http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/222...EA96F698DB0.htm

Iraq needs free institutions not elections
By Laith Saud


Sunday 18 December 2005, 11:20 Makka Time, 8:20 GMT

As we now find ourselves yet again facing Iraqi elections, the charade of shifting faces and alliances is causing excitement among many political analysts in the West.

Yet, objectively speaking, nothing has changed in Iraq. So long as more attention is paid to the names and lists of elections than the nameless and faceless underlying institutions that run the country, the path of Iraq will continue along the same course.

As pressure continues to build on George Bush to pull out of Iraq, emphasis has been placed on rebuilding the Iraqi army to help secure the country's future.

The fact remains that Iraqis may vote as often as three times a year if that is deemed enjoyable, but as long as the rebuilding of the Iraqi army remains corrupt nothing will change.

There is no doubt that security and stability are intimately tied to the state of a nation's economy and general political vitality.

Since the US-led invasion, Iraq has simply ceased to be a political-economic entity in any real sense. Since the disbanding of the Iraqi army, nearly all of Iraq's security has been dependent on American security forces; these forces are sometimes members of the military and other times private security firms hired by contract.

"Thankfully we can still read some independent news without any influence. Thanks to internet"

The disbanding of the Iraqi army provided a convenient economic opportunity for supporters of the invasion; a complete security vacuum was created in the country necessitating American firms to fill the void.

Scores of weapons, urban security technologies and services were now being needed to fit a job that the American military was neither equipped nor trained to do and that the Iraqi army and police used to do.

'Because security in Iraq has been largely an American affair, it has been developed according to American interests'

The FOSE trade show, the largest government technologies trade show in the United States, was presenting such products as early as April of 2003, one month after the invasion of Iraq.

Because security in Iraq has been largely an American affair, it has been developed according to American interests, inevitably insuring the corruption, mismanagement and deceit that have characterised the US occupation thus far.

As Bush continues to discuss reconstruction, the actual course of Iraq's redevelopment has not changed.

Iraqis, or other Arabs and Muslims in general, continue to have little to do with the reconstruction "effort". As we now come upon new elections in Iraq, the participating parties have not discussed how they will change course.

The American military continues to be in charge of security and thus the future of the country and none of the parties in Iraq vying for power has addressed this problem.

Beyond the presence of occupying troops, reconstruction is the next most important issue on the minds of most Iraqis; a reconstructed Iraq means one of prosperity, normality and, significantly, an active and healthy member of the Arab and Muslim world.

'How could the security of Iraq ever be placed in the hands of Americans, when the American presence is the cause of insecurity?'

None the less, the American military remains in charge of security, the precondition of any reconstruction, and as a result most reconstruction funds are being pumped back into the American and American-backed security forces, leaving Iraq in a shambles.

This cyclical process is destructive in a variety of interrelated ways. First, how could the security of Iraq ever be placed in the hands of the Americans when the American presence is the cause of insecurity?

It had to be known that US forces would be resisted, thus their role as facilitators of reconstruction would be minimal at best.

American forces have never been able to make the reconstruction a central feature of Iraqi life in the past years; rather, as an invading power, the United States has logically been exhausting more effort in attempting to put down the resistance.

Ironically, of course, the US presence perpetuates the resistance and by extension the instability of the country.

'The Americans cannot provide security and without security there will be no reconstruction'

According to recent reports the amount taken out of Iraqi reconstruction funds and appropriated for security purposes has been three times higher than commissioned.

Simply put, the Americans cannot provide security and without security there will be no reconstruction. Are any of the current political parties providing new solutions to this dilemma?

In addition, little has been said about the state of corruption surrounding the armed forces in Iraq. At the recent Cairo conference, members of the current regime and the opposition met and discussed the future of the country.

One of the agreements made at the conference was in regards to investigating many of the corrupt ministries and allegations of torture attached to them.

None the less, many of the ministers and public officials implicated in corruption and torture charges over the past few years remain respected figures within their parties.

US plans for securing Iraq have always involved bringing in many of these expatriates who have not been in the country for decades.

Corrupt ministers who came in with American forces and rose to power under the occupation have looted millions; Zayad Cattan, the former defence minister, alone is accused of embezzling a billion dollars. Much of this was a by-product of disbanding the Iraqi army.

As we said, a security vacuum was created and proven American loyalists were preferred over Iraqis whose old Iraqi credentials caused suspicion.

The disbanded army is being replaced by forces whose loyalty to Iraq - especially in the case of the Iraqi military - is dubious.

'The discovery of torture chambers and secret prisons in the basements of government ministries should be of little surprise'

Many of the militiamen now in the army are loyal to figures that have not shown much care for Iraq and have strong ties to other countries.

The discovery of torture chambers and secret prisons in the basements of government ministries should be of little surprise.

What is important for us to note is that rather than rely on the expertise and training of members of the old army, the US has preferred to work with new and unproven individuals so as to ensure compliance and dependence, and those running for office in Iraq have offered no alternative or different visions.

In light of the recent Cairo conference it has been determined that US forces will leave as soon as Iraqi forces are able to maintain security.

Recalling the Iraqi army would go a long way to achieve this effort. In Iraq, as we speak, there are hundreds of thousands of qualified individuals who have been intentionally marginalised by the current regime.

The process of completely replacing the army is slow, tedious and simply irrational. In attempting to re-establish security in the country, recalling an independent body like the old Iraqi army could help facilitate an American withdrawal and ensure a unified Iraq.

The disbanding of the army is not an irreversible act, some of the more respected generals could be put back in charge; any of them accused of crimes against the Iraqi people could be charged and tried appropriately.

The practice of tearing down well-established institutions and building up new ones made in the image of the occupier is an old colonial practice. The Bush administration has been adamant in pursuing this programme in Iraq as well. In disbanding the Iraqi army, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, wanted to eradicate any remaining threat of Arab or Iraqi nationalism in the defence forces.

'Nothing will change in the country as long as the underlying institutions are themselves not reformed and replaced'

The "new" army would not only be newly trained in terms of martial skills but ideologically and systemically as well. The general Iraqi army, it must be remembered, was made up of both Sunni and Shia.

Instead of conceiving of Iraq as a unified whole, as the past army had, the new army will be concerned with the same sort of sectarianism and ethnic chauvinism that has characterised Bush's "new Iraq".

As we now approach a new parliament in Iraq it must be remembered that nothing will change in the country as long as the underlying institutions are themselves not reformed and replaced.

So far, all the institutions that can be traced to American administration have failed utterly. Only the establishment or re-establishment of independent institutions can ensure the future that Iraqis hope and wish for.

Laith Saud is an Iraqi academic researcher and lecturer in the United States.

The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.

Aljazeera

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=20586

Iran's Interference in Iraq
By Daniel M. Zucker
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 20, 2005

The Islamic Republic of Iran has desired to dominate its neighbor ever since the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in September 1980. Indeed the late Ayatollah Ruhoallah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic, declared his desire to conquer Qods that is Jerusalem, by way of Kerbala, the Shiite holy city in south central Iraq. Although the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988 in a stalemate after eight long, hard years, Khomeini's dream was not forgotten by his followers. It has taken Iran some seventeen years to achieve its goal, but with the unintentional help of America and our allies, Saddam Hussein having been removed from power, the Iranian regime and her proxies have succeeded in filling the power vacuum. Iran has become the de facto ruler of much of Iraq. How has Teheran done this?



When Saddam Hussein went after the Shiite marsh Arabs in 1991, following the First Gulf War, Iran opened its borders and allowed their fellow Shiite Iraqis to find safe haven. Iran also began to support these Iraqis and through providing social services indoctrinated them in its fundamentalist approach to Islam. The roots of a Khomeini type of Islamic outlook were planted in the Shia Iraqis living in Iran at that point. Leaders were cultivated and organizations like the Supreme Islamic Council for the Revolution in Iraq (SICRI), led by Ayatollah Bakir Al Hakim, were encouraged and supported. As long as Saddam remained in power, the Iranians bided their time, content to cause Saddam an occasional headache. But once their old nemesis was neutralized, the ayatollahs saw that they had a perfect opportunity to fill the vacuum. Iran also has given support and encouragement to Muqtada al Sadr, leader of the 'al-Mahdi Army", another Shiite resistance group in Iraq.



SICRI organized the Badr Corps as its militia, with the direct help of the Pasdaran, Iran's 'Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps", Khomeini's and Khámenei's theological army. It is the Badr Organization which has been involved in running the secret prisons for the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior.


Since the American invasion of Iraq, Iran began to forge political ties with a variety of Iraqi political parties and ethnic groups. Both ethnicities and religious factions were wooed and/or seduced with money and power, as were some secularists. If you are getting confused about changing alliances in Iraq, welcome to the Middle-East; check you watch and the calendar to see who is aligned with whom.



Along with the political ties that Teheran began to fertilize (everyone present understands what type of fertilizer the Iranians use? Hint: it's not Tohmins, but it's green) the regime set its proxies such as the Ansar es-Islam terrorist group to spread chaos in the northeast, and with the Badr Organization, to support insurrection in the Shia south and Baghdad regions.



The Iranian support for insurrection became crystal clear this past July when munitions with Iranian manufacture signatures were discovered by our British allies to be used by Iraqi insurrectionists against the British tanks in the Basra region. Subsequently, our forces have encountered special armor piercing Iranian mines as well, with deadly consequences. The Iraqi-Iranian border having become exceedingly porous, trucks from Iran are reported to cross regularly, loaded with arms and munitions for use against the Allied forces. Our military has become very familiar with Iranian manufactured hardware (i.e., arms and munitions), the hard way.



Of late, Iranian importations into Iran have included huge amounts of propaganda materials concerning the December 15th elections of tomorrow. The Iranian regime wants to have a slate elected that is close to it and will accept an Islamic state similar to the Iranian model. Iran is backing SICRI in order to produce a clone of itself. All the while Teheran keeps on claiming that it is not interfering in Iraqi affairs. Believe that--and since I'm from New York--I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, cheap!



If Iran were only sending propaganda materials into Iraq—around here we'd call it 'lobbying"—it would not be so bad, although it definitely is a form of interference. But Iran is not content to allow the Iraqi public to vote on its own for its choice. No, in typical regime fashion, it has sent teams of Vevak agents (agents of the dreaded Ministry of Intelligence and Security, MOIS) to harass, intimidate and assassinate rival candidates as well as elections' observers so as to influence the outcome. Not content with these criminal activities, Iranian agents also have bribed individuals, smeared rivals with the Baathist label, invented fictitious voters, imported Iranians to vote, and resurrected the dead to vote (just like in Iran this last June) and arranged to have ballot boxes disappear.



