Reading Iraq's Ayatollah

Reading Iraq's Ayatollah
by Terence P. Jeffrey
Posted Apr 28, 2004










Events of July 30, 2003, at the courthouse in Najaf, a city sacred to Shiite Muslims, may have foreshadowed the larger U.S. effort to establish a new government in Iraq that could finalize our victory there and allow our forces a richly deserved homecoming.

That's the day a U.S. Marine officer responsible for reestablishing order in that city tried to install its first-ever female judge.

He was met with "a group of about 30 male and female lawyers," reported New York Times correspondent Neil MacFarquhar. They chanted: "No, No Women."

The chief justice confronted the officer with a number of fatwas. One had been issued about two months earlier by the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the pre-eminent cleric of Iraq's Shias, who constitute about 60% of Iraq's population.

This fatwa addressed two questions. Could women (a) wear perfume and (b) serve as judges. Perfume yes, said the ayatollah, but judges no.

The U.S. officer wisely made a realistic decision: He postponed installing the female judge. Egalitarianism would be nice in Najaf, but moving toward stable government in Iraq is a U.S. national security interest.

Now skip to March 9 of this year. That's when CIA Director George Tenet presented the Senate Armed Services Committee with this seemingly sunny analysis of the Grand Ayatollah: "Sistani favors direct elections as the way to produce a legitimate, accountable government. His religious pronouncements show that above all else, he wants Iraq to be independent of foreign powers. Moreover, his praise of free elections and his theology reflect, in our reading, a clear-cut opposition to an Iranian-style theocracy."

Does this square with what happened in Najaf last July? Does it square with what has happened since?

Consider the Shiite doctrine of "taqiyya" and the ayatollah's increasingly aggressive interventions in politics since the fall of Saddam.

A glossary on Sistani's website defines taqiyya rather blandly: "Dissimulation about one's beliefs in order to protect oneself, family, or property from harm." But a grand jury in Detroit defined it more dramatically last November when it indicted alleged Hizballah fighter Mahmoud Yousseff Kourani. "While in the United States, Kourani employed 'taqiyah,' a Shia Muslim doctrine of concealment, pretense and fraud," said the indictment. "This meant among other things that Kourani would, when he thought necessary, avoid going to mosques, not attend Shiite religious rituals, shave his beard, and otherwise keep his true beliefs secret while inside what he considered hostile territory -- the United States of America."

The New York Times on April 9 cited unnamed former U.S. intelligence officials who said the CIA "was never able to get solid estimates of the number of Shiite fighters involved in Hezbollah or the Islamic resistance that eventually forced the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon." Why? "Those former officials pointed out that the practice of Taqiyya -- dissembling about one's religion, especially in times of danger -- is particular to Shiism. That particular tradition has made Shiite groups extremely difficult for intelligence officers to penetrate, the former CIA officers said."

In February, Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post correspondent Anthony Shadid cited Iraqis who attributed the practice of taqiyya to the Grand Ayatollah himself. "Many of Sistani's followers," wrote Shadid, "describe his reticence in the years under Hussein as a version of taqiyya."

Sistani's website lists his published and unpublished works. Poignantly, a work entitled, A Treatise on 'Taqiyya' (precaution), is listed as not printed yet.

In June, Sistani issued a fatwa insisting that only Iraqis elected by Iraqis could draft an Iraqi constitution. This scuttled plans for an appointed council to draft a constitution.

In November, he rejected an alternative plan for local caucuses to elect an interim government that would write the constitution. Abdul Aziz Hakim, a Sistani ally on the Iraqi Governing Council, explained one of the ayatollah's objections: "There should have been a stipulation which prevents legislating anything that contradicts Islam in the new Iraq."

Sistani has since refused to endorse the interim constitution adopted by the Iraqi Governing Council, which includes many liberalizing reforms and gives Iraq's Kurdish minority at least a fighting chance to reject a permanent constitution it does not like.

Each step of the way, the U.S. overall strategy for dealing with Sistani has been similar to the officer's in Najaf -- practical, not ideological. That's okay, as long as we don't lose sight of the one practical thing we can't leave Baghdad without: a stable government that won't threaten its neighbors or the United States of America.

Mentor in Iran keeps distance from radical anti-US Iraqi cleric Sadr

by Siavosh Ghazi and Laurent Lozano

QOM, Iran, April 29 (AFP) - Radical Iraqi Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr's mentor in Iran, Grand Ayatollah Kazem Hossein Haeri, denies Sadr has the right to wage a "jihad" holy war against coalition forces in Iraq in his name.
At least that was the word from the Iraqi ayatollah's brother and spokesman, Mohammed Hossein Haeri, in an interview with AFP. Haeri, himself a cleric, was also unwilling to confirm reports that the young firebrand Sadr was the ayatollah's representative in Iraq.

"For us to approve of the activities of Moqtada Sadr, he would need to coordinate with our office in Najaf, something he has not been doing," said the brother of the ayatollah who lives in the holy city of Qom, central Iran.

"Neither Ayatollah Haeri nor any other Iraqi religious leader has declared jihad. So one cannot attack the occupation forces, unless they attack Iraqis, then they have the right to defend themselves," he said.

Some in the US military, which has clashed repeatedly with Sadr's Mehdi Army followers, contend the ayatollah is an inspiration behind the deadly Shiite revolt in Iraq and even a voice of Iranian policy.

Tehran is on record as calling for stability in its western neighbour and has also kept its distance from Sadr, although it shares his goal of foreign forces being withdrawn from Shiite majority Iraq.

Sadr's militia is being armed by some parties within the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to the Americans. Grand Ayatollah Haeri, 65, has been living in exile since 1976.

In Iraq, he was a leader of the Dawa party, and then took a leading role in the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which was Iran-based but has become the main party in post-Saddam Iraq.

The ayatollah has officially given up active politics to concentrate on religious teaching. Dozens of young Iraqi pilgrims flock to his office each day and collect copies of his "opinions" on Islam."The Americans must leave Iraq as soon possible. How can we accept a Muslim country being governed by infidels?" he asks.

His brother said the ayatollah does not send any instructions to Sadr, but only replies to questions. Sadr, who is wanted by the Americans in connection with the murder last year of a moderate rival cleric, has visited Qom himself and carries strong credentials as a son of the late Ayatollah Mohammed Sadegh al-Sadr.

