|
|
|
| Iraq + war on terrorism + Middle East conflict + critical perspectives |
|
The paper chase By Seth Ackerman, Baltimore Sun, February 20, 2004 Why have U.S. political leaders and intelligence agencies turned out to be so wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Despite years of warnings from the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA that Saddam Hussein was hiding an illicit arsenal, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. The weapons failure has become the top political issue in Washington, and a blue-ribbon panel has been formed to come up with answers. Was the intelligence failure an honest, unavoidable mistake or was information manipulated to serve a political agenda? No answer to that question can be complete without looking at the astonishing tale of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking defector to leave Iraq. His story leaves no doubt that Washington misled the American public for years about Iraq's WMD. And it also suggests something unexpected: The pattern of lying began not under President Bush but during the Clinton administration. [complete article] A secret hunt unravels in Afghanistan By Steve Coll, Washington Post, February 22, 2004 During the three years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the hunt [for Osama bin Laden] would eventually involve several dozen local paid CIA agents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a secret commando team drawn from Uzbek special forces, another drawn from retired Pakistani special forces, and a deepening intelligence alliance with Massoud, the northern Afghan guerrilla leader. Despite these varied efforts, bin Laden continually eluded their grasp. Years later, those involved in the secret campaign against bin Laden still disagree about why it failed -- and who is to blame. [complete article] This extended report was adapted from Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, The Penguin Press (New York: 2004), by Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll. CIA admits it didn't give weapon data to the U.N. By Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger, New York Times, February 21, 2004 The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged that it did not provide the United Nations with information about 21 of the 105 sites in Iraq singled out by American intelligence before the war as the most highly suspected of housing illicit weapons. The acknowledgment, in a Jan. 20 letter to Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, contradicts public statements before the war by top Bush administration officials. Both George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said the United States had briefed United Nations inspectors on all of the sites identified as "high value and moderate value" in the weapons hunt. The contradiction is significant because Congressional opponents of the war were arguing a year ago that the United Nations inspectors should be given more time to complete their search before the United States and its allies began the invasion. The White House, bolstered by Mr. Tenet, insisted that it was fully cooperating with the inspectors, and at daily briefings the White House issued assurances that the administration was providing the inspectors with the best information possible. [complete article] The wrong man to promote democracy By Kamel Labidi, New York Times, February 21, 2004 This week, President Bush played host to President Zine el-Abidine ben Ali of Tunisia, giving this ruthless autocrat a long-coveted audience at the White House. To his credit, Mr. Bush rebuked Mr. ben Ali for his violations of press freedom, but the United States is sorely mistaken if it believes that democracy and the rule of law can ever take hold under leaders like Mr. ben Ali. The Bush administration's welcome of Mr. ben Ali makes America's aggressive promotion of democratic reform in the Arab world ring hollow. It's not obvious from Mr. Bush's public statements, but Tunisia today is one of the world's most efficient police states. Since his ouster of President Habib Bourguiba in a coup in 1987, Mr. ben Ali has quashed virtually all dissent and silenced a civil society that once was an example of vibrancy for North Africa and the neighboring Middle East. In the early 1990's, the regime cracked down on the country's Islamist movement, arbitrarily arresting thousands of suspected activists and subjecting them to torture and unfair trials. Mr. ben Ali then extended his crackdown to human rights defenders, opposition leaders and independent journalists. (I, for example, was stripped of my accreditation after 19 years as a journalist following the publication of an interview with a human rights advocate.) [complete article] Al Qaeda rebuffs Iraqi terror group, U.S. officials say By Douglas Jehl, New York Times, February 21, 2004 The most active terrorist network inside Iraq appears to be operating mostly apart from Al Qaeda, senior American officials say. Most significantly, the officials said, American intelligence had picked up signs that Qaeda members outside Iraq had refused a request from the group, Ansar al-Islam, for help in attacking Shiite Muslims in Iraq. The request was made by Ansar's leader, a Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and intercepted by the United States last month. The apparent refusal is being described by some American intelligence analysts as an indication of a significant divide between the groups. [complete article] Kurds reject key parts of proposed Iraq constitution By Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, February 21, 2004 Kurdish leaders are refusing to accept key provisions of an interim Iraqi constitution drafted by the Bush administration and instead are demanding far broader autonomy, including the right to control military forces in Kurdish areas and the freedom to reject laws passed by the national government, Kurdish officials said Friday. The position adopted by the Kurds, an ethnic group that accounts for about 20 percent of Iraq's predominantly Arab population, threatens to block approval of the interim constitution by Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council and deal another setback to the Bush administration's effort to create a sovereign transitional government. Arab leaders oppose almost all of the Kurds' demands, which would effectively preserve an autonomous Kurdish mini-state in northern Iraq with its own army, laws, tax system, judiciary and parliament. [complete article] Iraqi Kurdish leaders resist as the U.S. presses them to moderate their demands By Dexter Filkins, New York Times, February 21, 2004 The alliance between the United States government and Kurdish political parties in Iraq has come under intense strain in recent days, with Kurdish leaders accusing the Americans of trying to block their long stifled hopes for autonomy in the new Iraqi state. Kurdish leaders say American officials are putting pressure on them to drop some of their main demands for autonomy in negotiations with the other major Iraqi groups, the Shiites and Sunni Arabs, over a temporary constitution to guide the country until the end of next year. Iraqi leaders on both sides of the negotiations say the talks on the constitution are deadlocked over three main issues: the fate of the 60,000-member Kurdish militia, which Kurdish leaders want to keep; the boundaries of the autonomous Kurdish region, which Kurdish leaders want to expand; and the amount of oil revenue to be set aside for the Kurdish region. [complete article] Insider tells of nuclear deals, cash By Ellen Nakashima and Alan Sipress, Washington Post, February 21, 2004 The Sri Lankan businessman who was an associate of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan has told Malaysian police how Khan shipped components to Libya and Iran for their nuclear weapons programs and received two briefcases with a $3 million payment from Iran, a Malaysian police report disclosed Friday. In an insider's account of Khan's operation, Buhary Syed Abu Tahir said that Khan asked him to send two shipping containers of used centrifuges -- sophisticated equipment for enriching uranium -- to Iran from Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, aboard a merchant vessel owned by an Iranian company, according to the 12-page report. In return, the Iranian contact provided the briefcases filled with dirhams, the currency of the UAE, that were stashed at Khan's guesthouse in Dubai, the report said. Tahir lives and does business in Malaysia. [complete article] Libya made plutonium, nuclear watchdog says By Peter Slevin, Washington Post, February 21, 2004 Libya produced small amounts of plutonium and accumulated large stores of illicit uranium processing equipment during a haphazard 20-year pursuit of nuclear weapons, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency said yesterday. Working with components acquired on the black market, Libyan scientists assembled a small set of gas centrifuges capable of producing weapons-grade uranium and soon ordered 10,000 more, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported. [complete article] IRANIAN ELECTIONS Comment -- If the Bush administration had a more nuanced approach to the promotion of democracy, the story now coming out of Iran could have been quite different. After President Mohammad Khatami's reformists swept to victory in 2000, America had an opportunity to empower this nascent movement of home-grown Middle Eastern liberalization. But few people in Washington were willing to entertain the notion that there truly could be such a thing as an Islamic democracy and so Khatami's appeal for a dialogue of civilizations fell on deaf ears. Khatami's ability to strengthen the reformist movement was destined to failure if the promise of freedom wasn't coupled with improved economic conditions. Washington could have empowered Khatami by renewing economic ties, but those inside the administration who regard Tehran as a synonym for Hezbollah, nixed such an opportunity. Now we will be in for a good deal of hand wringing as a debate ensues on how best to "deal with" Iran, but there can be little doubt that neoconservatives will take satisfaction in the election results. If Iran's democracy movement can be described as dead and buried, the advocates of a "forward strategy of freedom for the greater Middle East" will take this as proof that only the United States has the power to confer democratic freedom. As David Frum writes in National Review, "Iran is heading toward a crisis that its leaders believe they can survive only by intimidation and terror -- and the United States cannot much longer postpone deciding what it will do about this menace." Irrespective of whether Iran truly constitutes a menace, of this much we can be sure: Not a single neoconservative will acknowledge (or perhaps even recognize) their own complicity in the decline of Iran's reform movement. Iran's conservatives roll to victory in controversial elections Agence France Presse, February 21, 2004 Iranian religious conservatives rolled toward a solid victory in parliamentary elections, sweeping out depleted pro-democracy forces and slamming the door on years of efforts to reform the Islamic republic. But as results trickled in from Friday's polls, there was no official word on whether the conservatives had rallied enough of Iran's 46.3 million eligible voters to make their triumph credible. The conservative Guardians Council hailed what it called a "strong turnout" and massive popular support for the fundamentalists, but early results pointed to a participation level well off the 67 percent recorded in 2000. [complete article] Iran conservatives win big on small vote By Parisa Hafezi and Paul Taylor, February 21, 2004 Partial results from Iran's disputed parliamentary election have showed Islamic conservatives hostile to President Mohammad Khatami's liberal reforms cruising to an expected victory on a sharply lower turnout. Interior Ministry figures showed conservatives had won 43 of the first 83 constituencies declared, out of 289 seats contested on Friday, an analyst at the Parliamentary Research Centre said on Saturday. [complete article] Iran's election turnout: The (other) only democracy in the Middle East Muslim Wakeup!, February 21, 2004 Iran's democracy has a lot going for it. For one, it has the earliest legal voting age in the world--anyone 15 and older is eligible to vote. That already gives Israel, the perennial claimant to the title of "only democracy in the Middle East," a run for its money. But it is the Middle East, and the people over there, being so far away from America and all, don't know any better, so you have to be a little liberal with your definition of democracy. Israel is a democracy that, since 1967, is ruling over 3.7 million Palestinians without providing them with the most basic human rights (never mind voting rights). And Iran is a democracy where a bunch of unelected old men can disqualify whomever they disagree with politically from running for office. This year, the Guardian Council, the body that was created by conservatives to "protect the ideals of the revolution" decided to prevent almost anyone with a reformist agenda from running--to the tune of turning down around 2,400 candidates. [complete article] Get rid of all nuclear arms By Adil Najam, USA Today (via Yahoo), February 20, 2004 President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) provides the right solution, but to the wrong problem. Nuclear proliferation is merely a symptom; the real issue is the nuclear weapons themselves. And, in this sense, the PSI is no more than a Band-Aid, and a quite small one at that. The recent scandal in Pakistan, where a corrupt scientist sold nuclear secrets for profit, only demonstrates that such traffic is much too lucrative to be stopped by increased policing. For 60 years, ever since Hiroshima, the U.S. and the world have tried to control the spread of nuclear weapons. We've tried treaties, economic sanctions and moral persuasion. And we've failed. We could not stop the Soviets from getting nukes. We chose not to resist, and actually ignored, Israel's nuclear program. We looked the other way when India went nuclear and, thus, could do little when Pakistan followed suit. And we merely fumed when North Korea flexed its nuclear muscles. In the meantime, we have built and maintained the world's largest nuclear stockpile. Can we contain Pakistan's nuclear program? Yes, we can. But first we will need to contain India's. To do that, however, India will need to see China's program rolled back. How does that happen? For that, we will need to start looking at our own. As my grandmother used to say, "If you point one finger at someone, at least three will point back at you." No one said this was easy! [complete article] Kazakhstan probes nuclear black market By Bagila Bukharbayeva, Associated Press (via Yahoo), February 20, 2004 Kazakhstan has opened an investigation into the nuclear black market that helped Iran, Libya and North Korea, exploring suspected ties in the country that housed much of the Soviet Union's atomic arsenal, officials told The Associated Press. Kazakhstan's intelligence agency is examining the Almaty office of a Dubai company linked by President Bush to the market headed by the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, the officials said. The black market's potential connection to Kazakhstan -- which served as a nuclear testing ground until it disarmed after its 1991 independence -- has raised concern about the proliferation of remnants of the Soviet weapons program. Kazakh officials strongly deny any highly enriched uranium -- the form used in weapons -- has leaked out of the country. [complete article] Halliburton's rising cost for Bush By Stan Crock, BusinessWeek, February 20, 2004 In a normal political season, President George W. Bush could tough out the string of embarrassing charges of war profiteering and bribes emanating from Halliburton, where Vice-President Dick Cheney used to hang his hat. But as Democrats more or less unite behind Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), they're getting the better of Bush on issues ranging from missing Iraqi weapons to missing American jobs. With the 2004 election looking to be as tight as 2000's cliffhanger, the drip-drip-drip of Halliburton charges threatens to erode one of the President's greatest strengths: Character and credibility. [complete article] Comment -- A lot of the hogwash that flows like honey from the lips of many a Washington commentator often sounds strange to those of us who can only form an opinion about George Bush by watching him on TV. Stan Crock -- whose reading of the Halliburton liability is probably accurate -- refers to Bush's greatest strengths as character and credibility. Earlier this week the Washington Post's White House correspondent, Dana Milbank, in an interview on NPR, described Bush as very smart. Character? Credibility? Smart? A much more convincing assessment of Bush was provided elsewhere in the Washington Post but it didn't come from an observer so close up to the president that he can't see higher than Bush's shoe laces. This came from NASCAR fan, Thomas Hanner, 58, a self-employed contractor from Sarasota, Florida. "He's like me -- his swagger, his confidence -- I can relate to his thinking." Mr. Hanner might be flattering himself by suggesting that swagger and confidence reflect a method of reflection, but he surely describes the core of Bush's appeal: It's the he's-like-me factor. This is why Bush's political mastery should not be underestimated, for in spite of his ties to the economic elite, his disdain for open government, and his aristocratic roots, he still manages to portray himself as a common man. Russia tests missile that could evade U.S. defense By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2004 After two days of high-profile military exercises, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin said Wednesday that Russia had successfully tested a new strategic missile system, a development that analysts said could allow nuclear warheads to avoid U.S. defenses. Putin, who is seeking