Free Iraqi

I wish it goes on and on.

2006-07-18T01:46:00.000-07:00

As horrible as it may seem I do wish the war between Israel and Hezbollah goes on and on, that it spreads to involve Iran and Syria. I feel terrible for the losses among the innocents, Lebanese and Israeli, but I think that this is the only way for them, and us to finally have some peace.The “anti-war” in the west cannot see any good coming out of war, and how can they when some of them probably haven’t heard a gun shot probably in 10 years if not more! It seems to me that although most of them are intelligent and honest people, they still don’t understand the way we live, here in Iraq, there in Lebanon or Syria. They can’t understand that peace for us, the one we used to live in and the one the Lebanese used to live in, the Syrians and Iranians is not even close to what it is to them and therefore war for us is not even close to what it is for them.Death is not the worst outcome to us and I’m sure they can understand if they want to but they still can’t imagine it. I only cared that much about life when I was given a chance to live a decent life. Now that this chance is slipping count me on the cheerleaders for death; death of dictators, their killing machine and the terrorists, and if it means our death too then so be it. Some of us (those who are not free yet) will live that life you (anti war people) are so protective of and will value it *just* like you do.It’s a difficult equation, to value life and then to be prepared to die to protect it for others but also us if we survive. It’s still rather alien to most of us since we were always told that nothing worth dying for except a better life after death. This needs to change.Anyway, Lebanon needs this war to become a true free and democratic country. Israel needs this war to get its peace. Syrians and Iranians need this war to get their freedom (hopefully). We, Iraqis need this war to get rid of the war profiteers, not the ones making money but the ones getting more and more powerful out of it.Call me what you want but I say let it rage and rage until it burns all dictators and terrorists in the region. Just like I wished for war in my country I wish it for the Lebanese, Syrians and Iranians. God be with them and get the good souls out of it safe. This war is just another battle in the war on terror and we won't see peace in Iraq, we won't see democracy anywhere in the ME until this war is fought the right way, with full determination. With each battle fought it'll get easier and easier to win this war even if each battle looked like it's very hard to win on its own. There are not so many left of them who are willing to go that far, to open war. Syria and Iran are the toughest and so far others are fighting on their behalf but they have only so much resources and so much space.These terrorists and their masters, the Ba\athists and the Mullahs live and feed on the fear they spread among their citizens and on making the rest of the world believe that they’re willing to go all the way. Wasn’t that what Saddam said? In the end his way ended in a small hole, alone with no guards, no missiles and no WMDs. Let them taste that fear and let’s see their truth.I preached for this more than a year ago and I’m actually relieved that finally it seems it’s happening. It’s still premature to assume it’s going to go all the way but so far the signs are encouraging. I listened to the Israeli PM speech and I’m glad he seems so determinant, and I’m glad Hasan Nasr Allah is being the moron he is. He’s not going to get any good advice from his Ba’athist masters. It’s the Mullahs who may be the smartest among these criminals. I believe they were the ones who advised Syria to stop the bombings in Beirut that took place soon after the Syrian withdrawal. This still need to be handled carefully, as it’s still not visible how the Syrians or the Iranians can be dragged into it and it’s also still very dangerous in case they did.The Israelis are doing well by not invading Lebanon and the siege and attacks to the infra structure may well turn the vast majority of Lebanese against Hizbullah in an active way. It worked on Iraqis but it shouldn’t take as long with Lebanese since Israel seems to have a lot of support inside and out and it’s more than justified in its demands.I’m keeping my fingers crossed for peace...my version of peace.

2006-06-22T17:33:00.000-07:00

Hi friends,I’m sorry for not posting anything for such a long time. For those who kept checking my blog and asking, I appreciate your care and understanding and I wish you didn’t have to visit my site often and then find that nothing was posted. Things have been difficult with work and then the loss of my brother in law which I think some of you already know about it. These are not all the reasons why I haven’t posted, as I have been finding some difficulty in seeing anything clear about the future of my country lately. I’m still generally optimistic but so much happened that still doesn’t make sense to me, or better say shouldn’t have happened, in my opinion. I don’t intend to remain stuck in the past and I intend to focus more on what can be done instead of just asking what went wrong.So much have happened since I last posted that I can’t comment on all in just one post. I tend to see the formation of the new government as the major positive development. I believe it will, eventually, end the Sunni insurgency now that many Sunni figures have positions in the government and some interest in getting it to stand on its feet. It will also calm some Sunnis when they see that this government is not just She’at or Kurdish and that they have a reasonable representation in it.Zarqawi’s death was certainly great news when it comes to uplifting Iraqis’ and Americans’ morale even though it won’t reduce terrorist attacks that much. I don’t believe that local Iraqis had any role in locating Zarqawi’s hideout as Iraqi officials claimed. It still is what I would say if I was in their position, at least to make terrorists fear that Iraqis are getting more hostile towards them. I don’t believe that because I don’t think locals would find out easily about something like that especially that the area is a rural one with considerable distances between each residential area but also more because I don’t think that American military would direct such a devastating blow to a residential are based on information from one source that may not be that reliable. I think most Iraqis are still, unfortunately, too scared and maybe even not that concerned to report something like that.Also we have seen an increasing activity of American jets and scouting planes the night before the attack, and a few days before that I remember reading an article in an Iraqi newspaper that said that American military had succeeded in locating Zarqaw’s placei to some extent and that large intelligence work was undergoing to pinpoint that location and finally kill or arrest Zarqawi. I didn’t give it much weight at that time but I had the newspaper and as I looked at it later I felt that that was not just propaganda and that it was based on some actual facts. Anyway I’m glad that that scum is gone and I hope others will follow soon.I will try to update my blog as much as I can. I just don’t like just saying what others may have said already. I always try to offer the faithful readers who keep checking this blog something worthy of their time and when I feel I can’t I prefer to stay silent.Thanks again for all those who kept checking and asking and I hope I will be able to be more consistent in the future.

Sadr condemns Rumsfeld, turn against his Sunni allies and threaten to kill Shiite women in the UIA.

2006-03-13T23:18:00.000-08:00

She'at sources confirmed to Al-Watan that "Al-Hakeem complained to Sistani that he's being under pressure from Iran and has been receiving threats from the Sadr trend of inciting chaos and violence in case Ja'fari was replaced by Adil Abdil Mehdi" Clarifying that "Sadr made direct threats through a phone call to Al-Hakeem that he would kill all women members in the UIA and leaders in the SCIRI if Abdil Mehdi replaced Ja'fari"According to the same sources "Iran replaced it's strategic alliance with Al-Hakeem by one with Sadr who visited it last month" Announcing "His militias' readiness to defend Iran in case it was attacked by the US" and pointed out that " His supporters started intimidating acts against the British forces in Basra provoked by the Revolutionary Guard intelligence stationed in the city who finance and supervise those militias".From Al-Watan Kuwaiti newspaper (Arabic link)Meanwhile and in response to the attacks in Sadr city yesterday Sadr attacked what he called "Nawasib" which is a term used to describe radical Sunnis but at times of sectarian friction can be used to refer to all Sunnis saying 1st that "I used to trust the Association of Sunnis Scholars but they haven't made a clear stand against the Takfiris yet and anyone who doesn't do that is a Takfiri too" Then adding "I have the ability to fight those Nawasib and there's a legitimate cover from the Marjiya and I can confront them militarily and ideologically but I don't want to be dragged into a civil war" He added " Once they're killed by Saddam (Sadr people residents) and once by the occupier and now by the Nawasib God damn them. I've done what I can and called for peace and even heard hurtful words from my people, the Shiite for praying with the Nawasib but nothing worked" And then blamed the US again and held it responsible for everything and said commenting on Rumsfeld's latest statements about civil war " Ugly and condemned statements. We don't want your interference God damn you. If you don't protect people then why are you here?"From Sawt Al-Iraq website (Arabic link)In an interview on Al Iraqiya with Ambassador Khalil Zada, the host asked the ambassador about Sadr continuous verbal attack and accusations against US policy. He replied "I want to remind Sadr that Saddam killed his father and that the US toppled Saddam. Without the efforts of the US Saddam would have been in power now and most likely would be followed by his sons and grandsons. He owes us his gratitude for what the American people have done and without us I believe his life would have been in danger. This is the message"Well at least one man can say stuff like this to Sadr which made me feel some relief. It's unbelievable how a scum and an idiot like Sadr can destroy the hopes and dreams not only of Millions of Iraqis but also the whole region, the US and the world in building a peaceful democratic nation in this disturbed region. Everything seemed to be working in favor of this project when the Americans came. The terrorist were a serious threat in the beginning but not now. In my opinion it's become a myth used by the Iraqi government at times to control the lives and freedom of Iraqis and and to serve mere partisan and individual interests. Terrorism is a danger and it's a reality but the cure has proved to be a 100 times worse than the disease. Terrorists can kill people and destroy properties often in Iraq and occasionally in Europe and the US but the support they're getting is becoming less and less everyday, and killing innocents and destroying properties cannot destroy a civilization or threatens democracy and that's evident in Iraq more than elsewhere. Iraq was moving forward with the democratic process until Ja'faris government came and abused the authority it was given to increase the strength and control of major She'at parties. What do terrorists want? They don't want to win. They only want to destroy the western world and any country that adapts its form of living and then they want to go to their alleged paradise. By turning our countries into police states we're achieving most of their goals for them.Anti-terror efforts and powers that present themselves as protectors of the people from terrorism are the real threat now and not terrorists, at least that's the case in Iraq.

Sectarian violence spread to schools.

2006-03-12T23:16:00.000-08:00

Local Iraqi TVs have been reporting an increasing sectarian tension among students in primary and high schools lately. The tension and quarrels often resulted in physical fighting among Sunni and She'at kids. Iraqi local media blamed some of the teachers in those schools for inflaming sectarian feelings, and of course the "occupation" is still considered a major reason.I was walking down the street in a predominantly Shiite area at one of those days when a daytime curfew was imposed and saw kids use the empty streets to play various games, mostly football but all kinds of games too. A group of kids with ages ranging probably between 7-10 years old caught my attention. They were carrying green flags and toy guns and chanting "No to terrorism, yes to Islam". They were just playing of course but what a dangerous game. The green flag is a symbol for Shiite and it's not just used by kids or civilians in religious ceremonies but sadly by some Iraqi security forces as they patrol the streets without even carrying an Iraqi flag. Also most of the names of Iraqi army units used to refer to Shiite Imams but thankfully someone paid attention to this and they're being changed. Terrorism often refers to Sunnis here, not all of them but at least most, and Islam of course refers to Shiism, as that's the only orthodox form of Islam to them just like the Sunnis mean their sect only when they use the word Islam.Both sides are definitely responsible for feeding hatred and distrust to their kids. The only difference is that Shiite now control most of the media and government offices and that makes the effect of any sectarian message they send more powerful. Sunnis certainly did a similarly bad job when Saddam was in power but it shouldn't be pay back time or else we'll never make it to a real democracy.One of my cousins study agriculture in Al-Kufa University in Najaf. Her father came to me once asking me to help her in one of her classes. The class is called "Democracy" which replaced Saddam's "National culture" that referred to the Ba'ath teachings that we had to take in the 1st years in college (I failed once in that class). This sounded great, to replace the Ba'ath twisted teachings with teaching democratic values, and I told my uncle that I was more than happy to help as much as I can. However it wasn't what I thought. Their teacher had asked them to prepare an essay on the relation between democracy and the revolution of Imam Hussein! And that was not just once, as he told me that most of their study was actually about Shiite Imams and how democratic they were. My uncle couldn't find a book that link the two together and thought I could find some references through the Internet since I have a home connection and have more experience in this field. I told him that I can't help him, as we'll probably need a million dovetail joints to connect the two and they still won't fit, and that she'd better just say that Imam Hussein was great and beautiful and liberal and supported gay marriage and that he studied the values of democracy at the hands of his father Imam Ali who studied it at the hands of the prophet Mohammed who studied it at Harvard…Yes he couldn't read and write but back then reading was optional in universities.Seriously, sectarian tension is way too strong now and there are probably only two ways to resolve it; civil war as I pointed before or a united government that apply justice, better education and national security forces that can deal with the security challenges without alienating any party. None of these standards is present now but there's still hope in the new government that it may meet at least some of them.

Signs of hope.

2006-03-10T06:34:00.000-08:00

Before Ja'fari's last visit to Turkey everything was going in the wrong direction and the only hope I could see was that a civil war may resolve most of those unsettled issues and repressed anger and distrust that has been building among different Iraqi sects. The politicians were not doing what they should do and the people were just following those their leaders who were already lost, so the only hope was in that the people would wake up on their own, but that needs a huge shock, as obviously Saddam, the war, and what followed were not enough to change the hearts and minds enough to push forward to a real change.However, someone very stupid (or very smart?) seem to have advised Ja'fari that it's a good plan to visit Turkey these days, and then not inform the Kurds and take along with him some Turkmen figures who have no real official position in the government. That was enough for the Kurds to practically change sides and stand with the Sunni bloc and Allawi to demand that the UIA replace his nominee for the prime minister position.None of those blocs can be really considered a liberal democratic one, but collectively they, for the 1st time seem to be working well and that include the UIA. Adil Abdil Mehdi is not much better than Ja'fari but he's still a better choice for the moment. I tend to see the Sadirists as a much bigger threat to Iraq's unity than the SCIRI and despite (or probably because) their alliance with radical Sunnis, they are more likely to further widen the split between Sunnis and She'at. Ask any Sunni who they distrust more and they will answer Al-Mehdi army. Ask any She'at who they distrust more among Sunnis and they'd say the Association of Sunni scholars, Sadr allies.Another reason why replacing Ja'fari is a good thing is that it most likely going to deepen the already existing disagreement between Sadr and Al-Hakeem, the strongest men in the UIA. Sistani has always managed to keep them together like when the cause of conflict was opening an office for Sadr in Najaf, but now the dispute is about something much bigger than that.If the UIA is not worse than the rest then why is it good that it get weakened? Simply to create a balance where none of the involved political powers can have things totally their way. To me of course the UIA is worse than Allawi and even the Sunni bloc but a She'at may not see it the same of course. However, what am I going to lose if no one dominates the parliament and what would a Kurd or a She'at lose if their groups don't dominate? Nothing, except absolute power and the chance to dominate and oppress other sects which I believe is not what most Iraqis want.Now the UIA may not submit to the demands of the other sects and that would bring us back to civil war if the Kurds maintained their current stand.I have been thinking since the 1st elections that Iraq's main hope lay in the way the Kurdish Alliance act and how much would they be involved in Iraq's politics as a whole country and not just when it comes to Kurdistan. The Kurds have fewer reasons to disagree with Sunnis or She'at than those two have to disagree with each. They're mostly Sunnis and that makes Sunnis less sensitive towards them and they were subject to oppression and discrimination just like the She'at which makes it easier that they communicate and understand each other.If the UIA agrees on changing their nominee this may give rise to a more balanced government that most Iraqis would support and this would mean that dealing with Sunni insurgency would be easier and then dealing with She'at militias would be more possible too. How is a government led by a member of the SCIRI going to agree to disband the militia? Seems impossible but it doesn't have to be that radical and doesn't have to include all militias. The SCIRI would be more than happy to see the Mehdi army disarmed and Sistani may not object that much too if it can be done in a smart way. The new Iraqi government may try to enforce it on all including the Peshmarga but then all the Peshmarga and the Badr brigade may need to do is keep a low profile.The Mehdi army most likely won't be able to do that, as while the Peshmerga functions only in Kurdistan and have no reason to be that active or aggressive and the Badr brigade has to always keep a low profile because it can't survive if its actions were shown to the public. The Mehdi army survives only with chaos and tension and they often create those by themselves. They would also be found unjustified in creating any sectarian tension if the Sunni insurgency gets dealt with by the government which would be Sunni in part and wouldn't find it as difficult as it is now to gain the support of locals in Sunni areas. After the Mehdi army get dealt with, the rest shouldn't be that difficult.Probably just a wishful thinking on my side but I don't think anyone can say that it's impossible.

Muslims against terrorism?

2006-03-06T14:04:00.000-08:00

I just saw this post on Gateway Pundit about the demonstrations in Bahrain "against terrorism". Before looking at the pictures I was skeptic about the real nature of these demonstrations because I know that Bahrain has a She'at majority and I never heard of any demonstrations against terrorism there until the latest attack on the holy She'at shrine in Samarra.When I looked at the pictures in the original Arabic site my suspicions were confirmed. Yes, some of the signs carried by the demonstrators called for unity between Sunnis and She'at, but it really doesn't mean anything, as such calls were present in Iraq's demonstrations too and are used to conceal the sectarian nature of those demonstrations. Now there's nothing wrong with She'at demonstrating against insulting their sacred places but we should not fool ourselves and believe that this could mean the start of a wide and active rejection of terrorism among Muslims.On the other hands there were many signs that had an obvious sectarian tone. One sign was saying, "This is what the Yazidis did" with a picture of the destroyed shrine. Yazidis here refer to followers of the 2nd Amawi caliphate "Yazid Bin Mu'awiya" which is obviously used as a subtle refrence to Sunnis. It's not uncommon for some She'at clergy to refer to Sunnis as Amawis (The Amawi dynasty that ruled the Muslim world for about 100 years after Imam Ali was killed) although that family was slaughtered to the last including children by their successors and conquerors the Abbasi caliphates who 1st allied with the She'at and then turned against them. I haven't heard She'at clerics use "Yazidis" before but Yazid has always been the most hated and scorned Amawi caliphate by the She'at since he was the one who sent the army that killed Imam Hussein and many of his family members. There were still signs that clarified that Yazidis can be Sunnis and She'at meaning they're the criminals in any sect but again I see those as attempts to cover the sectarian nature of this demo. Both Sunnis and She'at speak about themselves as Muslims in public but that doesn't mean at all that they see Islam as one. It just means that they believe that their sect represent the true Islam while the others are just heretics.Some demonstrators did not forget to direct their anger towards their 'real enemy' holding signs that say "I'm in the camp of Hussein, not the camp of the Americans and the Zionists". Other signs were saying, "We're She'at forever and we will not give up on our belief"Again there's nothing wrong with She'at condemning attacks against their holy shrines but we have to be realistic and call thing by their names. This is not a demonstration against terrorism but a demonstration against those who target She'a and their religious symbols and a way for the She'at to vent their repressed hatred towards Sunnis.Westerns are very eager to see any sign of wide and strong rejection to terrorism by Muslims that sometimes they give things more than their actual weight or meaning. I understand that and like it but I don't see those hopes coming true soon.Why would Muslims condemn terrorism? They see themselves as victims of the west and so attacks on the west would actually give them some sense of justice! Sorry to say that but it's the truth about how many Muslims see such attacks while more are just not concerned at all and only a tiny minority do sympathize with western victims.Of course I don't see Muslims as victims of anyone but their own laziness and cowardice but to be fair complex international conflicts did lead at times to the west supporting Muslim dictators whom by their policies diminished any small chance the Muslim world had in reforming itself."But most of the victims of such terrorist attacks are Muslims, don't Muslims care about their own people at least?"one may argue. Doesn't make a big difference, as Muslims in most of the world live such a sh**y life and see death and torture everyday that they stopped caring about anyone except those close to them like family members or friendsSo, even She'at who have much more reasons to demonstrate against terrorism since it basically has a Sunni origin and targets She'at in many occasions, they don't react that much except when their religious symbols are desecrated. The reaction to bombing an empty building was a thousand times bigger than to attacks that killed hundreds of innocent She'at. Muslims in general don't care that much about human life and they don't value it as westerns do because they never had a life worth that much, and deaths for the most stupid and unfair reasons are very common to them, so why do you want Muslims to care about a few people killed in the US or Europe! There must have been a time during the life of each Muslim when they really cared but I doubt that they even remember that!It shows faith on the part of westerns that they expect Muslims to revolt against fanatics but they miss that they're judging people who live a very different and much difficult life by the same standards they judge their own society. Muslims will only care about life when they get to have one.

Reviewing the enemies of the change.

2006-03-03T22:58:00.000-08:00

When I said in a previous post that the American military in Iraq and some people in the White House still see Sunnis as the enemy I never meant that they're taking sides, and truly I see that it's ridiculous to think this way.

What I meant was that they haven't been paying enough attention to the changing dynamics in Iraq since the 9th of April 2003 and still see things generally in the same scope. When the Americans entered Iraq most She'at and Kurds were overjoyed while most Sunnis were in shock. They didn't believe that it was possible and some of them didn't want to believe it was. They also feared a possible reappraisal from the She'at majority. Saddam and his propaganda machine did a good job in making Sunnis terrified of the prospect of She'at mobs marching to Sunni areas to kill and burn and rape, and it worked despite that none of that happened in the 1991 uprising when the She'at targeted no Sunni just for being Sunni. They only targeted Ba'athists and officials regardless of their sect.

Sunnis boycotted the political process and the fact that Ba'athists remained strongest than the Americans in Sunni areas made most Sunnis believe that this is not the end of it and that Saddam or the Ba'ath without him will make a comeback sooner or later. I say stronger because they were still able to kill and torture while the Americans 'couldn't' do that and couldn't even prevent Ba'athists from doing it and that translates as Ba'athists being stronger to most Iraqis.

But the political process went on and the Sunnis lost a lot by not joining it and at some point even the active ex-Ba'athists had to see that they would gain nothing from such a boycott and that a participation would be more rewarding especially that these people have no moral code or principle that keeps them fighting regardless of the outcome unlike hardcore Islamists who are by the way mostly non Iraqis.

The enemy no 1 of the change was the Sunnis while She'at and Kurds were mostly supporters of it. With time and as Sunnis decided to take part in politics this has changed. The truth is that there are many enemies to the change now in Iraq and many of them have strong influence inside or outside the government. Religious She'at are enemies of a liberal democracy in Iraq. Hardcore Ba'thists and even ex-Ba'athists are enemies of it too. Even extremist Kurd nationalists are strong enemies too, as their plans do not include a democratic Iraq but at best a democratic Kurdistan. Most of those however found it impossible to declare their frank opposition to the change and act upon it except for the Sadirists and some remnants of the Ba'athists and Al-Qaeda and its likes.

So which opposition deserves our full attention and which can be dealt with at a later stage? Is it the most determinant or the most capable?

Most Sunnis (Al-Qaeda and Ba'athists included here) tried to stop the political process but failed. Zarqawi couldn't stop the transformation of authority to Iraqis. He couldn't drive Americans out. He couldn't stop the formation of a transitional government, two elections and the writing of the constitution despite his desperate attempts. In the end Sunnis split as most of them saw that fighting isn't the answer.

Before the latest events that signaled what can be seen as a civil war by some, many Iraqis thought that on the event of Americans pulling out the Ba'athists would rule again using their most powerful weapon; terror and their still functioning base and semi-military structure. I thought that was possible too. What we saw though is that She'at militias were able to go inside almost strictly Sunni areas and burn mosques or occupy them and threaten and kill many Sunnis while no Sunni or Ba'athists were able to get anywhere near places like Sadr city for example and the only way the Sunni extemists fought back with was car bombs. Not a very efficient way to take over a country. Morevover, those suicide bombers are not part of any influential Sunni political power while She'at militias are and the fact that most Sunnis voted in the last election proves that.

When I asked an American friend here the question why American military still see Sunnis as enemy number 1 he answered, "Because they're the ones who are killing our soldiers" and that's a painful truth, that American soldiers are being killed and by Sunni radicals. Ba'athists and Al-Qaeda supposedly supported by many Sunnis can kill American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, She'at civilians and can harm the infra structure. All that is terrible but did it stop the political change? It didn't just fail to stop Kurds and She'at but in fact it led Sunnis to join them.

The worst effect that radical Sunni groups can achieve is dependant on the response of the Iraqi government and namely the religious She'at groups. Had they confronted this terrorism as Iraqis and not as She'at, built a capable national army and police, none of what's happening now would've happened. Instead they used the support and money from the US to strengthen their own militias and basically turned the police and army into a sectarian force and more an oppressive one that targets Sunnis 1st but spread its oppression to involve all citizens including poor religious She'at who have no partisan support. They turned this into a sectarian confrontation while they could have made it a confrontation between Iraqis and terrorists but that would not have served their agenda. This is the major obstacle now. We have failed to build and Iraqi army and police and we failed to build an Iraqi government.

Thankfully the American embassy is paying attention and has been sending clear messages to the UIA that this is unacceptable and has been putting pressure on it to give up its sectarian policies.