The two ayatollahs were friends, until Sadr was assassinated by the regime of Saddam Hussein.Mohammed Hussein Haeri said that Sadr and the most influential Shiite leader in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, a moderate, while poles apart, were both important for the Iraqi people."Ayatollah Haeri cannot decide between the parties," explained analyst Hassan Hashemian.

"He is basically on the same wavelength as the Iranians. In private, they do not hide their satisfaction at seeing the Americans in the quagmire of Iraq as Moqtada Sadr complicates their job," he said.

According to the brother, Ayatollah Haeri has not decided to return to Iraq. "The farther you are from the (American) enemy, the more effective you can be," he reasoned.

Iraqi revolutionaries

Saddam may be out of the picture, but his methods are living on just fine in the new Iraq

Ghaith Abdul Ahad
Tuesday April 27, 2004
The Guardian

The Iraqi holy city of Najaf is the Shia version of the Vatican. The shrine of Imam Ali, the main religious seminaries and the biggest Shia cemetery are all there, and it has always been the residence of the grand ayatollahs. But unlike the Vatican, gold in Najaf can be found publicly only in two places - the dome of the shrine and the teeth of the old merchants selling religious objects to the Iranian pilgrims. The houses roundabout are crumbling, the streets filthy with rubbish and dust.
Also unlike the Vatican, the Shia have many popes at one time. The grandest is Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who is in his 70s and has not left his house for 20 years. With Allah's blessing he holds the future of Iraq in one hand while playing with his prayer beads in the other.

A political analyst once told me: "Iraq is blessed to have a moderate cleric like Sistani. Imagine what would have happened if we had a radical one." Well, actually, I can't understand the blessing in having an old cleric dictating the political process of my country. I can't see the difference between that and the system we had before. But then who am I to ask these big questions?

Lately, however, the old man and his Vatican are facing some problems. Moqtada, a chubby young guy with a fussy beard, started a so-called revolution three weeks ago, putting the Americans, who always claimed that they came to liberate the Iraqis - and especially the Shia - in a difficult position. I spent almost a week in Najaf, attended Friday prayers, talked to about a million clerics, watched the Mahdi army fighting and imposing their new-found authority on the people of Najaf and on the old man.

One of the clerics was a friend of mine who I first met in April last year when he was still thrilled about the liberation. Now he has different ideas and has become one of Moqtada's lieutenants. He was carrying a mobile phone in one hand and a satphone in the other, coordinating militia "activities". He asked me to walk with him to the shrine of Imam Ali and told me all about the new victories they have achieved. All the time he kept his left hand hidden under his cloak. When we got to a militia staff room he produced a big sniper rifle and gave it to a guy there. "Take it to the guys on the roof - they'll need it," he said.

He is a pleasant young man in his early 30s with a charming smile and an impressive beard. He speaks some English but his main talent, apart from smuggling weapons into the shrine, is computer graphics. He showed me his latest achievement: a picture of St George killing the dragon, except that St George was Moqtada and the dragon was Bush.

The "revolutionaries" are men mainly from the Baghdad slums and the poor south. They wear plastic sandals and carry pictures of Moqtada on their chests. They are armed with grenades strapped to their waists and a whole package of conspiracy theories.

There is a disturbing similarity between what these people are doing and saying and what the Ba'athists used to do and say. Since Moqtada's troops took over they have been acting thuggishly, in harmony with our great despotic traditions. I think there is something in the air that makes us yearn for a dictator to mess us around.

So the great holy fighters are manning checkpoints, detaining people and even have their own secret police. A cleric can order any of his thugs to take you to the religious court, where only Allah and Moqtada can release you.

When clashes erupted on the outskirts of the city, the new mojahedin, carrying RPG rockets without launchers and weapons looted from the Iraqi police, driving looted Iraqi police pick-up trucks and chanting "Moqtada", all rushed to the fighting. Ten minutes later, with the same war cries, they were running back. According to a senior fighter, what I was seeing was a "tactical withdrawal".

After Moqtada's Friday prayers, I went looking for my phone (phones are not allowed in the mosque for security reasons). I was waiting outside an office when I saw through a window four of the cleric's bodyguards dressing up another who was as chubby as the "leader" with a black turban and a black robe just like Moqtada's. Then they opened the door and ran outside with one guy shouting, "Long live Moqtada." While the crowd surrounded them, the real Moqtada slipped out of the mosque.

It's reassuring to see the traditions of my country still thriving: one man is given the holy right to lead the nation, while young kids with RPGs terrorise everyone.

Rough edges of militia can't hide its skill

AL-SADR:
Rough edges of militia can't hide its skill
By EDMUND SANDERS
Los Angeles Times



NAJAF, Iraq - They're a ragtag team of about 1,000 young, impoverished men who sometimes shoot one another by accident or stick machine guns out windows and spray the area without looking.

Yet they've also set up clever ambushes, demonstrated surprising resilience and executed defensive maneuvers that have impressed the U.S. military.

After a week of butting heads with Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, U.S. military authorities tasked with capturing or killing the Shiite cleric call his militia a mix of sophistication and amateur hour.

"They are prepared. They are bold. And they are willing to fight," said Maj. Rick Heyward, 38, of the 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry, which has clashed with the militia twice in the past week. "But they're undisciplined and don't have our training."

The vast majority of al-Sadr's militiamen are young and unemployed and are inspired by al-Sadr's anti-American rhetoric and calls to end the occupation of Iraq.

"They're mostly thugs," said Col. Dana Pittard, commander of the newly created task force in Najaf. "A lot are young kids in it just for the thrill."

Soldiers who have faced the militia in street battles say members frequently lose control of their weapons or fail to aim carefully.

"We call it spray and pray," said Capt. Sean Stinchon, 29, of the 1-14 Infantry. "They don't even use the scopes."

Stinchon and other officers, awaiting the resolution of negotiations over the U.S. standoff with the cleric, got a first-hand look at his militia's questionable marksmanship last week when their six-vehicle convoy was forced by rocket-propelled grenade fire to cross a bridge over the Euphrates River and race down a busy commercial street in Kufa.

As the U.S. forces sped the wrong way down a street at 50 mph, about 50 al-Sadr followers fired machine guns and AK-47s. But none of the soldiers was hit.

"We should have been dead," Heyward said.

Because the attackers positioned themselves across the street from each other, some appear to have shot one another as well as hitting innocent bystanders, according to U.S. soldiers.

At the same time, al-Sadr has assembled an inner-core of experienced security professionals who consider themselves holy fighters. Some were groomed at a special al-Sadr training camp, military officials said.

This group, believed to number about 100, provides al-Sadr's personal protection and helps plan strategies, according to military intelligence reports.