reelection next month, did not identify the system, which he said would allow "deep maneuvering" of Russia's long-range missiles. Russian and U.S. military analysts said his cryptic description could mean that Russia has developed a "maneuverable reentry vehicle" -- a technology under development for decades that could provide a rudimentary guidance system for intercontinental missiles and render them difficult or impossible to destroy. [complete article] Start-up company with connections By Knut Royce, Newsday, February 15, 2004 U.S. authorities in Iraq have awarded more than $400 million in contracts to a start-up company that has extensive family and, according to court documents, business ties to Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon favorite on the Iraqi Governing Council. The most recent contract, for $327 million to supply equipment for the Iraqi Armed Forces, was awarded last month and drew an immediate challenge from a losing contester, who said the winning bid was so low that it questions the "credibility" of that bid. But it is an $80-million contract, awarded by the Coalition Provisional Authority last summer to provide security for Iraq's vital oil infrastructure, that has become a controversial lightning rod within the Iraqi Provisional Government and the security industry. Soon after this security contract was issued, the company started recruiting many of its guards from the ranks of Chalabi's former militia, the Iraqi Free Forces, raising allegations from other Iraqi officials that he was creating a private army. Chalabi, 59, scion of one of Iraq's most politically powerful and wealthy families until the monarchy was toppled in 1958, had been living in exile in London when the U.S. invaded Iraq. The chief architect of the umbrella organization for the resistance, the Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi is viewed by many Iraqis as America's hand-picked choice to rule Iraq. [complete article] Look who's talking By Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, February 19, 2004 One major criticism of the Iraq war is that by invading Iraq, the U.S. actually created more enemies in the Arab-Muslim world. I don't happen to believe that, but maybe it's true. What the critics miss, though, is that the U.S. ouster of Saddam Hussein has also triggered the first real "conversation" about political reform in the Arab world in a long, long time. It's still mostly in private, but more is now erupting in public. For this conversation to be translated into broad political change requires a decent political outcome in Iraq. But even without that, something is stirring. [complete article] GUEST COMMENTARY BY HENRY MUNSON (HARVARD): Neoconservatives and some liberals argue that the United States must engage in a new form of imperialism to reform the failed states of the Middle East. According to this argument, the United States must shoulder this new form of "the white man's burden" to eradicate the noxious values that give rise to terrorism. It is of course true that the Islamic world is in dire need of reform, but not reform imposed by foreign armies of occupation. The advocates of neoimperialism forget that the old empires of Europe collapsed because of the nationalist revolts of people who refused to be ruled by others. In his New York Times column, "Look who's talking," Tom Friedman quotes several articles by Arabs who appear to endorse the view that the American overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime will encourage democratization in the Arab world. But Friedman does not mention that the overwhelming majority of Arabs, including those most committed to democratization, view the American-led invasion of Iraq as an imperial act of aggression rather than as an attempt to bring about reform. In June 2003, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press issued a report indicating that the war increased Muslim hostility toward the U.S. and toward "the war on terrorism." In October 2003, the annual report of the International Institute for Strategic Studies stated that "the war in Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among Muslims and thus increased al Qaeda's recruiting power and morale...." Many other intelligence analysts and agencies have also argued that the anger provoked by the occupation of Iraq has facilitated recruiting by militant Islamic groups (see the article "Anger on Iraq Seen as New Qaeda Recruiting Tool" in the March 16, 2003 issue of the New York Times). Defeating terrorist groups like al Qaeda does entail reforming the societies that produce them. But trying to impose such reform by Humvees and tanks simply strengthens the people one seeks to weaken. Henry Munson is a visiting scholar in anthropology at Harvard and professor of anthropology at the University of Maine. He is the author of Islam and Revolution in the Middle East. "GUEST COMMENTARY" is a new feature at The War in Context where I'll be soliciting comments from journalists, academics and other specialists whose insights will add depth to our understanding of the news. If you'd like to participate, please contact me at comments@warincontext.org -- Paul Woodward, Editor Sistani hints at allowing election delay in Iraq By Nadim Ladki, Reuters, February 20, 2004 Iraq's top Shi'ite religious leader hinted in an interview published on Friday that he would allow a delay to elections in line with a U.N. verdict that ruled out polls before the end of U.S.-led occupation in June. But Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, widely seen as holding the key to Iraq's political future, said any delay should be brief and any interim government should have limited authority. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has sided with the United States, saying elections in Iraq before the political transfer of power on June 30 were not feasible. He also said the date for restoring sovereignty that Washington wants "must be respected." Sistani told Germany's Der Spiegel that an interim government should be charged only with running the day-to-day affairs of the state in the run-up to quick elections. [complete article] A third way for Iraq By Noah Feldman, New York Times, February 20, 2004 The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, and his envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, confirmed yesterday what realists already knew: there is no way to hold national elections in Iraq by June 30, the deadline chosen by the United States for transferring sovereignty to Iraqis. The problem is not only logistics, but also security: no one can guarantee the safety of the thousands of polling places that would be necessary for millions of Iraqi voters. With the United Nations having weighed in, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiite religious leader who has insisted on direct elections before any transfer can occur, becomes again the pivotal player in the drama. The problem is that while the June 30 date is not inherently significant to Iraqis, it matters greatly to the Bush administration, which has clung to it despite criticism that the time line is designed to fit the American electoral clock, not the Iraqi one. Washington's initial hope for establishing a transition government in Baghdad by June 30 was pinned on using some sort of nationwide caucus system, but this foundered when Ayatollah Sistani ruled out caucuses as undemocratic. The ayatollah's position is not unreasonable: Iraq's novice electorate needs simplicity and transparency, and it would be hard to find a dozen ordinary Americans outside of Iowa who could explain the caucus system (there is not even an Arabic word for caucus). [complete article] Pending a vote, some Iraqis press for a larger governing council By Jeffrey Gettleman and Dexter Filkins, New York Times, February 20, 2004 As prospects for early elections faded, several Iraqi leaders said Thursday that they wanted the American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council to remain in place after the United States transferred power back to the people on June 30. Plans are already under way to expand the council, they added. The leaders, including representatives from the major ethnic and religious groups and members of the council, said a consensus had emerged to increase the current council of 25 people to as many as 125, and to keep it in power until United Nations-assisted elections could be held in early 2005. Several council members said the plan appeared to have cleared a potentially major obstacle: Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most powerful Shiite cleric, indicated that he would accept an enlarged council as long as this was part of the United Nations recommendation. It was the ayatollah's call for early elections that brought the United Nations to Iraq in the first place. [complete article] Plan for caucuses in Iraq is dropped By Robin Wright and Colum Lynch, Washington Post, February 20, 2004 The Bush administration is abandoning the core idea of its plan to hold regional caucuses for an Iraqi provisional government and will