Enemy no 1 of the change now is tens of thousands of organized militia under the control of fanatics like Sadr and Al-Hakeem and who have legitimate cover provided by Sistani and almost unlimited support (and influence) from Iran with funds coming from the revenue of the holy sites, Iran and sadly the US itself. This is the capable enemy even though it may look less determinant but that's only on the outer surface.

The Americans were not supporting She'at religious parties and are not fighting Sunnis, not at all. They're supporting the Iraqi government and fighting the insurgency, praising and glorifying those in power and discouraging opposition, as they saw it as opposition to the change and in some case it was but not all the time. The confrontation changed from one between supporters of democracy and opposing parties in the start as we all saw it into one between radical She'at on one side and Sunnis together with some secular She'at and Kurds now on the other side. Some Americans couldn't see this change and kept supporting the 'government' and discouraging the opposition.
The Iraqi army is great and the police is wonderful and the constitution is a great step towards democracy and the government represent all Iraqis and all Iraqis should support it. That's all they have been saying and all they wanted to hear.

Lack of patience maybe a factor and the fact that the enemy of the US is Sunni in most parts of the world maybe another factor. The battle in Iraq is more complicated than that however since She'at are much stronger here.
This project aims, as I see it, to spread democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. Most Muslims are by far Sunnis and therefore for such a project to gain acceptance among the majority of Muslims it has to not just help Iraq become a stable prosperous democracy but during the journey it should prevent any sort of obvious sectarian oppression and domination by She'at, as Sunni Muslims all over the world would become resentful and fearful of it.

This is a very difficult project, more difficult than we who believe in it ever thought but it still can work and it needs patience and sacrifices from all. I keep hearing it from American friends, here in Iraq and through this blog, that Americans want the Iraqi army to get on its feet as soon as possible and then leave. I'm sorry to say that I think it's better you leave now if that's what you think, as staying for a while and doing this in a rush won't make any difference for Iraqis and would only cause more unnecessary sacrifices among Americans. This project requires full commitment and nothing less.

What Iraqis have to do is another story of course. We have to have faith in each other and I'm one of those who believe that the natural course of events, with the needed commitments from Iraqis and Americans will definitely lead to what we all hope; a stable prosperous democratic Iraq that can be one of America's best friends in the region and that can convince most Muslims to reject fanaticism and endorse democracy. Let's decide if it's worth it and if it can happen.

Sadr's peace.

2006-02-28T01:22:00.000-08:00

Sadr's peace.

Iraqi politicians and religious leaders have been busy conducting talks to try to contain the crisis by calling for speeding up the formation of the government and reassuring public that their leaders are united. (Just a side note: Al-Iraqiya TV was hailing Sadr and calling him "His eminence Saiyd Muqtad Al-Sadr God bless him" (Imagine my joy!) and praising his efforts to unite Sunnis and She'at in his tour in the southern governorates. In his speech in Basra, he asked Sunnis and She'at to go on unified demonstrations against sectarian violence, but 1st against "occupation"! So Sunnis and She'at kill each other and then they make out by condemning America!)

This is something I always found very insulting and maddening. People here do not react that much on their own and it always takes their leaders to push and push in certain direction for them to finally move. Now the feelings of distrust and bitterness have been there all the time among different Iraqi sects and were more visible after the oppressive power was removed, but no one was going to act upon it, not in a place where almost everyone look for their leaders to show them the 'truth' and the way with very few exceptions when public rage can go on its own beyond the control of any leadership like what happened in the 1991 uprising.

What I find most insulting in this attitude from religious and political leaders is that after provoking violence and increasing fear and distrust among their own communities towards the others, they suddenly, and when it's in their interest, start to ask people to calm down! But the people were calm in the 1st place until they told them to rise to defend the sect. Moreover when the people rose they didn't carry RPGs and machineguns and started shooting at each other. It was the militias and gangs on both sides that did that while the people merely went in angry demonstrations upon calls from their leaderships.

Yesterday two districts in Baghdad were subject to random mortar attacks, one mostly Sunni (Al Doura) and one mostly She'at (Sadr city). I'm not aware of any Iraqi outside those gangs and militias who keep mortars in their homes. This happened while clowns from both the Sadr trend and the Association of Sunni Scholars were signing an honor agreement that prohibits Iraqis from fighting each other. But why am I surprised! They are actually prohibiting Iraqis, average people, from killing each other but they are not prohibiting their own militias from killing Iraqis!

Why are they faking this and what do they want from it? I'm not sure, but one thought is that this behavior is typical of all ME dictators. They start the killing and the chaos and then they blame it on the people. They show themselves in public as the peacemakers and then continue to pursue their crimes in the dark. These are not ideological fighters. They're opportunists and hypocrites who seek the help of criminals and thugs and still present themselves as religious and patriotic people, mimicking dictators to a great extent. Religious fanatics are no better than them but at least they are honest about who they are and they remain most of the time faithful to their sick beliefs. This is not a theory or a guess, as I know many Sadirists and many Sunnis who sympathize with the Sunni Scholars, and Sadirists are mostly thugs and looters while Sunni 'fanatics' are just ex-Ba'athists and mercenaries.

So I don't expect peace to take place anytime soon and I still think it's even better this way, as I would never want the peace of the Sadirists and their like just like I never wanted the peace of Saddam. We wanted the war at Saddam's times knowing fully what it means because it was the only way, and I want war now.

Wide scale civil war is still unlikely but the wider and more destructive the sectarian violence becomes the faster, as I think, Iraq will find her way. Those militias are now stronger than ever. They're seen as protectors of the sect. if you're a Sunni in a mixed area, who would you support, She'at militia that want to kill you or terrorists and ex-Ba'thists who want to kill those militias? Same thing apply for the She'at even if they dislike the Sadirists and the Badr Brigade. It's no longer about what's wrong or right. It's about trying to stay alive.

So civil war would certainly strengthen those militias, but all civil wars sooner or later come to end, and it's usually when the majority of people decide they can't take the violence anymore and when they can't see victory as possible. Then militias would lose their strength, as why would a Sunni need the terrorists and why would a She'at need the Sadirists! Any force willing and capable of disarming those militias will not find any opposition among the majority of people and its effort may very well be welcomed. Militias can survive only if they find an enemy and when a civil war ends they have to find an enemy outside the borders. The only possible enemy then would be the US but the difference is that they will have to fight it alone without any significant support from the population which was the case when Sadr revolted the 1st time but sadly the Americans didn't see that or were convinced by the formal She'at leadership that Sadr had a huge support which wasn't true at all.

But can the US just stay detached and watch what's happening? It doesn't sound like this is possible or accepted by most parties involved. Maybe the US can reduce its military interference to minimum while maintaining its political efforts to solve the crisis in public. I know all this sounds crazy but unusual situations sometimes require unusual solutions.

Trying to keep things calm and pretend that things are not that bad and then expect such crazy and malicious groups to agree on what's good for Iraq is not realistic and not right. To expect Sadr and his thugs to suddenly, or gradually, become not just human beings but capable leaders is very unrealistic. The same applies of course to the Sunni Scholars.

Other alternatives (For America) include the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and even then I think Iraq would find its way but it would take much longer time and more importantly is much less possible with the interference from Iran and other neighboring countries. Can the Americans stop the political process and assume full control again to deal with all those criminals and start building everything again in a way that allow more sane voices more room than fanatic ones? Almost impossible but to be honest that's what many Iraqis think is the best solution. I've heard it from many people saying, "This was all a mistake. We're not ready yet. We don't know what democracy is and the Americans should rule for 10 or 20 more years before they allow Iraqis to take control" I don't agree with this totally but I always thought that things in Iraq were moving faster than they should.

The militias have to go, one way or another, as we can never have a democracy or peace with their presence. I believe it can only happen through a civil war but I still hope I'm wrong and that there's a cheaper price for freedom.

2006-02-23T21:23:00.000-08:00

Let's blame it on the Sunnis.
Since the end of the war every atrocity committed in Iraq was attributed to the Sunnis, not just the Ba'athists or radical Sunnis but all Sunnis. The poor She'at and Kurds have been suffering for hundreds of years while the Sunnis were all privileged and living in a paradise called Iraq, which is not the same Iraq She'at and Kurds were living in as in that Iraq goods were cheap, salaries hit the skies and we had TV shows where comedians make fun of Saddam. No one had to serve in the military and we were free to travel anywhere we wanted. In those times only She'at and Kurds were forced to serve in the army while Sunnis only worked as managers and ministers. Those poor She'at soldiers and officers were forced to kill their own people in the south and bomb their most holy shrine in Krabala in the 1991 uprising...When I served in the military I made friends with a devoted She'at Captain, well not made friends but actually I was paying him so that I spent most of the 3 months I had to serve in my home. This guy was very proud of his job and accomplishments. He often talked about his heroic actions against the "saboteurs". Who were those saboteurs? No, not just the Badr Brigade which was active after 1991 but mostly anyone who stood against Saddam during the uprising and that meant the vast majority of the She'at. Yet this Captain always refer to the She'at Imams and quote them during our conversations saying this Imam "Peace be upon him" or that Imam "God bless his secret" which I'm sorry I don't know what it means!I asked this guy once about how he, a devoted She'at see the bombing of holy shrines in Najaf and Karbala back then during the uprising. He didn't answer the question and kept blaming the saboteurs and Iranians. There were no Americans at that time or he would have blamed them.That guy was no exception for the denial most Iraqis lived in at Saddam's days and we had many officers like him in our camp. The commander himself, a General was a She'at. This is part of the reason, as I think, why most Iraqis especially She'at do not want Saddam's trial to take its natural long course. They don't want to remember their submission and even collaboration with the tyrant, as it's very humiliating to them. Most of you have seen the tape from Dujail. Who were those hundreds of people racing each other, stumbling to the ground to cheer the great leader? The "Victims" themselves. Yes they had too, but honestly I think they didn't have to take it that far, but it's that paralyzing fear that makes most people not only submit to evil but volunteer most of the time, reporting their own flesh and blood at times to prove their innocence. Do I blame them for that? Not really, as I felt that fear too and it wasn't easy to cope with at all. But I blame them now when they try to show themselves as the innocent victims and blame everything on Saddam and the Sunnis.No, we were ALL part of the tragedy and those massacres and we all have to own that to finally come clean and start fresh. Only the Kurds seem to have the right to claim that they always stood against Saddam, which is true but then again their motives were not patriotic at all and certainly not humane. They were ethnic.Saddam's regime was not a sectarian one. It was a dictatorship that relied on family and tribal relations and on petty servants who sold their souls to him for money and some illusionary power from within each community. He oppressed Kurds because they were his slaves and on top of that he disliked them more because they were not Arabs. He oppressed She'at because they were his slaves and then he also disliked their sect. He oppressed Sunnis because they too were his slaves and other than that he didn't dislike them for any religious or ethnic reason, so how fortunate Sunnis were!The She'at attitude these days makes me compare it to that of the African Americans in general. Yes they were enslaved and severely oppressed for hundreds of years and they're still subjected to some degree of discrimination in some areas by some, but is their reaction to all this healthy, or even helpful to them? And haven't they really gained equality in a way that at least enables them to lead a successful dignified life? I'm certainly not an expert in that and don't want to go deep into something I'm not that informed about but from what I read and heard it seems that some of them are still trapped in that victim's skin and blame all their misfortune on the others.I think it's human nature that makes us feel comfortable in rushing to give our problems a specific name and that name should not be "us". It's a relief to some people, especially those whom their liberty and independence were taken away from them for a long time, to blame it on the others.So, Sunnis are not the pure evil and She'at are not that innocent and that was the case since Saddam's days. Yes, Sunnis were more accepting of Saddam's regime in general and were more opposing to the change, but the thing is that they "were" and now things have changed a lot.She'at control the government totally, except in Kurdistan and have been monopolizing power since shortly after the war. Sunnis opposed the political process in the start and some of them supported the terrorists and the Ba'athists, out of fear, sympathy or hatred towards the She'at, but that changed now and they have accepted democracy and voted in large numbers despite the threats. You hear of She'at killed by Sunnis but do you hear of Sunnis killed by She'at? Not so often but the truth is that it happens on a daily basis that even the Americans and the British are aware of it now. Every now and then we hear about dozens of bodies found handcuffed and blindfolded with a shot in the head. Nobody claimed responsibility for those crimes which is strange given that the terrorists almost always announce their crimes and don't have a problem saying that they targeted She'at since they "collaborate with the occupiers" not to mention that they're "apostates".What's also strange is that most of those bodies were always found just to the south of Baghdad, in Hilla or Kut. Sunni clerics have been claiming that those are Sunni youth abducted by the police that's under the control of the SCIRI or She'at militias. No one believed them and I myself never believed them because they lack credibility and because they supported the terrorist and we all knew their agenda. Sunnis had had no other representatives other than those Mullahs who collaborated with the terrorists and some ex-Ba'thists because anyone who even try to be involved in politics in Sunni areas get tortured and beheaded by the terrorists or the Ba'athists whom the Americans couldn't drive out of those areas for good.You know what we fear mostly here in Baghdad? It's not speaking against Saddam or the Ba'ath or the terrorists, not anymore except in places like Azamiya, it's speaking against Sadr and to a lesser extent against the SCIRI.She'at are no better than Sunnis and the Sadirists and the SCIRI are worse than Saddam. You spoke against Saddam and you're a traitor. You speak against Sadr and you're an infidel AND a traitor. It's only the American presence that's making them tone down their oppression and commit their crimes in the dark. The Sunnis have lost their power and even accepted that and they're now just a minority that needs to be protected not fought. She'at on the other hand have gained their natural right as a majority and they have most of the control but unfortunately those of them in control are abusing the power they gained, just like Saddam.The main problem is us, Iraqis whether we're She'at, Sunni or Kurds. And the problem is also the American administration's ignorance on many of the facts on the ground with the exception of the American embassy and namely Khalil Zada who I think is doing a great job, but unfortunately it seems like most of the influence is still in the hands of the military and some people in the white house who seem to still think that Sunnis are the enemy.But I don't want Iraqis and Americans to blame each other, as that's not productive at all. Americans have been doing us a HUGE favor and we need each other and we need to trust each other and part of our cooperation is to tell each other when we're wrong, and I believe some Americans are not seeing what's happening in Iraq very clearly and many decisions were made based on this blurred vision.I think we should all look at ourselves first and for me I think the major problem is that Saddam's mentality is still running this country through people like Sadr, Al-Hakeem, Adnan Al-Dulaimi and Barzani. It's those people who keep inflaming those already existing divisions for their own benifit, as they represnt nothing but ethnic and sectarian hatred and they feed this fear and hatred among their people so that they vote for them. We Iraqis need to see that and then Americans need to see that too. The solution is certainly not even visible now but I think it helps a lot to identify the problem first.

Civil war, is it close, and is it really a disaster?

2006-02-22T22:47:00.000-08:00

Today's attack on the holy shrine of two She'at Imams in Samarra has created so far a huge wave of protest and anger accompanied with sporadic reprisals here and there by zealous She'at led and urged mainly by the Sadirists and the SCIRI while Sistani is calling for peaceful protests and is forbidding any revenge against Sunnis and their warship places.
I tend to see this as not as bad as it looks. The attack is definitely a terrorist act aims to inflaming sectarian divisions and creating a civil war, the She'at are over reacting and some of them are pointing the accusation directly or indirectly towards all Sunnis. This is all bad, but the good thing is the different reaction among She'at religious authorities, the 'formal' one represented by Sistani and the more radical represented by the Sadirists and the SCIRI. There's no question that most She'at follow Sistani and that's why those two strong radical organizations still need his blessings and support. Sistani being a religious man who believes in the She'at dogma sees that he needs the help of those two even if he disagrees with them and fear them to some extent in order to strengthen the role of She'at in Iraq and glorify what he stands for. Both parties put with so much from each other to achieve their own agenda, but recently the split started to widen not only between the formal and more radical side but also between the two radical ones. Power hunger has always served to blind people at one point or another and the struggle among the allies can be more bitter and worse than that between them and their common enemy.
If the radical She'at listen to Sistani and calm things down then we have no reason to worry that much about a civil war (Although we will have to worry about a dominant united religious front which I think can be worse), while if they don't then they may take Iraq into a civil war which is not that unlikely now to happen given the strong Iranian interference and support for those radical components among She'at. But is that really that disastrous? Maybe, but I tend to think it won't be for many reasons. 1st such civil war will never be a full scale one with the American troops still in Iraq, so all that can happen is merely increasing the assassinations carried out by both radical Sunnis and She'at towards each other which may serve to expose those parties further more to everyone. 2nd if the Sadirists and the SCIRI go against Sistani's will they will risk losing his support. Average She'at will gain nothing from such limited civil war and while now they're carried out by their emotional reaction, when they see that revenge will only bring more death to others but also to them, after a while short or long they will stop and listen to the voice of reason and that will deprive the radicals from most of their power. Another thing is that sectarian tension has always been there under the ashes in Iraq. Saddam's policy of not allowing anyone to even talk about it or admit its existence made it only stronger and now as the oppressive power is removed you can see it clearer and stronger than ever. I read both Sunni and She'at papers and what I read is horrifying. Most of those papers don't even care to hide that hatred and scorn they have towards the other and they go with their insults and hatred back to the 7th century. Also, Sistanis constant attempts to calm the She'at and ask them to be the forgiving ones actually made She'at just more resentful towards Sunnis. One might say that Sistani is trying to protect Sunnis or his country as a whole but that's not true as I see it. By asking She'at to be forgiving and tolerant he's actually blaming the Sunnis, as if he thought the criminals in any terrorist attack were just a bunch of terrorists who do not represent Sunnis then why would She'at need to be tolerant or forgiving! You don't tolerate or forgive terrorists but you only do so when you think a whole community is responsible, and that's what Sistani thinks.
One has to admit that terrorists are mostly Sunnis, Arabs but also backed up by some radical Iraqi Sunnis and ex-Ba'thists, but to generalize it to include all Sunnis is a grave mistake that many make including Americans. On the other hand the She'at militias have been committing probably worse crimes towards Sunnis in an almost indiscriminative manner using the cover of the police or the army and using fighting terrorism as a justification to settle old accounts or even to inflame the situation more to serve their Iranian masters and also to provoke more reaction so that they can have a better case when they talk about forming an independent She'at state in the south and the center (Which the SCIRI is now advertising for strongly through its TV and Radio stations after today's attack and present it as the only solution).So this mounting rage and distrust among both Sunnis and She'at may not be resolved by Sistanis misplaced calls for tolerance or the Sunni scholars faked offers for peace and it may be needed that things are taken to the extreme to show Sunnis that they're not the strongest anymore and to show She'at that being a majority does not mean you can whip out 5 or 6 million Sunnis from Iraq. Both parties would most likely learn after that to live in real tolerance and acceptance of their differences.
I'm not being pessimistic here nor have I gave up, on the contrary I'm still optimistic and I don't see a limited civil war as that bad, as what would it mean? Destruction and killing on the identity? Sorry to say that that's already happening but none of the real killers is showing his face. So let them do it and say it frankly and that, I believe, will relieve a lot of the tension. I always thought that a civil war was needed to clear this tension and I had this thought more than 15 years ago when I stopped being a Sunni and that gave me access to what both sides really think of each other and it was scary...
I still don't believe that Iraqis will fight each other but it would be more radical Sunnis and She'at fighting each other and of course killing many innocents from both sides during the process, but again that's already happening but without Sunnis being aware that any of those who claim to represent them being part of it or many She'at believing that the SCIRI or the Sadirists are part of it either (Or maybe just not wanting to admit it which should also change if any of those parties made a declaration of war).
So nothing would actually change on the ground if any side declares civil war. They are not likely to be able to take it to an open war and we would just have faces replacing masks and citizens on both sides realizing that they're not the only victims and that what they thought would be a victory for them would only mean naming things by their names without achieving anything but continuous death and destruction.
I think all this could have been avoided if it was not for the interference of Sunni Arabs and Iran. Now things seem to be too tense to resolve on their own. There's still a remote chance of resolving this without even needing to declare a civil war (Although I still think a clear stand from the radicals on both sides would lead to a better outcome) and it lies in the secular She'at and Sunnis, the Kurds if they decide to play a more positive role and also the way the Americans will react to what may happen.

2006-02-22T14:34:00.000-08:00

Sorry I haven't posted in such a long time. I keep saying this will change and that I will post more frequently but things have been going against my will. I was busy with work which also made me less focused on what's happening in Iraq and I didn't have any solid thought I thought was worth sharing, but I will try my best to post as much as I can.I intend to post something soon but for now I wanted to share this cartoon I found on an Iraqi newspaper that I think is interesting. It's mainly about the bad effect of religion or more religious parties on the general situation in Iraq. It was published in Al-Muatamar newspaper which is the official paper of the INC (Chalabi's party) that's a liberal secular party that still have a majority of She'at. The three nails driven into the sign have the words; Occupation, Corruption and Terrorism. On the back the nail has no word attached to it but the bead is an obvious hint at religion. I believe the use of "Occupation" was just to show that the artist is a nationalist and it's a usual thing to do when you approach any political or religious taboos but everyone familiar with the paper knows it's pro-liberation and they even stated that clearly many times.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/982/726/1600/Cartoon.jpg
What I found interesting about this cartoon is not just that it's the 1st time someone criticizes the role of religion openly even if in an indirect way, but also that the artist used the word "Terrorism" and therefore his use of the bead was meant to refer to not Sunni fanatics, because he already covered that with "Terrorism" but to the She'at religious parties that dominate the government and maybe even the "Marjiya"I was happy to see this and it made me feel some hope after the terrible results of the elections. If we look at those results and compare them with the ones of the 1st elections we'll see that the She'at religious parties maintained their lead or even gained more votes numerically. So the number of She'at who did not vote for the Coalition List has not increased as we hoped but on the other hand the degree of opposition among secular She'at to the She'at religious authorities has grown considerably. She'at whether religious or secular have always had tremendous respect for their clerics and Imams and I've talked to many She'at who consider themselves liberals and who push for a secular state but when you go anywhere close to Sistani or their Imams they stop you, gently but firmly. So that's why I see it as a very hopeful sign that a paper dominated by She'at, even if secular and one that's distributed nationally has gone that far in defying religious She'at parties and one would just need to think of the reaction to the Danish cartoons to see how words or art can be very scary to those fanatics (although I don't see a very valid cause for those cartoons but I still resent the reaction much more than the act). They fear words more than bombs because while they can confront violence with similar or more extreme violence they lack the means to confront words or art, as it takes creativity and openness among other things which they lack or have lost when they closed their boxes on themselves. Words may not be enough but I believe they represent a very good start.

2005-12-26T04:35:00.000-08:00

I wanted to say something about the elections results but things are still confusing to me and I can't see any real light from the various possibilities ahead of us. I think there were huge violations and a fraud especially in the south and the north. This elections will cost Iraq and whoever decides to stand by her side at least 10 more years of suffering. The worst thing is that it could have prevented if some of us at least had paid attention to the real danger.The final outcome I don't doubt. I still believe firmly that Iraq will be a true democracy and a model for the Arab and Muslim world but the cost and time have just been doubled.Anyway, that's not what I wanted to say today but I thought I should say something about it. I also realized I haven't blogged in a long time after one of the readers mailed me to ask what was going on.What I want to say is Merry Christmas to all of you brothers and sisters! May your days be always joyful, peacful and meanningful.

Saddam's trial; the good, the bad and the ugly.

