PDA

View Full Version : " Reverse Ba'athism" How the U.S. backed Iraq gov't uses terror



scarletwoman
09-28-2005, 02:49 PM
against the opposition.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050927/reverse_baathism.php

<excerpt>

A leading Iraqi voice in favor of a negotiated power-sharing arrangement between Sunni and Shiite forces in Iraq charged this weekend that militias in the service of the U.S.-backed Iraqi government in Baghdad tried to kill him, former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, and other secular Iraqi nationalists by planting a car bomb in the Baghdad neighborhood where they live.

Aiham Al Sammarae, a former minister of electricity in Allawi's government, says that the bomb was discovered and defused. "I live next door to Allawi," says Sammarae, who returned to Iraq from a conference of leading Iraqi Sunnis in Amman, Jordan, on Sunday. "We found a car bomb behind Allawi's house. It would have destroyed the entire neighborhood."

According to Sammarae, who spoke to me in a lengthy telephone interview from a hotel in Amman, militias tied to the Iraqi government are conducting death squad-style attacks against Sunnis who oppose the Iraqi regime, which is controlled by a pair of ultra-religious, sectarian parties. "A lot of our guys are being killed," he says. The attacks are being carried out "by the government, by militias that are part of the government." (my emphasis)

<snip>

You'd think the fact the government created and installed by the United States is using tactics associated with the dictator who was toppled by the March 2003, U.S. invasion would be news. (my emphasis) But you'd be wrong. The fundamentalist-led regime is portrayed as the victim of terrorist attacks in one-sided coverage, while the regime's brutal methods go mostly unmentioned.

So dangerous is the situation in Iraq for anti-government activists that Sunni leaders who wanted to map out their campaign to vote down the draft Iraqi constitution on Oct. 15 had to meet in Amman, Jordan, for security reasons. Not only did this extraordinary fact by and large escape the notice of U.S. newspapers, but not a single major U.S. news outlet bothered to cover the three-day opposition meeting in Amman.

Despite lip service in Washington for a policy to include Sunni oppositionists in a broad coalition government in Baghdad, U.S. policy is having precisely the opposite effect: driving Sunnis into a more hard-line stance against the government and destroying any possibility of a national accord. U.S. military operations, such as the recent assault on Tal Afar in northern Iraq, are intensifying just two weeks before the country is to go to the polls.

"How," asks Sammarae, "can the United States attack Sunni cities so heavily now, and the election is in a few weeks? What message are you sending? People I talk to tell me, 'Shut up. How can we participate in talks? They are attacking us.'" Operations like the Tal Afar are increasingly carried out not just by U.S. troops but by thug-like armed forces comprised of Shiite and Kurdish militiamen armed and trained by the United States—a policy almost calculated to enrage and alienate the Sunni population.

(more at link)

My comment:

Considering the growing evidence that it is coalition forces themselves, Britain and U.S., who are planting bombs and killing civilians, it certainly seems that a clear pattern is emerging. The invaders are deliberately supporting and fomenting sectarian strife.

My question is, why? What do the authors of this chaos intend to gain?

sw

wli
09-28-2005, 02:54 PM
They're breaking out right wing death squads again, just like Iran-Contra etc. The "gain" is really just another genocidal assault on the purported leftist elements in the society.

scarletwoman
09-28-2005, 04:25 PM
First he's appointed "ambassador" to Iraq, then bumped up to Director of National Intelligence.

I'm sure he's been very busy directing black ops in Iraq.

sw

bemildred
10-01-2005, 07:25 PM
If the charter does not pass, the occupation has no political fig leaf,
no process for drawdown, no reason to be patient, nothing.

scarletwoman
10-02-2005, 12:46 PM
doesn't fomenting sectarian violence make it LESS likely that there would be a drawdown of U.S. troops?

The "Iraqization" of military forces is NOT going well, so if civil unrest and violence continues to escalate, aren't we just going to keep hearing that the U.S. has to stay in order to "stabilize" the country?

sw

bemildred
10-02-2005, 03:36 PM
You get the new charter, so you can draw down the troops, and
that reduces the incentive to violence, meanwhile you back the
new government, keeping a low profile and hoping for the best.
This is the optimistic version of what happens next.

The point of the "sectarian" violence is to try to get the Iraqis
likely to vote "NO" not to vote, or even better not to be able to vote.
You know, "It was just too unstable in al Anbar province to set up
voting booths", and like that.

There is also desire to divide the nationalist Shi'ia (Moqtada al
Sadr) from the Baathists (Sunni resistance).

Of course, it looks like the government may self-implode before we
even get to the election ...

Darranar
10-02-2005, 07:57 PM
The occupiers wish to coerce and bribe the Shi'ite leadership into allying with them against the Sunni resistance, to secure continued US domination of the country. This is the idea behind the "federalism" arrangement, and it is something the Shi'ite religious leadership is trying to avoid, hence Sistani's skepticism regarding the Constitution and his willingness to let Sadr adopt a fiercely nationalist position on the matter.

I do not know to what degree the occupation is directly involved in the attacks, certainly they are provoking them with their death squads and razings of towns, which is part of the point. Aside from the domestic political concern of moving the troops out and the foreign political concern of having forces ready to invade the next target, one reason they wish to have an Iraqi face on the occupation is to increase Sunni anger against the government, something that is being done with much success.

If the constitution goes through I do not think anything will be resolved; the current situation will merely intensify, with an even fiercer sectarian divide.

bemildred
10-02-2005, 09:59 PM
That al Sistani had to be convinced to let us whup the Sunni for him.
Or maybe more to want to keep us around 'cause the Sunni aren't beaten yet.
It has a certain logic to it, sort of the back side of dividing the
Shi'ia and Sunni nationalists as I was thinking of it. But in either case
its just not time to kick us out yet, is it?

Well, I'll keep it in mind with the other theories.

I agree that the new charter won't do squat, I was merely presenting the
theoretical version, you know like the grateful Iraqi people will welcome
our presence? And it might buy some time here at home if they can fancy
it up enough.