instead work with the United Nations and Iraqis to develop yet another plan for the transfer of political power by June 30, U.N. and U.S. officials said yesterday. The decision, forced by rejection of the caucus system by a wide range of Iraqis, means that the Coalition Provisional Authority led by the U.S. administrator, L. Paul Bremer, will instead hand over authority to a caretaker government until direct elections can be held, officials said. [complete article] Powell: Stability after Iraq handover is prime concern By Warren P. Strobel, Knight Ridder, February 20, 2004 Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that the Bush administration was "extremely sensitive" to the danger that Iraq could become destabilized after the United States returned sovereignty June 30 and was working to ensure clear lines of authority. In an interview, he acknowledged that there were legitimate concerns about Iraq's future after the handover, which will change the status of 100,000 U.S. troops serving alongside tens of thousands of newly trained Iraqi security forces. "It will be different," he said. "And we don't want it to be a destabilized situation or a situation that could tilt in the wrong direction." [complete article] Arabs displaced by Iraqi Kurds By Elizabeth Blunt, BBC News, February 19, 2004 An international body that monitors displaced people says about 100,000 Arabs have been forced from their homes by returning Kurds in northern Iraq. The Global IDP Project estimates that about 30,000 Kurds who were evicted under Saddam Hussein have gone back to their home towns and villages. The Arab families have been pushed out, or fled, the group says. Many are camped in abandoned public buildings in non-Kurdish areas and are dependent on food aid. The latest report from the Global IDP Project details the consequences of what it calls the "revolving door effect", triggered by last year's war in Iraq. [complete article] Read the Global IDP Project report, Iraq: return of evicted Kurds causes new displacements Syria and Iran aiding militants, Iraq says By Michael Howard, The Guardian, February 20, 2004 Senior Iraqi intelligence officers believe an Islamic militant group which has claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings in Irbil and a spate of deadly attacks in Baghdad, Falluja and Mosul is receiving significant help from Syria and Iran. The officers, who have been tracking the activities of domestic and foreign jihadists in northern Iraq, claim that members of Jaish Ansar al-Sunna (the army of the supporters of the sayings of the prophet) have been "given shelter by Syrian and Iranian security agencies and have been able to enter Iraq with ease". The group is suspected of training suicide bombers and deploying them against US forces in Iraq and Iraqis considered to be collaborating with the US-led authorities. [complete article] Post-war, or pre-civil war? By Ramsey Al-Rikabi, Al-Ahram, February 19, 2004 As the June 30 deadline for handing over sovereignty to Iraqis draws closer, the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces in keeping the peace, so to speak, is of grave importance as domestic issues in both the US and Iraq will be working against it. At a rate of about one US soldier killed per day in a conflict based on what now looks to be almost indefensibly faulty grounds, the Bush administration's main priority this election year is making sure the war is as bloodless as possible -- at least for Americans. Standard operating procedures for troops stationed in Iraq have changed in such a way as to avoid lethal engagements. US soldiers in Iraq have told Al-Ahram Weekly that, for example, if a patrol comes under fire, the usual response is to leave the area rather than counterattack, unless absolutely necessary. As the US makes plans to pull troops out of cities to bases on the edges of urban centres, Iraqi security forces are being trained and deployed at a break-neck pace, often without proper vehicles or communications and security equipment. The goal is to hand over all security positions to the Iraqis, and damn the consequences. [complete article] Iran, Iraq, and two Shiite visions By Nicholas Blanford, Christian Science Monitor, February 20, 2004 The Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala are back in business - teeming with thousands of pilgrims drawn from across the Middle East and Asia. After decades of persecution by Saddam Hussein's regime, the Shiite resurgence in these two holy cities presents new opportunity - and a potential challenge - for the Shiite leadership in neighboring Iran. Amid preparations for pivotal elections Friday in Iran - and later this year in Iraq - analysts see two Shiite visions of democracy vying for dominance. Some say the traditionally "quietist" clergy represented by Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is growing more influential at the expense of Iran's all-embracing system of clerical rule embodied by Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. [complete article] CIA struggles to spy in Iraq, Afghanistan By Greg Miller and Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times, February 20, 2004 Confronting problems on critical fronts, the CIA recently removed its top officer in Baghdad because of questions about his ability to lead the massive station there, and has closed a number of satellite bases in Afghanistan amid concerns about that country's deteriorating security situation, according to U.S. intelligence sources. The previously undisclosed moves underscore the problems affecting the agency's clandestine service at a time when it is confronting insurgencies and the U.S.-declared war on terrorism, current and former CIA officers say. They said a series of stumbles and operational constraints have hampered the agency's ability to penetrate the insurgency in Iraq, find Osama bin Laden and gain traction against terrorism in the Middle East. The CIA's Baghdad station has become the largest in agency history, eclipsing the size of its post in Saigon at the height of the Vietnam War, a U.S. official said. But sources said the agency has struggled to fill a number of key overseas posts. [complete article] Case set to be dropped against GCHQ mole who blew whistle on U.S. bugging By Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, February 20, 2004 The prosecution is preparing to abandon the case against a former GCHQ employee charged with leaking information about a "dirty tricks" spying operation before the invasion of Iraq, the Guardian has learned. Katharine Gun, 29, is due to appear at the Old Bailey next week where she has said she will plead not guilty to breaking the Official Secrets Act. She has said her alleged disclosures exposed serious wrongdoing by the US and could have helped to prevent the deaths of Iraqis and British forces in an "illegal war". [complete article] Pakistani linked to illegal exports has ties to military By David Rohde, New York Times, February 20, 2004 A Pakistani businessman who has been linked to the illegal export from the United States to Pakistan of high-speed switches has longstanding ties to the country's powerful military, according to documents filed in an American court and interviews here. The switches can be used as triggers for nuclear weapons. Humayun Khan, the Pakistani businessman whose office address was the final destination for the shipment last fall of 66 triggers, confirmed in interviews that he and his father had been suppliers of equipment and technology to the Pakistani military for the last 20 years. Mr. Khan insisted that he had not been involved in the effort to smuggle the American-made triggers to Pakistan. [complete article] Roots of Pakistan atomic scandal traced to Europe By Craig S. Smith, New York Times, February 19, 2004 The Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan has been demonized in the West for selling atomic secrets and equipment around the world, but the trade began in Europe, not Islamabad, according to court documents and experts who monitor proliferation. The records show that industry scientists and Western intelligence agencies have known for decades that nuclear technology was pouring out of Europe despite national export control efforts to contain it. Many of the names that have turned up among lists of suppliers and middlemen who fed equipment, materials and knowledge to nuclear programs in Pakistan and other aspiring nuclear nations are well-known players in Europe's uranium enrichment industry, a critical part of many nuclear weapons programs. Some have been convicted of illegal exports before. [complete article] Taliban try to frighten Afghan voters in rural areas By Carlotta Gall, New York Times, February 19, 2003 After a relatively dormant winter, Taliban insurgents are waging a violent campaign in the countryside to frighten people from cooperating with the American-backed government and from taking part in elections scheduled for the summer. In Zormat, a district in southeastern Afghanistan, the police recently detained three men carrying Taliban leaflets warning people not to register