They move the cleric frequently between different locations in Najaf and Kufa. They've positioned themselves in the mosques, which they know the United States is loathe to attack. They've buried weapons in the cemetery and drive in stolen police cars, according to military officials.

Although al-Sadr publicly has claimed to be pulling back from his positions inside the cities, military officials have observed his militia tightening its hold, setting up fighting positions in key buildings in preparation for a U.S. invasion. .

On Friday, U.S. officials left a five-hour battle with more respect for the militia members, who after nearly four hours of heavy bombing continued to hold their position inside a palm grove next to Kufa.

(Begin optional trim)

Unlike insurgents who attack from afar with mortars or improvised explosive devices, al-Sadr's forces maintained their grip on a building inside the grove, using a water tower as a lookout post to help launch counterattacks.

"This was not just an ambush," said Maj. Mike Davies, 40. "It was a defense. They got into prepared fighting positions."
"Iraq faces a choice," Bremer said during an address televised throughout the country. "If you do not defend your beloved country, it will not be saved." (Pasted by me here)


After several hours of fighting, the militiamen fell silent, luring U.S. soldiers into a false sense of security. Then the al-Sadr followers struck suddenly with an RPG, wounding two soldiers.

When U.S. forces finally captured the building housing al-Sadr's forces, they climbed on the roof and were shocked to see scores of reinforcements climbing into boats and crossing the bridge to continue the battle. The U.S. forces decided to withdraw.

"These guys are different from the enemy we've seen in other parts of Iraq," said Capt. Chris Budihas, who fought against the militia in the ambushed convoy earlier in the week.

He also said the militiamen appear to be learning from their mistakes. When military vehicles escaped the ambush on Tuesday, al-Sadr's followers repositioned themselves so they could fire from the rear. On Friday, their ambush lit a tank on fire and a U.S. soldier was wounded in the head.

"They're getting smarter," Budihas said.

At the same time, they continue to make rookie mistakes.

Three al-Sadr followers were captured near a military checkpoint Friday when their car got stuck in the sand.

Inside the shirt pocket of one man was a document claiming he was a French journalist. But he was also carrying an invoice for weapons for the Mahdi Army, diagrams for making homemade bombs and a picture of al-Sadr in his wallet.

A Chronology of U.S. Imperialism

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994-? Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime. Forces also engaged in neighboring Pakistan.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002 Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Second Gulf War launched for "regime change" in Baghdad. US, joined by UK and Australia, attacks from Kuwait, other Gulf states, and European and US bases.
WHERE NEXT? NO MORE!

Lesson Two:


Hello again…this is faiza :)
Wishing you have nice time in your Arabic lessons…
OK..now we start …..
-Shlonkom? (how are you all?) in Iraqi slang
or -Shonak?/Shonik? [M/F] (how are you?)
-zen/zena [M/F] (fine) Iraqi Slang

Kafe al haal ? (how are you ?)in Arabic
- Alhamdo lillah (thanks God) Arabic

-Shako mako? (what’s new?) Iraqi slang
-Kulshi mako (nothing new..) Iraqi
or –Safiya Dafiya (literally means: sunny and warm. It means: everything is fine)

Ahlan wa sahlan (welcome)
Na’am (Yes)
La (No)

*******
Colors (Al’alwan):
Red……..(Ahmar)
Green……(akhdhar)
Yellow…..(asfar)
Blue………(azraq)
White……..(abyadh)
Black……..(aswad)

********
Days (Ayyam) of the week (Al’isboo’):
Sunday…………………..Al ahad
Monday………………….Al ethnain
Tuseday…………………..Al tholatha’
Wednesday………………Al arbi`aa’
Thursday………………....Al khamees
Friday…………………….Al jom`ah
Saturday…………………..As sabt

*********
Kalimaat……….Words
Sadeeqaty………..my friend (my female friend)
Sadeeqy………….my friend (my male friend)
Azizi……………...my dear (male)
Azizety……………my dear (female)
Habibti……………My lover woman
Habibi…………….My lover man
Jameela……………beautiful female
Jameel……………..Beautiful male [waseem… handsom]
Lateefa…………….cute female
Lateef………………Cute male
Sakheefa…………….silly girl
Shakheef…………….Silly boy
Habla……………….. Dork woman!
Ahbal……………….. Dork man!
Habbaba……………. Nice girl.
Habbab ……………... nice boy

***







# posted by faiza : 8:53 AM
Friday, March 05, 2004
Hi, this is Faiza. Today we are going to have our 1st lesson in Arabic. Make sure that your teeth are clean and your hair is well brushed. Please turn off your mobiles before entering the classroom ;-).

Let’s start with the basic Arabic, Arabic may be the 2nd most difficult language on earth after chinese, it's written from right to left. The Alphabet is consisted of 28 letters. Each has one sound only but four different shapes because Arabic is always written in cursive and the letters of each word are connteced to each other, so a letter has a certain shape when it comes separated, in the beginning, middle, and end of the word.

The Alphabet is:
[What is written in English represents the sound of each letter when it’s pronounced alone and the Arabic letters are written in the shape that they are when they come separated]

Alef أ Baa' ب Taa’ت Thaa’[th, like in mouth] ث Jeem ج
[haa] ح [Khaa]خ Dal د Thal [th, like in width] ذ Raa’ ر
Zai ز Seen س Sheen ش [Saad]ص [[Dhaad]]ض
[Tah]ط [Dha]ظ Ein ع [Ghein]غ Faa ف
Qaf ق Kaaf ك Laam ل Meem م Noon ن
Haa’ هـ Waw و Yaa’ ي

majid’s advice: you have to install right-to-left scripts and right-to-left fonts in order to see/write Arabic fonts, to do that, check your operating system help menu [for windows users’, you can find it in regional and language options in control panel]

Common used terms:

Now each letter of those gives the 1st sound of it when it’s pronounced in a word, for example: Faa’ gives an /f/ sound... Baa’ gives a /b/ sound...and so on.

Enough about basics, let’s move on to real language:

Muslim Arabs start doing EVERYTHING by saying Bism Allah Arrahman Arraheem. That means: By the name of God, Most merciful, most compassionate.

To start a conversation, a dialogue or when greeting someone Arabs usually say: Assalam Aleikom. This means: may Peace be upon you.

Good morning means: Sabah Al-Kheir.
Good afternoon/good evening means: Masaa’ Al-Kheir.