2005-12-06T01:52:00.000-08:00

Today's session of Saddam's trial was more eventful than the previous ones but it still showed a few things that were present before and made them clearer.To me, there were two good things, two bad and one ugly. One of the bad things, which was really thrilling although I saw it coming and didn't think it would affect me that way, is how one of the victims, the witness was able to stand in front of an Iraqi court beside Saddam and his top aids and telling their hideous crimes. There I saw an average Iraqi, who has no power or wealth, a man whom Saddam used to sign the execution order of hundreds like him without even knowing the name of one of them, standing boldly and exposing this monster's horrible crimes. He was not afraid and returned Saddam's words with stronger ones. I must admit that I saw this man as a hero and I think many Iraqis share a similar view with that of mine, as these people terrorized us for such a long time that even hearing their names used to paralyze us with fear. Till now and when I think of this man's position, I feel unsure on whether I would feel some fear or not if I was in his place.Saddam was trying to remain calm and put a fake smile on his face but I could see through his eyes that he was going to explode. I think he couldn't believe that an Iraqi, just an average Iraqi would talk to him that way and name him as just "Saddam" not the "Mujahi leader Saddam Hussain God bless him" or any of the other crap we had to add before his name otherwise…Saddam's brother, Barzan was in a much worse shape as everybody must have noticed. This is not strange at all and it was one of Saddam's ways of presenting himself as the best available choice by surrounding himself with insanely ignorant and barbarian people. I heard it from so many Iraqis in the past saying, "Well who would replace him if he's gone? Brazan, Izzat Il Douri or Taha Yassin Ramadan, or maybe Oday?? No it's better that he stays" thinking that all alternatives are worse and that there are no men in Iraq but those scum!The other good thing was the general attitude of the trial and the way the judge dealt with the defendants (although it's one of the bad things too in a way). I think the way Iraqis are treating Saddam shows clearly that they're better than being ruled by a man like him and I'm very pleased by the civility of the court. I've heard many Iraqis complaining about how soft the judge was in the 1st session and many said they hated him. This time I heard the same people saying they're starting to love him!Still I must say the judge could've been more firm with the many unacceptable behaviors by Saddam, his lawyers and his brother without crossing the line to being abusive of their rights. To be honest I think the judge was instructed to be extra-nice with Saddam, and I think that has more to do with presenting the trial to the western audience, particularly the American rather than the Iraqi audience. This trial is certainly a universal one but I think Iraqis should count more than others and I also think that American politics, mainly external is playing a major role here. I think Americans are trying to say to the rest of the world, "See how much we have changed this place!" which is ok and good but Iraqis' feelings, and more important justice, should count more than that since contempt for the court is a big deal in the best democracies.The other bad thing is the testimony of the major witness. It was incoherent, but that's ok and it's not the issue. The issue is that the man, whom I have no question about his honesty in telling Al Dujail story, was, as I believe, coached by certain parties inside the Iraqi government, and this is really bad. I can say he was coached by the SCIRI and was offered extra information on the investigation for two reasons. One to show Al Dujail massacre, at leastin a small way, as a massacre against the She'at (the witness kept mentioning Karbala'a and Imam Hussain for no real reason and focused on one of the victims who he said was a visitor from Karbala'a for no real reason to. He said that if Saddam's men had found out that the guy was from Karbala'a they'd leveled the holy shrines with ground). The other point I think is to document some of Saddam's crimes against Iran (the witness mentioned that he saw the Iranian ex-minister of oil in jail, which I think was irrelevant and not needed at all, that's if it's true).Other than that the ugliest part was the behavior of Saddam and his brother, Barzan. These two were very polite with the judge all the time (Barzan was even begging for mercy on one session) but as soon as they saw a simple Iraqi citizen with no power (or so they think) they regained that arrogant look and assumed the faces of the rulers again! How coward and how stupid at the same time! But it was more than great (and surprisingly shocking) to hear the words of that simple man from Dujail saying to Barzan, "Shut up!". That was worth the two hours in front of the TV.

The Iraqi media scandal.

2005-12-03T15:47:00.000-08:00

I've been following the news about the Iraqi media scandal in the American media and some blogs and I feel I have a few things I can comment on.
First of all, anyone following the Iraqi newspapers closely won't find it hard to notice that most of the real information and interesting newsy stories come from American sources. It's hard to miss that with most of those stories because the translation is usually close to a literal one which preserves the original western style of reporting that was unknown in our media. Also the kind of information that you get is usually ones that cannot be obtained unless the reporter is working in the front with the American and Iraqi forces or has real access to the original sources which is impossible till now.

Also, whoever said that those stories were meant to improve the image of America and the coalition forces in Iraq is exaggerating, the least to say. I'm an avid reader of Iraqi newspaper and I haven't read any newsy story that gives credit to the American forces or government. In fact, apart from 3 or 4 who very occasionally publish materials that are slightly in favor of the American troops, all Iraqi newspapers are either totally against it no matter how much they're offered, or they're very scared of publishing such materials. What we get usually is positive stories about the Iraqi forces and the reconstruction process.

Another thing that I find silly is that the Americans are very concerned about the newsy stories and neglect the fact that there are dozens of obvious propaganda messages in Iraqi press that come from American sources directly. Such messages are placed similarly as advertisements that are supposed to be from the Iraqi interior ministry and list phone numbers and ask people to report suspicious activities to help "The heroes in the Iraqi security forces" (Like this one above from Al Mu'tamar newspaper)

I called one of those numbers a few weeks ago to report something I saw as suspicious. I was worried because I know the IP is infiltrated by the Ba'athists and that my phone number could be easily tracked but I also thought that the Americans must have figured a way to deal with that, and I was right.The voice that answered on the other side had an unmistakable Jordanian accent. Now what would a Jordanian do in the Iraqi ministry of interior! The only logical conclusion for me was that the guy was a Jordanian American and that I was not calling the Iraqi interior ministry as I thought but some place in the American military, which honestly made me feel safer. Still, it gives a sad yet realistic picture of the readiness of the Iraqi security forces to handle security all alone.Anyway, back to the media scandal, my point is that most Iraqis who read newspapers and certainly most journalists know the source of such stories contrary to the claim of some of them as reported by the LATIMES. Now it may have taken an American military general a few months to find out that his command was pouring information through Iraqi media for money but trust me, it took a lot less than that for so many Iraqis to find out the same. If there's something wrong then it's in the way this campaign has been handled and not the concept itself.The amount of anti-American and anti-Iraqi propaganda is so huge in Iraq that I think there's a serious need to confront it one way or another. Moreover most of this propaganda is based on pure lies that are so ridiculous at times yet can affect many people. I think because it uses the conspiracy theory kind of approach which still appeals to many Iraqis. Why it does appeal to them? I think it's common in oppressed societies that had had no hand in deciding the way things are run in their own countries. They feel the evil but they can't see it or they're misled by their government to search for it somewhere else than where it is.I think the need for PsyOps in Iraq is huge and the American government was even late and lacking in its efforts in this area. There are several governments that are pouring millions and millions of Dollars not just to support the insurgency but also to spread disinformation and anti-American, anti-Iraqi government propaganda.When the two British soldiers were arrested, Sadirists and other radical religious newspapers said that those soldiers were found planting IEDs on the road! Imagine the destructive results of such disinformation spread by none other than the local government. Sadly many people believed that and other Iraqi newspapers picked it up to report it as the truth.It seems however that the information campaign was facing some problems that should have been taken care of and I think an investigation is necessary in that it will provoke those in charge to search for more effective measures in handling the media war which is, as I see it, a very essential part of the war on terror that cannot be ignored or underestimated.

The December elections.

2005-11-04T16:17:00.000-08:00

After the results of the January elections appeared, many Iraqis who were hoping for a democratic Iraq were discouraged. The results not only showed a significant dominance by the religious She'at parties but also gave a serious warning sign that democracy, while what the vast majority of Iraqis want, still may divide Iraq into three small countries or lead to a civil war given that the decades of oppression mainly directed towards the Sche'at and Kurds may cause these two to always vote along sectarian and ethnic lines, which subsequently would cause the Sunnis, who are till that time seemed to be living in the past and not accepting the fact that they've lost power, to vote similarly.

I myself was very discouraged during that time and started having serious doubts that democracy would ever work in Iraq. My best thoughts in the beginning were that we needed a civil war. I thought that it was probably inevitable once the Americans leave and may in the end convince everyone that the only way to succeed is to accept and tolerate each other instead of trying to dominate or isolate themselves. A couple of things gave me hope though, the fact that we have another election coming soon and that the elected government was doing terrible.

What I thought at that time and what I still think now is that there are three factors and three men in Iraq now who can influence and change the fate of Iraq more than others depending on their attitude towards this election. With other factors considered, I believe these three men have the greater effect and most of our hopes for the short term depend on how they handle these elections. These are in order of their role's significance are Allawi, Chalabi and Mithal Al Alousi.

Allawi's role is, as I believe, the most important and it shows also through the repeated assassination attempts against him, not all of them at least were done by terrorists but most likely by religious She'at parties, particularly the last one in Basra. Allawi, being a secular She'at and a leader who managed to show a firm personality in public was the choice of most Sunnis who were able and wanted to vote in the last elections. He also got many votes from She'at and I even know some Kurd friends who voted for him.
I thought at that time that if Allawi manages to attract a considerable number of Sunni parties or at least one of the major ones, he'd be creating a block in the parliament that is not She'at or Sunni or Kurd, which I believe is badly needed.

Things were not really good at Allawi's days but they were still much better in the minds of many Iraqis than al Ja'fari current government's policies, and that includes many who voted for the "Coalition List". This is something I've heard from many secular She'at who still voted for the "Coalition List" in the last elections saying they regret that vote and would vote for Allawi the next elections. Why seculars would vote for religious parties? I think for two reasons. One is that loyalty to the She'at sect is more a loyalty to a social group rather than a religious one. It's more a political stand to support your community rather than a religious one. Oppression seems to have this effect on religious groups and they become more like an ethnic group as the oppression continues for a long time. The other reason is the second man, Chalabi.

Many secular She'at seem to have thought, or convinced themselves to justify their vote, that Chalabi's presence in the "Coalition List" makes it a non-religious gathering. Also Chalabi was always known to be the hardest on hunting down the Ba'athists, something most She'at, religious and secular think that other politicians were being soft on.
My thoughts were that if Chalabi leaves the coalition list that list would look very bad in the eyes of all seculars including She'at and would probably cause other secular parties regardless of their origin to unite against it in case it got many seats in the parliament.

It may look strange to many that I consider a man like Mithal Al Alousi as a significant player in Iraq's politics and it was even stranger months ago. There are reasons why I believe this guy will have a major effect on Iraq's politics in the near future. While still not as well-known or popular as Allawi or even Chalabi, the man and since he was expelled by Chalbi from the "National Accordance" following his visit to Israel has been gaining support very rapidly. When he started his own party "The Democratic Iraqi Nation Party" a year ago he had only 1600 members in it. Today, only in Hilla he has 15000 registered members in his party. He's a secular Sunni that gained a lot of support in the south among She'at. That's something that gives hope. Moreover, and to me this is the most important point, he's the only Iraqi politician who says it loud and clear all the time that Iraq's interests lie in a strong strategic alliance with the United States and the free world, and people are not pushed away by that or by his visit to Israel for that matters but in fact it's having the opposite effect!

As I look at it now, Allawi has managed to attract some good number of Sunni figures including the ex-president al Yawir. Even the ex-Ba'athist well-known Sunni politician Salih al Mutlag who was against both governments and against the constitution said lately that he's most likely going to join Allawi.

On the other hand Chalabi did leave the coalition list. He says it's because he doesn't want a theocracy, they say they sacrificed him to win Sadr. I think both are not being honest about it but I also think that the coalition list made a huge strategic blunder if they're saying the truth even if the Sadirists will win them more votes than Chalabi as a single party in these elections.

Mithal represents the path I think Iraq should follow and he's doing pretty well but unfortunately he lacks the resources other less capable politicians have. His party (mine) is still not able to publish a newspaper! They published it once but couldn't go on because of the shortage in money. Still he's getting a reasonable publicity through TV stations and is doing very well in talk shows always embarrassing other politicians and exposing their hypocrisy.
These three men have another advantage over other parties. They're the only ones who so far have outlined their election campaign to focus mainly on local issues particularly economy. Allawi is promising more jobs, better electricity and better health care, Chalabi is promising a share of the oil revenue to each citizen delivered monthly and Mithal is promising more transparency in handling Iraq's economy and also to increase the number of items and the quality of the food ration. Other parties are still babbling about over-used slogans like "independence" and a "strong Iraq" that have stopped to mean anything to the average Iraqis who have much more urgent daily needs.

With these factors considered, the main element that will change Iraq's fate remains by far the brave and smart Iraqis who may have followed their emotions in the start but that's changing now. A committed Sunni relative of mine said to me while we were talking about the next elections and the general situation, "I'm sorry Ali, this time I won't vote for you, I'll vote either for Allawi or Mithal" I told him that we have joined Mithal and he seemed to be relieved that he was going to vote for someone he believes in and still not breaching his commitment to his family or tribe. He didn't know how happy and optimistic he made me seeing that he was using his brain, not what traditions, sectarian or tribal laws tell him, to decide on what he thinks is good for him, his family and his country.

The battle goes on.

2005-07-05T00:27:00.000-07:00

For the 10th day citizens of Najaf continue their protest against the violations against their freedom that are committed by the religious police under the eyes and ears of the governorate council.Abdul Ameer Al Ka’abi, one of the organizers of the protest told Al Jeeran (Iraqi-Kuwaiti Friendship committee site) that the protest started 10 days ago by calls from liberal political parties and civil society organizations in the city and that many Najafies have responded and are continuing their demonstration in front of the Najaf governerate council’s building and they won’t end the protest until their demands are answered. He added explaining the reasons:“The emergency brigade in Najaf started implementing a law that prohibits men from growing their hair or cut it in a western style and also prohibit wearing jeans and carrying mobile phones that has cameras!” He added, “They started with colleges and institutes”And regarding the punishment for those who disobey this law Mr. Al Ka’abi said, “Any man with a long hair get punished by shaving his hair totally (me wonder, isn't that a western style too!?) while those who wear jeans get their cloths torn on them. Mobiles that has cameras get confiscated, not to mention the insults, beating and threats”“What’s worse is that after we started our protest they added a 10 days imprisonment to all these penalties!”He added, “We spoke with Colonel Najah the leader of the brigade and his assistant Major Mohammed Dayikh and they told us that they’re carrying out the orders of the governor of Najaf, but the governorate council denies that and claim it’s all just personal mistakes of some of the police officers!”The protestors plan to carry their demands to the national assembly.From Al Jeeran (Arabic link).This is what I was talking about in my previous post. The religious parties are carrying out their plans in a sneaky way blaming the local government for it and the government which is made mainly from these parties put the blame on personal behaviors. However and as I noted Iraqis are not standing silent. We have never seen such theocratic tyranny before and even committed religious She’at (not fanatics as there’s still a fine line between the two) won’t accept such oppression. We didn’t come this far to give away our freedom to ignorant scum like Sadr, Al Hasani and Al Ya’akoobi (Leaders of another Sadirists trend, as there are 5 of them now). I see this protest as a great sign of hope especially that it comes from a city that is known to be quite religious in general.Meanwhile it seems that someone is putting some of that necessary pressure on Sadr junior that we talked about. In Basra the official office for Muqtada Al Sadr was shut down until further notice by orders from Muqtada. Fatah Al Sheikh the Sadirist PM from the Unified Coalition list told Al Sharq Il Awsat that, “Muqtada ordered his office in Basra to shut down because of some of the misbehaving and wrongful acts of some of its members so that it won’t affect the reputation of other offices in other governorates”Al Sharq Il Awsat tried to call the office but no one answered and some people went to the office in Basra and found its doors closed.From Al Sharq Il Awsat (Arabic link).Of course this could be just a game from Sadr and it does reminds me of the way Saddam used to blame his dogs for any crime he ordered but couldn’t justify. Still I think the demonstrations of the students of Basra that went for weeks must have showed him that there’s a limit to how much he can intimidate people without them retaliating. The battle goes on of course and I have always been optimistic about its end although sadly it may cause many losses.

2005-04-05T19:02:00.000-07:00

I have changed my blog address to be " http://afreeiraqi.blogspot.com " as it goes better with the title than the old one. I have also changed my e-mail to be afreeiraqi@gmail.com. If you have any suggestions or comments, please put them in the comment section or mail them to me.

2005-03-31T18:21:00.000-08:00

I apologize for the long hiatus. I didn't plan to stay away that long but things happened that forced me to. I want to start with something I was thinking about 2 days ago while following the latest developments in the food for oil program scandal.There's nothing surprising about the extent of corruption inside the UN to me and most Iraqis. We saw those shining names in Saddam's days dining with his thugs in his palaces. The same big hot shots that attacked Saddam's regime fiercely and then dramatically changing their attitude once they get to meet him and get a grip of the reality on the ground in Iraq. I was shocked at first when I saw Hans von Sponeck defend Saddam's regime after his resignation and attacking the US and the UK while in the beginning he was blaming both the allies and Saddam's regime on the poor performance of the food for oil program. Only money, and HUGE amount of money could explain such a change in such a short duration.However I was not that shocked after hearing that Koffi Anan was getting bribes from Saddam. Oh sorry, meant his son. But that's not what I want to talk about today. Instead I want to share an idea about how to fix this problem that will surely recur again and again.To try and find solutions for the UN problems is an important issue for all of us and although I'm not naive enough to think that it can be fixed that easily or that I can actually find part of a solution, but it won't hurt to discuss the issue, as in the end we, the people are just as concerned as politicians about it and also we, Iraqis were victims of such flaws in the UN.Before trying to answer any problem we have to consider the elements. The human greed is something we cannot control and we should never expect those at high positions to be saints. The UN internal system is something I don't know much about and I also think it's not even a major element although some reforms there would surely help. But the most important element that cause such corruption in my mind is the presence of exceptionally large amounts of money and other resources in the hands of individuals whom their fate depend on the UN inspection teams' reports i.e. dictators and tyrannical regimes in general.Regimes like Saddam's in the past, Kadaffi's, Asad's and the Iranian regime now and in the future have been and will always be capable of and willing to spend millions and millions of their people's money to gain the approval and support of the UN through bribing certain influential staff members who would be sent to seek the truth about a certain violation in their countries. How are we going to guarantee that honest respectable people who were chosen by the international committee for such missions won't weaken to the sight of a 6 digit check? There's no guarantee.Yet there might be a way to avoid such a problem. First I think we should re-identify the problem. It's not that the UN is a week or corrupt organization. It's that we are dealing with two entirely different sets of regimes using one standard. One set of laws to deal with democratic and authoritarian states. That doesn't sound right.So the answer may lie in finding two different set of rules, two different organizations to deal with those different states. But that might divide the world so we will have to decide which set of states is more reliable to depend on in solving common global problems. Who's "we" is not that important and it does not mean control of the strong over the weak. Lets think of something similar to the EU. The democratic free nations whether poor or rich, strong or weak should gather and form a mass governed by a set of rules that can get a consensus from all the involved parties. The tyrannical regimes should be kept outside, isolated until they meet a certain requirements set by the new organization.So when dealing with a problem in Japan for example, the organization can send a convoy to Japan to seek facts from there combined with talks with Japanese representatives in the organization. While when dealing with a problem in Libya for example, a dictatorship that actually refuses to join the global organization of democratic countries (by its actions) but might present a danger to one or all of its members, the organization do not send anyone, or it can send a convoy but once its job is hindered it should be withdrawn immediately with no possibility of a return. It asks the Libyan government to clarify the situation, prove its innocence in that particular problem and without offering it a seat inside the organization. If the Libyan government fails to do so then the organization would take actions based on its members interests and consensus and according to how serious the threat is.Such system should not be looked at as isolating poor or "developing countries" or that such an attitude means taking the side of the strong parties. First, because the organization would include all democratic countries, not just advanced countries. Besides, we should be more worried about the UN or similar organizations taking the wrong side than them taking the strong side. And also what's most important is that such system would only weaken the regimes not the people.Can anyone tell me what good the UN was for the Iraqi people? What did I gain from that seat that was given to one of Saddam's thugs to sit and babble like he's the equal of those sitting next to him; men and women who truly represented their nations? I'll tell you what I gained from that. More years for Saddam and his gang in power, more years of torture and fear, more years of death to my friends and relatives, more years of desperation and miserable life. All this while those elegant respectable figures in the UN were filling their stomachs with the Iraqi people's flesh and blood. Do we need to repeat that?People won't lose that seat but dictators will, as it was never a seat for the people. I'd say that on the contrary, people living in authoritarian states would gain from such a 'loss', as it would isolate their rulers politically, will take their legitimacy away and would weaken them with time until they find themselves either forced to make the reforms (as the free world is concerned and entitled to look after the human rights everywhere) that allows them to get the legitimacy or face the united free world. Just an idea.

Was that really a pro-Syrian rally?

2005-03-18T18:31:00.000-08:00

According to Al-Ra'ai Il A'am Kuwaiti newspaper (Arabic link), students of "Omar Al Mukhtar" educational center in Helba city in Becca valley demonstrated yesterday in huge numbers against the Syrian presence in Lebanon. So far nothing unusual, but what makes this demonstration significant is not the numbers of demonstrators but rather the place and what the students had to say.Omar Al Mukhtar center was considered a stronghold for Abdul Haleem Murad, the Arab nationalist minister of defense in the resigned Lebanese government who directly supervise on the center, which made this center also a stronghold for Arab nationalists that by nature support Syrian presence but now they're demonstrating against Syria!Also the students said that their demonstration comes after a series of what they described as "oppressive procedures" carried out by the administration of the center with direct instructions from the minister.What's more is what one of the students said to the newspaper, "the minister forced us to take part in the pro-Syrian rally last week and used threats to prevent us from walking in Al Hariri funeral and promised to reward those who obey his orders"So who else was forced to attend that rally? I can say not the majority since Hizbullah has its own supporters. Also there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon whom their participation in that rally would be understandable and there are also hundreds of thousands of Syrian agents and workers who would have to be there or they would probably have to leave Lebanon soon, that's not assuming they got direct orders from their government and its intelligence there. Not to mention Syrians that were possibly brought from Syria on that day.There was something fishy about hundreds of thousands of 'Lebanese' holding signs that cheer Bashar Al Asad, his father and the Syrian government much more than their own government while clearly accusing the majority of Lebanese of being ungrateful traitors! Now we know at least part of the truth that can guide us to find out more.Anyway, it appears that there are no Arab nationalists/Syria supporters left in what's supposed to be a stronghold for them except the minister and the center administration, as the students showed clearly on which side they are and decided that their freedom worth more than their degrees that are surely on the line now, but I guess Mr. Murad has to more worry about than them.In another development in Lebanon, the Lebanese army removed two statues in Hilba city, one for Bashar Al Alsad and one for his father. According to the Lebanese police the decision was made after quarrels took place between pro and anti- Syrian demonstrators who were both celebrating the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon near the statues and after Lebanese toppled a statue for the late Syrian president Hafiz Al Asad twice and one for Basil Al Asad, Bashar's dead brother (sounds like "the mountain of Gods"). And yes the Syrian government and its supporters in Syria and Lebanon (well they're supporters since they're showing in their rallies!) do celebrate the Syrian withdrawal too, as it's a victory for Syria and her historic leadership. I know it sounds strange to most westerns but you're all just not smart enough to understand that, as your minds have been corrupted for a long time with this democracy thing that does not leave a decent place for legendary heroes. While we, Arabs understand perfectly that it's a victory for Asad just like the 1st Gulf war was a victory for Saddam and the 1967 war was a victory for Nasir.You see, the six days war was not part of the Israeli Arab conflict, nor the 1st Gulf War aimed to liberate Kuwait, otherwise both would've been victories for Israel and the international alliance respectively and therefore they would've been defeats for Nasir and Saddam as well as other Arab governments. The truth is that these wars aimed only to topple Nasir and Saddam and since that didn't happen then we can justifiably say that both historic, legendary leaders actually won in those wars, and since Nasir was the whole Egypt and Saddam was the whole Iraq then these were victories for Egypt and Iraq! Simple, isn't it?

Winds of change from the south.