for the vote, a process being overseen by the United Nations that is months behind schedule. "You should not take an election registration card," the leaflets read, according to the local deputy police chief, Zazai Kamran. "If anyone does, his life will be in danger." The leaflets also call on people to fight against the government. [complete article] Israeli suspected of selling nukes to Pakistan and India Associated Press (via Haaretz), February 19, 2004 An Israeli businessman accused of being a middleman in the nuclear black market worked to supply not only Pakistan but also its arch-rival India, court records indicate. South Africa-based Asher Karni faces felony charges of exporting nuclear bomb triggers to Pakistan. But court files in the case also include e-mail exchanges between Karni and an Indian businessman who was trying secretly to buy material for two Indian rocket factories. [complete article] To vote or not to vote ... By Jim Lobe, Asia Times, February 20, 2004 With only four months to go before scheduled elections in Afghanistan in June, some experts are calling for the elections to be put off until next year. A delay would enable both international donors and the government of Hamid Karzai to make greater progress in disarming the warlords who still run most of the country and in extending security to rural areas, they argue. These experts fear that the challenges created in preparing the country of some 28 million people for an election will divert attention and scarce resources from more important tasks, particularly in the security realm. But Karzai himself, apparently backed by the administration of US President George W Bush, appears determined to forge ahead, at least with presidential elections that he and Washington believe would give the central government greater legitimacy, both internationally and inside Afghanistan. [complete article] Holdup at the ballot box By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, February 20, 2004 The Bush administration is now "suggesting" that the elections scheduled for June in Afghanistan - for which the administration itself pushed - may have to be postponed because of "security problems". There's much more to this than a huge understatement. Not only a third of the country - as Washington says - is unstable, but practically everywhere outside of the capital Kabul. Security advisers for international aid agencies reveal every week what's really happening. Except for the Kabul-Jalalabad road, to travel overland in Afghanistan is still a very dangerous undertaking. Even the recently rebuilt and repaved Kabul-Kandahar road is considered dangerous. According to the United Nations, at least 70 percent of 10.5 million eligible Afghan voters should be registered for the elections to be considered credible. But at the moment, Afghan registration workers are not even capable of fulfilling their mission in most parts of the country. The administration of US President George W Bush now says that "at least the presidential election" can take place in June, or maybe July. Bushites are "advising" the government of Hamid Karzai on the matter. [complete article] Bush administration accused of suppressing, distorting science By Seth Borenstein, Knight Ridder, February 19, 2004 A group of more than 60 top U.S. scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and several science advisers to past Republican presidents, on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of manipulating and censoring science for political purposes. In a 46-page report and an open letter, the scientists accused the administration of "suppressing, distorting or manipulating the work done by scientists at federal agencies" in several cases. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a liberal advocacy group based in Cambridge, Mass., organized the effort, but many of the critics aren't associated with it. White House Science Advisor John Marburger III called the charges "like a conspiracy theory report, and I just don't buy that." But he added that "given the prestige of some of the individuals who have signed on to this, I think they deserve additional response and we're coordinating something." The protesting scientists welcomed his response. "If an administration of whatever political persuasion ignores scientific reality, they do so at great risk to the country," said Stanford University physicist W.H.K. Panofsky, who served on scientific advisory councils in the Eisenhower, Johnson and Carter administrations. "There is no clear understanding in the (Bush) administration that you cannot bend science and technology to policy." [complete article] Read the statement, Restoring scientific integrity in policymaking, signed by Paul Ehrlich, Edward O. Wilson, and many other leaders of America's scientific community, including twenty Nobel Laureates and nineteen National Medal of Science signatories. The statement begins: "Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle." Missing in action in Iraq By Naomi Klein, The Globe and Mail, February 18, 2004 It was Mary Vargas, a 44-year-old engineer in Renton, Wash., who carried U.S. therapy culture to its new zenith. Explaining why the war in Iraq was no longer her top election issue, she told the Internet magazine Salon that, "when they didn't find the weapons of mass destruction, I felt I could also focus on other things. I got validated." Yes, that's right: war opposition as self-help. The end goal is not to seek justice for the victims, or punishment for the aggressors, but rather "validation" for the war's critics. Once validated, it is of course time to reach for the talisman of self-help: "closure." In this mindscape, Howard Dean's wild scream was not so much a gaffe as the second of the five stages of grieving: anger. The scream was a moment of uncontrolled release, a catharsis, allowing U.S. liberals to externalize their rage and then move on, transferring their affections to more appropriate candidates. All of the front-runners in the Democratic race borrow the language of pop therapy to discuss the war and the toll it has taken not on Iraq, a country so absent from their campaigns it may as well be on another planet, but on the American people themselves. To hear John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean tell it, the invasion was less a war of aggression against a sovereign nation than a civil war within the United States, a traumatic event that severed Americans from their faith in politicians, from their rightful place in the world and from their tax dollars. [complete article] Why Iraqi women aren't complaining By Haifa Zangana, The Guardian, February 19, 2004 Iraqi family law is the most progressive in the Middle East. Divorce cases are heard only in the civil courts (effectively outlawing the "repudiation" religious divorce); polygamy is outlawed unless the first wife welcomes it (and very few do); and women divorcees have an equal right to custody of their children. The "liberators" of Iraq can take no credit for this. The secular family code was introduced in 1959. Saddam Hussein weakened its inheritance provisions but left it mostly unchanged. Now it is under threat from the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. IGC resolution 137 will, if implemented, eliminate the idea of civil marriage and place several aspects of family law - including divorce and inheritance rights - directly under the control of religious authorities. I was in Baghdad when the resolution was issued, on my first visit home since 1975 when, fearful for my life and the safety of my family, I left the country of my birth. I noticed with amazement how little attention any of the women I met paid to resolution 137. Only 100 women demonstrated in the city's Firdose Square to condemn it. Where was the outcry? [complete article] Jihad on the cards Iraq's insurgency is homegrown, not imported By Tony Karon, Time.com, February 18, 2004 ... the "Zarqawi letter" [recommending to al-Qaeda a strategy of "sectarian warfare" in Iraq] actually contains its own negation of the argument that the ongoing violence in Iraq is primarily the work of foreign jihadis. The author writes that the number of foreign jihadis who have made it to Iraq is, in fact, "negligible," and laments the reluctance of Iraqis to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks. "Jihad here unfortunately (takes the form of) mines planted, rockets launched, and mortars shelling from afar," the author complains. "The Iraqi brothers still prefer safety and returning to the arms of their wives, where nothing frightens them. Sometimes the groups have boasted among themselves that not one of them has been killed or captured. We have told them in our many sessions with them that safety and victory are incompatible, ... that the (Islamic) nation cannot live without the aroma of martyrdom and the perfume of fragrant blood spilled on behalf of God, and that people cannot awaken from their stupor unless talk of martyrdom and martyrs fills their days and nights." The bad news here is obvious: It is precisely these 9-5 nationalist warriors