There are documentations and testimonies of the Iranian-organized, trained, and sponsored Badr organization's involvement in the several Iraqi Ministry of the Interior torture-center/prisons, a new one uncovered with some 625 Sunni detainees just one week ago. While Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr Solagh has denied the allegation of torture, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates otherwise. Sunni Arab detainees haven't acquired strange tattoos while in his prisons; they have acquired the classic signs of those who have suffered torture.



Along with all these misdeeds, the Iranian regime has used its influence on the new Shiite Iraqi government to threaten and pressure the Iranian resistance organization, (Mujahedin-e- Khalq) MeK, arranging to have the Interior Ministry cut off water and food supplies to Camp Ashraf in Diyalah Province where nearly four thousand Iranian resistance members are housed under the provisions of Article Four of the Geneva Conventions and the protection of the US Army. The Interior Ministry has threatened to revoke the Mek members' protected status and their welcome in Iraq--a status confirmed by 2.8 million Iraqi signatures on a petition of support for the MeK—and to require them to repatriate to Iran by the end of October, 2006, which would amount to a certain death sentence for every one. Iran has also arranged the kidnapping of two MeK members in Baghdad last August; to date, nothing has been heard of either of them.



Now, what can we do to curb Iranian influence and interference in Iraq? I believe that it's time for us to recognize that our long term enemy are the Islamic fundamentalists, whether Sunni or Shia. Of nation states, it is Iran that poses the greatest threat to us today. It is time for us to recognize that presently we are supporting the wrong groups in Iraq, groups that are closely allied with Iran and are acting as Iran's proxies. It is time for us to say: 'Stop; we're changing sides in order to support those forces that oppose Iran and also believe in democracy."



We need to realize that so far, we have given Iraq to the Iranians. This also means that in this not so nice, nor so perfect neighborhood, we don't have the luxury of having that many friends in the region. Problems in Iraq are not going to be solved in a day or two; we need to realize that we are in this for quite some time to come. At the same time, we need to be more sophisticated in our comprehension of with whom and with what we are dealing.



Now what about Iran itself? It's time for our government to realize that the MeK is not a terrorist organization, never was, and never will be, unless our government, God forbid, were to be taken over by the mullahs. It is the regime in Teheran that rightly fears the MeK and the larger political coalition of NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), because both oppose the cruel, despotic, theocratic rule of the ayatollahs, and both are sworn to overthrow the regime in order to end Islamic rule in Iran and to turn Iran into a secular democracy, at peace with the world.



So what are our policy options? Clearly change in regime is essential. After eight years it should be clear that appeasement does not work. It did not work with Hitler; it has not worked with the ayatollahs.



Option number two, the military option is a non-starter for two reasons. First, we do not have the same situation as Israel had with the Osirak reactor in 1981. The Iranian nuclear project is much better hidden and along with not knowing all the sites, too many are in urban centers where collateral damage is unacceptable.



Second, Iranians--as much as they hate the regime, and some 90+% do hate it—Iranians are patriotic and would rally behind the flag to expel any foreign invader, even one who came to 'liberate" them from despotic rule. So, as strong as our military is, it does not help us here, and most of us here realize that we already are stretched somewhat thinly with our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.



This brings us to option number three: regime change by the Iranian people itself. As Bruce McColm of Iran Policy Committee indicates, the principal opposition group is the MeK/NCRI; Iran is more concerned about this group than all other groups combined. But because of a failed policy of appeasement and the regime's successful disinformation campaign this group remains on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list. As many in Washington have said, it is time to take them off of the list and re-empower the Iranian people to throw off the tyranny of the ayatollahs.

Iran Policy Committee's White Papers # 3 indicates why the MeK and the NCRI should be taken off the FTO list. Read the white paper yourself and judge the facts. I trust any objective reader will come to the right conclusions, because the truth is that only the MeK is popular enough, and thank God, democratic enough to lead the Iranian people in a successful democratic revolution against the mullah regime of Ali Khámenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That is the reason that the regime regards the MeK as its only real enemy. Our trust should lay with the MeK, which has been our sole source of accurate and reliable information about both Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It is time to realize who our real friends are and who aren't. A critical step in supporting Iranian freedom movement requires the immediate removal of Iran's main opposition group, the MeK and the NCRI off of the FTO list. More than anyone, this is a signal to Teheran's regime that America stands with those who can finish the job of changing the regime there and bring freedom and democracy to Iran.

Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker is founder and chairman of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a New York based organization dedicated to teaching the public and our elected officials, especially at the federal level, of the need to establish democracy in the middle-east region and the dangers posed by those opposed to democracy and freedom of thought. The son of refugee from Nazi Germany, Rabbi Zucker has been active in human rights issues for more than thirty years. Active in the Soviet Jewry movement, the Syrian Jewry movement and a leader in the rescue of Ethiopian Jewry, Rabbi Zucker has traveled to the Horn of Africa and the Middle-East to negotiate rescues and release of those held hostage by tyrannical regime. Through work with Iranian Jews and contacts with Iranian Muslims Rabbi Zucker has become active on behalf of regime change in Iran. Rabbi Zucker is also active in the movement to stop the genocide in Darfur.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials...2/21/2003285388

Iraq remains at `tipping point,' despite Bush's claim of victory


AFP , WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005,Page 9

Advertising As US President George W. Bush appealed on Sunday for patience with his Iraq policies, analysts agreed the coming months were crucial to his hopes of getting out of an increasingly unpopular war.
In a rare prime-time television speech to the nation, Bush went to extraordinary lengths to win backing for his efforts to quell an insurgency still raging 33 months after the invasion to topple former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

In unusually personal terms, he took full responsibility for the operation despite faulty intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. He acknowledged the war was controversial and had brought "suffering and loss."

Once chided for never admitting errors, Bush recognized "setbacks" in Iraq and promised to do better. He warned more sacrifice was ahead for Americans exasperated by a US death toll that has risen to 2,156.

But the president also threw down the gauntlet to critics, accusing them of "defeatism" and telling them there was no going back in a conflict that had become central to his war on global terrorism.

`Once chided for never admitting errors, Bush recognized "setbacks" in Iraq and promised to do better.'



"Tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war, to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing and to have patience in this difficult, noble and necessary cause," Bush said.

Bush, whose popularity has plummeted as dissatisfaction with the war rose, hoped to capitalize on the momentum generated by last week's elections for the first permanent Iraqi parliament of the post-Saddam era.

The speech capped a month-long public-relations offensive by the White House that had already featured four speeches by Bush aimed at persuading Americans he was on the right track in Iraq.

But despite his claim that "we are winning the war" and his strongest hint yet of a drawdown in the 160,000-strong US force, opponents and analysts warned that events could spin out of control.

Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democratic opponent of the war, said the elections were "necessary, not sufficient" and told CBS television "the next six months are going to tell the story."

His Senate colleague Lindsey Graham, from Bush's Republican Party, agreed that "major obstacles" remained before Iraq would be stable enough to allow the Americans to think about their exit strategy.

Iraq-watchers said a crucial factor would be the level of participation in the new government by Sunni Muslims, once the ruling elite under Saddam Hussein and now a disgruntled minority fueling the insurgency.

They said the new parliament had four months to make good on promises to the Sunnis to redo a Constitution rammed through in October by majority Shiites and the country's independence-minded Kurds.

Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the political process in Iraq would work only if the Iraqis create a ruling structure that incorporates all factions.

"If they fail, the coalition fails almost regardless of its military success, and that of the new Iraqi forces," he wrote last week. "Iraq will move towards division, paralysis, civil conflict and/or a new strongman."

A study released earlier this month by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said the insurgency was as strong as ever and the US operation would be at a "tipping point" for the next six to nine months.

"I think the outcome of this tipping period is probably going to dictate whether or not the US effort in Iraq succeeds or fails," said Jeffrey White, a former Pentagon analyst and one of the report's authors.

This would bring the Bush administration to the eve of crucial congressional elections which his fellow Republicans fear could weaken or even end their control of Congress.

The question remained whether Bush could stem the tide of voter unhappiness over the war in time. John Mueller, an expert in war and public opinion, suggested the president would have an uphill climb.

Writing in the review Foreign Affairs, Mueller said that casualty for casualty, US support for the Iraq war decline and had declined far more rapidly than for the Korean or Vietnam wars.

"And if history is any indication, there is little the Bush administration can do to reverse this decline," Mueller wrote.

Saddam Hussein Tells Court He Was Beaten, Tortured by Americans Bloomberg
Saddam Hussein today told the Baghdad court trying him for the murder of 148 villagers that he was beaten and tortured by US soldiers guarding him. "Yes, I've been beaten on every place of my body and the signs are all over my body,'' Hussein said, when asked by a prosecuting lawyer if he had been hurt in prison. "I have been hit by the Americans and tortured,'' Hussein said in a broadcast being aired by international networks with a 20- to 30-minute delay. "In July, I saw that all the jail rooms were air- conditioned when some places in Baghdad lacked electricity,'' the unidentified prosecution lawyer told Hussein during the exchange. "I asked for a television for everybody and for them to get newspapers, and now you are saying you were beaten?'' he said, adding that he would order an inquiry. Hussein's trial resumed today after a two-week break. Hussein, 68, and his seven former aides deny charges of killing 148 people in Dujail, a farming village just north of the capital, following an attempt on Hussein's life there in 1982. All eight defendants face death by hanging if found guilty. "Are you going to punish the Americans?'' Hussein asked the prosecuting lawyer. "If the multi-national forces are abusing their position, then I ask for them to hand over all the detainees to the Iraqi forces and then the treatment will be different,'' the lawyer replied. Hussein said that every one of his seven co-defendants was also beaten. "Our enemy is not the American people. Our enemy is the American government which is destroying Iraq.'' Hussein, captured by U.S. forces in December 2003 near his hometown of Tikrit after eight months on the run, was handed to Iraqi authorities on June 30. He appeared the next day before a special tribunal to hear seven preliminary charges detailing crimes against humanity committed during his 32-year rule.
'Words cannot express the suffering we faced' Times Online
Saddam trial resumes in Baghdad CBC New Brunswick
ABC News - BBC News - CNN International - Ireland Online - all 520 related »

Subj: The Impact of the Iraqi Election: A Working Analysis
Date: 12/21/2005 2:27:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: BurkeChair@csis.org


Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy • Center for Strategic and International Studies
1800 K Street, NW • Washington, DC 20006
Phone: +1 (202) 775-3270 • Fax: +1 (202) 457-8746
Email: BurkeChair@csis.org

December 21, 2005

The Impact of the Iraqi Election: A Working Analysis

Washington, DC--December 21, 2005: Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS, has written a new report on the impact of Iraqi elections. The attached analysis covers the preliminary results of the election by party and governorate, and ties them to recent public opinion polling in Iraq to help explain the results. It analyzes the political process that must now take place, and the key issues that must be covered.