When planning to do anything in the near/far future, Arabs say: Inshallah. That means: By God’s will.
Ex: Tomorrow I will wake up early inshallah. Or we will invade USA inshallah!

Some of you who write to me often may notice the word Yalla in my emails.
It’s a word that means something like “okay”, sometimes “Let’s”. Arabs usually say when they want to leave: Yalla, Bye.
Also when suggestion something, like: yalla, go sleep.
Ok, that is enough for today lesson.
For formal good-byes… arabs say:
Maa’ Assalama... Means: “with peace”, an abbreviation for: May you go with peace.
Fee Aman Allah, means: “in God’s safety”, an abbr. for: May you stay in God’s safety.

Yalla…Bye.

Moqtada Al-Sadr: The Young Rebel of the Iraqi Shi'a Muslims – Iraqi Leadership Biographical Series
By Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli*.
Moqtada Al-Sadr [1] was born in 1974, the son of one of the most illustrious Shi'a religious families in Iraq, the Al-Sadr family. His father, Ayatollah Muhammad Sadeq Al-Sadr, was assassinated together with two of his sons by the Saddam Hussein regime in 1999. After the death of his father, Moqtada became a student of Iranian Ayatollah Kadhem Al-Ha'iri. Aside from his native country, Iraq, Iran is the only other country Moqtada is familiar with, and his relations with the Iranian religious establishment invite speculations about his politics. Moqtada Al-Sadr admitted that the situation in Iraq today differs from the situation that prevailed in Iran during the Islamic revolution in 1979. He said: "The political and social nature of Iraq will not allow the repetition of the Iran experiment." [2]

Moqtada Al-Sadr is a charismatic leader and gifted orator who delivers fiery speeches to his enthusiastic and loyal young followers. However, being young, he is still not sufficiently immersed in religious studies to be known as "mujtahid," the equivalent of a senior scholar with seasoned judgment on religious doctrines, or to issue Fatwas (religious edicts). He delivers his Friday sermons in the Kuffa Mosque in the city of Kuffa, where tradition has it that Ali bin Abi-Taleb, the fourth Caliph after Prophet Mohammad and his son-in law, and the first Imam of Shi'a Islam, used to address his followers. Like other Shi'a clerics, Moqtada Al-Sadr is bearded and turbaned. [3] For his sermons he and his close supporters don a white shroud in mourning for his father. In all of his sermons, the participants in the prayers must repeat after him three times: "No No to Israel, No No to America, No No to terrorism." [4]


Relations with the Shi'a Religious Establishment

Shi'ism in Iraq uses two designations, often interchangeably - Al-Hawza and Al-Marja'iyya - for the religious sites in the two holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. Al-Hawza is the center of administration and finance, and the supervision of the holy sites, particularly the graves of Imam Ali and his two sons, Hassan and Hussein, whom the Shi'a consider martyrs. Al-Marja'iyyah refers to the source of spiritual and doctrinal authority, including religious interpretations, religious law, and the issuance of Fatwas. There are currently four Ayatollahs at the top of the pyramid but only one, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, has emerged as the recognized voice of the Shi'a in Iraq.

Moqtada Al-Sadr has had issues with both Al-Hawza and Al-Marja'iyya, but his criticism has been more of a temporal than a religious nature since he lacks the religious stature to challenge Al-Marja'iyya on doctrinal matters. In any event, he should be viewed more as a politician than a religious leader.

On the matter of Al-Hawza, Al-Sadr distinguishes between the Vocal Hawza ( Al-Hawza Al-Natiqa) and the Silent Hawza (Al-Hawza al-Samita). The vocal Hawza represents clerics like himself, who seek an active political role and advocate an Islamic republic in Iraq. The silent Hawza represents the seat of the senior Shi'a clerics like Ayatollah Al-Sistani, who has historically rejected the involvement of Shi'a clerics in the political life of the country. [5] However, the insistence of Al-Sistani that general elections take place before the transfer of authority to the Iraqis on June 30 may have rendered the distinction between the vocal and the silent Hawza quite immaterial. More importantly, perhaps, the political activism of Al-Sistani could be interpreted as recognition of the rising power of Al-Sadr, which Al-Sistani is trying to neutralize. Al-Sadr has said many times that Al-Sistani has rebuffed numerous attempts to meet with him.

The conflict between Al-Sadr and Al-Sistani has a practical basis. Al-Hawza, which is made up of a number of religious seminaries and grave sites of venerable Shi'a figures, collects large sums of money in charitable contributions from pilgrims and rich Shi'a donors. At the moment, Al-Sistani controls these contributions; Moqtada Al-Sadr, no doubt, would like a piece of them. The situation turned into an armed confrontation between the two sides when Al-Sadr's supporters attempted to take over the holy sites in Karbala, an incident in which tens of people were killed and many more injured. [6] Al-Sadr has also attempted to take over the grave site of Ali bin Abi-Taleb, the fourth Caliph, leading to bloody clashes between Al-Sadr's supporters and the Badr army, the militia of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shi'a group headed by supporters of Al-Sistani. The Governing Council sent a special delegation to resolve the conflict between the two sides. [7]

There may be another reason for the animosity between the two clerics. Al-Sadr is suspected of murdering the young and moderate cleric Abd Al-Majid Al-Khoui, upon the latter's return from England on April 10, 2003. Al-Khoui's father, the grand Ayatollah Abu Al-Qassem Al-Khoui, was Al-Sistani's mentor. Al-Khoui was murdered while meeting with Al-Sistani.

Highlights of Al-Sadr's Actions and Views on Central Issues of Post-Saddam Iraq

Unlike Al-Sistani, who has not left his home in six years and who has communicated with the outside world through intermediaries, Moqtada Al-Sadr is media savvy. While he does not shy away from conflicts, he is careful not to go overboard. With name recognition, thanks to his father, whose photographs adorn every store front in the Al-Sadr city, he is capable of attracting tens of thousands of followers from across Iraq. His greatest appeal is to the poor and the disenfranchised, and not a few of Saddam's former supporters who share his abhorrence of the Governing Council. [8]

Base of Power: Al-Sadr City – an Autonomous Entity

Since the defeat of Saddam, the city named after him, Saddam City, has become Al-Sadr City, named after Moqtada Al-Sadr's father. [9] Inhabited by more than one million Shi'a loyal to Al-Sadr, the city has developed its own municipal, educational, medical, and social services. In addition, there are "courts" presided over by young judges, followers of Moqtada Al-Sadr, who adjudicate conflicts between people, and whose verdicts are carried out by "security committees." The courts follow the Shari'a (Islamic law), and those who refer to them accept their verdicts as binding. There are observers who compare these young student-judges to the students of the religious schools in Pakistan who later became the nucleus of the Taliban movement. [10] As part of the Islamization of life in Al-Sadr City, Al-Sadr issued a Fatwa forbidding the sale of videos and of liquor. [11]

The Creation of the Al- Mahdi Army

While most Iraqis were still celebrating the fall of the Saddam regime, as early as mid-July Moqtada Al-Sadr was delivering Friday sermons in his mosque calling on his followers to join a new army, the Al-Mahdi army, [12] named after a mythical Imam who will return one day in messianic form. In practice, the Mahdi army is nothing more than a manifestation of muscle flexing on the part of Al-Sadr. Some observers say it was meant to be something akin to Saudi Arabia's special religious police whose name and responsibility is "The Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice."