who want to fight but also to survive, rather than the Islamist "martyrs" with their suicide bombs, that are responsible for most of the attacks on the U.S. and its allies in Iraq. Three or four grisly suicide bombings may have grabbed the headlines in January, but according to a report distributed by the U.S. Agency for International Development that month in fact saw 642 attacks of the hit-and-run type described by the author of the "Zarqawi letter," presumably conducted by Iraqis who then returned home to their families and communities. And that suggests that even when and if the "Wild Card" Zarqawi is nabbed, Iraq will remain the proverbial "tough town" for the U.S. and its allies. [complete article] GUEST COMMENTARY BY HENRY MUNSON (HARVARD): American foreign policy has often been crippled by the assumption that patriotism is a uniquely American sentiment. In Vietnam, Robert McNamara saw only a war against communism. As he himself has admitted, he did not understand that many Vietnamese saw the war in Vietnam as a nationalist struggle against foreign domination. In Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld sees only a war against terrorism. He does not understand that many Iraqis see the attacks on American troops as part of a nationalist struggle against foreign occupation. The insurgency has thus far been primarily a Sunni Iraqi phenomenon. It is true that the occupation has attracted some foreign Islamists to Iraq. These foreigners appear to have been involved in some of the deadliest suicide bombings. But the overwhelming majority of the insurgents killed or captured have been Sunni Iraqis fighting "for God and country." In addition to rejecting the occupation of their land by foreign soldiers, the Sunni Iraqis also oppose the creation of a state dominated by Shiites. The Shiites will accept nothing less. By occupying Iraq, the United States has assumed responsibility for reconciling these seemingly irreconcilable goals (not to mention the seemingly irreconcilable goals of Kurds and Arabs). When Israel invaded Lebanon in June of 1982, the Shiites of southern Lebanon initially welcomed the Israelis as liberators. But this welcome soon turned into rage as Israeli troops began acting like an army of occupation. Israel's invasion became one of the main reasons for the emergence of Hezbollah. The threat spawned by the occupation of southern Lebanon thus turned out to be far more dangerous than the threat it was supposed to eliminate. The Bush administration has created a similar situation in Iraq. Henry Munson is a visiting scholar in anthropology at Harvard and professor of anthropology at the University of Maine. He is the author of Islam and Revolution in the Middle East. "GUEST COMMENTARY" is a new feature at The War in Context where I'll be soliciting comments from journalists, academics and other specialists whose insights will add depth to our understanding of the news. If you'd like to participate, please contact me at comments@warincontext.org -- Paul Woodward, Editor Shiites clamor for direct elections By Eric Talmadge, Associated Press, February 18, 2004 Ali Khadim is tired of what he considers the decadence that he sees around him. Women should wear head scarves. Liquor stores should be closed. Only a government based on Islam, he says, can make that happen and, perhaps, restore order to Iraq . "We must have a person who can represent the people," the 22-year-old metalworker said this week. "We must have a whole new Islamic government, an Islamic system, Islamic law. Our time has come." His opinion appears to be gaining strength in areas of the country dominated by Shiite Muslims, long suppressed by secular or Sunni-dominated governments, including the regime of Saddam Hussein. From dusty marketplaces to crowded mosques, the call for free and direct elections to choose Iraq's next government, as articulated by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, is getting stronger and louder across the country's southern half, the heartland of its Shiite majority. [complete article] Annan discounts June election in Iraq, may anger Shiite majority Agence France Presse, February 19, 2004 UN chief Kofi Annan discounted elections in Iraq before US forces hand over control on June 30, a move that may anger the country's Shiite majority as the power debate heats up. But Shiite politicians were not rushing to judgement on Annan's prognosis, while tensions on the ground are already high following a wave of violence this month that left more than 200 Iraqis dead. [complete article] See also Annan to back U.S. on Iraq plan (WP) France, Germany want a U.N. resolution on Iraq By Paul Richter and Maggie Farley, Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2004 France and Germany said Wednesday that a new U.N. Security Council resolution on the world body's role in Iraq would be needed, prompting U.S. concerns about possible delays in reconstruction efforts and in the planned hand-over of sovereignty this summer. The U.S. has been urging the United Nations to take a greater role in Iraq, but a new resolution may set up a new confrontation between the United States and two leading war opponents. The new complications arise as U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan prepares to issue recommendations on how a new Iraqi government should be selected. Annan was expected to tell the Security Council today that direct elections were not possible before the scheduled June 30 power transfer but would be desirable by the end of the year. Additional recommendations based on a U.N. team's visit to Iraq this month are expected next week. Bush administration officials said they feared that a debate over a new resolution could drag on long enough to force a postponement of the hand-over to a transitional Iraqi government. They also worry that it could provide the U.N. with enough leverage to force an overhaul of major infrastructure projects in the country, such as those for power plants and oil field redevelopment. [complete article] U.S. Presidential politics and self-rule for Iraqis By Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, February 19, 2004 In the Bush administration, it is considered heresy to suggest postponing the planned return of sovereignty to Iraq. Turning over control by June 30, administration officials say, is crucial to assuaging Iraqi distress over living under American occupation. Yet in recent weeks, diplomats and even some in the administration have begun to worry that the date reflects more concern for American politics than Iraqi democracy. Their fear is that an untested government taking power on June 30 may not be strong enough to withstand the pressures bearing down on it. "When we went into Iraq, our plan was to have a government, build a structure and write a constitution that would be a source of longterm stability," said an administration official. "Now that's out the window." [complete article] Suicides in Iraq, questions at home By Theola Labbé, Washington Post, February 19, 2004 Two-year-old Jada Suell tumbled out of the car and ran ahead of everyone -- her grandmother, her mother, her cousins and her 4-year-old sister, Jakayla -- toward the grave of Joseph Dewayne Suell. "Dada," said the little girl. In the Sunday afternoon quiet of Cedar Grove cemetery, her toddler voice reverberated like a shout. "Yes, we're going to Daddy's grave," her grandmother Rena Mathis said reassuringly. The silver grave cover bore colorful wreaths and American flags -- a nod to Suell's three years of military service. He was deployed to Iraq in April 2003 as an Army petroleum supply specialist out of Fort Sill, Okla. Less than two months later, he was dead. A report provided to the family at their request says that the 24-year-old died of a drug overdose on Father's Day, one of 22 suicides reported among troops in Iraq last year. [complete article] Students struggle as parents serve in Iraq By Nick Childs, BBC, February 18, 2004 The crowded halls look and sound like those of almost any American school - but Robert M Shoemaker High School in Killeen, Texas is not just any school. It sits right next to Fort Hood, America's largest army base. Of the more than 2,000 students here, more than half have parents or relations who are involved in operations in Iraq. The students are under strain of absent parents, and some mourn parents who will never come home. [complete article] Truck bombs kill 11 Iraqis at army base run by Poles By Dexter Filkins, New York Times, February 19, 2004 Suicide bombers attacked a Polish military base south of Baghdad on Wednesday morning, killing 11 Iraqis and wounding more than 100 others, including soldiers and civilians. The attack began when two trucks packed with explosives raced toward the military compound in Hillah, about 60 miles south of the capital. Guards fired on the vehicles, causing one to explode. The other crashed into a concrete barrier and blew up, Lt. Col. Robert Strzelecki, commander of the Polish base, told The Associated Press. Preliminary reports indicated that the 11 people killed were Iraqis. American officials