2005-03-17T10:00:00.000-08:00

Thousands of students in Basra University demonstrated Yesterday against "terrorism". Al Basra University announced a general strike until the demands of the students are met. From Al Qabas Kuwaiti newspaper (Arabic). The rally was not against the terrorism carried by the Salafi/Jihadists but against the terrorist activities of the religious parties in Basra and mainly the Sadirsts.The Sadirists and representatives of some radical religious parties have appointed themselves as guardians on the people of Basra and many other southern governorates with She'at majority especially after their lists got the majority of the votes there in both local elections and national ones. Their armed followers appointed themselves as guards in all colleges, hospitals and government institute watching everyone and making sure no one violates their Shre'a. They filled these places with their leaders' pictures and their symbols, challenging anyone who objects to their actions saying that they represent the Marjiyia in Najaf and that they have the support of Sistani.The straw that broke the camel's back came last Tuesday when a bunch of thugs from Sadr office attacked a group of " Basra Engineering College" students, males and females, who were going on a picnic in a public park. The thugs started beating those young men and women without any discrimination which resulted in 15 male students getting seriously injured while the rest were taken to Sadr's office in Basra to force the rule of these terrorists' Shre'a on them, all under the eyes of the local police!Iraqi citizens in the south are generally conservative and they hold great respect for Sistani and that's why many of them voted for the Coalition List that includes many of these parties. But She'at Basraois as well as other She'at Iraqis are also civilized people who would never accept the rule of thugs and barbarians who want to take Iraq back to the dark ages. Thus while they tolerated them in the beginning probably out of fear and/or respect for Sistani, these brave students supported by their families and their teachers have said" Enough". They went on a strike demanding that the ING take over the mission of protecting colleges and hospitals, torn all these religious parties pictures and symbols that looked too holy to be touched for quite a time now and raised signs saying, "No to terrorism, No to Parties (meaning religious parties as they're the only ones in the scene there)" the students kicked the representatives of these parties out of their colleges.As Much as I'm distressed by the action of these thugs, I feel optimistic and proud of the bravery of the Students of Basra who stood against not only these radical thugs but also against a corrupt local government that supports or at least deliberately overlooks the actions of these terrorists. This is the change I was hoping to see, the change of heart s and minds against all sorts of fanaticism which without it all efforts whether by the government or America, with all the sacrifices of Iraqis and their bravery in standing against foreign terrorism, remains useless.Some western experts argue that since there is no democratic society in Iraq, the American liberation of Iraq did not and will not lead to democracy . The first part of this statement is true but the conclusion is flawed.Iraqi society, like most Arab/Muslim societies, is cursed with many problems that chain it and prevent the progress of democracy among its components. The worst of these chains and the hardest to break is dictatorship. By toppling Saddam, America offered Iraqis freedom from dictatorship but it couldn't and would never be able to liberate Iraqi from all other chains. Once Iraqis tasted this freedom the majority of them used it to back up their religious figures that were similarly oppressed at Saddam's hands and thus the religious parties won easily. This chain was not forced but was created by ignorance and the emotional bond between Iraqis and their religious symbols.However, once those religious parties started to use their power that is given to them by God (as they believe) and by the people (through the vote) Iraqis got shocked! This is not what they jeopardized their lives to vote for! They were not freed from Saddam only to face another tyranny, and therefore the same people who voted for the Coalition List have revolted against its fanatic religious components and they will continue their revolt until they win. This will be a peaceful struggle that takes its nature from the fact that American troops are on the ground to prevent any large scale oppression although it can't prevent smaller scattered violations of Iraqi citizens' rights.The anti-democracy forces are facing their worst enemies, a foe that is more formidable than American or Iraqi official troops. They're facing their own people from whom they got their legitimacy in the first place. They'll be fighting a lost battle without any weapon other than their viciousness while moderate Iraqis fight knowing they're the majority that even if it lost the government support it would still have some of it plus what's more important, the support of America, the power that provided the free environment and that will be there to maintain it if needed. Without Ameica's support such struggle would be bloody and most likely fanatics would win in the end but with that support fanatics get trapped between two mighty powers that leave them with a very small chance if ever.

Wahabism, and radical Islam in Iraq.

2005-03-12T05:31:00.000-08:00

In my previous post I tried to explain why in my mind the Islamic brotherhood had transferred into a terrorist group. The reasons I gave does not apply to Al Qaeda and Wahabism in general as I noted in the beginning of that post, as although both trends contribute to terrorism they differ from each other so much in almost everything.While the Islamic brotherhood formation was a response -and an accumulative product of efforts- of many thinkers to the deteriorated social economic and political situation in Egypt with attempts to find a solution through Islam, Wahabism had no such background.Whabism was the product of mainly one man in response to what he considered (Shirk) i.e. worshiping other people or other things along with God. It was an attempt by Mohammed Abdul Wahab to purify Islamic belief from what various existing sects had introduced into it over centuries. It was not a political movement and although it was supposed to reform Islam, the idea was mainly going back to the roots in almost a copying manner with no place for science or philosophy. While books written by the Islamic Brotherhood's early leaders are still studied till now, Wahabies had no such thinkers and writers and depend mainly on books written my Muslim scholars who died more than a thousand years ago, mainly Ibn Taimyiah.Another difference is that economic difficulties and miserable situations played smaller role in people's decisions to join Wahabism unlike what happened with the Islamic Brotherhood. This is mainly because as I said earlier the Brotherhood promised a change to the better in living conditions while Wahabisim was only concerned with the spiritual side of Islam and the reward they were offering was only to be cashed in another life.Mohammed Abdul Wahab rejected the ceremonies both She'at and Sunni have introduced in form of glorifying humans (Imams), raising them to a very high rank where they served as God's successors and the only way to reach him and to gain his blessings. They built fancy shrines for them that were more sacred to some of them than the Ka'aba itself. She'at went further than Sunnis in this area and glorified Mohammed and Al Al Bait [means residents of Mohammed's house but always refer to only Fatima (Mohammed's eldest daughter), her husband (Imam Ali who was also Mohammed's cousin), two of their sons (Hussain and Hasan) and selected first sons of one of them down to the twelfth Imam, Al Mehdi] to the degree that many She'at believe that the whole universe was created for the sake of the five people whom I named.There's a joke here that says that two Iraqi She'at women went to the Hij in Mecca. One of them looked at the Ka'aba and asked her friend, "Pray sister, what is this big black building?" Her friend answered, "Don't you really know!? It's the Ka'aba, Allah's house" The first woman asked again," So Allah is buried here!?" her more informed friend replied, "Can you really be this ignorant!? If Allah were to die he would be buried in Najaf not here!"Anyway, after Wahabies controlled Saudi Arabia in the early decades of the 19th century they launched repeated raids against Iraq and destroyed all the Shrines they found in their way, Sunni and She'at but of course mainly She'at shrines. These wars are very different from the Islamic Brotherhood late attacks, sine the latter were mainly put to change the regime and to fight a corrupt government. It has a political nature while violence used by Wahabies was and still is based on pure religious issues. Followers of Islamic brotherhood think of Christianity and Judaism as imperfect beliefs but they do not see Jews and Christians as infidels, and their hatred to the west came mainly from political reasons since they believe it was responsible for their misery one way or another, while the Wahabies think of the followers of other religions as infidels and when they started fighting them this element was the main one, at least in their speeches to their followers although mixed with other political reasons sometimes.Unlike the Brotherhood that criticized most Caliphates and deemed them as corrupt tyrants that had no right in claiming authority since most Caliphates gained their positions by inheriting them and not through a consensus by Muslims, Wahabies respect all Caliphates and consider their authority as a sacred one given by God. So inside their own land, Wahabies never gave their Kings any problem until those kings started to attack them lately due to pressure from the US. In fact they were always a tool for the ruling family in Saudi Arabia.Saudi Arabia kings did not want a conflict with Israel, their best Ally's best ally and therefore this radical Muslim group never attacked Israel which is so strange given their supposed ideology is to fight the "infidels" and that they do see Jews as ones not to mention that they look at them as occupiers of holy Muslim lands.Hating or fighting the west or Israel was never the reason behind the rise of the Wahabism, as it was only concerned with purifying the Islamic belief in the area of worshiping and religious duties that has little to do with politics. Also one of the main principles in Wahabism is that it's illegitimate act to fight your Muslim ruler no matter how corrupt or unjust he was, and this is literally, exactly, what you would find in their books. And if you ask a Wahabi how does he thinks the world can be a better place with such negative attitude his answer would be, "the good people will inherit the earth" which is a verse from the Quran that they took to mean that all you have to do is to worship God and be a good person and God will take care of the rest!So the question is what turned this group to expand their activities and direct their violence everywhere and not just only towards She'ats or Sunnis?It was simply because the royal family in Saudi Arabia used their clerics to focus on the Jihad and convince them that helping their Muslim brothers in Afghanistan against the communist infidels is a religious duty and a gate to heaven. It was pure politics that made the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan use the religious card to combat the former Soviet Union. After Afghanistan came Bosnia, Chechnya and all places were Jihad would serve the Royal family and the Interests of the west and mainly the US.I'm not saying that the US encouraged terrorism but rather that the American administration at that time made a move that looked tactically right but it proved to be a strategic disaster, as it missed an important point. Jihadies do not retire!The Genii was out of the bottle and it became so difficult to get it back there.I think it's illogical to assume that the invasion of Afghanistan led to the rise of terrorism there, as there were many Muslim groups that resisted the Soviet invasion and none of these became a terrorist organization. Terrorism in Afghanistan came from outside, from an authoritarian country and then exported its violence back to spread in the whole region.Speaking of authoritarian countries and their role in spreading radical beliefs, in Iraq as one would expect, Wahabism was not very popular since it was founded. However, in the 90s and after the invasion of Kuwait, the terrible defeat and sanctions that followed, many Iraqis, mainly Sunnis, were converted to Wahabies. In my district many of my friends joined a Wahabi circle in our mosque and they were neither poor nor uneducated. I and some fewer friends, we were very close to join the Muslim Brotherhood, not in the form of being part of any organization but we embraced a lot of their ideals. I want to point here that Sayed Qutub and other early leaders of the Islamic brotherhood did not want to separate religion from politics because they saw Islam's message as an attempt to fix the world as a whole not just to determine the relationship between God and human beings but such belief carried a lot of dangers with it. However they did not call for the rule of clerics or Muslim scholars but rather to implement the basics of Islam in politics and life in general and thus they focused on some principles in Islam that were 'forgotten' and mainly "Doing the good and preventing the evil" as a duty and a responsibility of every Muslim, which is something most clerics did not give much attention to in their teachings and speeches because they knew it might lead to 'unfavorable' consequences when Muslims think that they're that responsible. Instead most sects (including Wahabism) left politics for the Sultan as both his right and duty that he's responsible for only in front of God and therefore no human had the right to question that authority.So we were just lost youth trying to find some answers for all these wars, unnecessary death, lack of freedom, torture and why we had no say in our life. Most of my friends were desperate to find any hope in this life and so they went to the mosque searching for answers from the only reliable source that was still available, God.However there was no God inside the mosque. There was a cleric who had just got two cars with the number (Iraq-Kuwait) on them, cars that were stolen from Kuwait that is. They also found two young Wahabies who were preaching a different version of Islam that looked more pure and who were getting booklets, recordings and video cassettes from Saudi Arabia and Yemen mainly for speeches of radical clerics. The two young men had no problem in exposing the hypocrisy of the cleric but their teachings while looking attractive on the first look, couldn't keep my friends in that circle for more than a year, as my friends were smarter than accepting these teachings without any questioning, something that the Wahabi preachers would never allow and called "devil's entrances", meaning you should not question the "principles" of the belief or you'd be risking losing your faith totally! Besides, my friends had a life to go on with despite the general difficult situation. They had their colleges, work; they got married and had families and a future to look for. And in the end Wahabism provided no answer to any of daily life problems.I couldn't but think that the majority of Iraqis were not as fortunate as my friends and that in poorer districts things may have gone differently and that a reward in another life without trying to change anything in current reality may have sounded enough for weak hopeless people, and indeed that was what happened as Wahabism spread in many districts of Baghdad, mainly poor ones.So while economic reasons did not contribute to Wahabism in many areas, it did drive others in other areas to embrace more radical versions of Islam and Wahabism was one of these.On the other hands, we who searched for a more revolutionary form of Islam and found some answers in the Islamic brotherhood that looked reasonable for some time, we did so because we wanted to confront the regime. We were very unhappy with our life and we felt a bit more responsible. But we were very scared of facing that horrible killing and torture machine alone and thus we asked for God's help. We did not search for a compassionate loving God who would ask us to be patient and reward us in the after life, but instead we were looking for an angry God that would stand with us in a very scary conflict. But we were also careful not to rush any decision on that fight, partly because of our fears and partly because we were not sure we were fighting for the right reasons. We thought that if we fought just out of anger we would be just committing suicide and suicide is prohibited in Islam and looked at as a crime.It was long after that that I started to think that there's no pure "God's cause" and that God's cause only exists when there's a human cause, while at that time and in the end we just stood there in the middle of the road not knowing what to do.Others were less careful (more courageous, it depends) and fought but most of those Muslims who fought needed the assistance and guidance of radical organizations and subsequently they took the struggle (or it took them) far away from their original goal.

First there was Mohammed and then there was Napoleon and then...

2005-03-10T01:02:00.000-08:00

What breeds terrorism in the Arab and Muslim world? Is it dictatorship or is it foreign occupation or are the seeds of terrorism buried deep in Islam and were bound to spread even without occupation or dictatorship?Certainly I don't claim to have the answer but I'll try to give my own perspective on this issue that has hundreds of political analysist and experts weighing on it, but I have a blog and I have a brain that might not be great but that's irrelevant, as the process of thinking was never monopolized by experts with all due respect to their knowledge.I'm not sure where I read this definition of terrorism but I tend to agree that "it's the use of violence by a group when it can achieve its just goals by peaceful measures"According to such definition the Palestinians military operations after 1967 would probably be considered "resistance" while after an agreement was made of establishing a Palestinian state, similar operations would be seen as terrorism. On the other hand, the violence in Iraq including the military operations against the American troops would be seen as terrorism because Iraqis can ask the Americans through their elected government to leave, and if that happens and Americans refuse to fulfill their promises then at that time fighting American troops would be a legitimate act of resistance.This distinction between various acts of violence is important as it helps us to note where a certain revolutionary group was transformed into a terror net and what situations at that specific time caused such transformation. For example many people look at what happened in Algeria since the early 90s as terrorism, but while this is true for most of these operations, it is not true to describe its start. The Algerian "National Salvation Front" actually tried peaceful measures and won the first round in a free election but then the army interfered and interrupted the election. The "National Salvation front" was denied its rightful place by force, its leaders were arrested and the front itself was banned.Back to our questions, there are two major components of terrorism with an Islamic background, the Islamic brotherhood and those originating from Wahabism. I'll try to deal in this post with the first group as it takes a long post on its own.The Arab and Muslim world were living rather idly before the French invasion of Egypt. Being isolated almost entirely from the rest of the world, Arabs and Muslims were still thinking they were on the top of the world until Napoleon landed with his vast Army on the shores of Egypt.Egypt was then ruled by the "Mamaleek" who are former European slaves that joined Islam and then conquered their conquerors. The Egyptians did not like the Mamaleek a lot and so they did not take active part in the battle between them and the French. Needless to say the Mamaleek army was crushed in a lightening speed. Despite their hatred for the Mamaleek, Egyptians were shocked and disappointed, "How could we, believers be defeated so easily by infidels? Didn't God say that he's always with the believers?" they wondered, and when Napoleon entered Cairo with all the recent scientific inventions of that time, Egyptians were even more shocked as they saw what they've never seen or even thought they would live to see. "Could this be the reason?" Some thought "yes" and others thought that it was the decay of Islam that allowed the "infidels" to defeat them and not advanced science.Later on, and after the French left, the new viceroy of Egypt, the Albanian Mohammed Ali known as "Mohammed Ali Pasha the great" made it his policy to send Egyptian students to study in Europe and mainly in France and Great Britain. The knowledge that these scholars brought back with them is one of the reasons why Egypt with all the miseries it went through is still the leading Arab country in many fields.But it was not just science that these scholars brought with them, as many of them went to the west seeking an answer to why the west is so advanced while Arabs and Muslims live in such a misery. They were divided in three main groups in respect to their conclusions. One group was very impressed with the western civilization and called for secularism and encouraging scientific research seeing that they're the main reasons to why the west was so advanced. Another group was impressed with the national governments in France and some European countries and called for the unity of the Arab world (Arab nationalists). The third group was impressed with the scientific achievements of the west but thought it's not necessary to accept the whole European culture to achieve similar results in a Muslim country as they didn't like the "moral decay" they saw in Europe and thought that the salvation of Muslims lie in the reform of Islam without abandoning its principles.It was the fact that most Arab/Muslims couldn't help but relate between Islam and their nation's glory (since it was Islam that put Arabs on the top of the world in many fields for many centuries) that made many of them think that they can only achieve progress if they give Islam back its place in the centre of their lives. Some thought they should revive it the way it was in the beginning (Salafis/Wahabies) while others thought they should reform it using knowledge obtained from the west to meet the challenges of the present time (Islamic brotherhood).The Islamic brotherhood rose in Egypt in the late 20s at the hands of Hasan Al Banna but earlier attempts to reform Islam and use it to reform the political syatem that in the end led to the formation of the Islamic Brotherhood started much earlier through the efforts of the Afghani Jamal Al Deeen Al Afgahni and the Egyptian Muhammed Abda and later on in what is now known as Pakistan through the writings of "Abu Al A'ala Al Maudoodi", a journalist and a Muslim activist. His writings though got more supporters in Egypt where the Islamic Brotherhood was formed, not by clerics or Shiekhs, but by scholars who studied in the west.Sayed Qutub, one of the most prominant early leaders of the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt for example got his master degree from an American university and most of the Brotherhood's leaders were doctors or lawyers. This was not a coincidence nor it was a phenomena limited to the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, as Abbas Madani the leader of the "National Salvation Front" in Algeria had a PhD in philosophy from the Sorbonne.Anyway, the Islamic brotherhood was a reaction to the miserable conditions and the corruption of the Egyptian government. It is interesting to see that such movements didn't achieve much in Iraq or Syria and most of the Arab states despite their situations were pretty similar! Egypt was also the stronghold and the main drive behind Arab nationalism wave in the 50s of the last century. It was the earlier cultural shock in Egypt that made her lead in this area.The struggle between these three groups was not only local since world events played a very important role in shaping it and in deciding which group would take the lead. Arab liberals had little support since the ideas they were promoting did not find much support in the Arab/Muslim culture that was already manipulated by the 'Sultans' and their preachers to close any window that allows a positive change or any change for that matters. Yet some of these Arabs affected by the western civilization were attracted to the Marxist theory and with the extreme poverty that made socialism looks a perfect answer for Arabs/Muslims problems and with the huge propaganda from the former Soviet Union they were able to get the attention and the support of a wide percentage of Arab Muslims, especially the poor who comprise the vast majority.In the late 40s of the past century revolutions against the corrupt useless regimes were looming in the air in most Arab countries. These revolutions were obviously going to be a communist-Islamist one in some and a solely communist in others like Iraq. Such thing was of course unacceptable by the west at a time when communism was gaining ground everywhere, and thus came the counter-revolutions in the 50s. Military coups by Arab nationalists that seized the power in most Arab countries overnight and drove hundreds of thousands of communists to prisons and torture rooms. The Islamists however joined the communists in their cells mainly because they were a threat to the new tyrants rather than the west.In Egypt the more radical Hassan Al Banna was assassinated while the more moderate more sophisticated Sayed Qutub was imprisoned several time before he was executed by Colonel Nassir who accused him of planning a coup. Most of the more intellectual leaders of the Islamic Brotherhood faced a similar fate. Sadat on the other hand kept those who used their brains and thus were more dangerous (to him not to the society) in prison and set lose the followers and even used them in combating communism that was still breathing. The same happened in Algeria where the leaders of the "Salvation Front" were all imprisoned and the front was banned.These Islamic groups were not terrorists. They were Islamic reformists with some fundamentalist elements who wanted to save their nations from tyranny, starting with peaceful measures. Their main weapon was "Da'awa" (preaching) not bombs or guns and in this they don't differ a lot from any Christian fundamentalist group in the west. The main difference between them and traditional Muslim clerics and preachers is that their enemy was not the west or Israel, but it was the 'Sultan' and his gang. They never called for a Jihad on the "infidel" and never attacked western interests in their early beginnings. They were fundamentalists in calling for the "rule of God" but they embraced western science, technology and literature and they were definitely not terrorists.The fierce campaigns of Arab governments against these early groups of Islamic reformists left no place for more moderate leaders, as what could've they surved for? Writing petitions to Nasir? Or maybe to the UN!The same reason pushed moderate followers away and attracted more radical ones to join more radical leaders.The younger generations were hopeless, enraged and equipped to fight for their destiny but they were left without any smart leadership and they knew they could never win against so many strong enemies who stand between them and even trying and take part in deciding their own future. Their new leaders had no real strategy or wisdom and they chose the path of the weak and desperate, they chose to fight and destroy a world they couldn't and were not allowed to change for the better and they chose to destroy themselves with it.When Khalid Al Islambouli, the young Egyptian lieutenant who planned and led the assassination of Anwar Al Sadat was asked by the judge, "When you decided to assassinate the president, did you consult any of your religious leaders? Did you get a fatwa from anyone that justify killing a Muslim and not any Muslim, your legitimate leader? Or was it a decision you made alone" Khalid's answer was, "Ask whom? They were all in prison".Terrorism in the Arab world is a multifactorial phenomena but it was never the result of hatred to the west or a reaction to an invasion. It was always an act of followers of revolutionary Islamic organizations that were looking in the beginning to reform Islam and save their people but being fought with extreme force, deprived of their thinkers, they drifted from their primary track to face their brutal dictators, their own society and the whole world with even more brutality than those of their oppressors. They lost faith in fixing their government peacefully, they lost faith in the world that always stood by their governments and they were blinded by desperation to lose faith in their own people. This is not a defense of these terrorists as I believe everyone is responsible for his acts but it's an attempt to show the factors that led these people to become the monsters they are now.In the Arab world, first there was Mohammed who led an insignificant group of the human race to dominate the world by giving them a flame of passion and belief that made this bunch of Bedwins defeat the Persian and Roman Empire together at the same time, and build a civilization that although was bloody and corrupt at many points but did contribute a lot to the human civilization.Then there was Napoleon who showed these people that their sun had set long time ago when they were still dreaming that they're the ones, and that Mohammed may not have the whole truth and that in order to make any progress they have to reconsider and use their minds.And then there was Nassir who showed them that Napoleon was wrong in that their land is still a place were you live by the sword and die by the sword. So which one of these was responsible for pushing this group of Arabs and Muslims to the edge?I think it's the indirect effect of the three elements together (and that does not mean they are all bad) plus the effect of global conflicts. The wave of terrorism we are wittnessing in our times would never have happened with only one element acting alone.In my mind, justice freedom and job opportunities are the only answers to terrorism and the only way to restore faith in life to desperate young people that have not yet joined this circle of terrorism. Yes Islam promises those who die for the sake of God to go to heaven but that's not special to Islam. It's the interpretation of God's cause or sake that has been modified by sick clerics to meet the uncontrolled and unrestrained passion inside the hearts of desperate Muslims and convince them to end their miserable lives and take as many "infidels" as possible with them but in the end only the weak who are living in hell would kill themselves to get a fast ticket to a promised paradise.

Dangerous games.

