resolution 1637 so clearly spells out, the US mandate to maintain forces in Iraq extends to December 31, 2006. (UNSC review of the Mandate is scheduled by June 15, 2006. The US has been mandated to provide a quarterly report to the UNSC, though there seems to be no record in the UN system that such has been provided.)
At the request of the Iraqi government, however, the presence of international forces in Iraq can be terminated earlier. The letter to the UNSC requesting US forces, appended to SCR 1637 bears the signature of none other than PM Jafaari. Presumably, his signature could go under a letter requesting early termination of the mandate, and departure of US and other international forces.
Clearly the US does not expect any such action by Jafaari or any other Iraqi leader it would permit to take office.
Nonetheless, the possibility is out there, and US intelligence agencies have been surprised before.
How does Ahmad Chalabi become Prime Minister when he did not win a seat in the new Iraqi parliament?
Article 47 of the Iraqi Constitution provides:
>Fifth: The Council of Representatives shall promulgate a law dealing with the replacement of its members on resignation, dismissal or death.<
Have all of the members of the Council survived since the December election? If there is not already a vacancy, someone can be encouraged to resign. If the Council can agree on a Prime Minister, it can agree on a law that allows him to be appointed to a vacancy in the Council. Both, of course, appear at the moment to be unlikely.
Al-Anizi's accusation that the US has created an Iraqi force loyal to itself and not to the Iraqi government rings some bells, and if the case, could explain some otherwise puzzling points. The attack on the Husainiyyah last Sunday could never have been approved by the Iraqis, and I am not sure an Iraqi unit, or its commanders, would have agreed to take part.
Equally the bombing of the Askari shrine in Samarra, almost certainly an American event. It was difficult for me to understand how Iraqis could have been persuaded to carry it out for the US. But I suppose there must be some equivalent in Iraq of the French and Dutch Nazis in the Second World War.
What if the Iraqi government writes to the UN to demand the US leave Iraq?
This Sistani letter was, of course, awful politics/strategy. None of us are surprised by the incompetence. But, it may be one of the many blows to the Iraqi government and the shattered ambitions of this administration.
Mohammad posts this on "Iraq the Model" blog:
..."[N]ewspapers were quoting statements from the Accord and Dialogue Fronts threatening to boycott the negotiations if the UIA did not present someone other than Jafari who seems to keep losing support to his fellow UIA member and rival Aadil AbdulMahdi who has become the new star of the media here. AbdulMahdi is attracting increased attention from the media and there's high demand on him for interviews especially on the papers."
Regardless of who is in charge of Iraq politically, Al-Sistani will always be the one average Iraqis look to for guidance, both spiritually and ideologically.
And judging from the news coming out of Iraq, his current half-hearted support of the Coalition presence is temporary and he is losing his patience.
Iraq is united already, it is only the occupation that fuels the current stretch of violence.
=//Turnquest
I think the point of the message (via Hakim?) to Sistani -- and of the U.S. backing for the anti-Jaafari campaign in general -- was to use Sistani/SCIRI's unease with Sadr as the fulcrum to pry them away from the UIA concept and into a coalition that excludes Moqtada.
I've written a reasonably thorough analysis of the various factions' motivations. My conclusion: The rejection of the Khalilzad/Bush overtures shows that Sistani, SCIRI, and Fadhila may not trust Sadr's intentions, but they trust ours even less.
I have often said that we have sent an amateur checkers team into a world class chess tournament.
I take it back.
This "team" is not a team. They have no historical awareness, therefore they possess none of the tools necessary for prescience, and are just plain old "proudly and arrogantly ignorant".
The shame in all this is that they will never, individually, have to suffer the slings and arrows of their decisions- as the current innocents, the ones who warned against this folly (too kind a word), and the ones that come after them (for generations to come) will.
What a mess.
All the best to those that tried, to those that are suffering, and to those that will suffer as a result of this ignorant exercise in proving absolutely nothing except the depths to which a man and/or men/women of little substantive weight think they can impact the spinning of the globe by speaking in platitudes.
Post a Comment
<< Home