Attacks on the Governing Council

Moqtada Al-Sadr was not included among the 25 members of the Iraqi Governing Council (GC) appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). It is not surprising that Moqtada questioned the legitimacy of the GC from day one, and referred to its members as lackeys of the occupation forces. Seizing upon the opportunities offered to him by Al-Jazeera TV, he lashed out at the GC as "a U.S. toy" and "the most preferred agent of Americans." He criticized the government appointed by the GC as being founded on sectarianism and the separation between the Sunna and the Shi'a. The government is the result of an illegitimate order by the GC, which in itself is illegitimate because it was appointed by illegitimate occupation. He said, "We do not recognize the occupation directly or indirectly since it is contrary to the views of the Iraqis, and their political and religious leadership rejects it totally." [13]

Al-Sadr threatened to appoint a shadow government that would represent the Iraqi people. In a sermon at his mosque in Kuffa, he announced: "I have established a government comprising the ministries of justice, finance, information, interior, and foreign affairs, and 'The Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.'" The sermon was followed by demonstrations in the streets of Najaf in support of this initiative. [14] However, this initiative has petered out because the CPA has threatened to take Moqtada Al-Sadr to court for the murder of Abd Al-Majid Al-Khoui, as referred to earlier. [15] Al-Sistani's aide denounced Al-Sadr's initiative, [16] and the CPA has not pursued the case.

Rumor Mongering

As a politician, Moqtada Al-Sadr does not shy away from spreading anti-American rumors. He told the pro-Saddam London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi that "Americans use sick soldiers to spread disease inside the Iraqi society." He demanded that sick soldiers should be expelled and that health centers should be established to examine those who arrive, and expel the sick among them. [17]

Earlier, Al-Sadr called for "bringing American soldiers to trials according to the Shari'a for their abuse of the Iraqi people." [18] He has also threatened to take revenge on "the monkeys and pigs [i.e. Jews] that come from America." [19]

Always the contrarian, and in direct challenge to Al-Sistani and the CPA, Al-Sadr said that he opposed holding elections in Iraq under the supervision of the United Nations. [20]

The Aftermath of Saddam's Departure

When asked to respond to those who argue that Iraq would have been better off if Saddam had remained he replied forcefully: "They are ignorant. But the departure of Saddam was supposed to be followed by freedom and democracy. It is not desirable that a small devil will go to be followed by a larger devil. The mistake is not the departure of Saddam but what came after him in terms of despotism and terrorism." [21]

If the Iranians refer to America as the "Great Satan," Moqtada Al-Sadr refers to it as the "Bigger Satan," with Saddam being the smaller one. When the CPA threatened to arrest Friday sermon preachers if they incited violence, Al-Sadr told his followers from his podium at the Kuffa Mosque: "The small devil has gone and the bigger devil has come." [22]

Federalism in Iraq

Al-Sadr rejects the idea of a federal government which will grant the Kurds the measure of autonomy for which they have yearned for decades and which they, in practice, obtained under American protection following the 1991 Gulf War. He argues that the concept is understood only by a few, and that once it is explained it will be rejected. Unlike the United States, Iraq will not have independent regions, and the partition of Iraq is not acceptable. He has organized demonstrations in Baghdad, Karbala, and Najaf to condemn the idea of federalism demanded by the Kurds. One of Al-Sadr's representatives at the demonstration in Baghdad said: "We are demonstrating against federalism because we have seen what happened in Yugoslavia. Federalism is an Israeli idea to divide us." [23]

Al-Sadr also sent one of his assistants, Abd Al-Fattah Al-Mousawi, to Kirkuk, a rich oil city, to incite the Arabs and Turkemans against the Kurdish population. He declared that "the presence of Muslims in the city is weak." He went on to say that Kurds "are not Muslims even if they pretend to be," and accused them of stealing "the Iraqi wealth." [24]

Resistance and Jihad

Despite his fiery character, Al-Sadr has been very careful not to invoke the concept of Jihad against the occupation. In response to a question during an interview with the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, Al-Sadr was very careful. He said, "the resistance is not limited to Jihad. There are other methods before taking a decision on Jihad. We shall use peaceful resistance first which has begun to show some fruit… Besides, [the declaration of] Jihad is in the hands of the religious ruler or the marja'iyya in the Sh'ia community. If we declared Jihad at this time it will cause harm because of imbalance between the two sides [occupation forces and the Shi'a Muslim community]. [25]

Peace with the American People

Moqtada Al-Sadr's youth and inexperience show in his contradictory statements. While he has often denounced the Americans, he has shown no hesitation in addressing them as "guests in our big home … peace lovers as we are." In his message to the American people during the month of Ramadan, which is a month of fasting and reflection, Al-Sadr wrote: "My greetings to the American people, these are the greetings of the lover…" He emphasized the need to avoid bloodshed and to maintain distance from aggressions, wars, and terrorism to allow the unity between the two peoples and the two communities." He added: "If you agree with this, allow me to be present in your councils, meetings, military camps and churches. I yearn for this… Help me by declaring your peace in Iraq and deter war and terrorism except [a war] on a wicked criminal like destructive Saddam and his followers among the atheist Ba'ath party." [26] Moqtada Al-Sadr's apparently contradictory statements may reflect his own dilemma of having to walk a tight rope between his youthful rebellion and his desire to play a key role in shaping the future of Iraq which, at least for the short term, must avoid unnecessary confrontations with the occupation forces.

*Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli is a Senior Analyst at MEMRI.



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

[1] For previous issues of MEMRI's Iraq Leadership Biographical Series, please see MEMRI's Baghdad Dispatch Series, which can be found among http://memri.org/iraq.html.