In the report, Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman asserts that “It may be the fall of 2006 before the full impact of the December 15, 2005 election in Iraq is clear. It will be months before the full nature of the new political structure it has created has been negotiated and every element of the new government is in place. There is still some risk that significant numbers of Sunnis will not accept the result, or that some combination of the insurgency and tension between Sunni and Shi’ite may divide the country.”

The study goes on to say that “Iraq also faces the need to simultaneously expand the role of Iraqi military, special security, and police forces. These are the key to both defeating the insurgents and maintaining national unity. They are critical to the legitimacy of the new government, which must show that its forces can replace most Coalition forces, and that its police can establish local security and a rule of law….Iraq may or may not succeed. It is far too soon, however, to predict either success or failure. The political and military facts on the ground that emerge during 2006 will determine the outcome. Not the predictions of politicians, analysts, or the media.”

Please note that the election results are current as of December 21, 2005 and that this document will be updated regularly. Suggestions and comments would be greatly appreciated.

Please find attached: The Impact of the Iraqi Election: A Working Analysis by Anthony H. Cordesman, attached in PDF format.

Note: If at any time you would like to be removed from this distribution list, should you have questions or comments for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy Program, or should you have trouble opening the attachment, please contact us at BurkeChair@csis.org.

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8292

Iraqis Spoke, but Hardly in Unison

by Jim Lobe
The strong turnout in last week's parliamentary elections in Iraq may have been just the kind of civic demonstration that President George W. Bush needed to restore some confidence in a weary public that Washington's adventure in the country may not turn out to be such a disaster after all.

But one week after a reported 70 percent of Iraq's 15 million eligible voters flocked to the polls, the actual results – and the way they will play out in the coming days – may not be so reassuring.

Based on preliminary reports, it appears that the administration's hopes for a broad-based government, whose constituent parts are sufficiently weak to force far-reaching compromises that will prevent Iraq from disintegrating, may have become more difficult to realize than ever before.

Indeed, the centrifugal forces of ethnic and sectarian identity may actually have strengthened as a result of the elections, as many of the administration's critics had predicted, particularly after the adoption in the October plebiscite of a draft constitution shifted the locus of power in Iraq from the central government to the regions.

"The unfortunate thing is that the common ground of Iraqi identity was really lost," said Rend al-Rahim, head of The Iraq Foundation here. "Iraqis are still voting their grievances; they're voting their victimhood."

While Washington's efforts to persuade the Sunni population to participate in the "political process" appear to have succeeded, it appears highly unlikely that Sunnis will get enough seats in the new parliament to exercise a major influence on any new government.

Their frustration, evidenced already by their angry charges of fraud in Baghdad and threats of a boycott of the new parliament, may deepen their own sense of grievance and thus fuel the insurgency, according to experts here.

"There is such militancy and suspicion within the Sunni Arab community that acceptance [of the election results] on the part of certain leaders would diminish their credibility and, in some cases, place cooperative leaders in very real danger of assassination," Wayne White, a retired top State Department analyst with the Middle East Institute (MEI), told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Equally discouraging to Washington, however, was the unexpectedly poor showing of secular parties, particularly the Iraqi National List (INL) led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, that the administration had hoped would emerge from the elections with enough strength to become indispensable to the formation of a government.

With a national, as opposed to a sectarian or ethnic, character, a strong INL in the government would exercise a cohesive influence on the country as a whole, it was felt here.

According to the latest reports, however, the INL received only about 8 percent of the total vote nationwide. This was a major disappointment for Washington, which had hoped that Allawi's open courtship of Sunni voters would strengthen secular forces nationwide and act as a counterweight to the governing Shi'ite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA).

Yet another secular party, the Iraqi National Congress (INC) of former Pentagon and neoconservative favorite Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi, reportedly received less than 0.5 percent of the vote, which, if it holds up, would deny him any representation in parliament at all.

What this adds up to, according to most analysts, including the savvy U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, is that the vast majority of Iraqis last Thursday voted along ethnic or sectarian lines.

"It looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic and sectarian identities," he said Tuesday, adding, "But for Iraq to succeed, there has to be cross-sectarian and cross-ethnic cooperation."

The breakdown of the vote suggests that will be hard to come by. The Shi'ite UIA appears poised to claim just short of half of the 275 seats in parliament and, with the addition of lists associated with the Alliance, it may exceed the 50 percent needed to form a government on its own.

A two-thirds vote is required to elect a president, the first step in forming a government, however, so the Alliance, which includes the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the Dawa Party of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and the followers of Moqtada al-Sadr, will have forge a coalition with at least one other major party or coalition.

As it did after last January's elections, the UIA may very well do so with the two main Kurdish parties, which together will likely control slightly more than 20 percent of the seats.

As an overtly Islamic coalition, it may also be tempted to woo the Sunni National Accord Front (NAF), a fundamentalist party, which, to the disappointment of U.S. policymakers, led the Sunni lists.

Indeed, besides the sectarian and ethnic nature of the voting, one major outcome of the election is the clear triumph of fundamentalist Islamist parties – both Shia and Sunni – underlining both the degree and the direction that Iraqi society has been transformed since the U.S. invasion.

"We don't want to admit yet what is happening – Iraq's Islamization," noted Marina Ottaway, a democracy specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Altogether, the Sunni-led Iraqi Consensus Front (ICF), which includes the NAF, is expected to claim roughly as many seats in the new parliament as the Kurds. This gives it a much stronger voice than in the current parliament but still too little representation to ensure its voice will be heeded, particularly given Allawi's poor showing.

What persuaded the Sunni population to participate in the election, of course, was less the promise of major influence in the new parliament, than the agreement worked out by Khalilzad just before the constitutional plebiscite in October for a process by which the draft constitution can be amended over the next four months.

Of greatest importance to the Sunnis are amendments that would bolster the central government's powers vis-à-vis the Kurdish region in the north and a proposed nine-province Shia-dominated region south of Baghdad and ensure that oil revenues are shared equitably among all of Iraq's regions.

"This will be the make-or-break point for the Sunnis," according to Rahim, who said she was pessimistic that the Kurds and the Shi'ites will be willing to accommodate Sunni demands in the election's aftermath. She also said that Washington's ability to influence the positions of all three groups will likely diminish rather than increase.

"It's very unlikely that the process of revising the constitution is going to lead to a drastically different constitution from what we have now," Ottaway agreed.

(Inter Press Service)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



NEWS ANALYSIS
Iraq Election Results Will Pose New Challenges for U.S. Policy
Votes along sectarian and ethnic lines mean Washington must do more to quell tensions and may have to forge ties with Shiite-led Iran.
By Tyler Marshall and Borzou Daragahi
Times Staff Writers

December 21, 2005

WASHINGTON — The apparent failure of secular, Western-oriented political groups to win many seats in Iraq's four-year legislature puts new pressure on the Bush administration in its efforts to stabilize the country.

In Iraq, U.S. officials will have to intensify their efforts to contain ethnic and sectarian divisions that have deepened over the last year and, if allowed to fester, could push the country toward civil war. And as initial results indicate that the Iraqi government will be led by Shiite Muslims with ties to Iran, U.S. officials also may face pressure to establish their own direct working relationship with Tehran. Both tasks could prove crucial if the administration is to achieve its oft-stated goal of creating a stable, unified, democratic and peaceful country.

On Tuesday, as election officials in Baghdad released data suggesting that Shiite-led parties had won big, there were signs the Bush administration was already working to damp enmity over the results.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters at a news conference in the capital that he had conducted "preliminary discussions" with Iraqi leaders, urging them to reach across the sectarian and ethnic lines dividing Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds.

*

Allawi Bloc Fares Poorly

The Bush administration had vocally supported electoral alliances that crossed such lines, including the one led by former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite. But all such groups did poorly.

Allawi's Iraqi National List appears to have won only 21 seats, claiming 8% of the popular vote tallied so far, whereas the religious Shiite-based United Iraqi Alliance has apparently garnered 110 seats with an estimated 44% of the vote. Allawi and other groups are expected to pick up more seats in the 275-member parliament once expatriate votes are tallied.

A secular alliance headed by controversial Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, a onetime Pentagon favorite to lead Iraq, scored less than 0.5% of the vote — not enough to win a seat.

"It looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic and sectarian identities," Khalilzad said. "But for Iraq to succeed there has to be cross-sectarian and cross-ethnic cooperation."

The strong draw of Iraq's religious and ethnic-based parties, coupled with the poor showing of broader alliances, underscores a potential danger in the Bush administration's stated plan to expand democracy across the Middle East: Elections can act to sharpen social divisions rather than heal them and to increase political instability rather than temper it.

Those with experience in elections in conflict zones said they were not surprised by the initial results in Iraq.

"Voters are not looking for creative, forward-looking candidates, they are looking for people who they think can protect them," said James Dobbins, a foreign affairs specialist at the Rand Corp.'s Washington officewho has served in diplomatic posts, including in the Balkans, under several presidents. "They fall back on the familiar and the powerful. The same thing happened in postwar Bosnia, where the parties that fed the conflict in the first place got most of the vote."

Dobbins noted that the last U.S. forces pulled out of Bosnia-Herzegovina nine years after they were deployed in 1995, and a European security force still remained in the country.

"We're going to have to face the fact that there are strong centrifugal forces in Iraq that have the potential of tearing the country apart," he added.

The tension among Iraq's various groups was underscored Tuesday as rival parties traded accusations of vote fraud. The main Sunni Muslim Arab coalition, the National Accordance Front, alleged "flagrant forgery" in the Baghdad electoral district.

"Falsifying the will of the voters in such flagrant way will have serious reflections upon security and political stabilization, and will put the future of the political process in the wind," the group said in a statement.