2005-03-07T01:46:00.000-08:00

Was the Iraqi vote successful? I was asked by an Iraqi-American friend prior to the election whether I think the Iraqi vote would be successful or not. At that time I answered my friend saying that it will be successful in terms of participation and I estimated it to him to be more than 60% but I also thought that it won't be successful if we consider success to be a true democratic election that results in a stable democracy.The vote results confirmed my hopes and my fears as well. Iraqis voted in large numbers and I still think the percentage of voters compared to eligible voters was higher than 60% and I have explained why in a previous post.I also thought that it didn't matter if we chose wrongly and that we'd correct whatever mistakes we make in the future as voters' awareness of candidates and parties improves and as security and economy improves which is what's going to happen as I believe and signs of it are showing already.However this is not the major problem and terrorism is not the major problem either. The major problem in my mind is how divided the Iraqi society is as a result of the terrible policies of successive national governments. I thought that this division caused by fear and sectarian emotions would subside as each sect gets its deserved share in authority and when they see that a central government won't oppress them and that they would gain more by being united with their Iraqi brothers, but certain facts illustrated by the vote results showed me I was probably too optimistic and that the situation is more dangerous than I thought.I have to say that the majority of Iraqis did not say "yes to democracy" on January the 30th. No, sadly that's not true although I think that probably 20% of voters did say "yes to democracy". What did the rest say then? I think that they said yes to freedom, no to terrorism in general but they did not really endorse democracy but they endorsed their own understanding of democracy.For the majority of Kurds, mislead/encouraged by their leaders, democracy meant a chance for independence and that's what the majority of them voted for, not for a liberal democratic Iraq that they would become a part of. For many She'at again misled by their leaders democracy meant that they rule Iraq since they're the majority and that's what the majority (not all) voted for. This is why I think Sistani's involvement in politics is so dangerous although I was one of those who said he had done many good things for Iraq and I still think so but that does not mean I should agree with him on everything. He encouraged some She'at who respect him very much and who were not interested in voting to vote, but he did not encourage them to just vote, he encouraged them to vote for one specific list strengthening sectarian feelings among them instead of doing the opposite and politicians who benefited from that personally did not realize the serious long term disadvantages of such a win.The high percentage of voters made the voting day look great but was it really needed and good for Iraq to have more voters casting their ballot in support of their sectarian or ethnic identity rather than say 40 or 50% voting without anyone playing the role of their guardian? It was certainly good for our battle against terrorism and it was also a victory against dictatorship. It was a victory for the American administration and America as a whole which are all great things in my mind, but it was hardly a victory for democracy in Iraq on the long term.The small percentage of Sunnis who voted did that to oppose the She'at project represented by the "Unified Coalition List" and that's why the majority of them voted for Allawi. We have a Kurdish project, a She'at project and while there's no Sunni project for the time being it's been reflected as an anti-She'at project. On the other hand we have no Iraqi project. Most politicians on each sect told their people again and again what the elections mean for them and why it's important to preserve their rights but very few put an effort to explain to them why elections were important for Iraq as a nation. Thus they enhanced sectarian feelings instead of patriotic ones because it meant more votes for them.The Iraqi project however is not entirely absent but those who carried its slogans did not achieve much at all.The difficulties the "Unified Coalition" is facing to reach an agreement with the Kurds till now is a striking sign of such problems. The Kurdish Alliance will only agree with the Coalition List's project if it leaves them with an opportunity for independence and that's why they insist on Kirkuk being recognized as a part of Kurdistn. It's rich in oil and any independent Kurdish state needs an access to these oil fields in Kirkuk and parts of Mosul that they're also demanding to be included in Kurdistan's borders and without these the Kurdish state would not survive. But of course the Coalition List won't approve of that. Their project unlike the Kurdish one wants Iraq to remain united, but that's mainly so that they can rule it.Another important issue is that many of these politicians stood by and prevented the elimination of two very dangerous groups that represent far less people than what they claim; the Sunni Scholars and Muqtada Al Sadr followers. These two groups of fanatics represent an obstacle to any social or economic change that put Iraq on the right track. Anything that they see Iraq's interests in they claim that it's a western blasphemy that's not known in Islam so we must reject it. Not only that but they've burned liquor stores, movie theaters, harassed women who drive cars saying that all these things are against the rules of Islam. All that happened not only when Sadr revolted but even at times of 'peace'. As for the Sunni Scholars, their crimes cannot be even counted and just lately Harith Al Dhari said that they can "stop the violence if the Americans put a timetable to withdraw"!There's no real chance of any reform when crazy fanatics are left free to terrorize people and prevent any free expression of ideas unless it fits their own dictionary. And it's not true that it was done to preserve peace, as Sadr and the Sunni Scholars could rotten in jail or get killed without any significant number of Iraqis giving a sh*t about it.The Sunni politicians protect the Sunni scholars saying that they represent a high percentage of Sunnis, where in fact they're Ba'athists that have little respect among Sunnis if any, just because it's a card they play against other sects and so do the She'at politicians and some clerics with Sadr.What we need is a government made of politicians who understand the potential dangers and work hard to restore trust among Iraqis not take advantage of such divisions and even strengthen them. We need politicians who put the fanatic criminals where they belong, not using them to pressure their rivals! The whole picture looks truly disturbing yet there's hope. A civil war is not possible at all as long as the American troops are in Iraq and even if they leave, leaving few American military bases in Iraq would help a lot to prevent any attempt to stir up a civil war even long before it starts. Iraqis in general do not want to fight each other of course, but the interference of Iraq's neighbors who would support fanatics in each sect might well result in that if Iraq is left alone now or soon. Such interference does not come in support of terror or as a part of fighting America's efforts in Iraq only but it comes mainly as part of each country's attempt to protect its interests and take advantage of its neighbors' temporary weakness, as even democratic Turkey is interfering in Iraq's internal affairs supporting the Turkmen against the Kurds mainly because they have a large Kurdish population in their own borders.This problem is not just the fault of powerful clerics and current leading politicians, as it has more to do with Iraq's social frame and decades of oppression and foolish policies, but instead of trying to solve it, these people (clerics and politicians) are only aggravating it driven by personal and sectarian ambitions and fears.Our hopes lie in the economic changes that would re-form the relations in Iraq. They also lie in the possible democratic changes in the neighboring countries, but the main effort lie on our shoulders, Iraqis who believe in an Iraqi project that serves all Iraqi s without any discrimination. The task is huge given the apparent weakness of such groups, but I think an alliance of those democratic powers with the more secular and democratic politicians like Allawi -even though he included many ex-Bathists in his party but that can be solved if he gets more support from moderate liberal Iraqis- and later on with Talibani (if it can be achieved although seems a remote possibility now) and with the much needed support from America and the free world, all this can turn the tables and help make the necessary changes that makes Iraq a real model in the region.

Sistani in trouble.

2005-03-06T03:07:00.000-08:00

Yesterday two She'at parties withdrew from the "Unified Coalition List" after stating that "the major powers in the Coalition List are only after positions in the government and not people's interests and that they have marginalized the role of the smaller parties inside the list". The two parties, "Hizbullah in Iraq" and "National Coalition" (which is an Arab nationalist She'at party) hold together about 10 seats of the Coalition List seats in the National Assembly(I'm not sure of the exact number of seats as I found no accurate reference but I know it's very close to 10 if it's not that). Spokesman of the Coalition List called the action "unjustified" and called on the two parties to reconsider.From Al Sharq Al Awsat newspaper (Arabic link)While such loss may not seriously affect the Coalition List's ambitions, it'll certainly harm it especially if these two parties allied with Allawi or the Kurdish Alliance which remains possible since their spokesmen said that their parties will remain "open to cooperation with other political parties"However, I see that the decision of these two parties will have a long term effect that's more significant than the immediate one.The Coalition List has made huge efforts to show Iraqi She'at that they're the choice of the "Marjyia" and that they have Sistani's full support. Sistani remained silent in the beginning which seemed to many people as a silent approval while She'at who ran for office outside the "Coalition List" denied strongly that Sistani would pick any side and give it his support, as they argued that Sistani is the spiritual leader of all She'at and would never give this up to be just a part of the competition. Sistani in the end did just that and that was a big strategic mistake that although made his favored list win more votes it did at the same time shake his image in the eyes of She'at who ran for office outside that list and now it will shake his image in the eyes of even some of those who voted for this list.One of my She'at friends told me after hearing this news that this will disapoint many She'at who voted for the Coalition List depending on Sistani's words, "I'm sure they'll start wondering why Sistani recommended such a list that its members couldn't keep it together at least until the 1st session of the National Assembly is held!" said my friend and he's right, as some people here think of Sistani and the Coalition List as one when it comes to politics and therefore any withdrawal from this list give the impression that he did not know where to put his trust.Another She'at friend of mine who voted for the Coalition List (and who insist that he did not vote because of what Sistani said but because he saw this list as the best alternative for Allawi, as "Allawi must go" as my friend said because he (Allawi) had accepted many ex-Ba'athists inside his party and gave them positions in the interim government which is actually true) told me that he thinks this is a good news! He seemed to be worried about the sizes of the radical religious representation inside the coalition list that he and most of his friends were not aware of. For example he did not know that Sadr has won seats within the Coalition List and I don't blame him for that, as the majority of the news was saying that Sadr was not going to take part in the elections according to repeated statements by his spokesmen. There were little information available for the voters about the competing lists and one had to put a lot of effort to find the truth about some of these lists.My friend, after realizing he had voted for a group that gave Sadr many seats became worried of this group's domination and therefore thought that it's good that it's losing some ground and that this would balance things more. He also told me that he had expected what happened because of all the conflicts inside the Coalition List. Of course there was some competition between the SCIRI and Al Da'awa party over the PM position but this is expected and accepted, but the main and more serious conflict seems to be between Chalabi and the religious parties.We hear every now and then about this religious party or that from inside the Coalition List visiting Sistani to ask for his guidance. Chalabi, according to people's talk here, seems to resent this arguing that they can't keep asking Sistani's guidance or approval for every step they make. My friend agreed with Chalabi, and so do I of course but I cannot but wonder why did Chalabi agreed to ask for Sistani's blessings in the first place! He should now deal with the consequences.Anyway Al Sistani lost a lot by putting himself in the middle of an arena where religious stuff means little when put against personal and partisan interests that affects even the most honest politicians and make them forget their principal duties whether this means to them their religious duties dictated by their beliefs or their duties to their country. It's not about the number of seats, although it's an important issue, but it's that the next time Sistani interferes in elections or any serious political issues the number of people that would depend on his judgment would most likely be much less than the 1st time, and this of course is good for the She'at and Iraq.

Al Jazeera has a good effect on the Arab street.

2005-03-03T00:12:00.000-08:00

This might look strange especially that it comes from someone who repeatedly had criticized Al Jazeera harshly and even accused it of being the terrorists' mouthpiece but it's still true as I believe, despite I would never withdraw my accusations that are more than well founded and that so many people share. Al Jazeera is still a pillar for terrorists and fanatics and it still serve the agenda of dictatorships in the region but they do have some good effect too.To understand that one must have some background on the official Arab media. They and Al Jazeera have very close agendas but they differ in the way they present it and they differ in where they get their finance from. While official Arab media is usually totally dependent on the state, Al Jazeera and its likes are actually profit institutions which makes them depend on pleasing as many audience as possible. Al Jazeera of course gets finance from Arab dictators and this was exposed after the liberation of Iraq through several documents that prove they received "gifts" and rearwards plus a regular payment that was said to be 50 000 US$/month. It's not a large amount of money but it seems it was a considerable regular payment and when put in mind what they might be receiving from Syria, KSA...Etc would make it clearer why Al Jazeera was and still is a mouthpiece for tyranny.But Al Jazeera and Al Arabyia served another role whether they wanted or not. Of course Al Arabyia has changed its attitude and now it's considered a pro-west channel by some Arab regimes and lately their crew in Lebanon even received threats from the Syrian intelligence as the channel officials stated. However, even before that both channels offered a great service to democracy and freedom in the ME even when they wanted exactly the opposite! For example, Al Jazzera focused, as part of its coverage for the "deteriorated situations in Iraq" on every single demonstration against the interim government or the American presence in Iraq even if it was 10 people that are demonstrating! But this coverage, that was missed in the official Arab media most of the times, showed the Arab street an unusual scene. 'Arab' citizens demonstrating freely against their government and the supposed brutal occupiers under the eyes of police!These days we hear every now and then about demonstrations almost everywhere in the Arab world. Excuse me, but this is far from usual! I haven't seen *any* demonstration against Saddam all my life and similarly I haven't heard of any in Syria or Saudi Arabia prior to the 9th of April. Most of us think it's what happened in Iraq that encouraged Arabs to demand more rights, but how could Arab citizens know the details of what's happening in Iraq if it wasn't for Al Jazeera and Al Arabyia? They don't watch western media, and the official TVs and newspapers give you only one point of view, that of the government, while Al Jazeera with all its bias host Iraqi officials and receive phone calls from Iraqi citizens on their talk shows. They twist facts, favor conspiracy theorists but in the end the audience gets more than one point of view and that's a crucial difference.Al Jazeera was the first Arab channel that host Israeli officials. Before that it seemed like you would go to hell if you talk to an Israeli citizen, not official! We heard all kind of sh*t about Israel before that but non from an Israeli source and Al Jazeera opened a door that most people thought you can't knock on.The Iraqi elections were covered fully by these two channels while official media gave it little attention and in some countries they were even ignored!I'm NOT defending Al Jazeera but I'm stating what I think a fact. That Arabs need Al Jazeera and Al Arabyia and any independent source of news even if its independency was very partial. Having such media have, and will open many eyes and minds to see reality in a different light, and those who are smart and honest enough in seeking the truth will recognize it when they see it.Before the liberation we had to dig so deep to find other sources for the news. The official Arab TVs are horrible to the degree that made Al Jazeera when it started broadcasting mean for us what probably Fox News means for Republicans! All we could hear on official media was "The historical leader" said this and the "genius" leader did that. Al Jazeera is still disgusting yes, but it offered other points of view and that was all we wanted and all what some of us needed to start looking further behind established facts.Let us not blame Arabs if the majority of them can't see other than what their dictators think, as this was all what the majority got for such a long time. You hear the same talk on TV, radio, newspapers, the school, the mosque and in the streets simply because they're all run by the tyrants or strictly watched by his intelligence.I have criticized the media a lot before but that does not mean I wish it to stop functioning. I just wish them to be more honest. We need the CNN, the BBC and even Al Jazeera but we should push them to do their job in a better way if and when we can. I don't know what changed Al Arabyia'a attitude but I'm sure Al Jazeera is not totally immune to such a change, but even without that change, they've done a great service most likely without wishing to.

2005-03-02T23:48:00.000-08:00

I found this great story of heroism through a link in my comments section and thought of posting the link here so that more people can read it.(Hat tip Brian H)

Hafiz Al Asad statue toppled in Lebanon

2005-02-28T22:57:00.000-08:00

No one can forget the scene of Saddam statue's toppling in Al Firdous Sq. in Baghdad but we can never have enough of such great scenes until the ME and the whole world is free from tyranny. Today another tyrant's statue was toppled in the Middle East. Yes it's not the statue of a living dictator but his son is still in charge, and yes it did not happen in his country but it happened in a country still controlled by his son's army and intelligence. Take a look at a beautiful picture that got its beauty from the ugliness of its content!The brave Lebanese did not wait for the American troops to be there nor did they wait for the Syrians to withdraw from their land, but I think it's obvious that Saddam's statue's falling shook the ground under Al Assad's statue and I doubt we would've seen such great picture if the American troops had not come to Iraq

What reconciliation?

2005-02-23T20:40:00.000-08:00

Al Mehdi Army demonstrates in Basra From Al Qabas Kuwaiti newspaper (Arabic link): 4000 men of Sadr's militia, Al Mehdi army marched through the streets of Basra in a demonstration of power. The militia men were dressed in black shirts and khaki trousers and had their ammunition on.The American, British and Israeli flags were painted along the road where the demonstration took place for the militia to step on them. This happened despite that some of Sadr followers joined the elections and actually won some seats under the banner of the "Unified Coalition list". The Iraqi and multinational forces did not respond in any way to that demo.Why is this happening and how should we react to it? I think the answer for both questions is not difficult to be found. This happened because Muqtada Al Sadr was allowed to escape all the horrible crimes he and the criminal half gangsters half Ba'athist militia have committed over the past months. Now after the elections we can see more clearly what may have been not that clear at the times Sadr started both his revolts. He and his gang were not defying the "American occupation" as he claimed, but instead they were defying the vast majority of Iraqis who want freedom, democracy and peace. They were trying, with obvious generous aid from the Mullahs in Iran to kill our dreams of a better future. They spreaded chaos, looted government offices, killed and tortured Iraqis the way Saddam used to, and they did all they can to limit our freedom, a freedom that God gave us and the Americans helped us get it back. And now he's stepping on the flags of our allies and liberators. Do I thank God we were not liberated by a revolution of people like these or not!Well, if it's going to be end here then maybe there's no need to escalate the situation, but we all know Sadr and his thugs enough to trust that it's not going to stop here, as this is how it started twice and then when left without being dealt with, those thugs were encouraged to go further and further.It's not important now who's fault was that, The Interim government, the American administration or Sistani as much as it's important to decide how we are going to deal with this gang and its likes that have one foot in the system and the rest of its body outside it.Some voices in Iraq have been screaming for a long time, but especially after the elections, for a national reconciliation. Now I haven't figured out yet with whom we are supposed to reconcile and for what! But I at least know who's screaming for this reconciliation. They're ex-Bathists, those aligned with them and Sadr's people. I asked myself and my friends many times, "What wrong have we done to these people? Did we kill, torture or humiliate their beloved ones? And did we ever say something like, (nah we're not gonna be friends anymore)!?Among the names that are running this campaign are Sa'ad Al Bazzaz (Azzaman chief editor and owner of Al Sharqyia TV), Ayad Allawi, Ghazi Alyawir, Misha'an Al Jibori (Sunni ex-Ba'athist from Saladin), The Association of Sunni Scholars and Sadr aids (this proves their connection to the Ba'athists as they're the only She'at group calling for this not to mention their black shirts that were peculiar to Saddam's Feda'ayeen).So what we should do according to these people and those who fell into their propaganda is probably appoint Harith Al Dhari of the Sunni Scholars as the minister of interior and appoint Sadr as a minister of...culture I suppose given his background and all should be for the benefits of politicians who have chosen to appease these criminals who still to this day kidnap, torture and kill our men, women and children!It's worth mentioning that this campaign means something different according to the sect of those who call for it, as the She'at who support it mean Sadr and his people mainly while the Sunnis mean the active Ba'athists who still operate in Anbar, Mosul and Samarra.For example during Sadr's revolts it was She'at clerics mainly who called for a "peaceful solution" while in Fallujah's case it was mainly Al Yawir who led the campaign.What I'm asking for is not what some radical She'at parties call for, to use the Badr Brigade and the Peshmarga against the people of Ramadi and in the "death triangle" but instead rely on the Iraqi army and police to deal with outlaws and terrorists especially that we are soon going to have our first elected government and our first constitution. It's ironic that so many are calling for reconciliation where in fact no one had closed any doors in anyone's face. We, Iraqis where even begging them to drop arms and take part in the peaceful democratic process, and now that they have lost they want us to stop..I don't really know what to stop since we haven't done them any harm and it's exactly the opposite!I say no to any reconciliation with terrorists aids, their supporters and with the fanatics who justify their acts and with anyone linked to them closely. No reward should be given to them, as this is what they're asking, a reward and not our forgiveness. They have to apologize not us and then we should sue them for any crimes they may have committed, and after that they can run for offices like all honest and good Iraqis have and if they win, then it's just fine for us!We should fight these terrorists and fanatics that want to infiltrate the new system we want to build and ruin it from inside with their corrupt minds and with hands that are still stained with the blood of their victims. Let it take as long as it takes. It's not just a moral obligation but I see it as the only way to build a steady free democracy.

Do they ever learn?

2005-02-16T22:11:00.000-08:00

It seems that the horrible crime that took place in Beirut won't go unpunished. Despite the continues allegations of the Syrian and Lebanese government and the crocodile tears their officials are shedding, no one seems to believe them and especially the Lebanese people. All the Syrian government could come up with is accusing Israel of being responsible for the crime. When combined with their and their friends in the Lebanese government prior accusations to Al Hariri that he was an agent for the American and Israeli intelligence, their current accusations become nothing but a stupid joke.

The Arab satellite TV stations are covering the event and its development on hourly basis these days. While Al Jazeera and official Arab TVs are expectedly defending Syria and feeding conspiracy theories -that only they can come up with without feeling the slightest shame or paying any attention to how stupid it makes them look or better say how unrealistically they wish all people to be that stupid to buy such crap-others like Al Arabyia, LBC (Lebanese) are trying to be more objective and even giving obvious signs that the accusations against Syria are not unfounded at all!

Those channels showed hundreds of Lebanese citizens protesting and demonstrating obviously voluntarily in several Lebanese cities demanding justice and accusing Syria directly or indirectly of committing the crime. The Lebanese opposition is leading and demanding not only an international investigation but also an international protection from what they described as a Syrian occupation.

The crowd that walked in his funeral today was really huge and TV stations said it was estimated to be hundreds of thousands at least and most of them seemed angry more than sad.
They showed also the Syrian vice president Abdul Haleem Khaddadm in Al Hariri's house next to Hariri's elder son. They said that he (Khaddam) and Lebanese officials asked Al Hariri's family to hold the ceremonies where they accept people's respect in the presidential palace rather than the family house but they said that the family refused strongly to do so!
Anyone who's been following the Lebanese issue would find no difficulty at all in concluding who assassinated Al Hariri. The man resigned from his position as a PM under the Syrian pressure to re-elect President Imil Lahood which he opposed and then declared that he was contacting the opposition to join them in support of immediate execution of Security Council resolution number 1559 that demands the withdrawal of Syrian troops from all Lebanese territories.

This was going to be a serious threat to the Syrian regime and its friends in Lebanon, as prior to that only the Christians demanded the Syrian withdrawal and later were joined by the Durooz (a She'at sect), and if Al Hariri had joined them it meant that most Arab Sunnis would do so to and that would mean the majority of the Lebanese people would be asking for the Syrian withdrawal. In fact the majority always wanted that but they feared to voice their opinion because the army, the Mukhabarat and Hizbullah's militia are all in the hands of Syria. Thus it's more than clear who has the motive and the means to assassinate Al Hariri. Not to mention that they're the only parties that refuse an International investigation.

However, and like all dictatorial regimes, the Syrian government has only speeded its end by committing or supporting such a crime, as now the Lebanese people are enraged and nothing can silence their demand, and to their good luck they seem to have the support of the International community and most importantly that of the USA.

I had previously expected something to happen in Lebanon, but I didn't expect it to happen this way. It was not easy to find a strong motive but now I believe the Syrian regime by committing such a crime has almost sealed its fate.

It'll be interesting to watch how the Syrian dictator and his gang that had put him in power are going to respond to the mounting pressure and if they would resort to any logic and withdraw from Lebanon, but my experience with their twin party here in Iraq makes me believe that they learned nothing from Saddam's lesson and that they will do exactly the opposite and further tighten the rope on their neck with every single move.

Some observations from the Iraqi elections.

2005-02-15T14:49:00.000-08:00

The results of the Iraqi elections were generally expected (at least after the primary vote count) but it did result in some interesting statistics and facts. The first noticeable is that the "Unified Coalition List" did not get the number of votes its members as well as most spectators expected. Shortly before announcing the results, and as I mentioned in the previous post, a "high official" from the coalition list stated to Radio Sawa that they were informed by the electoral Commission that their list achieved 60% of the votes!Anyway, I was personally relieved by this result, not because it's not enough for the religious parties to impose Share'a law, as this is totally impossible in my opinion, but because it meant that a considerable percentage of She'at chose other than what their spiritual leader favored. The She'at generaly showed more maturity and trust in the future of Iraq than the Kurds whom their vast majority of votes went to the "Kurdish Alliance". I believe that in the next elections with better security and with other parties more inclined to run a wide public campaign, whatever list Sistani would support would get even much less than what the coalition list did get.Also I was doing some calculations and found out the following:1-the religious parties (including Christian, Sunni and Yezidies) achieved together 4 323 923 votes which equals about 51% of the total vote. (This includes the Coalition List which is not entirly religious)2-Ethnic parties (Kurds, Turkmen, Arab nationalists) achieved 2 289 713 votes which equals about 27% of the total votes.3-Individual lists achieved all together 52399 votes but none got a seat.4-Parties based on tribes got only 3850 votes.5- Secular democratic parties got 1594829 votes which comprises about 19% of the total votes.6-Communists which are one major and one small party got 73354. The Iraqi communist Party which is the major one got almost exactly its members total number! Most polls here expected them to score better than that but it seems that only communists vote for communists, and it makes sense! I for one sympathize with the communists but would never vote for them.7- Monarchists and other local groups achieved together 118098 votes but none got a seat.8-only 11 parties got seats in the national assembly.9-only 19 lists out of the total 111 lists achieved more than 10 000 votes. One of these is an individual running alone.10-Small democratic parties failed to achieve any good results with most of them scoring between 1000 and 500 votes.11-Al Pachachi failed to get a seat, as his list got only 23302 votes.12-Also former GC member Nassir Al Chadarchi's party "National Democratic Party" that was established in the 30th of the last century achieved only 1603 votes. Another party, "The Democratic Community Movement" That has 2 former GC members in it and the former spokesman of the GC scored 3527 votes.13-The highest votes received by a single list was 4 075 295 for the "Unified Coalition" and the lowest was 411 votes for an individual list.14- Our party, "The Iraqi Pro-Democracy party" achieved 1 566 votes which is a small number but it was worth the effort as we learned a lot from this experience. There were also 26 parties that scored lower than that. This showed clearly that small young parties with no religious or ethnic affiliation must consolidate together and form one entity in order to survive and I guess most of these parties see this now.In the end I'd like to point out something about the turn out that may have been missed. Outside Iraq the number of eligible voters depended on rough estimations while the registered voters' number became known after the elections. So the turn out outside Iraq was correctly calculated among registered voters not eligible, as this last one remains not well identified.However, inside Iraq the system depended on the food ration coupons which contained not just the names of Iraqis inside Iraq, from which the eligible voters' number was calculated, but also so many Iraqis outside Iraq and some dead even! All those above 18 that are enlisted in the food ration coupons were considered registered voters. I and all I know did not have to register. We just received our ballot that contained our family members' names who are above 18 that are enlisted in our food ration coupon including my sister's name who left Iraq for more than a year and came back just few months ago. We never reported her departure so did most families who had their sons and daughters leaving Iraq after 1991 fearing interrogation or even punishment as it was seen as an unpatriotic act!One of my neighbors received his family's ballot with his father's name included even though he died a year ago. Under reporting of deaths was not that uncommon but it became more common after the last war as a result of the total collapse of the system for months. Another neighbor had his two sons' names registered although they both left Iraq since 1995. This means that many Iraqis outside Iraq, regardless whether they voted or not, were considered registered eligible non-voters inside Iraq!I saw the turn out in our neighborhood which is mainly a Sunni ex-Ba'athist one and I and most my friends thought it was more than 80%, which makes me think that the announced turn out is even much less than the actual one and it's definitely not just for registered voters, a term that gives the impression that there are Iraqis who did not register, which did not happen as there was no registeration except for very limited cases.It's been a great event in Iraq and we intend to celebrate the results formaly as winners because there are no losers in Iraq now except the tiny minority formed by hardcore Ba'athists and Salafis.