in Baghdad said 102 people were wounded, including 58 soldiers at the base. It was unclear if any of the wounded were Americans. A spokesman for the American military in Baghdad said only 6 of the 58 wounded soldiers remained hospitalized. The extent of the injuries to the Iraqis was unclear, but officials said women and children were among them. The suicide attack was the third such bombing in eight days, after more than 100 people were killed in back-to-back bombings: of a police station south of Baghdad on Feb. 10, and at an army recruitment center in the capital on Feb. 11. In all three attacks, the overwhelming majority of the dead were Iraqi civilians. [complete article] No end to war By Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative, March 1, 2004 On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post depiction of himself as the "intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy." The guru's reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle's new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality. An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, "There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust." "What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained" now menaces "our survival as a nation." [complete article] The diminishing of John Ashcroft A bipartisan groundswell of rebellion By Nat Hentoff, Village Voice, February 12, 2004 In January of 2003, I, hardly known as a conservative or Bush admirer, was invited by David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, to appear at its annual Conservative Political Action Conference. It was the first time a Voice writer had been asked to speak at this center of conservative activism. Joining me at the panel on civil liberties, the Constitution, and the Bush-Ashcroft Patriot Act was Bob Barr, an authentic conservative Republican but also a libertarian. He and I led the attack on the attorney general's dismantling of parts of the Bill of Rights. Before us was an audience of Bush enthusiasts, but some seemed to be rather receptive to what we were saying. [complete article] When borders become cultural walls a nation is beginning to strangle itself 'Mr Ferrer can't be with us tonight' By James Verini, The Guardian, February 18, 2004 In the spring of 2003, the celebrated Iranian film-maker Jafar Panahi was travelling to South America from Hong Kong. He did not intend to stop in the US, but his flight path took him through New York's John F Kennedy airport. There, Panahi, a winner of the Golden Bear award at the Venice film festival who had visited the US several times, expected to while away a few dull hours. Instead, he was detained by officials; because his fingerprints were not on file, he was handcuffed and held in custody for several hours. He was so incensed at his treatment that he vowed never to return to the US. Panahi's experience is extreme, but not rare. According to organisations connected with film, theatre, music, opera and dance, new American immigration and visa policies are making it extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, for foreign artists of all sorts to come to the US to perform and show their work. No one, it seems, is exempt. Last week, at the Grammy awards, the Cuban guitarist Ibrahim Ferrer was supposed to have received an award - but he couldn't get into the country. The 76-year-old was cited as a security risk. A Peking Opera company had to cancel an 18-city tour because the American consulate in China claimed not all of the musicians could adequately prove that they intended to return home after the tour ended. The South African anti-apartheid leader and singer Vusi Mahlasela had to cancel a good chunk of a US tour because his visa took months to get approved, as did the Spanish guitarist Paco de Lucia. [complete article] Bush administration may alter Iraq self-rule plan By Barry Schweid, Associated Press (via Yahoo), February 18, 2004 The Bush administration is considering a major shift in its plan for transition to Iraqi self-rule, possibly extending and expanding the U.S.-appointed Governing Council so it can take temporary control of the country on July 1, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday. The serious consideration of that option comes as the Bush administration waits for U.N. help -- now delayed by at least a week -- in settling differences among Iraqi leaders on how to meet the July 1 U.S. deadline. Under active consideration is extending and expanding the U.S.-handpicked Iraq Governing Council so that it could take interim control in Baghdad until a legislature could be elected, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. [complete article] Annan to back indirect elections in Iraq, diplomats say By Warren Hoge, New York Times, February 18, 2004 Secretary General Kofi Annan has decided to endorse the view that the interim government to take office in Iraq this summer cannot be chosen by direct elections, but he will delay for at least a week his recommendation on how best to chart the country's political future, senior United Nations diplomats said today. The diplomats, speaking anonymously, said that Mr. Annan would make his statement about direct elections after consulting on Thursday with his special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, who is returning from a weeklong examination of the political situation in the country. Mr. Brahimi is then scheduled to discuss his findings in a lunch meeting with the Security Council. While Mr. Brahimi has concluded that setting up credible elections by the June 30 date for returning sovereignty to Iraq is not feasible, he has not made a clear choice among the options for how the transfer should occur, and more time will be needed to develop the final United Nations recommendation, the diplomats said. [complete article] Report says military distorts war deaths By Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, February 18, 2004 By refusing to make public its estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has undercut international support for the US campaigns in those countries and has made the postwar stabilization of the two societies more difficult, according to an independent report to be released today that accuses the Pentagon of appearing indifferent to the civilian cost of war. The analysis by the Project on Defense Alternatives, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, concludes that the Pentagon has not fully disclosed in recent years accidental deaths and injuries inflicted upon civilian populations by American military forces. Its failure to do so has made it more difficult to predict how local populations will receive the United States after a conflict, the report said. According to the report -- "Disappearing the Dead: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Idea of a 'New Warfare' " -- the Pentagon's stance has also distorted the national debate over whether to go to war. [complete article] See the full report. Iraq: Anybody got a plan? By Tony Karon, Time.com, February 18, 2004 If it can't yet point to a happy ending in Iraq, the Bush administration at least needs to show Americans that it has a plan for winning the peace. It was that need that brought Washington's point man in Iraq, Ambassador J. Paul Bremer, rushing home last November for unscheduled consultations at the White House. Back then, the U.S. casualty total was climbing steadily and there was no sign of an end to the insurgency; Capitol Hill was reeling from sticker shock over the administration's $87 billion budget request; the Iraqi Governing Council handpicked by Bremer had failed to achieve legitimacy and was making no progress towards drawing up a new constitution. All of that made Bremer's three-year plan for nurturing Iraqi democracy a luxury the Bush administration could no longer afford. So, not for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration changed its plan for Iraq. Bremer returned to Baghdad with a new deal: The U.S. would transfer sovereign political authority in Baghdad to an Iraqi provision government by July 1, 2004, by which time it also hoped to have transferred much of the responsibility for maintaining day-to-day order in Iraq to new Iraqi security forces. Recognizing the IGC's legitimacy problem, Bremer proposed that a new government be chosen at regional caucuses convened all across Iraq by bodies picked by the occupation authority. Bremer's plan aimed to reassure Iraqis, their neighbors and the American electorate that the occupation of Iraq was nearing an end. Three months later, however, Bremer's plan is in serious trouble, and it's far from clear how and by whom a new one will be authored. [complete article] U.S. election plan in Iraq founders By Nicholas Blanford, Christian Science Monitor, February 18, 2004 An American plan to select a transitional Iraqi assembly through a series of regional caucuses has been effectively abandoned by Iraq's interim Governing Council. But with nationwide elections looking unlikely before the US-led coalition hands over sovereignty on June 30, the council