"We reject these results," Adnan Dulaimi, a leader of the Sunni bloc, said before calling for a rerun of the Baghdad elections.

Allawi's supporters, meanwhile, accused religious Shiites of ballot-rigging and intimidation. Ibrahim Janabi, an Allawi deputy, said armed and masked men roamed the capital's Sadr City district on election day and threatened to kill anyone who voted for Allawi's bloc.

In public Tuesday, senior U.S. officials in Baghdad and Washington insisted that the results of the election were too preliminary to determine the precise shape of the new government.

*

Sunni Parties Lagging

But as vote-counting continued in Baghdad, it seemed increasingly clear that Shiite religious parties and groups representing ethnic Kurds' interests would dominate the parliament, and Sunni-based parties appeared likely to win about 20% of the seats, below their expectations.

The United Iraqi Alliance, an amalgam of Shiite political parties that won the most seats in the interim parliament that was elected in January, appears to have won, with its reported 110 seats, nearly half of the 230 seats being allocated by province in the new assembly. Of the seats whose outcomes were being estimated, the Kurds followed with 43, and a Sunni Arab coalition with about 35. An additional 45 seats will be allocated nationally according to a complicated formula.

White House national security advisor Stephen Hadley emphasized the importance of bringing Sunnis into the government in a speech to a group of foreign affairs experts in Washington on Tuesday. He agreed that the administration must get "key neighboring and Arab states more involved in Iraq," but was less certain how the U.S. planned to deal with Iran.

*

No Embassy Contact Yet

In Senate testimony two months ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the administration was considering direct contacts with Tehran as part of efforts to gain greater cooperation on Iraq. She indicated that such contact would be restricted to issues related to Iraq and would probably occur through the Baghdad embassies of the two countries.

On Tuesday, however, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said that so far, there had been no communication between the U.S. and Iranian embassies. The United States severed diplomatic ties with Iran after Americans were taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, and the two nations have had no regular contact since.

On Iraq, however, Iran and the United States have an overlapping interest in ensuring that the incoming Shiite-led government in Baghdad survives. Iran wields considerable influence among Shiite political parties in Iraq, and there are strong social and economic links between Shiite-dominated southern Iraq and Shiite-led Iran.

"We have to establish our own lines to Iran," said Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist at the Nixon Center, a Washington think tank.

"No matter what outrageous shenanigans are happening in Iran, what counts is that the Iranians are there in Iraq, using hard power, soft power and money, and they aren't going away."

Any resumption of direct contacts would be controversial, particularly given that the Bush administration believes Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and that Iran's recently elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the annihilation or relocation of Israel.

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall reported from Washington and Daragahi from Baghdad.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

Washington seeks partial truce with Iraqi insurgents
By Paul Martin
The Washington Times
Published December 21, 2005


BAGHDAD -- American diplomats called it "mission impossible" -- to bend the rules on contact with powerful anti-American Sunni forces in Iraq and negotiate a cease-fire -- all before last week's elections.

Their orders came from U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. The effort took months and culminated in a day of voting in which Sunni Arabs came out in droves after having boycotted the first parliamentary election a year ago.


The cease-fire period started Dec. 13 and ended Sunday, spanning Thursday's elections. The period passed with no major attacks on Iraqi civilians.

The effort by U.S. diplomats and military officials also redefined U.S. policy in Iraq -- a potentially seismic shift that President Bush spelled out this month in four major policy speeches that referred to three types of insurgents: "rejectionists," "Saddamists" and terrorists.

Washington seeks truce

U.S. officials continue to talk with the "rejectionists," a category that appears to include the bulk of those who have taken up arms to battle American and Iraqi forces.

Now that the elections have passed, the United States is continuing the effort, seeking a long-term cease-fire that would drive a wedge between Iraqi Sunnis and terrorist forces, such as those led by Abu Musab Zarqawi and his al Qaeda in Iraq. The terrorist organization seeks to impose a primitive, Taliban-like regime on Iraq and use Iraq as a base from which to topple governments throughout the Middle East and larger Muslim world.

A senior official at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad gave the following account to The Washington Times and World News & Features (www.worldnf.com), a specialized news agency focusing on conflict zones:

"At several stages we told [Mr. Khalilzad] it could not work, but he insisted and pressed and pushed," the official said on the condition of anonymity.

The election-day results appear to have exceeded even the insistent and "impossibly optimistic" ambassador's own expectations. "They bode well for a future deal, but several pitfalls remain."

The effort began this autumn when the American team drew up a list of "literally hundreds" of people they would like to meet. "We let the word out. ... And we began dealing with the real bad guys, or the interlocutors."

The initial talks were local encounters mediated by tribal sheiks in the vast Anbar province, with its expanses of desert and slivers of verdant land alongside the Euphrates River.

Small-scale but vital deals were made.

Horse-trading tried

"They went something like this," the official said. "We'll stop raiding houses searching for suspects, or we'll remove our checkpoints from certain places, provided you guarantee there will be no shootings or bombings on a certain road or geographic area."

Later, negotiators worked on a wider form of cease-fire, culminating on Oct. 28 in a "big tent" meeting at an undisclosed location, bringing together American and British diplomats and U.S. Army personnel with tribal, political, religious and insurgent figures.

The talks involved considerable risk for those on the American side, who shed the conspicuous "business attire" required at the U.S. Embassy and instead wore casual clothing under their flak jackets.

Apache and Chinook helicopters ferried them from the protected green zone in central Baghdad deep into enemy territory, including the cities of Ramadi, Fallujah and Al Qaim and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit.

Talking to insurgents

The new rules were: "We will not talk to terrorists with blood on their hands." It is a formula that allowed talks with all except those whom U.S. intelligence fingered as killers or who gave orders to kill.

"It was a very, very liberal interpretation," the U.S. official said. By a process of definitions, years of refusal to talk to insurgents were reversed.

"By negotiating a reduction of violence, we wanted to drive a wedge between the foreign fighters and all the rest," a U.S. official said.

When the outlines of an election cease-fire were completed, U.S. and British diplomats, along with a senior U.S. military official, drew up an action plan that was forwarded internally to the White House and to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Tribal leaders in Anbar province showed their good will by turning in one of Zarqawi's top lieutenants.

The U.S.-led coalition responded with a series of prisoner releases beginning in early October. About 2,500 were freed, including several senior officials from Saddam's regime this week.

Most of these prisoners were not true killers, but had aided insurgents by making or delivering weaponry, or by providing transportation.

Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, ordered an end of "aggressive operations" effective Dec. 13.

Raids endanger truce

The process nearly unraveled late in the negotiations when a U.S. Army unit, apparently unaware of a looming deal, launched raids on homes of suspected insurgents inside Fallujah.

"We had to scramble to explain it was just a mess-up," the official said. "But from their perspective, where everything is seen as a conspiracy, we had done it on purpose.

"Eventually, they accepted our promise it would not happen again."

The insurgents were angered again when a communication failure led to further arrests, this time involving people who had been talking with the American and British negotiators. Most, but not all, soon were set free.

"We've put our interlocutors on a no-raid list," said a U.S. official, "but things still go wrong sometimes."

In one case, an American military unit raided a house in Baghdad, seized numerous guns and made arrests. It turned out the house belonged to Mahmoud Meshed Ani, one of the main Iraqis in the negotiations.

"He's still demanding all the weapons back," the U.S. source said. "But there is no way our military people can hand over Kalashnikovs to anyone, let alone to insurgents."

The main demands of the insurgents and their supporters were:

•Release our prisoners.

•Move American troops out of the cities. "We told them that one will take some time," a U.S. official said.

•Protect insurgents from revenge, particularly armed Ba'athists, who feared Sunnis might want to kill them in retaliation for past atrocities.

The discovery of detention centers where torture was routine, and the prevalence of Shi'ite extremists' kidnap and assassination squads, also threatened the agreement.

U.S. raids welcomed

Sunni hard-liners saw military raids on two insurgent detention centers in Baghdad on Nov. 15 and in early December as U.S. determination not to permit Shi'ite excesses.

"The Sunnis were uneasy about the decision to deploy an Interior Ministry unit, the Wolf Brigade, inside Fallujah for the elections, but they did not consider this a make-or-break issue," an American official said.

"The hard-line Sunnis believe we ... wanted to promote the Iranian takeover of Iraq -- ludicrous, but that's what they believed," a U.S. official said. The raids on the two detention facilities helped assuage those concerns.

Negotiators reached a major turning point when the Sunnis demanded an American commitment to withdraw from the cities and stay inside their military bases.

"We told them: We can go further than that. Our aim is to get out of Iraq, period, and we don't want any military bases here at all."

But American negotiators insisted on security in Iraq before that sort of withdrawal.

"Once they understood that, the rest fell into place," the American official said.

The U.S. negotiators were pleasantly surprised when some Ba'athist representatives said they would take part in the elections.

"We had to tell them they had missed the boat this time around," the U.S. source said. "But we said we'd work to make it possible for the provincial elections next year."

After Mr. Bush used key phrases from the secret document in his speeches, one of the American negotiators received a congratulatory phone call from Hikmat Hadithi, a former Ba'athist finance minister who had remained close to Saddam, despite officially leaving the party in 1991.

Bush's coded speech

"He phoned me and was thrilled to death at the president's speech. They had wanted some public acknowledgment, and they got it."

One of the Sunni political parties close to the insurgency issued a significant but overlooked public statement two days before the elections.

The statement laid out terms of the cease-fire and "thanked" insurgents for ensuring the polling stations would be protected and voters safeguarded. The statement had opened with a demand for U.S. occupation forces to evacuate the cities.

Some Ba'athist figures ran as candidates in the election. One party even used Ba'athist martial music in television ads.

The Shi'ite-dominated de-Ba'athification committee tried to have 200 candidates banned. Having been a senior Ba'athist officer or a member of the party's top four ranks was supposed to be an automatic bar from candidacy and from government jobs, but the U.S. negotiators managed to prevent such bans from being imposed.

Negotiations on track

The relatively peaceful elections have put negotiations on a firm path. Sunni hard-liners demand more prisoner releases and for Shi'ite and Kurdish militias to be disbanded and their influence within Iraqi security services curbed.

In return, Sunni tribal leaders would ensure there are no more safe havens for foreign terrorists and would discourage lraqis from planting bombs or firing weapons.