2005-02-13T15:15:00.000-08:00

James J. Na. who's a senior fellow in the "Discovery Institute" sent me this great article that he had wrote about Al Alousi and his visit to Israel. I thought I should share it with you and say that I agree totally with Mr. Alousi on his views about the future of Iraq. You'll find some updates about Al Alousi on James's blog.Meanwhile the election results are to be announced today at 4 p.m. Baghdad time. High officials in the "Unified Coalition List" said that the "Independent Electoral Commission" has informed him that the Coalition list has got 60% of the votes (Arabic link). If that is true (and it seems so) then I must say my prediction about the results earlier was not accurate. The Coalition list and due to Sistani's blessings, the ignorance of Iraqis about parties other than the major religious and ethnic ones (due to difficult security that prevented those parties from running a proper campaign) and the fears each sect has that its votes get scattered seems to have drawn more votes towards the major parties. Also the limited participation of Sunnis contributed to this result.The Kurdish Alliance seems to be next followed closely by Allawi's list. We still have to wait for the official results but I guess the order will be just like that.Democracy is still very young in Iraq and it seems it needs some time and nurture to become more liberal and more representative.

America's mistakes in Iraq.

2005-02-10T01:01:00.000-08:00

Apologies for not posting for a while. I'm having some personal issues that I need to deal with and I wasn't planning to blog today but as I was looking into my blogroll I saw a nice and interesting post at Michael Totten's that changed my mind.I thought I should comment on part of the post, the part I think I know more about than Michael and most of the Americans that were in that company.Michael thinks that the quarrel he and Hitchens had with Ghassan Al Atiyyah was unavoidable and he took Ahmed Al Rikabi's comment to be true, all because of how confusing the relation with America might seem to many Iraqis.While I agree partly on this I see that this is not the main reason. I see that such quarrels are avoidable and such impressions could be changed if they had hosted and seeked the assistance of the right Iraqis. I see this and many complications we had in Iraq that brought many avoidable losses to Iraq and America as America's mistake, in part, as we hold a similar responsibility to.When I say America here, I mean the administration or the people they chose to help Iraqis in their transformation to democracy. While I agree that many regular Iraqis are still misled and have some anti-American feelings as a result of decades of brain washing, I cannot but wonder why should Americans chose such people and trust them in serious issues when there are so many Iraqis who do not suffer from such problems.Ghassan AL Atiyyah happens to be a friend of my father, not a close one though. This man wants to include the "resistance" in the political process in Iraq. This maybe a good cause if it's done to save Iraq from further meaningless violence, but the problem is that Mr. Atiyyah sees that the "resistance" has actually done Iraq good by forcing the Americans to work harder!This reminds me with a conversation I had with a similarly disturbed-minded friend who was hailing the "resistance". I asked him if he wanted the Americans to leave and he replied, "of course not! That would lead to a disaster" and I said, "then why do you support them in killing Americans?" and he said, "it's good for us because when they get attacked they work better and faster in rebuilding Iraq since such attacks would show them they're not doing a good job" I swear to God this was his answer!Now my friend is a simple guy who watches Al Jazeera frequently and thinks it's honest, but would we really want people like him to act as a link between us, Iraqis and Americans?On the other hand Ahmed Al Rikabi who started the popular Radi Dijlah is the kind of guy who sells an advertising time to a stranger for a dollar and to a friend for two, simply because he trust that the friend is not going to question his honesty! Needless to say that the friends could be America, and yes I know this for a fact and through experience.I was asked many times what are America's mistakes in Iraq and I didn't answer for many reasons. First because I'm truly too grateful to count America's mistakes, second because I didn't think this was a policy but rather a mistake out of understandable ignorance and one that would be corrected fast. In my mind such mistake comes from two places; first from underestimating Iraqis and thinking that the only Iraqis that are willing to cooperate are those who can be bought in different ways, even if what they were asked was for their own country's good. And second because it seems that Americans themselves have a mixed feeling about what's happening in Iraq. They think that somehow they did something wrong to Iraqis while liberating them since it meant occupying their country and thus they think it's perfectly natural that even those who cooperate with them should have hostile feelings towards America. It hurts me because it wastes so much valuable time, effort, money and most importantly lives and also because it shows that Americans don't think highly of Iraqis.It's a good policy to try to neutralize those who have problems with their pride (a false sense of patriotism) and it might be good to buy the services of those who are only available to the one who pays the highest price, but it's certainly a bad policy to rely mainly on such people and to take them as representatives of a whole nation.Update: Iraqi reader Abu Hadi comments by mail:On reading your comments section I find many of your American correspondents saying it is not our problem if we didn't know who to deal with in Iraq. This is true because the DOD made sure no Arabists from the DOS got anywhere near their Iraq project. They also threw in the bin that excellent document "Future of Iraq Project" which was produced by many good Iraqis. Hence it is no wonder mistakes were being made.He also mentions another 'mistake' of handling the money for reconstruction but I don't have enough knowledge to judge that and I also don't think there was a big mistake there.However I think Abu Hadi has a valid point here. For almost two years now I haven't met an American who does speak Arabic except for one I saw on TV who was a spokesman for the CPA, and I have met so many Americans during this time.This can't be because there are no, or only few Americans who have good knowledge about the Iraqi society and Arab culture in general. The services of such people would've been very helpful if they had been used. Maybe it's because what Abu Hadi says, a conflict between the DOD and the DOS, but it would be very sad if that's true.

Our media

2005-02-04T14:35:00.000-08:00

was looking into Al Sabah newspaper today when I saw a picture that looked familiar to me. The picture was put along with an article about the reconstructions in Iraq. After one or two seconds I recognized it. It was actually one that I took about a year ago near the hospital where I work! I posted that picture together with few other ones about a year ago at Iraq the Model.This annoyed me for two reasons; one is that they didn't mention where they got it from which gives a bad example of journalism. The other thing is that the reporter seems to be too lazy to get out and took a picture of Iraqis working and decided just to copy one that was taken months ago by someone else.Now the newspaper didn't put the picture claiming that it's taken from anything recently rebuilt but rather just put it there because it generally shows Iraqis working and it was taken after the war, but it still shows that they're lazy and they're using someone else's effort without even mentioning it.You can see a picture that I took for the newspaper's yesterday edition and you can see that it's the picture I took before. They still don't have it on line but if they put it I'll link to it.I don't know what I should do and I thought I'd better I ask my reader's opinion, as they're have more experience in such things as a result of dealing with free press for a long time while it's still a very fresh practice for us. Should I send a mail to them asking them to do something about it? Or should I just leave it and look at it as a credit? I appreciate any response but I still don't like the newspaper attitude.Update: Thank you for all your valuable advises. I checked my ego and I saw that I don't need to push this more but I'm just annoyed with the laziness of the journalist that wrote that article. So I wrote a message to the newspaper telling them that I'm an avid reader of their newspaper and that it was me who took a picture that they used without contacting me, and that for the sake of the credibility of the newspaper I thought I should point this out and maybe in the future they would pay more attention.They don't have a mail address except for those who want to advertise in their newspaper but if anyone is interested in contacting them, you can write a message on their message board here. The first space is for the name, the second is for the mail address and the third large one is for the message. After you post click on the button on the right lower corner of the last space. They didn't respond to my letter but maybe if they get more messages they would know that there are many people who are watching and that they may not like what they are doing. I really hope it would help them improve their performance as it is a good newspaper in general.

Iraqi citizens Kill 5 terrorists

2005-02-03T20:01:00.000-08:00

From Radio Sawa (Arabic link):Citizens of Al Mudhiryiah (a small town in the "death triangle") were subjected to an attack by several militants today who were trying to punish the residents of this small town for voting in the election last Sunday.The citizens responded and managed to stop the attack, kill 5 of the attackers, wounded 8 and burned their cars.3 citizens were injured during the fire exchange. The Shiekh of the tribe to whom the 3 wounded citizens belong demanded more efforts from the government to stop who he described as "Salafis". Well, it doesn't seem that they needed much protection!This is such a good news and I never heard anything like it before. I consider it good even if the government forces were not there at the time to do something about it, because it shows that Iraqis are no longer paralyzed by fear from the terrorists and are able to organize themselves and defend their town when it's necessary. I believe that this is one of the good outcome of the revolution that took place in the great Sunday. Iraqis realized at that day that they're much stronger than this bunch of psychopaths that are standing in our way to democracy in freedom. I still wish the government work harder on rehabilitating the IP and building the Iraqi army.UPDATE: Here's another source for the story.Thanks to reader Larry.

Looking forward.

2005-02-01T19:13:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to pay attention to the naysayer anymore, as they don't respond to logic and not even to historical facts. Many of those have accused me, my brothers and many determined, good, brave and optimistic Iraqis of being blinded by wishful thinking, if not traitors and CIA agents. This time we don't need to speak and we don't need to resort to logic and argue with these people, as finally the Iraqi people have spoken and they came through loud and clear and made even some of the major media admit the success for probably the first time.What happened in Iraq last Sunday was no less than a revolution as one of Jeff Jarvis's friends said. Millions of Iraqis have put all the doom and gloom people to shame and silence through acts of bravery not words. Some of those still don't seem to have changed their minds, but if such a great victory does not get to them then I guess nothing will. So I'll move on together with all Iraqis and look for the future with more courage and an optimism that is much more founded than any of their "smart pessimism".Before the elections most polls here in Iraq were suggesting that the "United Alliance List" was going to achieve a great victory and the next were the communist list, the Kurdish alliance, Allawis list and finally other minor parties.I had a similar impression at that time but what I saw on the election day and what I've heard from many people here plus some early reports from the "Independent electoral commission" suggest a somewhat different results.The "United Alliance List" is still thought to win more votes than any of the rest and I believe that's what's going to happen (by the way the actual translation should be, "The Unified Coalition List" and I don't know why it was translated the other way and in fear of being somehow, wrong I kept repeating the used translation, but I was thinking today that it's wrong and should be corrected). The difference is that Allawi's list seems to have attracted more votes than what was expected. Even in Najaf, the most holy city for the She'at, the majority of the votes are reported to be split between the "Unified coalition" and Allawi.I have seen many Arab Sunnis, She'at, Kurds and Turkmen who said they voted for Allawi.Some of the reasons that have made many Iraqis vote for Allawi might be that he's seen as a strong man who can deal with the challenges despite his government's failure to provide a good level of security and basic needs. He just has shown more optimism and determination and looked always strong which must have gave many Iraqis a much needed hope and courage.Still I doubt that he's going to be appointed as a Prime Minister again even if he got the second largest number of votes. Hussein Al Shahristani, the nuclear sientist from the "Unified coalition" seems to be the candidate with better chances in the current time but there are many good candidates who have the acceptance of most parties.At the risk of being wrong I'd like to offer my predictions of the poll results. Here's how I see it now:The Unified Coalition List: 30-35%Allawi's list: 20-25%Itihad Al Sha'ab (the communist party): 10-15%The Kurdish Alliance: 10-15%Al Yawir: 4-5%Al Pachachi: 2-3%Other Kurdish parties, Turkmen and other minorities: 4-5%Small democratic parties: 4-5%Individuals and others: 1-2%This is my personal perspective that I got from my observations here in Baghdad and of course I could be wrong but I doubt I'm going to be very wrong on this. I also believe such combination would be good for Iraq's transitional period and would come up with a balanced constitution. What's needed now is for the more liberal and democratic parties to learn from this first experiment and unite their efforts to gain more representation in the future and I think the majority of Iraqis are going to search for some alternatives to the parties that depend on ethnic and sectarian representation, as these parties will certainly be useful to guarantee the minority role but would never be able to come up with a vision and a mature policy for the future.Wish with us for a better future for Iraq and let's keep our optimism as we do our best. It's not a sin and it has paid it's fruits.

2005-02-01T13:54:00.000-08:00

If you're searching for a place where you can find tons of links about the Iraqi elections and other good things that are happening in Iraq, go read Arthur Chrenkoff's 20th roundup of "good news from Iraq".

The best Eid I ever had.

2005-01-30T13:47:00.000-08:00

Last night I couldn't sleep well. I was so excited and I wanted to be at the voting center before it even opens its door. I was afraid that I was going to be among a minority who are going to vote, but I was still very happy for rather a different reason. It's that just as I care about the outcome of this election and that democracy would work in Iraq, I cared no less about voting on a personal level. This was my way to stand against those who humiliated me, my family and my friends. It was my way of saying," You're history and you don't scare me anymore". It was my way to scream in the face of all tyrants, not just Saddam and his Ba'athists and tell them, "I don't want to be your, or anyone's slave. You have kept me in your jail all my life but you never owned my soul". It was my way of finally facing my fears and finding my courage and my humanity again.I slept really late but I woke up at 6.30. I shaved (I do this once every century) and dressed as I was going to a party. The phone rang and I let it ring for a while before I answered. "Hey Ba'athist! Why are you still asleep? Why not go and vote?" a friend's voice came through teasing me. I tried to see if anyone started voting already so I turned on the TV and saw that few people have already done that but the reports were not very encouraging. I heard some explosions and gun shots. Some were far and some were near. I turned on the computer, made a post and checked the news.My sister who's staying with us together with her husband and their one and a half year old son, "Mohammed", called on me to have breakfast. As I was sipping my tea I was surprised when my mother came back telling us she already voted! I envied her but I had changed my mind on rushing to vote. I decided instead to enjoy these moments to the last. I got out walked to the voting center like I was taking a walk in a park or on the bank of the river. As I got out it was still early and I saw no one on the streets but as I got near to the voting center I started seeing people in groups heading the same way. Most of them were women. I saw a crippled man and my old neighbor and his older wife leaning on their walking sticks going to vote. An old woman cleaning her door step stopped me, "Say son, can I go and vote?" She asked after she saw many people going to vote. "Sure Khala (aunt)! Everyone can". She thanked me and went inside apparently to change and get her IDs.The voting center that was chosen in our district is a high school in the middle of the Neighborhood . This was the same place I went in 1996 to cast my vote in a poll asking if we wanted to have Saddam as a president for life or not. I had to go at that time. The threats for anyone who refused to take that poll were no less than the death penalty. Still our district was one of the places were one could vote secretly, occasionally though. They trusted our neighborhood because it's mainly Sunni military officers who live here with their families. I and some of my friends chose "NO" but we were scared to death as we marked the paper and remained so for days.This time we went by choice and the threat was exactly the opposite. As I was walking with many people towards the center explosion hit and gun fire were heard but most were not that close. People didn't seem to pay attention to that. Some of them even brought their little kids with them! It's like the Eid but only a thousand times better.I entered the school and the supervisors showed me the way to were I should vote. They and the ING guys were so polite and gentle. I cast my vote and got out, not in a rush at all. This is my Eid and I felt like a king walking in his own kingdom. I saw the same look of confidence and satisfaction in the eyes of all people I met. As I left one of the gurads said to me as he handed me back my cellular phone,"God bless you and your beloved ones. We don't know how to thank you. Please excuse any inconvinience on our part. We wish we didn't have to search you or limit your freedom. You are heroes" I was struck with surprise and felt ashamed. This man was risking his life all these hours in what has become the utmost target for all terrorists in Iraq and yet he's apologizing and calling us heroes. I thanked him back and told him that he and his comrads are the true heroes and that we can never be grateful enough for their services.I'm still thrilled as I'm watching Iraqis vote allover Iraq through TV. Al Arabyia just reported that 6 thousand people in Fallujah have voted till now out of 60 thousands who have returned to their homes (total not voters). I listened to that and I felt enormous admiration and respect to those 6 thousand heroes. Things are difficult in Baghdad but it's still incomparable to Fallujah. I'm sure that the number will rise towards the end of the day.I'm stil overwhelmed with thoughts and emotions that I don't know what to say more. The only things I can feel so strongly now are hope, excitement, pride and a strange internal peace. I have won my battle and I'm watching the whole Iraqis winning their battle too. I'll try to write to you later my friends.A'ash Al Iraq, A'ashat America, A'ash Al Tahaluf. (Long live Iraq, long live America and long live the coalition)

2005-01-30T07:46:00.000-08:00

I'm about to go to the voting center to cast my vote and I thought I should post few words to thank all my friends, the readers of this blog for their support and love for me, my brothers and all Iraqis. There was some fire exchange early this morning and American helicopters were patroling the sky above my head but now it seems quite. I turned on TV to see if there was any coverage but no Arab channel is reporting yet.Al Sharqyia is broadcasting live from a voting center obviously in the Green Zone where Ghazi Al Yawi voted and gave a short speech to the reporters there. He wasn't the first one to cast his vote as Al Sharqyia reporter expected which actually was better in my mind. He's just an Iraqi like all of us and there's no need to give him such a priviliage.I hope I'll be able to post after voting and I'll keep you updated. Thanks again for your care and may God bless you all and give you a hundred times what you have gave Iraq. I know it seems impossible when it comes to those who lost their beloved ones but I hope they know that their sacrifices were not in vain and that they gave humanity the most precious thing a man has, his life.I fear only one thing and that is that only small percentage of Iraqis vote. I hope and expect the opposite but as I said before everyone has been speaking on behalf of Iraqis for a long time and therfore it's very difficult to tell what they are going to do. I trust that my people want freedom and democracy but I fear that it's the difficult security that may keep them inside their houses. This is all my concerns now about the elections and I hope that the majority of Iraqis overcome their fears and say their word, and then all the reporters, experts, activists and politicians can do is listen.

Tomorrow.

2005-01-29T13:58:00.000-08:00

Less than a day before I get to vote for the first time in real elections. One that I chose to participate in and that I've dreamed about for such a long time. In general the process of elections itself looked silly for me when I watched it happening in democratic countries through TV. I thought that these people standing in lines were partisans who just wanted their people to win while those who chose not to vote seemed more independent to me! This is despite that I've always believed in democracy. I guess it has something to do with one's ego and false sense of superiority. You know, feeling that you're above the masses of dull partisan people who vote and kill themselves defending a party or a person without really knowing most of the times what are they voting for.Such kind of voting happens everywhere and it's going to happen in Iraq as well. I've heard many people saying they'll vote for this person or that party just because they like this person or someone on that party. It's like cheering for a certain football team just because you like one player in that team. And while cheering in sports is usually harmless, it can lead to serious consequences in politics.Still and with all this skepticism, I'm going to vote and I don't care if it means risking my life and I don't even care that much how the end results are going to be, not now! The reason that is pushing a cynic with a strong sense of individuality like me to join the "dull masses'' and to stop being the "black sheep" for a moment is not so hard to understand.All my life like all Iraqis, I was not in control of my life. I started looking to myself as a humanist many years ago. Maybe it's because I lost belief in my government and even sometimes in my country and my people. My country was just a stupid large piece of dirt that meant nothing and offered nothing to me but suffering and humiliation. I decided many times to leave my country although it was risky as doctors were not allowed to travel outside Iraq except for minor exceptions. I decided to search for a better living outside that hell of a country and away from any tyranny and on one occasion I even got a faked passport and was about to leave when I changed my mind at the last moment. I asked myself how could I call myself a humanist when I run away from my responsibilities towards my fellow humans (not Iraqis) when things get tough. And if I run away and all those who care and who long for a change do the same, who's going to stay and at least try to make the change. I saw that I was being a hypocrite by trying to leave Iraq. I decided that this piece of dirt is my home not because I was born in it but because I can be more useful to humanity here.Now, and thanks to other humans, not from my area, religion and who don't even speak my language, I and all Iraqis have the real chance to make the change. Now I OWN my home and I can decide who's going to run things in it and how and I won't waste that chance. Tomorrow as I cast my vote, I'll regain my home. I'll regain my humanity and my dignity, as I stand and fulfill part of my responsibilities to this part of the large brotherhood of humanity. Tomorrow I'll say I'M IRAQI AND I'M PROUD, as being Iraqi this time bears a different meaning in my mind. It's being an active and good part of humanity. Tomorrow I and the Iraqis that are going to vote will rule, not the politicians we're going to vote for, as it's our decision and they'll work for us this time and if we don't like them we'll kick them out! Tomorrow my heart will race my hand to the box. Tomorrow I'll race even the sun to the voting centre, my Ka'aba and my Mecca. I'm so excited and so happy that I can't even feel the fear I though I would have at this time.I can't wait until tomorrow.

Sistani's blessings.

2005-01-26T19:38:00.000-08:00

At last Sistani decided to give his "blessings" publicly to the United Iraqi Alliance list that contains the most of the religious She'at parties together with the INC and some small minority parties. Sistani cleared this issue on answering questions submitted by the Arabic newspaper Al Ra'ai Al Am (Link in Arabic). He mentioned that although he blesses the Alliance list, he still support all the patriotic lists.This statement ended a debate here that took weeks between the supporters of the aforementioned list and other parties and Iraqi people in general. Most secular She'at that I know denied constantly that Sistani is supporting a certain list and not only that, they confirmed their total trust in Sistani's neutral stand in this election and that he would never take such a stand that takes him down from being a spiritual father of all She'at and all Iraq as they wish to just a God father of one group that no matter how large does not represent all She'at and certainly not even the majority of Iraq.When I used to tell my She'at friends that Sistani is actually doing that but he can't say it in public, most of them were annoyed and thought I was just being Sunni. However Sistani has finally made this daring and questionable move that even skeptics like me didn't think he would do. Sistani presented with his statement some unconvincing excuses for his attitude saying that he supports this list only because he knows more about it! I believe that the "Marjiyia" committed a bad mistake here that would create further conflict (on the short term) among She'at but one that will also harm the "Marjiyia's" influence itself and benefit Iraq on the long term.Sistani has constantly tried since the end of the war to present himself as a spiritual leader of not only the She'at but also all Iraqis. He has made some good steps in approaching Sunni religious leaders, Christians and other minorities, and frankly the man is respected by the majority of Iraqis for his moderate stand and his efforts and contributions to peace in Iraq. As for She'at Sistani and the Marjiyia in general were always a symbol and a place to which they all return for strength and advice in religious as well as other life issues. Secular She'at were not very different from this and this is not very strange, as She'at have been oppressed for such a long time and they were deprived of many privileges, certain jobs and higher positions generally just because they were She'at and it didn't matter much to their oppressors whether they were secular or practicing She'at. This made She'at stick together and follow to variable degrees their religious leadership. They see themselves as one entity more than Sunnis because of all the disasters and hardships that they went through together and this seem to be the strongest tie that brings people together everywhere. Being a She'at thus is a matter of identity rather than a religious belief.Today there seems to be a difference though. Secular She'at feel more safe than ever and seem to be able to chose their own path with or without the guidance of the marjiyia. This happened only in the 50s at the golden times for Iraqi communists and now it's happening again as She'at see themselves as the majority in a situation were majority counts for the first time in Iraq. They are not that afraid of Sunni or Kurdish groups but they still have some worries which caused them to keep very friendly ties with the religious part of the She'at community.Such secular parties as Allawi's list hoped that Sistani would maintain his neutral attitude that would bring She'at closer to each other regardless of their ideological belief. And while Sistani's main goal seems, as he said more than once, to avoid the wasting of She'at votes if these votes go in different directions, he has only managed to do the opposite in such statement. He has weakened his position by drawing a line that is going to drive secular She'at away from him and thus weakens his institution's power and influence. The United alliance will most likely get more votes as a result of this blessing but the Marjiyia will somewhat isolate itself to a certain degree from other She'at powers and this will certainly weaken all She'at religious parties that get a lot of their influence from the strength of the Marjiyia.As the election gets near and according to most polls and what I hear from people here it seems that she'at votes are going to be divided mainly among 3 major parties; the United Iraqi alliance that seems ahead of the rest to some degree, the Iraqi list (Allawi) and the communist party (The People's Union list) that follow with the communists seemingly more favorable than Allawi. I put the Communist party in this category because most of its members and supporters are She'at and Kurds and since it's a large party and the oldest in the arena it's expected to attract many She'at voters.The issue of Share'a law imposed remains totally impossible as it would not be agreed on by the secular She'at parties not to mention the non-She'at powers. What remains to say is that the fact the major She'at religious parties found it necessary for them to group together and to seek the blessings of Sistani despite their individual greed show only their awareness of their own weakness and the general dislike Iraqis have towards clerics interference in politics. This made them go back and ask for the support of Sistani which as I said is thought by them to give them more support based on identity bound rather than a religious one. The loss of the marjiyia would be more obvious when we put in mind the serious accusations that Allawi's list has been exchanging with the United alliance list, as now Sistani has put himself in confrontation with other She'at parties that are competing in the elections. He has become a foe more than a God father to the She'at outside the "blessed" list. In my mind this is a good thing for the She'at to look for their own path away from any custody or guidance and it's therefore good for Iraq.