[2] Al-Zaman (Iraq), November 6, 2003.

[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 6, 2003.

[4] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), September 5, 2003.

[5] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), September 5, 2003.

[6] Al-Zaman (Iraq), October 14, 2003.

[7] Al-Ra'i Al-Aam (Kuwait), January 30, 2004.

[8] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 17, 2003.

[9] Al-Sadr City was originally built by the Iraqi leader Abd Al-Karim Qassim as a suburb of Baghdad to accommodate poor people. It was called at the time as Madinat Al-Thawra (Revolution City), later changed by Saddam to Madinate Saddam (Saddam City). After the fall of the regime, the residents changed the name one more time into Al-Sadr City in honor of Moqtada Al-Sadr's father.

[10] Al-Hayat (London), November 8, 2003.

[11] Al-Hayat (London), July 11, 2003.

[12] Al-Aswaq (Baghdad), July 21, 2003.

[13] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 20, 2003.

[14] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 12, 2003.

[15] Al-Hayat (London), November 8, 2003.

[16] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 16, 2003.

[17] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), August 9, 2003.

[18] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 2, 2003.

[19] Al-Hayat (London), October 15, 2003.

[20] Al-Hayat (London), January 24, 2004.

[21] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 4, 2003.

[22] Al-Hayat (London), November 11, 2003.

[23] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), January 21, 2004.

[24] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 23, 2003.

[25] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 4, 2003.

[26] Al-Zaman (Iraq), November 4, 2003.

Kin of Khomeini turns to U.S. for military help in freeing Iran








Kin of Khomeini turns to U.S. for military help in freeing Iran
Late cleric's grandson praises America for liberating Iraq and relieving
people's suffering
Monday, August 04, 2003
BY BORZOU DARAGAHI
SPECIAL TO THE STAR-LEDGER
Baghdad, Iraq -- The grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the
fiery cleric who launched an anti-American Islamic revolution in Iran that
sparked 25 years of unrest in the Gulf region, yesterday condemned Iran's
clerical regime and suggested United States military intervention in Iran
as a possible path to liberation for his country.
"In Iran, the people really need freedom and freedom must come about.
Freedom is more important than bread," said Hussein Khomeini.






The 45-year-old cleric said that "if there's no way for freedom in Iran
other than American intervention, I think the people would accept that. I
would accept it, too, because it's in accord with my faith."
The young Khomeini -- here ostensibly on a religious pilgrimage to Shi'a
holy sites in Najaf, Karbala and Baghdad -- praised the U.S. takeover of
Iraq.
"I see day-by-day that (Iraq) is on the path to improvement," he said. "I
see that there's security, that the people are happy, that they've been
released from suffering."
The United States has accused the clerical regime in Tehran of harboring
terrorists, trying to build nuclear weapons and oppressing its own people.
Conservatives in Washington have called for the ouster of the Iranian
leadership following American military successes in Afghanistan and Iran.
The United States has a long, tangled history with Iran that precedes the
1979 Islamic Revolution. Back then, followers of the young Khomeini's
grandfather stormed the American embassy and kept employees hostage for
more than a year.
These days, the United States accuses Iran of attempting to subvert
post-war Iraq by allowing militants to enter the country, broadcasting
destabilizing propaganda and using its pull with Shi'a clerics to rouse
the Iraqi populace.
The newly established Iraqi governing council already has begun meeting
with representatives from Tehran. Iranian deputy foreign minister Hussein
Sadeghi visited Iraq several days ago, meeting with Iraqi officials, said
Adnan Pachachi, Iraq's former foreign minister and a leading member of the
nation's 25-member governing council. "We discussed all aspects of
relations between the two countries," Pachachi said.
Hussein Khomeini crossed the Iranian border into occupied Iraq about a
month ago in a visit rife with irony.
Iran and Iraq have been regional rivals for decades. Iraq harbored
Ayatollah Khomeini after the Shah of Iran kicked him out of the country.
During his exile in the Iraqi city of Najaf , Khomeini's grandfather, a
high-level cleric, masterminded a revolution that ousted the Shah of Iran
and established the world's first modern-day theocracy.
Iran and Iraq fought a brutal war from 1980 to 1988 that left 1 million
dead and strained relations between the two countries. Nearly 25 years
later, the grandson has returned to the country where he resided from 1963
to 1978 and begun speaking out against the legacy of that revolution.
A longtime reformist silenced and shut out of Iran's conservative inner
circle of power, Khomeini confined his critiques of the Islamic Republic
to scholarly rather than political arguments. He said a religious
government can only come once the 12th Shi'a prophet Mahdi -- who
disappeared in the 9th century -- returns.
The young Khomeini argues for the separation of religion and state and
criticized "velayet-e-faqih" -- the religious doctrine mandating Iranian
Shi'a clerics as God's representative on earth and giving them
near-absolute power
Although he says he has yet to meet with any American officials,
Khomeini's positions might lift the spirits of U.S. officials in Iraq
struggling to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi Shi'as, who make up 60
percent of the population.
He condemned Saddam Hussein's regime and criticized those countries
opposed to the war against Iraq's Ba'athist government as ignorant of the
conditions under which Iraqis were suffering.
"The people here were subject to crimes unprecedented in world history,"
he said.
He said nationalism has no basis in religious doctrine, and freedom was
more important than independence from foreign rule. "Freedom is a basic
right. It supersedes all," he said.
Iran's conservative clerics have used their stranglehold over Islamic
doctrine to impose medieval conditions on Iranians, forcing women to cover
their heads and punishing dissidents for heresy.

Sistani...What Are You Waiting For?

Rene L. Gonzalez Berrios M.A.

01/30/04: (ICH) Post-Saddam Iraqi politics are surely confusing, especially for a political scientist trained to look at the objective "scientific" facts on the ground, assess the political forces and their motivations, and make predictions based on those assessments. So, what's my assessment, as a political scientist?