The release of "high-value" detainees also has been an important signal. The transfer of 24 of these top detainees was planned for a month ago, the source said. "But Prime Minister [Ibrahim al-]Jaafari was so vehemently opposed, we feared if we released them they would be killed, and we'd be in a worse position."

Several thousand lower-level prisoners are to be released in the next few months. The Bush administration is pressing for a softening of anti-Ba'ath legislation through an announced review by the Iraqi Presidency Council.

Negotiators on both sides think the prospects a U.S.-Iraqi agreement and an exit strategy for the Americans and their allies are bright.

"We can see light at the end of the tunnel," the U.S. official said, "and this time it's not coming from an onrushing train."

•This article is the result of a joint investigation by The Washington Times and World News & Features.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/shiite-rel...ominate-10.html

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Shiite Religious Parties dominate 10 of 18 Provinces
Talabani calls for Government of National Unity

The Los Angeles Times reports that the secular Iraqiya list of Iyad Allawi so far seems only to have 8% of the seats in the new parliament, though that tally may increase slightly when the 230,000 or so votes of expatriates are counted. (I doubt it will increase much). Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress did not get enough votes even to win a single seat, so far.

The Kurds so far have about 45 seats of the 230 being voted for, and the Sunnis have 35. The latter are split between the neo-Baathist National Dialogue Council of Salih Mutlak and the fundamentalist Sunni National Accord Front of Adnan Dulaimi. These totals will probably increase when the unallocated seats are reapportioned. The Sunni Arabs are upset that they are trailing the Kurds, being convinced that they are a much larger group. But since the seats have been allocated to provinces on the basis of voting registration in Jan. 2005, that consideration is irrelevant. Besides, the Sunni Arabs vastly overestimate their own proportion of the Iraqi population; a lot of them really think they are a majority!

Al-Hayat [Ar.] reports that the National Accord Front is leading in 4 provinces (presumably Anbar, Salahuddin, and Ninevah, but what is the fourth? Diyala?). The United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite) is leading in 9 southern provinces and in Baghdad. And the Kurdistan Alliance is leading in four provinces (Dohuk, Sulaimaniyah, Irbil and Kirkuk).

Al-Hayat says that Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leader and current president, is calling for a government of national unity that will include Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis. Al-Sharq al-Awsat is franker about Talabani's rationale here, since he said that the Shiite-Kurdish alliance between him and prime minister Ibrahim Jaafari had not been successful. Talabani never got along with Jaafari, and was uncomfortable with being merely a ceremonial president, as is called for in the Iraqi constitution. Whatever its rationale, the national unity government is a very good idea. It does have the drawback that such a government would seldom be able actually to take a decision, since the three groups disagree with one another vehemently on most issues. On the other hand, since the government has almost no power or authority, and is mainly symbolic, it probably doesn't matter if it can't take many decisions. On the other hand, it is hard to see why the Shiite majority should give away all the advantages of its majority.

The LA Times estimates that the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite fundamentalist party, has 110 seats so far. To form a government, it will need 138. But its totals may increase. AP says that Husain Shahristani of the UIA (someone very close to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani) is predicting that the Shiite religious coalition will end up with 130 seats, ten less than its current total. Moreover, a group of Sadrists, the Messengers, ran separately from the UIA in the south and are getting 3% of the seats. If that holds, they will have about 7 or 8 seats, and they will certainly ally with the United Iraqi Alliance, which is therefore in striking distance of forming a government. The Guardian explains the reapportionment formula for the 45 seats that were not initially in play:


' The other 45 are split, partly on the "best loser" principle, whereby small parties that did not win enough votes for a seat in any province have their votes totalled nationally. If this figure surpasses a certain threshold, they get a seat. After this is done, the remaining seats are split among the big winners in proportion to their national tallies. This will give the Shi'ite alliance even more. '


Adnan Dulaimi of the National Accord Front, a Sunni group, angrily charged extensive voting fraud in Baghdad, where Sunnis got only about 20 percent of the vote, and demanded a re-vote. Not likely. Actually, this result is plausible. Dulaimi's list is Islamist, and the Sunni Baghadis are not mostly Islamists. A lot of secular middle class Sunnis probably voted for Allawi's secular list, which got 14% in early returns in Baghdad. Allawi's list would have appealed to secular ex-Baathists. Moreover, Sunni Arabs were not completely free to vote. Security is very bad in Amiriyah, Ghazaliyah, Adhamiyah and other districts of the capital, and a lot of people would have been afraid to come out. In contrast, the Shiites of East Baghdad, who are probably at least half the population, have fair security, and since the United Iraqi Alliance includes Muqtada al-Sadr's bloc as well as Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, there was something for everyone there; the vote turnout would have been high. [By the way, could journalists please stop calling it the National Accordance Front? That is not English, no matter what Dulaimi thinks.]

Allawi is the skunk at the party from the point of view of most of the other parties. The Guardian reports, ' "We've started talks with the Sunnis and Kurds. Not many of us are eager to take Allawi on board. I don't think he stands a chance," said Haider Abadi, spokesperson for the [Shiite fundamentalist] Dawa party of the Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. '

Cole: I think I pretty much nailed this election last October in this post (scroll down a bit). Note that I was often contradicted by observers on the ground in Iraq, who kept saying they perceived a groundswell for the secular party of Allawi, even in the Shiite-dominated provinces. This allegation never made any sense to me. Michael Rubin of the AEI was predicting 5 percent for Chalabi (the neocon favorite) and 20 percent for Allawi, a prediction that demonstrates that after 2 1/2 years the neocons still just can't understand anything about contemporary Iraq.

R.J. Eskow shreds the Neocon vision of what Iraq would become to pieces. Iraq is going to be pro-Iran, and will not recognize Israel (Muqtada al-Sadr will be part of the ruling coalition!) The 38 Sadrist parliamentarians and the 50 or so Sunni ones will form a powerful bloc calling for immediate US withdrawal from Iraq.

Iranian pilgrims to the Shiite shrine cities in Iraq began coming to Iraq again on Tuesday, as the border crossings opened.

The US military is using more air power to fight Sunni Arab

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage...7639536,00.html

Iraq rebels 'intensify violence'
From correspondents in Amman
22dec05

AN Iraqi Sunni leader said insurgents will intensify attacks to drive out US troops and violence will worsen if a Shiite-led government returns to power, as seems likely.

Sheikh Majeed al-Gaood, head of the Wahaj al-Iraq party with strong ties to both Islamist and secular nationalist insurgents, today said a victory for ruling Shiite Islamists aligned to Iran in last week's parliamentary elections would bring bloodshed.
"The resistance will intensify and there will be a bloodbath and much blood will be spilt if Iran's agents gain power," said Sheikh Gaood whose group has a strong following among ex-army officers, Saddam Hussein loyalists and Arab Sunnis waging the insurgency.

"Not a single honest Iraqi nationalist would accept the Iranians or their agents ruling the country." Provisional results released yesterday indicated the ruling Shiite Alliance will remain dominant and possibly retain an absolute majority in parliament.

"Their victory will mean that Iran's arms will extend even further in Iraq," Sheikh Gaood, 37, a member of the influential Dulaimi tribe, said in an interview in Amman.

Whatever course the US-backed process took after the first elections since the war in which Sunni Arabs voted in strength, the insurgency would not yet abandon its arms, Sheikh Gaood said.

"The resistance will never give up its arms until the last American soldier leaves the country," he said.

Washington, keen to draw Sunni Arabs away from rebellion and into the political process, took heart from an apparently high Sunni Arab turnout in last weeks parliamentary election.

The level of violence has risen since the largely peaceful poll on December 15 after insurgents resumed attacks following a brief lull to allow Sunni voters to cast their ballots.

Insurgent backing of Sunni participation in the election was in support of a fair political process that could push for the end of US occupation, Sheikh Gaood said.

The insurgency led by Saddam's once powerful army officers was more effective than ever before, he said.



privacy terms © Herald and Weekly Times

US tortured me, Saddam says Toronto Star
Deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein launched into an extended outburst at his trial yesterday, alleging he had been beaten and tortured by his American captors while in detention after a witness testified that his agents had tortured people by ripping off their skin. Chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Mousawi said he would investigate and that if American-led multinational forces were abusing the former Iraqi leader, he would be transferred to the custody of Iraqi troops. "I want to say here, yes, we have been beaten by the Americans and we have been tortured," Saddam said, before gesturing to his seven co-defendants around him, "one by one." After sitting quietly through several hours of testimony, Saddam said he'd been beaten "everywhere on my body. The marks are still there."
Saddam Hussein makes torture allegations ABC Online
Saddam Claims He's Been Beaten, Tortured ABC News
Reuters.uk - Christian Science Monitor - Monsters and Critics.com - San Francisco Chronicle - all 1,178 related »

Politics & Policies: Bush's Iraq strategy
By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Published December 21, 2005


WASHINGTON -- "We must get it right," Stephen Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser, speaking on Iraq told a group of ambassadors, journalists and other Washington insiders gathered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Tuesday.

Words of wisdom that might be about two years too late. So far, there has not been very much that has gone right in Iraq since the U.S. military entered Baghdad in April 2003, toppling Saddam Hussein's statue along with his regime.


The administration will claim that since the fall of Saddam, the Iraqis have had three elections, with each one unfolding under better circumstances and with larger participation of Iraqi Sunnis.

"We are winning that ideological struggle," said Hadley.

"We are winning the war in Iraq," said Bush.

Yet the situation on the ground is far from being as rosy as Bush and his national security adviser would like to make it appear. While Iraqis did vote in larger numbers than ever, they voted according to ethnic divisions. Early returns from last week's voting indicated that divisions among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is greater than ever.

Advisers to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told United Press International they believed Iraq was on the way to being partitioned.

The democratic, secular Iraq that would "serve as a beacon of freedom in the Middle East," as repeated by both Bush and Hadley, is instead turning out to be more along the lines where the religious fundamentalists have the upper hand.

The big victors in Iraq's elections are the Shiite coalition who get their support form Iran and the Sunni factions who support the anti-American insurgency. Iyad Alawi, the former prime minister who enjoyed the backing of the United States, won a meager 14 percent.

Patrick Cockburn of the London Independent newspaper wrote, "The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq." Cockburn quotes Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, as saying: "In 2-1/2 years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."

This week alone, Bush appeared twice in two days on national television, reassuring the American people the benefits of success in Iraq will make America safer, yet warning that more sacrifices need to be made as more dangers lie ahead.

