Sanchez Attacks Iraq War
Sistani Condemns Security Firms, Occupation Forces
Retired Gen. Rick Sanchez lambasted the Bush administration's Iraq War in a speech on Friday, as "a nightmare with no end in sight". Sanchez implied that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would have been court-martialled if he had been in the active duty military. The NYT reports him saying, '“There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.” ' Sanchez dismissed the current troop escalation ('surge') as highly unlikely to improve the situation in Iraq significantly, saying that the best the US can realistically hope to achieve is to stave off defeat.
To Sanchez's trenchant critique was added on Friday a fatwa from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites. AFP says,
' "The foreign security companies working in Iraq belittle innocent Iraqi citizens," a statement from Karbalai said. "The occupying forces do the same in some of their operations, adding to the criminal acts of the takfiris (Sunni militants)." '
Sistani is said to be demanding legislation in parliament to hold the security companies accountable. In addition, this is the strongest condemnation I have seen by Sistani of the US military ('the occupying forces') and it may be a turning point.
Six Sunni Arab jihadi groups announced Friday that they had established a unified command. The six, comprising Iraq resistance groups, excluded 'al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia' and 'the Islamic State of Iraq' from their coalition.
Reuters reports violence in Iraq on Friday. Bombings in Baghdad and Kirkuk.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/13/2007 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
8 Comments:
"a nightmare with no end in sight" for Americans, Imagine how the Iraqis feel about it. The worst part, still no end anywhere in sight.
Why isn't there more discussion, by Sanchez or anyone else, of replacing American forces with an international peace keeping force?
general sanchez perjured himself before the senate armed services committee in testimony you provided on 19 may 2004...
-----
On May 19, 2004, General Ricardo Sanchez testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq Prison Abuse.
U.S. SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI): General Sanchez, today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison.
REED: Is that correct?
LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICARDO SANCHEZ, COMMANDER, MULTINATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ : Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year.
-----
the general may be able to create an effective smokescreen for some people, but it ain't workin' with me...
Juan said: "In addition, this is the strongest condemnation I have seen by Sistani of the US military ('the occupying forces') and it may be a turning point."
I disagree with Juan's reference to the "occupying forces" as only the US military, and the term takfir as applying only to Sunni insurgent groups. You have to consider the security situation in Iraq - a number of al-Sistani's representatives have been assassinated, which is why I believe Iraqi media keeps up regular criticism of the "occupation" while hardly ever criticizing the militia's.
I suspect that al-Sistani's reference to "occupying forces" has broader references such as so-called "rogue" elements of the Mahdi army, but al-Sistani can't say that for security reasons. Also Sistani mentioned takfir which the Iraqi media will say only applies to Sunni insurgent groups. However takfir is apparently used in Islamic law to refer to a Muslim who became un-believer, or a group of same, for which the penalty used to be execution. Therefore the term perhaps has application to so-called "rogue" elements of Shiite militia's as well.
The US military keeps referring to arresting or killing "rogue" elements of the Mahdi army, which has so far baffled the Iraqi media as to who exactly that is. "Rogue" elements of the Mahdi army was essentially defined by Prime Minister al-Maliki when al-Maliki said he's working to separate so-called "moderate" elements of the "Sadrist movement" - alluding perhaps to other members of the al-Sadr family - from the militants led by Muqtada al Sadr.
Al-Maliki said he wanted to the "moderates" to take over the Sadrist movement. Since all of al-Maliki's major policies dealing with religious elements seem to be approved by al-Sistani, I wonder if the term takfir as well as "occupying forces" couldn't be applied to these same "rogue" elements of the Mahdi army as well?
Finally associating the US military with security contractors is likely a reference to an important report issued this week by UN Iraq covering human rights in Iraq during April - June. This report is dated of course, ending on June 30 but has many important demands and it will serve as a reference point for comparison to future quarterly reports. Among the many demands by UN Iraq was for US accountability concerning civilian casualties of US military operations, and my guess al-Sistani is making that reference.