Should we be grateful to the doctors?

2005-01-21T09:02:00.000-08:00

According to this guy Iraqis in general should not be grateful to Americas otherwise they're traitors or they have their own agenda. His whole argument brought to my mind this story that I read about recently in Al Bayan newspaper (link in Arabic):"Young Iraqi man get treated in Israel from a heart disease."According to An Israeli newspaper reported that a young Iraqi from Kirkuk had a successful heart surgery in a hospital in Bateh Takfa(sp?). The family of the young man said that they could not afford the expenses of the surgery and so went to a humanitarian aid that arranged for their son to be transferred and treated in Israel for free."I never believed that I'd visit Israel one day" said the young man, "I'll tell everyone in my town about the goodness of the people of Israel. I have no more words but to thank the Israeli doctors"How dare he seek the help of the Zionists to save his life! I'm sure the terrorists (err, the freedom fighters) will deal with him when he returns, and when he get killed I hope the Israeli doctors feel proud for jeopardizing this young man's life. The strangest thing is that he's grateful! I'm confused as what are his motives and why he's so thrilled about this! Hmmm, I don't want to judge him but he seems to have an agenda of his own, otherwise why did he chose Israel to be treated in among all his enormous options?! He could've waited for an offer from France for example! It isn't like his case was that urgent!I mean this young man's story is very similar to to the story of all Iraq. We were all dying before the Americans came and saved us from the chronic lethal disease that Saddam was. Now that we have a new real life we are faced with serious dangers everyday by those who refuse to see us enjoy such a life. Should we be grateful to the 'doctors' or not? I guess the young man has the answer.And finally I'd like to say to all those who attack me and my brothers that I'm sorry I won't be able to debate with you from now on, as I'm in the middle of a big conspiracy that should end in the toppling of the Iraqi president (oops did it again! meant Allawi the puppet) and replace him with another puppet. You know, puppets are all kind of "made in Hong Kong" these days and they need to be replaced every now and then to keep things going.Talk to ya later mate (you can't judge me on this one, can you?) I'm done talking, as I'm preparing for a campaign and I intend to LIVE and I intend to vote.

2005-01-21T07:53:00.000-08:00

Arthur Chrenkoff has some interesting and telling statistics.

Polls talk.

2005-01-20T09:29:00.000-08:00

In a latest poll (link in Arabic) done by an Iraqi centre for research and on the ground studies "Al Mada", 300 men and women were selected from different age groups, classes and jobs to answer series of questions regarding the upcoming elections, and the main results were:67% do not support postponing the elections.52% refuse the interference of clerics in politics and 39% support such interference.100% of women in Azzamyia favored postponing the elections while 93.5% of the women in Sadr city favored that it would be held at the exact decided time.85.66% have set up their minds on whom to vote for.59.33% have no knowledge about the details of the election process, the lists of candidates and their platforms.The poll included the poor Shi'at district Sadr city.- Azzamyia district, where most of the residents are Sunni middle class families and was known since the 60s to be a stronghold for the Ba'athists.-Karrada which is mainly middle and high class She'at district.-Al Mansoor which is on of the fanciest neighborhood in Baghdad (sects, religions and ethnic group doesn't matter much there).Other chosen districts were Al Doura, Al Karkh and Al Fadl.Al Mansoor scored the highest percentage of people who have set up their minds on whom to vote, (87.94%) while the lowest was in Azzamyia, (13.15) and Sadr city scored 39.47%.Azzamiya scored the highest percentage of those who favor the interference of clerics in politics (63%) while the lowest percentage was in Mansoor (21%)Men scored the highest percentage in supporting separation of religion from politics. 57% of them said they didn't favor the interference of clerics in politics.On the other hand 43% of women said they didn't favor the interference of clerics in politics compared to 46% who favored such interference.So, if we depend on this poll (why not since whenever we open our mouths to say that Iraqis want democracy, some big hot shot scream, "BUT THE POLLS SAY THE OPPOSITE") the majority wants the election to be held at the exact time. The majority don't know much about the election process and the majority want the clerics to stay out of politics (note that most of the women who favored the interference of clerics in politics were from the Sunni district Azzamyia which makes their stand negligible since there are no Sunni clerics running for office and since most of the fears are from She'at clergy, as Sunnis are a minority anyway and it won't harm a lot if Sunni clerics get some representation).All in all the poll showed many encouraging results and among those I was more encouraged by the fact that many people have decided whom to vote while the low percentage in Azzamyia was not surprising in this field, as no one expects many people there would vote, but the lower percentage of the people who had setup their minds in Sadr city is actually encouraging because it indicates among other things that poor She'at are not necessarily going to vote for the list that Sistani favors and showed his support for, or for Sadr followers' list. These people want to decide on their own and don't seem to be impressed by Sadr or even Sistani!So lets leave polls speak for now and wait for the 30th of January as then we won't need my poll or others' polls. We'll just listen to the Iraqi people as they speak for the first time in their lives.

2005-01-19T22:28:00.000-08:00

I feel I should give my opinion on the NY times article about me and Iraq the Model that has created some variable reactions on the blogosphere. The article was, despite Ms Boxer's kindness, a bad piece of journalism. I had around 45 minutes long phone call with the reporter about my journey with Iraq the Model, my new site, the elections, the general situation here in Baghdad but she (or the paper) seems to have a certain agenda and managed to change the whole issue into a very silly gossip (going as far as quoting trolls!) that is way beneath any respectable paper and certainly beneath me so I won't give it more attention but lesson learned and I won't make the mistake of talking to anyone from the NY times again. It's important to note though that my feelings of respect, gratitude and love for the American people have never and will never change.Also before I turn to discuss more important issues that I created this site for, I'd like to ask the people who are coming from the site of the very informed Dr. Cole a favor. Can you please ask him to show us his sources (regarding the Fallujah myth) that he consider superior to mine? The funny thing is that he links to my site but continue to ignore linking to Iraq the Model! Maybe he thinks I'm on his side now? I'm sorry, I've changed my mind a bit but not to the degree of standing against America and my own country! Also he seems to not remember that it was me who pointed his little 'slip' about Fallujah, not my brothers, and the fact that he insist on this issue can only turn his slip into * gasp* a lie? Now could it be possible that higher beings like Dr. Cole are actually capable of lying!? I hope not but I won't hold my breath waiting for him to show us his credible sources.

2005-01-17T22:50:00.000-08:00

I appreciate the feedback that I get from you through the comments and mails and I apologize if I couldn't reply to all of them but please keep them coming, as your responses always inspire me to go on and they do enrich the discussion. Meanwhile here are some good news from Iraq by the very hard working Arthur Chrenkoff.

2005-01-17T22:14:00.000-08:00

The situation in Baghdad remains the same, meaning full of anticipation and worries mixed with great hopes. The fuel and electricity crisis are still the same with no improvement at all. The streets are getting filled day by day with signs encouraging people to vote for this party or that, most of the times with no names at all. Just a name and the number of the list with some phrases that shortly describe that list. The signs also varied in their quality from the expensive highly attractive ones for the major parties to the simple peaces of textile with the slogans of the party and the number written in large letters for the smaller parties.I've been hearing less gun shots and explosions lately and I think that's due to two reasons. First the ING and IP have spread all over Baghdad lately with only few hundred meters separating checkpoints in some places. The other possible reason is that the terrorists are probably saving their efforts to the election day and there are many reports that show that they are planning for a wide scale sophisticated and coordinated attacks. I must say that this is highly expected and I would never believe that the Ba'athists and Islamists funded and aided by the intelligence of many Arab and Muslim countries would let the election day pass peacefully.I'm more than sure they are planning for some serious attacks on that day and it's not going to be like Afghanistan where there were only few attacks on few voting centers. The stakes are too high for them just as they are for us. We've been waiting for the moment when we can decide our future all our lives and now it's happening and I can't tell you how excited that makes me and all freedom loving Iraqis. I feel like after voting I would not care what would happen to me. I would say my word, voice my will loud and clear in public for the first time in my life and that means almost everything to me. The terrorist can kill me and many of the Iraqis who are going to vote, but we would die proud. We will regain our self esteem and our pride that Saddam and his thugs took away by humiliating us, torturing and killing our friends and beloved ones infront of our eyes and then spitting in our faces after that, and all we could do was what we had to do to avoid more death and torture, we could only praise them after each murder and each crime. It made us hate ourselves and the whole world, lose our trust in everyone and just keep living a life that was worse than death but one that we still couldn't sacrifice for a good cause fearing for our families fate after our death.This horror, fear, hate and loss of trus is gone now but not entirely. We still feel it and they still remind us with it every day with every beheading and every murder they commit against those who actively try to change things in Iraq for the better. We feel it with various degrees, and for some of us it's turned into an additional motive to fight these thugs and to refuse a life like that even if the only other option is death. I don't want to live like that again, NEVER, and for that reason I'm going to vote and for the same reason I know that so many Iraqis are going to vote and let the terrorists show us the best they can do, as it won't stop us.Nevertheless there are many Iraqis who are still trapped in that circle of fear and hate. They need time, understanding, care and they need someone to show them another way, another option and a reason to take the risk for and a vision for a better future. They need someone to lead and show them again an example of what courage and self respect mean and how it can make your life, and even your death have a very different and a much more honorable meaning. I plan to be one of those who will lead but I know, happily, that I will be only one in a crowd.

Why America is safe now.

2005-01-15T16:57:00.000-08:00

Back at Iraq the model I wrote once about the changing priorities for the terrorists. I expected that there would be no attack on America before the American elections and that the attacks would be focused mainly on Iraqi civilians and American soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Now I see that I was partially wrong. No attacks happened in America and attacks increased on American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in Iraq, that was true, but what was wrong is that attacks on America not are only unexpected before the American elections but they are unexpected at all!

Yes America is probably the safest country in the world when it comes to terrorist attacks. Anyone who watched Bin Laden's message just before the American elections should've noted a difference in the terrorists' God father's attitude. I must admit I didn't see what it actually was at that time, as my mind was focused on its relation to the elections only and I couldn't think further than that. Now I can see that that speech determined a difference in the whole strategy of the terrorists towards America, and that that change was not dictated by a short term issue like the American elections but rather by the whole strategy of America towards the ME. Bin Laden has always referred to American people as an "evil" nation that is directly responsible for its government "crimes" and thus deserves an equal punishment. In the speech before the elections Bin Laden and for the first time recognized two Americas; one that is "evil" and which was going to vote for Bush and thus makes itself subject for attacks and one that's innocent (not voting for Bush) and is going to be safe. That statement declared Bin Laden's loss of initiative, and I'll try to explain my theory.

Every terrorist or radical group or organization starts as an independent one but as it grows its responsibilities as well as its enemies grow too. This growing financial and political responsibilities force this group to seek the help of a larger entity, usually a neighboring dictatorship. Some examples are Hizbollah with Syria and Iran, Hamas with Syria, most Arab nations Iran and Saddam previously, PLO with Syria, most Arab nations, Saddam' Iraq and Nassir's Egypt. Each of these dictatorships while fighting terrorism on its land can afford and would benefit from supporting terrorism outside and use it as a tool to pressure someone or to do its dirty work. Such protection while offer the terrorist group a much needed support that keep it alive and functioning does at the same time limit its options and restrict its fields of operations and cause it to mimic to a great degree the ones of the supporting government(s). Plus it does affect its popular support in a negative way.

In Iraq the agenda of the Arab and Muslim dictators came to lie in Parallel with that of Bin Laden. He found himself in great need for their support in order to fight the "infidels" in Iraq and they found him useful to hinder America's plans there. This makes the question about America's security on its own land not what the terrorists want, but rather what those dictatorships want. Any attack on the American soil will only result in the American people asking for justice and favoring an operation similar to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is what the American administration wish for but can't find the necessary support inside and outside America. The reaction of the international community would be not very important at such circumstances, but America is expected to get some good support if it's attacked again. Now the terrorist are stupid and insane people, but their leaders and most importantly their financier are not that stupid when it comes to risking their power and control over their countries. So if the terrorist decide to act alone they would not only lose the support of these dictatorships but also would risk that those regimes might well, hunt them down in their countries and hand all the info they have about the terrorist to America just to prove their innocence and avoid a very probable serious American strike.

Bin Laden realized that his hands are cuffed now and he has lost the initiative and thus came his reactionary speech just before the elections in trying to retrieve some initiative or to excuse his cowardice for other Muslims who might still support him, saying that he's not Attacking America because now there are two Americas and one of them is friendly! All he could do and all he can do as long as he's depending on Arab governments in his finance and logistic support is to keep threatining America but he knows that he can never turn these threats into asctions. This makes Bush's repeated statements that American troops are in Iraq to fight terrorism so that Americans won't have to fight it in America very true with only slight error.

American troops are actually fighting dictatorship now in Iraq and terrorism has become just a tool in a war that was directed against it in the first place. Once America leave Iraq without finishing the job, the war would stop being a war on dictatorship and would be again a WoT with the difference that it would be a war against a phenomena rather than its origin. The terrorists would be free to attack America again, as Arab and Muslim dictators won't fear a military strike similar to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan after seeing America recognize Iraq war as a mistake.

The remaining question is, what are the intentions of the American administration? There seems to be two possible options: one is continue the fight in Iraq for few more years and the other is to transfer the battle soon after the elections to another base for terrorism in the ME ( as I mentioned in a previous post). The first means more loss for America in term of lives of soldiers and money, it's good for America's safety for as long as the battle continues but it's bad for Iraq and would make America lose most of her Allies there. Besides it is not realistic to expect that the battle in Iraq is going to defeat terrorism for good and future plans are still needed. The other option means probably even more sacrifices in both lives and money but would be good for Iraq, leave a friendly government and nation there and it's also good for America's safety and interests on the long term.

If I were an American I would never worry about a terrorist attack on America as long as American troops are in Iraq. I'd rather worry about my government plans about the future of this war. The presence of American troops in the ME is needed until all dictatorships fall with force or without it and this will declare the end of both wars.

Elections and related fears.

2005-01-13T01:43:00.000-08:00

One day and as I was getting back home from work I saw some people gathering on the road. Abu Ahmed (a taxi driver I usually go with. He's an old religious She'at with a scarf on his head all the time) slowed down to see what it was and we saw some guy arguing angrily with a police officer who was apparently issuing a ticket for him. The guy was shouting madly and people were trying to calm him. The poor policeman seemed afraid. Such scenes are not uncommon these days and at certain occasions policemen were actually beaten at the hands of some nasty drivers and they didn't dare to use force! It was an annoying scene to me and to Abu Ahmed who shook his head with an unsatisfied look on his face and said, "When are we going to learn how to live in order?""I think the police need to be more firm. This man is not only defying a policeman. He's defying the law represented by him" I said."Yes, but you know how some people would answer this. Every time I say the word "law" someone answers me, "What law?? There's no law and no government!""You're right""I hope things will change for the better after the elections" He said"Yes I hope so too. Who are you going to vote for by the way?""I want to vote, but I don't know who to vote for. I don't know most of the parties""I know, but right now, who are the best candidate in your mind?""Allawi is good. He's like Saddam but he's good""What does that mean??""I mean he's tough but he's only tough with the bad guys""Ok I see what you mean""Al Ja'afary is good too, but I didn't like his attitude when this Sadr issue started. He should have shown more determination"(He means the head of Al Da'awa Islamic party)"Yes but we are not going to vote for a president this time" I said."huh, then for what uncle?"I explained to him as briefly as I could and he showed his disappointment in "the government" for not paying more effort to instruct the people about the elections and again I corrected him saying that it's not the government responsibility but the "independent electoral commission" "Whoever it is!" He replied.I mentioned this incident because what I want to say is that many people want to vote because they believe this election will make their life better. Some people really believe that out of thinking about it deeply and others believe it just because they hear it all the time in Radio, TV and see it on the signs on the streets. It's similar to the way Iraqis were waiting anxiously for the authority hand over. Many Iraqi believed at that time that a government would be the answer to all our problems.One fear from the results of the upcoming elections is that it's going to lead to the domination of the She'at clergy and thus to a theocracy similar to that in Iran. And there are so many flaws about this theory.First, She'at represent approximately 60% of Iraqis and even with the majority of Sunni not voting the percentage wouldn't rise to more than 70% at most, as there are some She'at groups who won't vote like Al Hasani followers (the latter is a cleric who claim he has contact with the 12th absent She'at Imam Al Mahdi in his dreams and has some supporters in Diwania and Basra). Also such theory should mean that at least 90% of the She'at will vote for the Islamic parties, which is not realistic at all. We have some really strong and old parties that are secular but with a majority of their members and supporters being She'at. One example is the "Iraqi Communist party" which is the oldest one in the political arena and despite all the massacres committed by Saddam against the communists in the early 70s they still have the largest number of registered members among all political Iraqi parties, 69 000 members. Another one is the "Iraqi National Accord" which although not that old and has many ex-Ba'athists in it who ran away from Saddam for one reason or another, this party had gathered some good number of supporters solely due to Allawi's performance in the government.This point is true despite that it's strange, as most Iraqis are not satisfied in general with the interim government performance and think it's corrupted to a great extent, but they still like Allawi! I think this can be explained this way; the situation is difficult so who can we blame but the government! Still when Allawi shows on TV, one cannot but try to compare him with Saddam, the only ruler many Iraqis knew all their lives, and in such comparison Allawi, looks like a saint, and still can show that he's articulate and firm.Finally, even if the religious She'at parties get their desired majority somehow, when it comes to the constitution they still need the approval of the absolute majority of Iraqis for their Share'a to be the core of the constitution. Something that I believe every one with some brains would find impossible to happen.The thing is that for She'at or Sunni, most of the time it's not about religion. It's more about the identity of the leader. The She'at in the beginning were satisfied with Allawi being in charge because he's a She'at and that's all. They have been dreaming of this for a long time and now it's coming true. It doesn't matter a lot what's his political stand is as long as he's She'at.Another fear is that the elections results might cause a civil war. This is so against reason. As what result would cause that? If the She'at get the majority would that upset some radical Sunnis? But that's already happening now and it's expected! Besides, the parts of Sunnis who are boycotting the elections now are already fighting, as they know the result in advance and they're trying to prevent it.The only result that could really lead to a civil war is if the She'at do not get the majority they deserve, but we all know that's not going to happen.I was yesterday in one of my friend's house and his father, a secular She'at who drinks and think that the worst people on earth are the She'at clerics was talking on the phone next to me. He was saying thing like "Sistani" and "slaughter" and when he finished I asked him what that was. He told me that his friend told him that some She'at men went to Sistani complaining and saying that they're being killed just because they are She'at and that he should do something about it, but Sistani answered them saying, "If they level a whole city with the ground don't respond!". It's unfortunate that many She'at still look at the extreme Wahabies as Sunni, but luckily most of their religious leaders are not very stupid.My friends' father was praising Sistani saying he's a sane man who's trying to avoid blood shed. I agree with that but I think it has more to it than just being worried about blood shed. I think that She'at clerics are waiting impatiently for the elections thinking that it will lead to a decisive win for the She'at for the first time in history (and it will) and this is obvious from the effort they are doing to encourage people to vote. The Hawza (the main Religious school for She'at in Iraq and the world) is closed temporarily so that its student can have more time on 'educating' people and encouraging them to vote. The only thing that might lead to a civil war is that if the Shea't main religious leaders lose their sanity totally and the only thing that could cause that is if the She'at do not get the majority in the upcoming elections or if the elections get postponed. Now will the She'at clerics be mad if the She'at achieve the majority through secular parties and not religious ones? Maybe, but they won't find enough people among She'at to support them if they think of something crazy.Note: This article was published in the Italian newspaper "Libero" (subscription required)

2005-01-10T23:25:00.000-08:00

No that's not me who's mentioned in the Guardian as their film maker in Iraq. "Ali" and "Fadhil" are both common names in Iraq, but I too found it interesting that this guy has the same name, job and interest in covering events in Iraq. I must say though that I found his report biased and I didn't like it at all that he seeked the protection of a terrorist group just to make his film. That was not bravery, it's closer to cowardice. A brave reporter would be any one who go to a hot area without the blessings of any terrorist group (except French reporters, as they have sort of a long term blessings from higher authorities).

What after the elections?

2005-01-10T20:58:00.000-08:00

Amid all the expectations and fears about the upcoming elections in Iraq, one cannot but ask, "What if the election worked but the violence persisted? Then what? What are we going to do after that?"Some people think the elections will answer all these questions while others think it won't change anything and that the war against terror in Iraq is lost anyway. This piece at Andrew Sullivan's is a good example of the perspective of those who think the war is lost and I can't help but offer "my two cents".Sullivan has been arguing for a long time that more troops are needed in Iraq to win this war against the "insurgency". I must admit that so many times I found myself agreeing with him on this issue. I don't believe that he believes this war is lost but I think he's just too frustrated because he really wants it to work and he can't see it working this way, meaning the way the American administration is handling it. I couldn't, however, demand the same as I'm Iraqi and I feel it's not my right to ask people to sacrifice more so that I can live free. But I thought since it's what I believe it should be done even if I were an outsider then I should say it.I do not agree with the whole analysis that Sullivan linked to, especially the conclusion, but I also believe that Iraq's problems won't be solved simply after the elections. It will have a good impact for sure but won't end the struggle. So the question remains, "how to defeat the terrorists in Iraq".I think part of the answer lies in the Palestinians elections. I see Abbas's election as a victory for peace and moderate forces in Palestine despite what some people might say about him. It's a small victory but it's a very important step in the road of peace for this seemingly endless struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This victory was not possible without toppling Saddam, as before that Arab rulers and Saddam had no other issue to use to as a decoy that distracts their own people's attention from the real issues they need to solve in their own lands other than the Palestinian one. Now they're too busy trying to spoil America's plans in Iraq that are much more dangerous to them than Israel to the degree that they left Hammas and its likes alone in the battle and that was with the death of Arafat enough to enable moderate voices in Palestine to find their way. I maybe too optimistic here but I think Just the fact that there has been an election at all is a positive step and at any rate there are more chances for peace now than before.What the analysis linked by Sullivan misses is that America is not fighting a Sunni insurgent alone, as there are the whole powers of terrorism behind it and the support and finance of most Arab countries. This means that establishing peace, order and democracy in Iraq requires defeating terrorism as a whole, and that's the goal of course, but it's the ultimate goal not the immediate one expected from toppling Saddam. To expect to defeat the whole global terrorism through battles in Iraq is not realistic. The realistic goal is deprive them of one more base, establish a democracy in Iraq that can affect the neighboring countries to a great extent and then move on to another base, do the same (which would be much easier than Iraq and won't necessary require an invasion) and so on.Now it's not easy to determine the next base that should be attacked but I agree with those who said that Lebanon is the best candidate. Not Lebanon as a whole of course but Hizbollah and the Syrian army there. There are certainly many arguments against such choice, but I believe it's the best for many reasons. It would terrify Syria and Iran and distract their efforts in disrupting Iraq's march towards democracy, it would help democracy in Lebanon get rid of the influence of the Syrian Army and Hizbollah and it would give Iraq a much needed time to recover and build its infrastructure in a way that makes it not very rewarding to attack it again as the way it is now with the fragile infrastructure. The ex-Ba'athists aided by a very tiny minority of Salafis in Iraq won't be able (without huge aid from neighboring countries and Arab fighters) to stand against the Iraqi government aided by massive American power. They would most likely divide into small gangs that can be annoying but certainly not strong enough to determine a whole country's future.Some people will say, "Are you insane? Another war, while we're not sure this one was the right thing to do?" and I think yes, another war, a limited one most likely would be the right thing to do now. Any half solutions would be as disastrous as a total withdrawal.So yes, more troops would be very helpful for Iraq now and for a short period after the elections but in my mind the best answer to the challenges in Iraq is another strike somewhere else, somewhere near and I can't think of a better option than the south of Lebanon.

Nice guy.