"I see a global terrorist movement," said the president, "who want to wage a perpetual war against America."

And if the president did admit for the first time since American troops marched into Baghdad and toppled Saddam's statue along with his regime that mistakes were made, he still believes "It was right to go to war."

Bush: "Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. This war, like other wars, has been difficult. The work in Iraq has been difficult, more difficult than we expected."

"We must get it right," Hadley said Tuesday.

But the president and his adviser now have mapped out a five-point plan: "Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

-- Step up the training of Iraq forces so that newly formed Iraqi units can replace American troops.

-- Support the Sunni Muslims' entry and their participation in government.

-- Support Iraq in amending its constitution.

-- Expand support for Iraq. Encourage international engagement in Iraq.

-- Refocus U.S. support to provide reconstruction efforts.

"Our work is not done," admitted Bush. But, said the president, "We have a clear objective in view: a democratic Iraq that can defend itself."

That is still far from being the case. Despite heavier Sunni turnout for the third round of elections since the fall of Saddam, the insurgency did not let up their attacks on American forces. And if American forces suffered fewer deaths in the last week, the number of wounded has risen.

Total American personnel killed in Iraq since the start of hostilities now stand at 2,158, according to official figures issued by the Department of Defense. And the number of injured rose considerably during the week of the elections. According to the Pentagon, the number of U.S. troops wounded in action from the beginning of hostilities on March 19, 2003, through Dec. 19, was 16,061.

American soldiers were wounded in action at the rate of about 15 per day during election week.

The recent elections hailed by Bush as a landmark victory only strengthens the opponents of the democracy, which should have flowered in Iraq.

Saddam hits out at US in court outburst Mail & Guardian Online
Ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein lashed out at the United States as his trial resumed on Thursday, branding the country "liars" for dismissing charges he was tortured by his American jailers. "The White House are liars. They said Iraq had chemical weapons. They lied again when they said I had not been beaten," he told the court trying him on charges of crimes against humanity. Prosecution witnesses, testifying anonymously front behind a blue screen, told of torture under Saddam's regime, a day after the former dictator sought to turn the table on accusers by charging that his American jailers were beating and torturing him. The White House dismissed his allegations as "preposterous" and a US diplomat in Baghdad suggested Saddam was "grandstanding" to deflect attention from charges of torture levelled against at least one of his seven co-accused.
Saddam: US Denials of Torture Are 'Lies' Forbes
Saddam faces new accusers Independent Online
Chicago Tribune - Boston Globe - CNN International - Aljazeera.net - all 1,380 related »

Blair signals route home for troops in Iraq Reuters.uk
Prime Minister Tony Blair, on a lightning trip to Iraq, promised his country's troops on Thursday they could go home once local forces were managing their own security. Blair, speaking to soldiers in the British-controlled southeastern area around Basra, told troops who will be stationed in the country over Christmas they were helping to secure Iraq, the region and the wider world against terrorism. "The importance of this is to try to help the country and the only way to do that is to provide security so the Iraqi forces can build up, and then we can eventually draw down on our own capability." Earlier, Blair met U.S. and British military chiefs to discuss the security situation after last week's Iraqi election and future troop levels. General George Casey, U.S. military commander in Iraq, told the prime minister that by the summer of next year, Iraqis will be in charge of 75 percent of security in some areas of the country.
Blair tells Iraq troops to be proud Scotsman
Blair: Stable Iraq is worth fighting for Middle East Online
Houston Chronicle - Special Broadcasting Service - Aljazeera.com - Reuters AlertNet - all 194 related »

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GL23Ak01.html
THE ROVING EYE
The ultimate quagmire
By Pepe Escobar

Iraq is a giant, messy albatross hanging from President George W Bush's neck. The faith-based American president believes "we are winning the war in Iraq". The reality-based global public opinion - not to mention 59% of Americans, and counting - know this is not true.

Bush felt that "God put me here" so he could conduct a "war on terror". Somebody up there must have a tremendous sense of humor - once again manifested in the way He allotted winners and losers in Iraq's December 15 parliamentary elections.

United we stand
The Shi'ite religious parties in the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) were the big winners - from 70% to 95% of the vote in the impoverished southern provinces; 59% in Baghdad; and nationally, well over 40% of the total (they've won in nine of Iraq's 18 provinces plus the capital). It's a relatively unexpected success considering the dreadful record of Ibrahim Jaafari's Shi'ite-dominated government.

All those intimately allied with the US invasion and occupation were big losers. The Iraqi National List of US intelligence asset and former prime minister Iyad Allawi, also known as "Saddam without a moustache", the man who endorsed the Pentagon bombing of the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf and Sunni Arab Fallujah - got a pitiful 14%.

Convicted fraudster and former Pentagon ally Ahmad Chalabi received less than 1% in Baghdad. The neo-conservatives of the American Enterprise Institute were predicting 5% for Chalabi (their overwhelming favorite) and 20% for Allawi; that's proof enough they have no clue about what's going on in Iraq.

Bush's new Iraq is pro-Iran. It will not recognize Israel. And it wants the Americans out; one of the first measures of an emerging, powerful parliamentary alliance between roughly 38 Sadrists of Shi'ite nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and roughly 50 Sunni Arabs will be to call for an immediate end of the occupation.

The details to be ironed out hinge on whether the UIA majority aligns itself with the Sunni Arabs, the Kurds, or with both in a government of "national unity" - as it is being called by the current vice president Abdel Mahdi (a free marketer) as well as current president Jalal Talabani, a Kurd.

"National unity" is improbable; the Shi'ites simply won't forgo their majority. The Kurds for their part know it will be a foolish move to try to break their strategic alliance with the UIA. Sunni Arab votes were split between the neo-Ba'athist National Dialogue Council of Salih Mutlak and the Islamist, Sunni National Accord Front of Adnan Dulaimi. But what matters is that they are both part of the Sunni Arab resistance. Their common line is that their presence in parliament develops a new political front - what we have called the Sinn Fein component of the Sunni Arab resistance.

It never happened
The big problem is that once again in Iraq Shi'ites voted for Shi'ites, Sunnis for Sunnis (they won in four provinces, Anbar, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Diyala, but got only 20% in Baghdad) and Kurds for Kurds (they also won in four provinces, including Kirkuk). Liberal democrats who were dreaming of a democratic, federal, anti-sectarian Iraq have been totally sidelined. Arguably no politician in Iraq is thinking about the future of the country as a whole. No national projects are being discussed.

The constitutional vote in October had already institutionalized the sectarian division - 80% of the Sunni Arabs in the four main Sunni provinces voted against what they saw as an American-designed charter. Washington believed the vote would undermine the resistance. The exact opposite happened. The December elections now paint a vivid picture of a country fractured on sectarian lines. But this is what the Americans wanted in the first place.

Elections or no elections, Iraq enters 2006 mired in the same, usual, gruesome rituals. The Pentagon believes it can subdue the Sunni Arab resistance by bombing them to death while the resistance keeps bombing, suicide bombing and assassinating en masse.

So the endless, gory stream will continue, not even making headlines - explosions at police stations, assassinations of "Baghdad officials", executions of collaborators, mortars over the Green Zone, scores of innocent civilian victims of car bombings, Marines killed in the Sunni triangle, Shi'ite death squads, Turkmen fighting Kurd for Kirkuk ...

Playwright Harold Pinter pulled a Beckett at his Nobel lecture. He offered to be Bush's speechwriter. Then Pinter impersonated classic Bush: "My God is good. [Osama] bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam Hussein's God was bad except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians." And this was even before Bush mixed up Saddam with bin Laden in a "we're winning in Iraq" speech.

Pinter observed, "The United States supported and in many cases engendered every rightwing military dictatorship in the world after the end of World War II." He gave a lot of examples. But then, with devastating irony (a concept seemingly absent from the White House/Pentagon axis), he said: "It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."

Just like the suffering of Iraqis never happened. Robert Fisk, in his masterful The Great War for Civilization (Fourth Estate, London) remarks, "The sanctions that smothered Iraq for almost 13 years have largely dropped from the story of our Middle East adventures ... When the Anglo-American occupiers settled into their palaces in Baghdad, they would blame the collapse of electrical power, water-pumping stations, factories and commercial life on Saddam Hussein, as if he alone had engineered the impoverishment of Iraq. Sanctions were never mentioned. They were 'ghosted' out of the story. First there had been Saddam, and then there was freedom'."

But Iraqis as a whole have not forgotten the sanctions - imposed by the US, carried out by the "international community" and responsible for the death of thousands of children. As much as the Shi'ites have not forgotten their betrayal by George Bush senior, who called for a Shi'ite uprising in early 1991 and then left thousands of men, women and children to be massacred by Saddam's gunships. There's no way these impoverished masses can trust anything related to American promises of "freedom".

How Bush is winning
There's some evidence that the murderous chaos unleashed by Shi'ite death squads may not be "an accident" but part of a carefully crafted American strategy, as the Bush administration has constantly added fire to the ethnic furnace as the best diversion to not address Iraq's tremendous social tensions.

An atomized and terrorized society is much easier to manipulate, while at the same time the non-stop bloodshed is the perfect justification for "staying the course". The incessant chatter in the US about a partial "withdrawal" is just chatter.

Already in June 2003, proconsul L Paul Bremer's coalition hands were hiring Saddam's Mukhabarat pals for "special ops" against the Sunni Arab resistance, while "torture central", Abu Ghraib, was again operating in full force under American management.

In the Shi'ite south, the Badr Organization - the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq's (SCIRI's) militia - as well as Muqtadar's Mahdi Army were gaining ground. The Badr was finally formally incorporated into the Interior Ministry, where Sunni units had also been carving up their own turf (under the protection of Allawi).

The former Ba'athist Sunnis - and later the Shi'ites - benefited from the invaluable knowledge of American "counter-insurgency" experts who organized death squads in Colombia and El Salvador, as well as retired American Special Forces soldiers. Commandos operating in the "Salvador option" manner have been very much in the cards from the beginning, responding to a sophisticated, state-of-the-art command, control and communications center even while the majority of the Iraqi population had no electricity, no fuel and no medicine.

The pattern was and remains the same; people "disappearing" after they are accosted by groups of men armed to the teeth, in police commando uniforms, with high-tech radios and driving Toyota Land Cruisers with police license plates. Needless to say, the resulting murders are almost never investigated.