members are unable to agree on an alternative plan. There's no shortage of options, however. In interviews with council members, three key ideas appear to be taking shape. [complete article] Voting for the wrong side By Brian Whitaker, The Guardian, February 16, 2004 Undaunted by the current muddle over elections in Iraq, the United States is pressing ahead with plans to democratise the rest of the Middle East. In the coming months, according to a report in the Washington Post last week, the US will seek support from the G8, Nato, the European Union, the World Trade Organisation - and probably anyone else who is prepared to listen - in order to bring the project to fruition. The big question, though, is whether Washington's dream of spawning democracy in the region is realistic or, indeed, actually has much to do with democracy. Before the invasion of Iraq, neo-conservatives in the US predicted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would spark regime change throughout the Middle East. So far, there's no sign of that happening and subsequent evidence that the war was launched under false pretences has left the neo-cons discredited. One view of the grand democracy project, therefore, is that it's a change of tack by the neo-cons - a non-military way of pursuing their goals for regime change. On the other hand, it might be the opposite: a face-saving way for the Bush administration to extricate itself from the grip of neo-con fantasies. [complete article] Red Cross slams Israel barrier BBC News, February 18, 2004 The International Committee of the Red Cross has condemned Israel's building of a barrier in the West Bank as "contrary" to international law. The aid agency said the barrier, whose proposed route cuts into Palestinian areas, went "far beyond what is permissible for an occupying power". Israel says the barrier is designed to stop suicide bombers. But Palestinians dispute the barrier's legality and say the wall is little more than a land grab. The ICRC's comments come just days before a hearing at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the legality of the controversial barrier. [complete article] Palestinian Authority is seen near collapse By Charles A. Radin, Boston Globe, February 18, 2004 External political pressures, internal power struggles, and multiple financial crises have brought the Palestinian Authority to the brink of collapse, Palestinian and Israeli officials and analysts say, raising concerns that a possible Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip could create a chaotic vacuum and throw control of the territory into the hands of the Islamic extremist group Hamas. The mounting problems have reportedly caused a major rift between longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, who is under intense pressure from Egypt, European nations, and the United States to undertake reforms of financial and security systems that would prepare the authority to reassume control of Gaza.[complete article] U.S. seeks safeguards for Israel's Gaza pullout By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, February 18, 2004 Three senior administration officials plan to impress upon Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon this week that his plan to withdraw Israeli settlers from Gaza needs safeguards to reduce the possibility that the Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as Hamas, or other radical Palestinian groups will fill a sudden power vacuum, U.S. officials said. In the absence of Palestinian action against militant groups, the Bush administration has for many weeks signaled that it is supportive of Sharon's plan to "disengage" from the Palestinians. The officials -- deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, national security senior director Elliott Abrams and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns -- are arriving in Israel today with a list of questions to better understand how the plan would unfold, how it is connected to possible unilateral steps on the West Bank, and how it meshes with the broader goal of establishing a Palestinian state. [complete article] GUEST COMMENTARY BY TONY KARON (TIME.COM): "The Gaza Strip has since 1948 been little more than a massive refugee camp, dotted since 1967 with Israeli settlements. Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza while consolidating his grip on the West Bank means essentially that the territory will be ceded to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and those among the nationalist Fatah movement willing to continue the 'armed struggle.' The Palestinian Authority has to all intents and purposes collapsed, and won't be resurrected without a comprehensive peace deal that creates a viable Palestinian state in all of the West Bank and Gaza (which Sharon has never had any intention of allowing). An Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, under fire and in the absence of a deal, vindicates the positions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Fatah militants in the intra-Palestinian debate. It makes nonsense of the diplomacy-based strategy of the Palestinian Authority, and instead will be interpreted as a victory of arms, in the same way that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon saw Hezbollah being hailed as the first Arab army ever to have forced Israel to retreat. If the Israelis simply withdraw, not only does Hamas assume the mantle of leadership (which it already does on the streets of Gaza), but the territory once again becomes Egypt's problem -- Gaza's border with Israel will be closed; its border with Egypt will have to be opened as the route by which the masses of humanitarian aid necessary to sustain the population will have to be directed. Hamas is the Palestinian wing of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, and it's not hard to envisage that the impact of having to essentially absorb Gaza could dramatically destabilize the Mubarak regime. (Militant organizations based in the Palestinian refugee population nearly brought down regimes in Jordan in the late 1960s and Lebanon in the 1970s.) Gaza is already a campus of innovation by groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and even Hezbollah, with their engineers constantly developing and refining new techniques in deploying remote-detonated shaped charges against heavily armed Merkava tanks, in producing short-range artillery rockets and who knows what else. If the Israelis simply pull out absent a political deal, Gaza will become the new Afghanistan by measure of jihadi training camps-per capita." Tony Karon is Senior Editor for world coverage at TIME.com. Besides daily analyses of the top international stories such as the conflict in Iraq, the Middle East crisis and the war on terrorism, he writes an occasional column, titled "Undiplomatic Dispatch." "GUEST COMMENTARY" is a new feature at The War in Context where I'll be soliciting comments from journalists, academics and other specialists whose insights will add depth to our understanding of the news. If you'd like to participate, please contact me at comments@warincontext.org -- Paul Woodward, Editor The IDF's shooting range By Gideon Levy, Haaretz, February 15, 2004 It sometimes seems the Gaza Strip has become the central shooting range of the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF's firing zone and training field. The weapons in use there are of dubious legality, the rules of engagement lack the element of restraint, and punitive measures that Israel would not conceive of inflicting in the West Bank are par for the course, in a region that produces far less terrorism than the West Bank. The operation last Wednesday, in the Sajiyeh quarter of Gaza City, in which 15 Palestinians were killed - including at least seven civilians - was the latest illustration, for the time being, of what Israel allows itself to do in Gaza. Fifteen dead for the sake of liquidating one Hamas man who wasn't very senior in the organization is an intolerable price. In Gaza, though, it has become routine: Once every week or two, the IDF moves in, kills, demolishes and pulls out, and no one knows exactly what it was all in aid of. Why do wanted individuals have to be liquidated now in Gaza altogether? Is it only to bring about more revenge terrorism? [complete article] Israeli Arabs rip Sharon proposal By Paul Martin, The Washington Times, February 17, 2004 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has won no friends in this sprawling Arab city with a proposal that the community and others like it might be ceded by Israel to a future Palestinian state. Although Israeli Arabs of Umm-al-Fahm share much with their fellow Arabs in the neighboring West Bank, the former say they are more concerned about preserving the rights they enjoy as Israelis -- including access to jobs, free speech, a democratic vote and a measure of political freedom. "We have a saying here," said Shoaa Saad, 22, "that the 'evil' of Israel is better than the 'heaven' of the West Bank. "Here you can say whatever you like and do whatever you want -- so long as you |