2005-01-09T09:23:00.000-08:00

I've just found this guy , and he is SO smart! And very nice too!Some people accused us and other pro-American Iraqi bloggers of being CIA plants saying our English is too good for Iraqis! Others said that we are Americans using broken English to make it look like we are Iraqis, but this guy has come up with something really original.He reaches the right conclusion but with using a very stupid argument!He's like saying, "C'mon if the neocons were planning to control the world, would they chose a place like Iraq?"p.s. I kept my post short so that I won't expose how terrible my English is and how stupid I am, and so that I deserve to be suspected as being hired by the CIA.

Is Islam compatible with democracy?

2005-01-08T20:28:00.000-08:00

A question asked very frequently and one that is rarely answered objectively. This question is not new but it has been focused on after OIF, and that led to many people in the US and Europe somewhat switching sides in the way the respond to it or the way they are expected to respond to it, as answering this question is closely related to the war on Saddam's regime, the change in Iraq and its legitimacy.Being a Muslim, or at least being born as such makes my response rather difficult and its credibility and objectivity being logically questioned. However, I'll try.To begin with I must say I have a problem with the question itself and to clarify this problem in short, I'll instead ask this question: Is Christianity compatible with democracy? Or is Judaism compatible with democracy?Before anyone starts yelling at me I would like to provide my answers. I think that one can answer both questions with "yes" and "no"."Yes" if we consider western societies as Christian societies and "no" if that means that there's no need for separation of the church from the state.The western societies were Christian ones in the middle ages but they're not now. The church was not only incompatible with democracy, but it actually fought so hard against it as a form of secular government. It did cost Europe some real bloody wars to 'convince' the church that it should not use its influence to run things as it wishes.The American society is a slightly different case and the American readers of this blog can argue in this better than I can, but I think it's reasonable to say that Americans are generally more religious or has allowed religion some invisible role in politics because they didn't have to go through a bitter struggle against it to gain their freedom as the Europeans. Still, I doubt that anyone can really say that the American society is a Christian one, as it's obviously not!What I'm trying to say is that no religion in its present form is compatible with democracy and both democracy and religion can only co-exist if that religion is marginalized. In my mind all present religions, if you take them from the mouths of their advocators, being Imams, priests or whatever they are called in other religions and look at them with a modern rational mind, are (pardon me) so full of sh*t! (Note that I'm not talking about the core of those beliefs but how they're presented to us now).There's no way one can develop a modern democracy directly from any of those religions simply because all of them declare that they have the absolute truth.What's left after that is that it's not the problem that Islam that is not compatible with democracy but it's Muslims who are not compatible, or sometimes it's Arabs. The least I can say about that is that it's a racist point of view.We don't need to democratize Islam, as it wasn't possible with any other religion. We simply need to separate the mosque from the state, and that could be done violently or peacefully depending on the place and the circumstances. So the right question in my mind is, can we separate the mosque from the state? I for one believe it's very possible, especially in Iraq.

Iraqi opinion poll.

2005-01-07T19:24:00.000-08:00

I just learned about this site of an Iraqi firm for research and consultation (IRC) through Al Fayha'a TV station this afternoon. It has a lot of useful information. What they were talking about at Al Fayha'a was an opinion poll conducted through phones in Iraq as well as via the Internet.The poll subject is to see how much support different political entities that are taking part in the upcoming election have. They have basically divided those entities into 7 main groups. One for the " Kurdish Alliance", one for the "Iraqi Communist Party", one for the "Iraqi List" (Allawi's), one for the "United Iraqi Alliance" (this includes Al Dawa'a party, INC, SCIRI, Hizbullah in Iraq and several other small parties), "Nationalist Parties", "The Islamic Party of Iraq" (this refers mainly to Arab pan nationalist parties and Turkmen's front) and "others".At the time I watched the program the "United Iraqi Alliance" had about 47% of the votes and the "Nationalist parties had about 4.7%, but as I logged now and voted (for "others") the percentage for many parties had changed a lot. I guess this is because of the TV coverage that must have attracted many people to the site.While this survey may not be very scientific, I must say that I was not surprised by the results and would not be surprised if the actual results in the elections were close to it. It may be interesting to some people to see how much support the "Communist Party" had. This was not strange for me, as I remember very well that in the large anti-terror rally back in Dec./2003 the Communist Party was present there with the largest number of protestors and with the best organization and discipline.The other notable result is that the "Islamic Party of Iraq" has till now 5.1% of the votes even though it's not going to participate and even though we keep hearing how all Sunni are going to boycott the elections but this poll shows that at least many of them still very interested in the elections. Not to mention that many Sunnis are expected to vote for Al Pachachi, the Nationalist parties and to "others". Yes the Islamic party won't participate but it's not logical to assume that as a result of that all those who intended to vote for it will boycott the elections. This becomes understandable if we know that the actual number of members and strong supporters of the Islamic party is way below the people who slightly favor it (I know a guy who was going to vote for the Islamic party but now wants to vote for Al Pachachi), and also because many Sunnis are afraid that if they don't vote the elections would definitely result in an overwhelming She'at majority, and that's something they would never be comfortable with.I've heard it from many of my Sunni friends that they are concerned about the possibility that the constitution might be written by She'at and Kurds mainly, and to be more accurate they are concerned with the She'at part more. Most of them said they will vote for Pachachi and others are still considering but generally they said they will vote for a secular party. My belief is that the percentage of Sunnis who will vote will be considerably lower than that of any other group, but it will be still high enough to contradict the analysis of most experts, and we only have to wait for few days to see.

Weighing sides

2005-01-05T03:14:00.000-08:00

The situation in Baghdad gets more difficult everyday as the election time gets nearer. The attacks never seize to occur on a daily basis allover the hour. I haven't witnessed any, but we can hear the sounds of rockets, mortars, RPGs and machine guns on different times through everyday. The slight improvement in electricity that took place about a week ago didn't last for more than few days and now we're back to two hours of electricity followed by 4 hours of outage. This does not mean that life is impossible in Iraq now, as the difficulties have truly a less impact on our daily life than what is expected. It's not because we are more brave than other people, nor it's because we are dull enough to not be affected by such hardships. It's just people's nature everywhere to find a way to go on with their lives despite how difficult it can be, as there's simply no other option!The prices for gasoline are still high but have dropped from the ones they reached at the peak of the crisis about two weeks ago. One can now buy 20 liters of gasoline for the price of 6000 Iraqi Dinars (approximately 4.1$ which equals20 cents for each liter). The highest prices were about 23 000 Iraqi Dinar for the same amount (approximately 15.75$ which equals 78 cents for each liter). However, the exchange price for the Iraqi Dinar against US$ is still the same (1460 Iraqi Dinar for each US$) for almost 10 months on a row now!I must say that what's happening now was expected, and I was not the only one expecting it. Most people saw that as the election came closer violence would certainly grow more and more. It's truly a critical time in the history of Iraq, the region and the whole world. The terrorists are attacking almost everyone who does not agree with them. Today they threatened to" transfer the battle to America's land".If this should tell us anything new then it should be that the masters of these monsters are terrified as hell. They see all their efforts as not leading to the desired result; the withdrawal of American troops or at least the delaying and then the canceling of the elections.This is an important point that most of us, Iraqis and the coalition, forget most of the time. Just as we despair sometimes we should remember that our enemies are in even a worse situation than ours. I'm not talking about the terrorists, as these idiots have set up their minds to ride the highway to "heaven" through ending their miserable lives as soon as possible taking as many as possible of innocents' lives with them. I'm talking about those who finance them. The daily attacks in Iraq cost a fortune that no one and no single organization can afford. It's not an easy decision for those behind terrorism in Iraq to throw all that money that they worked their asses off when robbing it from their poor citizens to the fire, as no one expects any payback from spending that money other than ruining Iraq, her dreams and America's plans in establishing democracy in the region. They commit to such difficult decision only because they see it as the only possible answer to what will certainly rock their thrones in no big time.These rulers have a less costly-less promising options that they will not resort to until they become sure that the battle in Iraq is lost. One of these might be working on some shallow reforms that do not endanger their unquestioned authority, or actually submitting to the unstoppable change and withdrawing with some dignity while it's still possible. Of course such options will be their last but they seem to be inevitable as democracy in Iraq makes one step after the other.They bet for a long time on a civil war in Iraq or isolating Iraq from the international society, but Iraq came back to the political arena stronger than before the war and there are no real signs for civil war yet (and in my mind there won't be any). They try all the time do destroy Iraq's economy, but the truth remains that despite the current fuel crisis and the security problems, we still lead a MUCH better life than before the war (economically speaking). I want to say that it's no secret that it's America's very generous support that keeps it this way. The government is certainly having serious difficulties but they're not impossible to cope with and with large amount of the huge Iraqi debt forgiven and the sanctions being left, it certainly stands at a much comfortable position than Saddam's regime's.The market is generally stable, most goods maintained their prices for months, fuel and some local goods have seen some real rises in their costs but this time we actually have money in our wallets! While before the war we hardly had any and we were living in a continuous crisis that made the word lose its meaning. And it's not true what some people think, that it's only government employees who have gained from the change, as the private business have seen a much more improvement which is still based to a large extent on the original rise in the salaries of government employees. Teachers, engineers, nurses, Etc.. can now buy clothes, electrical devices, furniture, 'luxuries' such as mobile phones, satellite dishes, computers and as a result several new businesses that did not even exist at Saddam's time, began to expand and started to hire more individuals with higher salaries.Just a simple example is the small shop that I and my brothers owned and used to work in just to support our family. That small shop was almost empty when we joined our uncle to help him make it work in 1997. We worked the four of us so hard because it was our only real source of income. Our sales were growing constantly starting from 50$/day as an average at start to about 175$/day average when we left it to our uncle after the war (yes two families lived on the profit margin of 50 $ sales/day), as our jobs pay us what we see as enough now.Last week I dropped by my old shop and asked my uncle about how his business was going. The shop didn't look growing to me and that didn't surprise me, as my uncle is an old man with a chronic heart disease and has only his son now to help him. Anyway, like all businessmen he gave me a general answer, but I told him that I want numbers and as he's my uncle and he used to work with us in the past he didn't find it very difficult to tell me. He said that there's some kind of depression these days and his average sales are not more than 400 000 Iraqi Dinar/day (273 US$/day) and that a month ago the average was about 600 000 Iraqi Dinar/day (342 US$/day). Moreover my uncle has no terrible inflation to worry about now. Now with an old man and his teenage son this small business is making almost double the profit it used to make when it was run by the same old man, two dentists and a doctor!There's no mystery behind that, it's just that so many people have more money on them now and it's not that difficult to get them to buy anything, as on the contrary most people are trying to make up for all the years of deprivation they suffered in the past. They just buy and buy like there's no tomorrow!Back to our calculations we can say that spending millions of Dollars to ruin Iraq's economy is not a great investment. And as Iraq is not ruined economically and politically, it seems that the only thing that these rulers can hope to achieve their sick dreams is making the lives of Iraqis a daily suffer through maintaining the difficult security. But even this is not a real victory and has failed to attract more supporters to turn it into a wide spread chaos that involve the whole country when tried three times. The question is if we (Iraqis and the coalition) managed to at least hold to the achievements in economy and political field, how long can our neighbors keep spending money that generously, and how would that affect their own treasury as one of their formidable weapons to keep their own citizens in slavery? And moreover how far can they take this dangerous confrontation with the US so openly? My 'guess' is that with both parties determining to see this struggle to the end the scale is on our side.

An Explanation.

2005-01-03T20:58:00.000-08:00

I owe my readers and many others an explanation. I used to post before at "Iraq The Model" blog and then I quit without offering a clear explanation for why I did that. First let me say that I was not hiding here. I did quit my original blog but I did not quit the struggle in anyway. I know I'm on the right side and my disagreement was not with America. I just wanted a break away from the noise that I have wrongly created and I was getting only few readers a day who never read me before. I was testing many things in this blog before I would try to offer an explanation and then start a new start. And as you can see I have changed the title of my blog, as I saw that it lead to unnecessary arguments between the left and right and this is not why I have created this blog. Anyway, few days ago Jeff Jarvis and Michael Totten linked to my blog, and then Instapundit linked to it too and I started getting thousands of visitors and most of them were regulars at ITM. I didn't expect that, as it's true what one of the readers said, that I haven't offered much yet. So I believe it's time I offer some clarity.I had some serious doubts about that trip to the US and did express them to my brothers. I saw that it was an unnecessary risk and I feared there would be more than just the harmless meetings with readers and donors. When I didn't get answers that calm these doubts I decided not to go. As I was sitting here behind my computer watching the reactions to my brothers' visit, my doubts grew stronger. I believe that they were exposed to a great risk and despite we were promised that there would be no major media, I got a mail from a journalist in the Washington Post asking about the meeting with (POTUS). After that mail, I decided to quit.My brothers were not as concerned as I was and thought that western media is hardly read by terrorists or fanatics. However, few days ago a friend of ours came to our house telling us that he read about the visit and the meeting with Bush in "Al Sharq Al Awsat" a widely distributed Arabic newspaper that reaches most Arab countries if not all. They had the news through the Washington Post and this was not strange to me, as it's a common thing that Arabic newspapers and Satellite TV channels discuss western media regularly. It's one thing to risk your life for doing what you believe in and serving your country and humanity and it's totally another thing to risk your life just to meet (POTUS).So I did not quit because of any distrust of America's plans in Iraq, I was not treated badly by any American, I have no problem with any right-wing blog and I never had any problem in dealing with extreme left blogs. I and my brothers have only some disagreement on few points. I had a different feeling about the trip and was more skeptic than them. Now I see that I have overreacted and I had to be more patient. I say that despite that I was right about the unecessary dangers that may come from such a trip, because my reaction created many speculations among our readers that could've been avoided had I not post such obscure message. My brothers seem to have done what they were comfortable with and they say that no one put any pressure of any kind on them.I want to apologize for the mess I created. That post was probably the most stupid thing I've ever done in my life (and I've done so many stupid things before). I had no right in throwing accusations without specifying whom I meant and without providing any evidence and that caused many innocent people a lot of harm. I don't know if I can be forgiven for that, as I haven't forgiven myself, but I will continue to post on this blog and share my views and opinions with anyone that care to listen. I believe in free and democratic Iraq and I believe in America, the coalition and all those who are helping us.Again, I'm so sorry.

2004-12-31T14:24:00.000-08:00

I'll be away for few days, so there will be no blogging but I just wanted to say happy New Year to the good readers of this blog and to all good people everywhere.

Help!

2004-12-30T00:39:00.000-08:00

The pictures and news about Tsunami earthquake are just horrific. The numbers of the victims that keep rising terribly every minute, watching people die in masses on TV just like that, and the children…It's so sad and crushing.I started saying to myself that this shouldn't happen, not this way! I read somewhere on the Internet some one saying that if such a disaster had happened in America, the death toll wouldn't have been more than 5 or 6. Such statement is far from being reasonable but it does bear a lot of truth in that the numbers would've been much less, not only in America but in any advanced country. The rescue procedures, the degree of government's activities to help and contain the damages, the experience in dealing with such tragedies, the health care and lots of other parameters are hugely less in most of those unfortunate areas than in the advanced world.What made me feel worse is that I can't from my place here do anything to help. I can't even donate through the Internet. We keep asking the world to help us in Iraq and our sufferings have indeed made some of us more selfish and demanding, but on the other hands many of us have come to feel for the others around the world and their sufferings more than before. All I can do is urge you, the visitors of this blog to donate to these poor victims with whatever you can spare if you haven't already. You can donate here . It's needless to say that every penny you donate will definitely help in rescuing a human soul.Update: Here's a link to the Thai Red Cross where your donations would go faster to those in need.

2004-12-30T00:23:00.000-08:00

Sheep and frozen Chickens were handed out by US soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, in the Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Sadr City, 26 December 2004, in Baghdad. A gift of some 28 sheep and frozen chickens were handed out to the residents of this poor neighborhood.I must add that Saddam never did something like that (people were charged slightly less than the market's prices for very occasional 'gifts' like this one) and he was the Iraqi president, the "freedom fighters" never helped 'their' people in anway like this which makes one wonders why the "occupiers" are doing this!? Hmmm, I know why! It's part of a very subtle conspiracy and the Jooooz must be behind it!

A bridge of love.

2004-12-29T22:42:00.000-08:00

I was watching al Arabiya yesterday and they showed a report about the American families that came with supplies they gathered to help civilians of Fallujah. It was very refreshing and heart warming even for guys like me who have firm belief in the American people's good will. To see families who had their son's, daughters and beloved ones killed in 9/11 and even in Iraq cross all this distance and take all this risk to help Iraqis left me speechless.One of my friends came to visit me today and he mentioned this to me too. This guy is what one can call "average Iraqi" he was happy to see Americans here in the beginning but gradually his feelings changed to the opposite. I assume that the main reason to such change is the difficult situation and the way it's conducted through the media, as most Iraqis had the false impression before the war that America was going to rebuild Iraq on her own and that all they need to do is go on with their lives. The former Iraqi resistant groups abroad hold a share of the responsibility for such a belief and the American administration did not do much to correct this misunderstanding in the beginning of the war. Also the return of the Ba'athists and their destructive efforts in their unholy alliance with the Islamic militants played an important role. American troops started to act more cautiously and aggressively as a result of the attacks and the good and promising contact that was established soon after the war between Iraqis and Americans started to shake until it became almost impossible for an Iraqi to talk to an American, and vise versa.There's a lot of distrust and fear among Iraqis and Americans in Iraq (this holds true only in the centre of Iraq, as the situation in the north and south is much better than here) and what these families have done come in a very critical stage and bares a great significance and I just wish it gets more exposure than what it's getting now. I wish you could see the look on my friend's face as he was telling me about how surprised and impressed with the efforts of these great people. These guys have built a strong bridge of compassion and love even though they are the ones who paid the most through this struggle, and I hope there will be more bridges from both sides to help restore the trust and love that means so much for the future of the whole world. God bless you and God bless your beloved ones' souls.

Some answers.

2004-12-27T21:54:00.000-08:00

This post is a response to some questions by readers of this blog. I want to thank you for your comments and I hope I can provide you and future readers with answers that help you know more about, not just me but the situation in Iraq as a whole.Tony asked me to say more about myself and bookbug asked me to specify what I meant by "Liberal Iraqi".First, thank you both and thanks for your complement, bookbug about my English. I wouldn't say it's excellent, but I'm trying to improve my English everyday and I'm glad you found it easy to understand.As my profile says, I'm an Iraqi man born in Baghdad and have lived here since that time. I only traveled 3 times in my life; once to Italy and Yugoslavia back in the 80s and once recently to Jordan. Traveling was prohibited especially for government employees since the Iraq-Iran war, and now I can travel again to any country that accepts to give a VISA to Iraqis. Anyway, I lived in Baghdad until I graduated from "Baghdad college" high school for boys, which is considered to be the best in Iraq and that's part of why I have rather an acceptable command of English. I went to college in Basra and finished it in Baghdad, spent 2 years as a government employee, left my job because I didn't want to serve in the military and remained a fugitive for 4 years until I gave hope and joined the mandatory military service just to be able to finish my higher studies. I got married recently and I'm happy with my life.Now back to liberalism in Iraq, I want to say that it's a common knowledge that compared to the west, Iraq is a very conservative society, so being a liberal in Iraq caries a very different meaning than being a liberal anywhere in the west or more advanced countries. This does not mean that I'm against liberals anywhere, as on the contrary I find myself more close to them than conservatives, and I do have many friends on both sides as well as other centrists and independent people. I'm only against their view of OIF and the WoT in general. This is one of the few points where I do agree with the conservatives. I know that some conservatives have their own selfish motives behind their support for democracy in Iraq, but I believe that the majority of them just want Iraq to succeed and also want to have a friendly democratic government in the ME instead of a brutal mad dictatorship that has ties with terrorist organizations allover the world.Back to Iraq and the main topic of this post, I and many freedom-loving Iraqis see traditions whether Islamic or tribal in origin as the main obstacle towards our march for a free democratic Iraq. You can count Arab nationalism as another obstacle in this field. We, those who call ourselves liberal Iraqis, are totally against such traditions and rotten ideologies. We see ourselves as part of humanity and that's all. Some people in Iraq accuse us of being too liberal to the degree where we lack a real identity. This is not true, as we have one and it's called humanity.So there's no sophisticated ideology that I endorse, I just support freedom of press, freedom of expression, women's freedom, separation of "Church from the state", freedom of religion and limited control by the government over economy. I do, however support strongly international aggressive interference in countries' internal policies to save others from oppression and humiliation.In Iraq, we longed for a revolution to save us from what we suffered at Saddam's days. We made feeble attempts, but some Iraqis in the south and the north sacrificed and risked much more for the sake of our freedom, and the end was horrific. After that we almost went into total despair, and then the Americans came and our joy was beyond description. Still we do need a revolution, a revolution on the level of minds which without it, all the help we are getting from others and all the sacrifices that were given for Iraq to be free from tyranny, all these would be in vain. I still enjoy my freedom tremendously despite all the problems and dangers, and I have full trust in my people but I'm not ashamed of saying that we still need your help.

Diplomacy wins!

2004-12-25T21:57:00.001-08:00

At last the two French journalists have been released by their kidnapers. See, these terrorists (errr..freedom fighters) are not dangerous at all! They don't kill you if you don't mess up with them and if you support their just cause. They only kidnap you, hold you for few months and "treat you well" and then release you. That's not bad, is it? I dare say it's even a good reason to celebrate.I don't know why this whole thing reminds me of what happened in 1991 when Saddam held entire American and European families as "guests of Iraq" and then after long and hard negotiations, he released them. This is the key; NEGOTIATE you idiots! Even if there was no reason for those fighters to hold any hostage, as in the end and if you behave and prove that you're not American, British, Australian, Dutch or Italian and have not dealt with any American company and never visited America and that you're against the war and you hate Israel and support the resistance and have not, and will not say anything that criticize it or that might give any credit to America...you would most likely (and with the right people addressed by your government on negotiating) get released after few months! The French government must be very proud now, and so are the terrorists.Rejoice France, you've been rewarded by the terrorists for your refusal to oppose (dare I say support?) those who murder our children everyday.

Electricity.

2004-12-25T21:57:00.000-08:00

The electricity situation in Baghdad has improved lately although still not back to what it used to be 2 months ago when we had about 18-20 hours of electricity per day. Since that time and as a result of the continuous sabotage the power supply deteriorated day by day till we reached a state where we used to have less than 2 hours of electricity per day, and we never even knew when during the day would that be!

However, for the past few days the power supply has been gradually improving, and now we have 12 hours of electricity per day and it has been regular for the past two days.
Many people here don't understand why this outage keeps happening although the complains are less than before, as compared to the troubles that ensue in summer from the long electricity outage, the current situation does not represent a big problem.

I've heard a lot of people blaming the minister of electricity for this poor performance of his ministry. I personally don't agree with this, as the infrastructure in Iraq is terribly fragile as a result of the wars and Saddam's deliberate neglect for the people's needs. Still, this minister is an a***ole and people have the right to say such things about him, as in an interview on Iraqiya TV he mentioned that the terrorists can win easily in this sector and can destroy our efforts simply by bringing down one or two of the high voltage towers that transmit electrical power from Beji to Baghdad! As even though he's right, but as a leader he should not say such things in public and at such critical times when people need to see some optimism not defeatism. He was like saying to the terrorists, "Hey, we're so easy, so why don't you focus a little bit more and I guarantee you that you will destroy us!"

This is not the only jack a** we have in power as there are many of them and although Allawi has proven more than once his commitment and optimism in a democratic Iraq, his choice of men is certainly far from good. Of course there are so many parties and powers that had an effect in distributing authorities other than Allawi, and that's why I think that most Iraqis won't vote for the existing 'major' political parties in the future. This may not be so evident in the 1st election but I have no doubt that with the ones that will follow these parties will lose a lot of ground for the small more democratic and liberal parties.

First post.

2004-12-23T04:50:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone,
This is my first post. My name is Ali and I'm an Iraqi living in Baghdad. And yes I'm a liberal as my blog title says, but I must stress that I'm a liberal Iraqi and not just liberal, a term which has different meanings depending on where you live and compared to your surrounding ideologies.
I intend through this blog to talk about the rising democracy in Iraq and I hope I can provide others around the world with a view of how life is going on in Iraq from where I see it. I do not and will not pretend that I represent the majority of Iraqis, but I'll try to convey as objectively as I can what Iraqis think and how they feel about the changes and the hardships in Iraq. Different perspectives will be wellcomed on this blog, but any offensive language towards other readers (I believe this blog would be read by some sooner or later) and any racist remarks will cause the person who post it to be banned.
I hope those who will read this blog would find it useful and please if anyone has any question, don't hesitate to send them.
I'll be updating the blog soon.
Best regards,
Ali.