The objectives, from the point of view of the Bush administration, also remain the same; keep the Pentagon and its military bases inside an Iraq mired in sectarian bloodshed and with a weak central government.

The "follow the money" trail leads to an array of profitable privatizations, and the upcoming sale of Iraq's fabulous oil reserves to a few, select foreign investors. Abdel Mahdi of SCIRI, one year ago in Washington, had already laid down the script. He is a key player to watch.

No wonder that the real composition of the next Iraqi government will not be determined by the polls - at least not exclusively. The real kingmaker is the US ambassador, the White House pet, Afghan Zalmay Khalilzad.

The Bush administration will pull no punches to safeguard its "follow the money" interests, as well as its precious military bases. Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in Baghdad on December 18, only three days after the election. He didn't even bother to tell Jaafari that he was in the country. First Cheney talked to Khalilzad and assorted American generals, and only then were Jaafari and President Talabani summoned to his presence.

How Bush lost it
The uprising of Muqtadar's Mahdi Army in 2004 was the definitive nail in the coffin of the Bush administration's dream of ruling Iraq. At the time the Pentagon repeatedly said it wanted to "kill or capture him". It did neither.

Muqtada became the man to watch much earlier than his newfound - by American corporate media - prominent role in post-election Iraq. After the bombing of Najaf, the Bush administration completely lost the plot. Then, after the January 2005 elections, the new Jaafari government quickly embraced Iran, received a pledge of $1 billion in aid, the use of Iranian port facilities, and help with refining Iraqi oil.

Sunni Arab regimes like Jordan and Saudi Arabia started to be haunted by the specter of a "Shi'ite crescent". A neo-conservative Iraq as a base to launch an attack on Iran disappeared as a mirage in the desert. As the US has to fight a relentless Sunni Arab guerrilla war, it cannot possibly risk alienating the Iraqi Shi'ite masses (more than they already are) with an attack on Iran.

No wonder military historian Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the only non-American author on the Pentagon's list of required reading for officers, called for Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".

Bush and his faithful ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been playing the same scratched CD track: "We're better off now without Saddam." That is not true. The fall of Saddam led to the rise of al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers; and even Allawi admitted that human rights in Iraq now are no better than under Saddam. Not to mention that there is no reconstruction, unemployment is at 70%, and a country which in the late 1980s had one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world has been razed to a sub-Saharan level.

Whatever the Americans do - with "Iraqification" doomed to failure, as much as "Vietnamization" - the war in Iraq now is a rampaging beast that threatens to spill all over the Middle East.

"Bring 'em on," said Bush, and they did; the result is a new, deadly generation of global jihadis. Sunni-Shi'ite antagonism will spill over to oil-rich Sunni Gulf states (including Saudi Arabia) with huge but heavily marginalized Shi'ite populations. Kurdish separatist dreams have tremendous implications for Turkey, Syria and Iran, especially if Iraq, through civil war, finally disintegrates.

So the most probable scenario for 2006 and beyond is a fragile central government in Baghdad bombarded by an intractable guerrilla movement - a chaotic and sectarian hornets' nest breeding one, 10, 100 mini (or maxi) al-Qaeda leaders able to convulse the Middle East. Maybe this is what the neo-cons meant by "creative destruction".

Al-Qaeda has a masterplan for the Middle East, and the next stages - apart from the Gulf emirates - are to be played in vulnerable Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and even Israel. As for the air war against the Sunni Arab resistance, it may buy a few votes at home but will do absolutely nothing to improve America's dreadful image in the Middle East - especially because civilian "collateral damage" will be enormous.

That bearded, vociferous guy
Saddam's trial - the outcome of which is already determined - will proceed as a purely sectarian propaganda coup. If this were a real trial, Saddam would be in The Hague in front of an international panel of respected judges, experts in human rights law.

Or the United Nations would have been commissioned to organize a special tribunal in a neutral country like Switzerland. Saddam's secrets, though, are so vast - and so extremely embarrassing for the US - that he cannot possibly leave the Green Zone, where he will certainly be executed. Saddam's trial will become the sorry mirror image of the sectarian politics let loose in Iraq at large.

Bush has opened a Pandora's box with his shock and awe tactics. The ultimate quagmire will keep mutating and unleashing its deadly new powers for years on end. And there is nothing anyone - not even the "indispensable nation" - can do about it. We have all been, and will remain, shocked and awed.

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing .)

Rumsfeld hints at slight troop drawdown in Iraq Seattle Times
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hinted today that the US military will soon begin reducing its troop strength in Iraq below 138,000, the level it has considered its core force in the country for most of this year. On an unannounced holiday visit to the Iraqi capital, Rumsfeld said the reduction would be achieved by canceling the scheduled deployment of two Army brigades. The U.S. temporarily built up its forces in Iraq to about 160,000 to provide extra security during the Oct. 15 referendum and the Dec. 15 election. Rumsfeld had previously said those 20,000 extra troops would be leaving soon, and said today that the latest reductions being considered would be in addition to those.
Rumsfeld: NATO Afghan troop increase allows partial US pullout Monsters and Critics.com
Rumsfeld Makes Unannounced Visit to Iraq as Force Cuts Weighed Bloomberg
Aljazeera.net - International Herald Tribune - Reuters AlertNet - Zaman Online - all 502 related »

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051222/iraq_game_over.php
Iraq: Game Over
Robert Dreyfuss
December 22, 2005


Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books, 2005). Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Va., who specializes in politics and national security issues. He is a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone.He can be reached at his website: www.robertdreyfuss.com.

The last hope for peace in Iraq was stomped to death this week. The victory of the Shiite religious coalition in the December 15 election hands power for the next four years to a fanatical band of fundamentalist Shiite parties backed by Iran, above all to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Quietly backed by His Malevolence, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, sustained by a 20,000-strong paramilitary force called the Badr Brigade, and with both overt and covert support from Iran's intelligence service and its Revolutionary Guard corps, SCIRI will create a theocratic bastion state in its southern Iraqi fiefdom and use its power in Baghdad to rule what's left of the Iraqi state by force.

The consequences of SCIRI's victory are manifold. But there is no silver lining, no chance for peace talks among Iraq's factions, no chance for international mediation. There is no centrist force that can bridge the factional or sectarian divides. Next stop: civil war.

There isn't any point in looking for silver linings in the catastrophic Iraqi vote. The likely next prime minister, Adel Abdel Mahdi, is a smooth-talking SCIRI thug. His boss, Abdel Aziz Hakim of SCIRI, is the former commander of the Badr Brigade and a militant cleric who has issued bloodthirsty calls for a no-holds-barred military solution to the insurgency. The scores of secret torture prisons by the SCIRI-led Iraqi ministry of the interior will proliferate, and SCIRI-led death squads will start going down their lists of targets. The divisive, sectarian constitution that was rammed down Iraq's throat in October by the Shiite religious bloc will be preserved intact under the new, "permanent government" of Iraq led by SCIRI.

The Kurds, ensconced in northern Iraq, will retreat further into their enclave, content to proceed step-by-step toward what they hope will be a breakaway rump state. Earlier this year, after the January 31 transitional elections, the Kurds made their deal with the Shiite devil, winning in exchange two vital (for them) points: that Iraq will have a virtually nonexistent central government will power reserved for the provincial regions, and that revenues from future Iraqi oil fields will go to those regions, not to the state. All the Kurds want now is to take over Kirkuk, which they will do with force, violence, and ethnic cleansing aimed at Arab residents of the Kirkuk area.

The Sunnis are already charging vote fraud, threatening to boycott or withdraw from the new assembly, and openly predicting that Iraq will now slide into civil war. There is virtually no combination of political alliances now that can guarantee Sunnis a fair share of power in the new Iraq. Every Sunni leader, from the most militant Baath Party activist to the most conservative Sunni clergyman, knows that a regime led by Hakim's SCIRI bloc will mean war. As a result, proponents of cooperating with the new government will become fence-sitters, and fence-sitters will join the resistance. The insurgency will continue, and possibly strengthen.

The more perceptive among U.S. intelligence officials and Iraq experts know how to read the situation, and they mostly believe it is hopeless. "I hate to say, 'Game over,'" says Wayne White, who led the State Department's intelligence effort on Iraq until last spring. "But we've lost it." There is no mechanism for the Sunnis now to restore a modicum of balance in Iraq, and the Shiite religious parties have no incentive to make significant concessions either to the Sunnis or to the resistance, White says.

Most worrying is the fact that centrist elements in Iraq—ranging from the CIA's favorite candidate, Iyad Allawi, to the Pentagon's chosen vehicle, Ahmed Chalabi—got blown away. Therefore, as I had hoped earlier (and wrote, in this space, two weeks ago, in a piece called "Iraq's Last Small Hope," and again, last week, in "Iraq's Tipping Point"), any chance that someone like Allawi could emerge as a power broker who could bridge the divide between religious Shiites and the Sunni-led resistance is gone. The planned-for Arab League peace conference, scheduled for late February or early March, likely won't happen. Violence will intensify.

For Bush, the results present an almost excruciatingly difficult problem. The White House will begin to look ridiculous as it touts Iraq's scandal-plagued, fraud-ridden election as the birth of democracy, especially as a brutal Shiite theocracy begins to take shape. The continuing resistance will make it impossible for the president to cite progress in the war. When President Bush starts to order a drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq, as he must, he will not have the convenience of a peaceful, stable Iraq to point to. And the rise of Iran's power in Iraq presents another Rubik's Cube conundrum for the president. Some eager neocons, of course, will start to argue that the United States has no choice but to take the failed war in Iraq into Iran, to batter those who torment the U.S. occupation in Iraq. For others in the Bush administration, who at least live on planet earth, the problem of Iranian power in Iraq vastly complicates their ability to put a positive spin on the Bush administration's Iraq project.

The election disaster means that it is all the more important now for the United States to open direct, public talks with the Iraqi resistance, even if it means defying the Shiite religious-led regime. It is the United States whose 160,000 troops prop up the Shiites in power. Washington can no longer afford to give SCIRI and its junior partner, Al Dawa, veto power over its ability to negotiate a ceasefire with the opposition in order to pull out U.S. forces.

But it also means that every day that the U.S. forces remain in Iraq, the United States creates another day for the Shiite religious forces to strengthen their hand, to build their militia, and to make plans for cleansing Sunnis from majority Shiite areas. (It is, of course, with the help of the U.S. army that the Shiite militias are being incorporated into the new Iraqi army, unit by unit.) By getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, Jack Murtha-style, the United States can at the very least ensure that the Shiites do not grow all-powerful, and it might prevent a further radicalization of the Sunni-led resistance. When there are no good options, then prudence suggests that it's time to choose the least bad one.