Well, to start off, the situation in Iraq is pretty clear-cut: The Sunnis dominate the streets, the Shi'ites permit the entire postwar scenario to exist by their passive acquiesence to the colonial occupation (although that seems to be ending), and the Americans and Coalition forces are...well...sitting ducks. No amount of raids and crashing down doors will change the fact that a significant group of Iraqi citizens (mostly Iraqi nationalists, ex-Baathists, and Arab jihadists) is having a shooting gallery of fun with American soldiers as propped-up targets. However, by sheer volume of forces, the Americans have been able to contain this concentrated insurgency. So, when top Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the virtual pope of Shi'ites, started to flex his political muscle, all analysts, on the Right and the Left, came to the same conclusion: a word from Sistani to his Shi'ite followers to wage jihad against Americans and the entire colonial fantasy concocted by the neoconservatives is OVER. Zip. Done. Finished. Bring in the helicopters, Fall of Saigon-style. Only a force of about half a million American soldiers, using severe, Nazi-style repressive techniques could keep a population of 50 million in check (and even that is debatable, depending on how fervent Shi'ites waged their jihad). With only 150,000 or so troops, such a jihad would be a no contest. The Americans would be beaten and the colonial occupation destroyed.

So, if you are Ali Sistani, and you're obviously dissatisfied with the progress of the colonial occupation (as he has publicly declared), and you are aware that the United States is attempting to calm you and your direct election demands, only to advance the particular agenda of neoconservatives in the United States (oil theft, geopolitical military bases in Iraq, etc.), their hard-line Zionist buddies in Israel, and the loyal-puppet aspirations of convicted fraudsters like Ahmad Chalabi (Jordan convicted him of fraud) and the rest of the American-imposed Governing-Council sell-outs, an obvious question comes to mind...what the hell are you waiting for?

Consider the following realities. Shi'ites make up 60% of the Iraqi population. A common assertion made by Western analysts of the Iraqi social situation is that, should Americans be pushed out of Iraq in a violent fashion, the result could be civil war between Sunnis (now deposed from their previous priviliged position under Saddam), Kurds (flexing their muscles in the North for autonomy in their Kurdish regions), and Shi'ites (the majority asserting its will on the nation). This is the worst-case scenario, and its credibility depends on how intransigent all or some of the groups are regarding a new re-composition of the Iraqi political/social system. But, is it a certainty? A very plausible outcome of an American withdrawal from Iraq under forced conditions could be that the victorious Iraqi people, of all ethnic shades, could come together in a spirit of national liberation and make moves toward political accomodation of the demands of all groups. Similar "national unity" has been shown in other Third World national liberation struggles, despite tribal, linguistic, and other differences. Besides, Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds have lived in Mesopotamia for millenia. Has that history been nothing but ethnic civil warfare? Hardly. So why expect that now, without American or British colonial tutelage, the groups will decompose into brutal and unreasonable civil war? Something just doesn't fit.

Polls in Iraq have consistently showed that the Iraqi people conceive of themselves as a nation first, despite loyalties to tribes and religious groups. This conception could provide the ideological cement to keep all groups together in a process of national "rebirth" and collaboration. Perhaps with friendly overtures from the United Nations, the ruling Shi'ites and representatives from the Sunni insurgents and Kurdish forces up North could fashion out a peaceful, democratic compromise. Automatic civil war is not necessarily the only outcome. On the contrary, the American occupation may have had one residual positive benefit to the Iraqi society: it may have provided the foreign "Other" to help unify the Iraqi people in a national liberation struggle. Already, polls show that hatred against the occupation is universal. What isn't is the degree of opposition...but opposition, no matter how peaceful, is virtually universal in Iraq. That's an important point to keep in mind, considering the lofty justifications of "democracy-building" in Iraq professed by Bush administration officials. If democracy was really a goal for these goons in the White House, then U.S. forces would have already left, at the behest of the democratic will of Iraqis. So, let's cut the crap about democracy in Iraq. We all know we are there to take their oil and establish our geopolitical dominance in the region. Let's not play dumb. And perhaps it is time to discard American prophecies about post-war Iraq without their presence there. They've lied so much already and been so wrong, why should we trust them anymore?

But, aside from this theorizing, let's look at this from Sistani's eyes, not necessarily from the point of view of those that hope for the most equitable and peaceful outcome for Iraq. What does Sistani stand to gain from peaceful, transitional-government reformism with the United States, as virtual leader of the majority ethnic group? An orderly transition process, as opposed to the threat of civil strife? A transition to where? Mr. Sistani should acquaint himself with past American and British "democracy-building" history (if he isn't already acquainted with it). There is nothing in the American or British historical palette to suggest that this new painting will be anything but the same old "puppet-regime democracy", the so-called "Arab Facade" that Britain proposed for its Middle East colonies. The U.S., while attempting to change the "perfume" of the colonialism (as we Puerto Ricans view changes in the conceptions of colonialism, based on our experience as a colony of the United States), is nevertheless attempting to find a way to perpetuate it, and the interests protected by it, for the United States. That much is a given, and Sistani knows that. Which is why he ordered those hundred thousands of Shi'ites to the streets on one day, and silenced them the next. It was a muscle flex, and it worked. The Americans were running scared, with Bremer flying over to Washington to consult with the Bush administration about the new political situation. Clearly, there was a new big boy in town. He had been sleeping, and he had awakened. Sistani's got nothing to lose by letting loose his Shi'ite followers, and everything to gain: a free Iraq and a chance to arrive at an equitable compromise with the Sunnis and Kurds, on Iraqi terms and without outside interference or foreign military presence. Was it Marx who said, "you have nothing to lose but your chains"? There's nothing like colonial occupation to make you appreciate freedom and to realize that it does not come in a gift-wrapped package with the initials "U.S.A" on them. For Iraqis, the road to freedom is clear: expel the invaders. Nothing is for certain in Iraq, but then again, nothing could be better than having the opportunity to establish an Iraqi consensus with the other ethnic groups without American interference. That is priceless. So why legitimize the American colonial occupation and prolong the humiliation of your people? All in the hope that the U.S. government will play fair? Please.....come on now, Sistani.

Perhaps Sistani is just playing his cards, one at a time. Maybe he thinks that he can force the Americans to concede defeat in their colonial adventure, by withdrawing peacefully, conducting direct elections, and legitimizing Shi'ite majority rule in Iraq, while helping to rebuild Iraq with foreign aid. That the U.S. civilian presence will leave is virtually certain. The Bush administration has proposed ending the occupation by June, but only its public face. The occupation would remain indefinitely in the form of a U.S. military presence and U.S-sponsored Governing Council sell-outs in the Iraqi political scene. That's not true liberation. Something in my political scientist heart tells me this is wishful thinking. After all, those running the game back in Washington aren't your regular "realpolitik" analysts, changing their politics as the situation demands. We got hard-line neoconservative ideologues in charge, and they won't change for no old man in a turban. What we may see is a game of chicken between the Richard Perle's and Wolfowitz of the U.S. and the Sistanis of Iraq. Luckily for those who fear the American empire, Sistani has the advantage of having the ability to screw the Americans' plans, destroying the credibility of "preemption" theories and neoconservative imperial grand strategies, while the neoconservatives' chances of staying politically relevant depend on success in Iraq. One false move on their part, and Iraq becomes Saigon, the U.S. is humiliated world-wide, the Bush administration loses credibility and loses the election in 2004, and their Bush doctrine, the Patriot Act, and the rest of the pseudo-fascist chutzpah is condemned once and for all to the history books, right next to Nazism and totalitarian communism. Wouldn't that be great? Yes, yes...I know. It is too utopian. But, one thing is for certain. U.S. domestic and foreign policy would undergo a profound change. The neocons would suffer a severe credibility blow.