In answer to the above, to the narcissistic, only their own nightmares matter. The 25 year nightmare of Iran under the Shah after 1953, the 30 year genocidal nightmare of Guatemala after 1954 - have Americans ever cared about any such nightamres of their making on the hides of others?
I'm not complaining now of the self-centeredness and psychopathic indifference to the suffering of anyone else that so defines our national character. As an American Christian, I continue to marvel that people in the US who say they believe in Jesus, who know well that he said, "Whatever you want men to do to you do so to them," and "The measure you measure will be measured back to you," expect themselves and their fellow Americans to escape all consequences - that these words in no way apply to them! And then they call Jesus, "Lord, Lord," and regard themselves as the light of America and America the light of the world.
As to why no one speaks of an international force - maybe there aren't enough suckers in the world to staff one.
As to the commenter who asked:
"Why isn't there more discussion, by Sanchez or anyone else, of replacing American forces with an international peace keeping force?"
I suspect the answer lies in that a vast majority of international forces never supported the execution of this war and are now loathe to clean it up. In the words of Bugs Bunny: If it's the Captain's mess, let the Captain clean it up!"
The bitter Sanchez agreed to do the kings bidding when he took the commission and uniform. He forgot that a US officers oath is to Congress and the Constitution.
That said, he was allowed by Congress to take the blame for a heavy handed tactical response to conditions in late 2003-4, without much curiosity in Congress and press about what the orders he operated under were.
I clearly remember Rumsfeld telling the country that our response to the insurgency/uprisings/civil war in Baghdad Najaf, Samara, Falluja, Mosul etc would be the deployment of more lethal forces. Did we think that Nat Guard artillerymen acting as infantry were going to do the careful COIN work of career Green Beret's?
Chris wrote :
I disagree with Juan's reference to the "occupying forces" as only the US military, and the term takfir as applying only to Sunni insurgent groups. You have to consider the security situation in Iraq - a number of al-Sistani's representatives have been assassinated, which is why I believe Iraqi media keeps up regular criticism of the "occupation" while hardly ever criticizing the militia's.
You are selfdelusive both in what concerns the "occupying forces" and the "takfiri". Why on earth would Sistani use the term occupation force for the Sadrists ? He is still able to make a difference between the foreigners and the Iraqi Shiites, even if he doesn't agree with what they do; further, while Iraqi often don't make a difference between US contractors and US troops, Sistani is enough educated to know the difference; although he probably - and rightly so - think that the US should make the mercenaries accountable. Truth is that the US army does'nt behave much better than Blackwarters and co; that's what Sistani means (as you points in your last paragraph quoting the UN report). The meaning of Sistani's statement is that the US is at a turning point, on the way to loose one of its last and important ally in Iraq, appart of the member of the puppet government.
Concerning the Al'Sadr current, you are just as self delusive as with the occupying force. It's the Americans who want to go after Al'Sadr and his current (not only after the undisciplined elements whom Al'Sadr doesn't control fully) because Al'Sadr is nationalist, anti-american and asking for a time table for withdrawal. Sistani knows the power of the Sadrist current in Iraq and he has had several talks with Al'Sadr, including in these last months, after the surge. Among the followers of Muktada's father, there are different factions, one of them being the Fadhila party. I don't think that this party is more US friendly and/or less integrist than the followers of Muktada himself. When the Americans say that they want to separate the moderates from the others, it means that they want to separate the pro-Americans from the others. It's probably not the same for Sistani, who mostly want the end of sectarians killings (both from the Sunni and the Shiites).
For all these reasons, I think that your interpretation is wrong and self-delusive. Look at it honnestly : the US is committing war crimes in Iraq. The first one was to invade Iraq which wasn't threatening the US at all. Now that defeat is looming, the rythms and gravity of war crimes committed against civilians is increasing faster and faster. The US used to act like an imperialist, trying to controll other countries undercover and with economic means. Now it has openly become a colonial power comitting war crimes to stay where it should never have gone.
I hope that its leaders will soon be tried in a Nurnberger like trial and that the Americans will have to pay due compensations to the IRaqi (as well as to the Vietnamese and to the South Americans countries where they supported rogue dictators untill the nineties.
Post a Comment
<< Home