Hussein disrupts, but doesn't impress Iraqis
The former leader's antics came amid sobering testimony about torture.
By Ilene R. Prusher
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1223/p01s04-woiq.html?s=hns

Iraq parties unite to reject poll BBC News
Sunni Arab and secular parties in Iraq have united to reject the results of last week's parliamentary elections, saying there was widespread fraud. Representatives from 35 parties issued a statement threatening to boycott the new parliament if their complaints were not properly investigated. Iraq's election commission says it has received complaints, but does not think the overall results will be affected. The final results are expected to be announced at the beginning of January.
Iraq Sunni, Shiite Groups Threaten Boycott ABC News
IRAQ WRAPUP 1-Saddam brands US liars as Rumsfeld flies in Reuters AlertNet
Zaman Online - OhmyNews International - Boston Globe - USA Today - all 1,130 related »

Iraqi violence: more killed, including six police officers:

Violence around Iraq left more than a dozen people dead, officials said Thursday. Six Iraqi police officers were shot dead in Baghdad, while three Iraqi police were killed and four wounded in an attack in Samarra
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/12/22/70340.html


Four civilians killed :

Four civilians were killed on Wednesday when gunmen opened fire on two trucks in Iskandariya, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KAM225067.htm


Two Bodies Found:

Iraqi police found the bodies on Wednesday of two Iraqi contractors working with the U.S forces in Tikrit
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KAM225067.htm


Of the $230 Billion spent in invading and occuping Iraq:

$40 Million goes to Iraq and Afghanistan for civilian casualties :

The U.S. military uses these funds to run programs generally paying out up to $2,500 per victim to the families of those killed, and smaller amounts to those who are injured or have property destroyed or who were detained.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...10921-5499r.htm

Italy probes US marine for murder in Iraq:

Italian magistrates have placed a U.S. marine under official investigation for murder over the killing of an Italian agent in Iraq earlier this year, judicial sources said on Thursday.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1432374

Iraqi groups unite over poll concerns:

Sunni Arab and secular political groups have joined forces to decide whether to reject the results of last week's parliamentary election and call for a revote.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6B...220F84C78ED.htm

Iraq Sunni, Shiite Groups Threaten Boycott :

Dozens of Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups threatened to boycott Iraq's new legislature Thursday if complaints about tainted voting are not reviewed by an international body.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Iraq rebels 'intensify violence':

AN Iraqi Sunni leader said insurgents will intensify attacks to drive out US troops and violence will worsen if a Shiite-led government returns to power, as seems likely.
http://tinyurl.com/combo

U.S. Allies in Iraq Want Out, Adding to Bush Pressure :

The U.K., Italy and South Korea are making plans to reduce or even withdraw their troops by the end of next year, following other nations, such as Ukraine and Bulgaria, that have already started to depart. ``It is not a matter of if, but how,'' said Roberto Minotti, senior research fellow at the Aspen Institute in Rome.
http://tinyurl.com/75g5s

A must listen interview:

The State of America's Armed Forces: General Odom :

A few weeks ago General Odom said, 'I think the army is already broken.'
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11362.htm

Tony Benn: Bringing The War Criminals To Account:

We allege that the breaches committed by the UK Government and the USA in coalition partnership during the period 2002 - 2005 outlined as a selection in summary are as follows:
http://stopwar.org.uk/Bennletter.htm

Iraqi parties threaten boycott
Thursday 22 December 2005, 20:31 Makka Time, 17:31 GMT


The participants said the IECI should be disbanded


Dozens of Sunni Arab and secular Shia groups have threatened to boycott Iraq's new legislature if complaints about election fraud are not reviewed by an international body.


A joint statement issued on Thursday by 35 political groups that competed in last week's elections said the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, IECI, which oversaw the ballot, should be disbanded.

It also said the complaints about fraud and intimidation should be reviewed by international organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference or the Arab League.

Reading from a statement, Ali al-Timimi, the head of the secular Shia Hilla al-Fayha List, said: "We hold the IECI responsible for all the violations which took place during the elections and demand that it be dissolved and a suitable alternative to be found.

"If this is not achieved, then we will have no choice but to refuse the results and boycott the new parliament."

A representative for Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister of Iraq, dismissed the voting in all of Iraq's 18 provinces on 15 December as "fraudulent".

Ibrahim al-Janabi also described the elected lawmakers as "illegitimate".

"These elections are fraudulent, they are fraudulent, and the next parliament is illegitimate. We reject all this process," al-Janabi told a news conference.

The groups that signed the joint statement included the main Sunni Arab coalition, Adnan al-Dulaimi's Iraqi Accordance Front, and a secular Shia bloc headed by Allawi.

New chaos

But a senior member of the Shia religious United Iraqi Alliance, the group leading in the polls following preliminary returns, said the protesters should accept the results.

"These statements will lead the country to new chaos," Ali al-Adib said.


Representatives of different
parties met to contest the results

"Who can guarantee that when the elections are rerun they will not reject them again."

Al-Adib, who is also a member of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said the alliance now helping govern Iraq also had complaints.

"We also have complaints and we also have evidence, and we are waiting for the decision of the electoral commission," he said.

"They have to accept the will of the Iraqi people, the will of the majority. The political process will continue even if they boycott it."

He said those rejecting the election results "are the same who called for the boycotting of the last elections and said 'no' to the constitution".

Manoeuvres

Much of the anger over the results could stem from the Sunni Arabs' losing their dominant political position for the first time in hundreds of years in Baghdad, long the heart of regional Sunni Arab culture and education.

The group dominated politics and government long before Saddam Hussein, himself a Sunni Arab, took control in the 1970s.

The harsh statements also could be part of jockeying for position by both the Sunnis and Allawi for when negotiations begin to form a new coalition government.

It took nearly three months to form an interim government after the elections in January, which gave the Shia 140 seats, the Kurds 75, Allawi 40 and the Sunni Arabs 17.

In another twist, Allawi could be trying to manoeuvre himself into a senior position in a Shia-Sunni coalition.

He did not attend the meeting, held at his headquarters in the heavily fortified Green Zone and attended by more than 100 politicians and representatives of various groups.

Results

The IECI said it had received more than 1500 complaints about violations, 25 of which were serious.

"The political process will continue even if they boycott it"

Ali al-Adib, member of the United Iraqi Alliance

It said it did not expect the complaints to change the overall result, to be announced in January.

Preliminary results show the United Iraqi Alliance winning strong majorities not only in Baghdad but also in the largely Shia southern provinces.

Sunni Arabs turned out in large numbers, unlike in January's election.

The electoral commission put total turnout at 69.97% of the country's 15.5 million voters, compared with 58% in January and 63% in the constitutional referendum on 15 October.

Politicians say the United Iraqi Alliance seems on course to win between 120 and 130 seats, compared with 140 now.

Despite the lead, the Shia religious bloc will probably fall short of the 184 seats necessary to chose a new president, the first step needed to form a government, and will have to find a coalition partner in the 275-member parliament.

Sunni Arabs may increase their seats from 17 to more than 40, while the Kurds are expected to get between 40 and 50.

Allawi, who controls 40 seats, is expected to be the big loser and drop to 20 seats or fewer.


al Jazeera

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10575121

Chalabi’s defeat puts U.S. friends in quandary
Should his backers go with his view that it was a fraudulent election?
By Aram Roston
Investigative Unit Producer
NBC News
Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET Dec. 22, 2005

WASHINGTON - Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi appears to have suffered a humiliating defeat at the recent Iraq polls, according to the uncertified preliminary results.

The news comes just a month after Chalabi had conducted a tour of Washington in an effort to patch up his tattered image in America. Paperwork shows that in November Chalabi’s Washington representative hired a powerful D.C. lobbying firm.

The election results in Iraq may present Chalabi’s ardent U.S. supporters with a quandary: Chalabi, as well as other losing candidates, is alleging fraud in the election, even though the Bush administration hailed the vote as a historic step for democracy in Iraq.

Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) was not part of the coalition, but 35 political groups on Thursday issued a joint statement threatening to boycott Iraq’s new legislature if complaints about tainted voting are not reviewed by an international body.

Poor showing for the man who ‘liberated’ Iraq
Preliminary results in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad indicate that Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress scored a minuscule 0.36 percent of the votes.

Out of almost 2.5 million voters in Baghdad, only 8,645 voted for Chalabi.

In the Shiite city of Basra, the results indicate he had an equally dismal showing of 0.34 percent of the vote.

In the violent Sunni province of Anbar, 113 people voted for him.

During the election, Chalabi’s campaign posters proclaimed, "We Liberated Iraq."

The reference was to Chalabi’s role in pushing the United States toward war against Saddam Hussein. Over the years, Chalabi’s group received tens of millions of dollars from the CIA and the State Department.

In that role, before 2003, Chalabi had been funded by the U.S. Congress, through the Iraq Liberation Act, and enjoyed the support of neoconservatives in the United States.

Change of status
Although initially Chalabi seemed to have close allies in the Bush administration, that appeared to change after the war.

With U.S. forces ensconced in Baghdad, Chalabi and the administration apparently parted ways.

He and his supporters seemed to work in opposition to some U.S. initiatives in Iraq. For example they often were at odds with Ambassador Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator if Iraq, and with Ayad Allawi, the first Iraqi prime minister.

His supporters in the United States were often torn between their regard for Chalabi and their loyalty to the Bush administration, some insiders say.

"They like the American administration, but they support Ahmed Chalabi,” said one expert on Iraq who asked for anonymity because of close connections with the neoconservative movement. “They don’t want to turn against the administration,” said the expert, but when the White House alienates Chalabi, “they believe it is making a mistake."

Still lobbying American friends
Chalabi appears to have shored up his relationship with the U.S. administration. Just last month, as deputy prime minister of Iraq he toured the United States, meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Also last month, a representative of Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress who works out of Iraq’s embassy in Washington hired a powerful lobbying firm, which helped with Chalabi’s U.S. trip.

The firm, BKSH & Associates, is the lobbying vehicle of Republican insider Charles Black and registered with the Justice Department as an agent for the INC's Entefadh Qanbar.

Lobbyist Riva Levinson wrote in a