Which leads me to my final point. Not only is Iraq's future in the balance, the future of the United States and the future of the world is also at stake. A failure in Iraq would delegitimize the entire neoconservative agenda, and the Bush administration's reliance on "national security" prerogatives as a solution to all world and domestic problems. The American public would be faced with the reality of a failed foreign policy approach, and a renewed sense of respect for multilateralism, international law, and international fair play would emerge. With Vietnam and Iraq behind them, the American people would be more reluctant to send their sons and daughters to war without a very clear explanation. And, should the American people again fall into war-fever hysteria of the kind experienced after 9-11, Vietnam and Iraq would be there to remind them to look at things rationally. Counter-terrorist theories that ignore the "draining of the swamp", but that kill the mosquitoes (and the nearby ladybugs as well, collateral damage), would be discarded, in favor of a more rational approach combining both elements, but with a clear focus on nipping terrorism in the bud, rather than after it sprouts.

If the Democrats and progressive forces in the United States were smart, they could use the "national reflection moment" to press on a concrete, alternative domestic and foreign policy agenda that emphasizes the resolution of international grievances through diplomacy, more money for humanitarian aid, focus on poverty and disease issues in the Third World, and a true commitment to promoting REAL democracy (not elite-dominated puppet regimes, either in the dictatorial form present in the Arab world, or in the fake democracies of Latin America and other elite-dominated places). Military force would be maintained as a last-resort alternative, but only with clear consensus from the United Nations (unless the issue was a clear self-defense case for the United States, which is permitted by the U.N. Charter). The Bush doctrine of preemption, endless "War on Terrorism", continuation of neoliberal economic policies that impoverish the majority in the world, and increasingly police-state encroachment in the United States is not the only possible vision for the United States or for the world. A failure in Iraq could discredit the established assumptions, and lead to a much needed debate within the United States about what domestic and foreign policies the country should undertake. Something tells me that the American people would be pretty turned off with the Perle's, Cheneys, and Bushes, should Iraq fail miserably.

There is another impetus for this radical move. Sistani is not God. At this moment, he has the eyes of the world media on him. He has legitimacy in the eyes of most foreign observers. He's Iraq major public-relations representative, whether he knows it or not. And the last two bearded men who defied the U.S. didn't end up so good. Ask Castro and Bin Laden. One was isolated by a crushing economic embargo, while the CIA plotted assassination attempts, and the other is hiding in some cave in Afghanistan, vilified by virtually the entire Western world. So, popularity, international recognition, and legitimacy are not permanent certainties, Mr. Sistani. You could very well miss your opportunity to do something historic for Iraq. You could very well end up dead one day (although this would probably provoke a national riot in Iraq, the likes we have never witnessed).

Taking a quote from the neoconservatives, "all we need is a new Pearl Harbor, a catalyst to start the agenda". All we need is for the Iraqi colonial occupation, which has nothing to do with the lofty "democracy-building" goals that many analysts ascribe to it (and many, like me, wish for, although we know better), to become an abject failure, for a progressive, alternative domestic and world conception of America's role in the world to be proposed, and hopefully implemented. The Bush doctrine of domestic and foreign policies must be discredited for the American republic to survive as a beacon of progressive democratic ideas for the world.

I know my idea is very unpopular. To actually hope for a failure on the part of the United States in Iraq seems like the most ultimate treason, on the part of an American citizen. From my vantage point, however, a failure in Iraq would discard the neoconservative political path for a long time to come, and bringing that to fruition is the patriotic duty of all justice-oriented people in the world. Besides, there is nothing patriotic about quietly hoping for the best and "finishing the job, no matter how wrong it was from the beginning", while Iraq continues to be colonially occupied and the U.S. continues toward fascism. That's delusional complacency. If it is between allowing Bushism to rule the U.S. and the world and the "collateral damage" of dead U.S. soldiers in a Shi'ite insurgency against the U.S., I choose the latter path. If the soldiers were willing to become pawns in a global chess game for neoconservatives, then they should know that pawns are the first to go in any chess game (and the least to be thought of during the game). So, let the real chess game begin.

The American people have been too apathetic for too long, ignoring, as the Germans did, the smoke rising from the crematoriums in their nearby towns. The American people, in their apathetic and naive wish to see their government act in accordance to the lofty goals proclaimed by its Constitution and by its national values, ignore the truth in front of their eyes: their boys and girls in uniform are becoming pawns in a global, imperial chess game played by neoconservative ideologues and supportive corporations. The colonial occupation has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, or equality. The U.S. has been hijacked as sure as the flights in 9-11 were. If the Americans won't wake up, then we need Sistani to be our Eisenhower. We need Sistani to force us into the "concentration camps" of Iraqi failure and expose the Iraq War and the Bushist neoconservative agenda for what it is: a half-baked plot for world domination by modern day imperial fascists. We need Sistani to burst the neoconservative bubble, once and for all.

The time for wishful thinking and patience with the Bush doctrine is over. Sistani...give the freaking word already! Tell the Shi'ites to rebel against the U.S. and coalition forces. Free Iraq from colonial occupation and decide your destiny on your own terms. Give us in the United States and in the world hope for a better future and a chance to pick apart the sorry losers that pretended to be our imperial masters. We made the mistake of overlooking a stolen election, only to be faced with the most imperial and disastrous presidency in U.S. history. We won't make the same mistake again.

Rene L. Gonzalez Berrios M.A.
Political Science / Univ. of Massachusetts
Gonzalez is a Doctoral Candidate in Comparative Politics at the University of Massachusetts
He may be contacted by email at: renegonzalez7@hotmail.com

How America is creating a powerfull enemy . Read it by clicking on following link
http://www.albawabaforums.com/read.php3?f=3&i=61356&t=61356