Saddam Hussein arrested part II

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Not if the hole is filled with C4, or God forbid, poison gas.

play the probabilities. if they start filling tons of holes w/ it. adapt.

naming an anomoly and passing it off as a counterargument is weak.

[lord of the mark]

adeed dawish, in Journal for Democracy, via Oxblog

"The coalition forces have faced serious difficulties in Iraq, and these were apparently intensifying as the end of the year approached. But to portray these difficulties as definitively signifying the failure of the reconstruction or Iraqis’ rejection of the U.S.- and British-led coalition’s plans for their country would be a mistake, since it would mean unrealistically discounting many positive developments that augur well for Iraq’s future as a free, democratic, peaceful, and law-governed country. Iraq is obviously not out of the woods, but to pronounce the coalition’s effort a failure after just a few months of reconstruction following decades of dictatorship would be premature, to say the least....

In the early days after Saddam’s fall it was reported that one could buy five hand grenades for a dollar in the main markets in broad daylight. Some improvement had occurred by August, when the price had reportedly risen to $3 per grenade, though a bulk rate of $20 for ten grenades was also said to be available. Most of the armaments come from looted government arsenals: The CPA estimates that Saddam stockpiled a staggering 600,000 tons of arms and munitions. After six months of occupation, coalition forces had been able to destroy or secure no more than about 75,000 tons—or 12.5 percent—of the deadly stuff....

While the situation in Iraq gives rise to much concern, it is not by any stretch of the imagination desperate. Many observers, perhaps focusing too heavily on day-to-day media coverage, seem unable to shift their attention from the security situation to other developments in the country, many of which give grounds for optimism. Perhaps first among these is that Iraqis on the whole have chosen the path of peace. It is unfortunate that many in the Arab and Western press have bestowed on the perpetrators of attacks against coalition forces the grandiose label “the Iraqi resistance.” Such a categorization, whether purposely or inadvertently, creates an impression of a universal phenomenon supported by most Iraqis. Nothing could be further from the truth....

Probably the most encouraging development in Iraq has been the surge of activity at the level of local self-government and civil society. Most Iraqi towns and cities—including the major conurbations of Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, and Kirkuk—now have governing councils that have been chosen through consensual processes, often involving elections. In most cases these councils have run the affairs of their towns either in cooperation with, or independently of, coalition forces. The case of genuine “grassroots democracy” in Baghdad is particularly interesting. Suffering from widespread lawlessness, the city was still able in the fall of 2003 to form 88 neighborhood councils, which then in turn elected a 37-member council for the whole city.12 These councils will over time prove to be indispensable agents not only for political stability, but for the growth of a democratic political culture and institutional ensemble in the new Iraq.

Without a doubt, the mushrooming of local self-government councils
has been one of the major success stories of the occupation. Even those councils that have not been elected have been selected through peaceful and relatively (or even impressively) consensual means, in more than a few cases with initial advice and assistance from coalition military officers, and are providing scope for unprecedented amounts of open debate and citizen participation....

The mushrooming of political parties, syndicates, and newspapers
signals a nascent political pluralism upon which democracy can be built."

[GePap]

The worse the dictatorship, the harder the transition, not simpler. As for trying in Egypt and Syria, certaintly I did not mean the US could, or should, invade the make democracy-instead that if democracy wewre to start to flourish there it would have a better chance than in complex Iraq.

As of Latin America, the spread of dmeocracy begun in 1990, not the 70's. The 80's was a very violent time. If you look at Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, and Venezuela, all have had very difficult time either politically or eocnomically or both since 1990- in Peru they had Fujimori, in Bolivia the pres. just got thrown out, in Venezuela you have Chavez: all these were democracoes driven by internal change and they have faced difficulties, and few of these states have the same level or ethnic and religious variance Iraq has.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The worse the dictatorship, the harder the transition, not simpler. As for trying in Egypt and Syria, certaintly I did not mean the US could, or should, invade the make democracy-instead that if democracy wewre to start to flourish there it would have a better chance than in complex Iraq.

As of Latin America, the spread of dmeocracy begun in 1990, not the 70's. The 80's was a very violent time. If you look at Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, and Venezuela, all have had very difficult time either politically or eocnomically or both since 1990- in Peru they had Fujimori, in Bolivia the pres. just got thrown out, in Venezuela you have Chavez: all these were democracoes driven by internal change and they have faced difficulties, and few of these states have the same level or ethnic and religious variance Iraq has.

ISTR that the wave of democratization began in Ecuador in the late '70s. There was uneven spread after that. Argentina went to democracy after the Falklands war in 1984. Pinochet didnt finally depart till the '90s, etc. It was a long process.

Chavez and Fujimori make interesting cases. One capitalist, one socialist. Both poularly elected, who used illiberal means in power (perhaps Fujomoris more than Chavez) Fujimori eventually thrown out, Chavez on the ropes.

If you mean to suggest that at some point in the future, when US troops are gone, Iraq might be taken over by an illiberal elected president, running a far more open society than Saddam's, and who after several years will then fall, and that theres say a 40% chance of that happening - well Id have to agree. And I would suggest that this would STILL be not only far better than Iraq under Saddam, it would be far better than whats found almost anywhere else in the middle east, and would still likely accelerate the process of democratic change in the region.

[GePap]

If Iraq ends up being just another MIddle East regime, then the notion that democracy is going to flourish is absurd. Iraq could very well go the way of Central Asia.

I also don;t believe the democratic domino theory that is being passed around. If iraq ends up being a Kurdish and Shi'a run dmeocracy, it's worth as a model to the Sunni Arab world is dimished. BUt it will take decades for Iraq to be a worthwhile example anyway-and as I say over and over, this bunch in power seems to me to be the worse group in the US possible to carry out this dream correctly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
If Iraq ends up being just another MIddle East regime, then the notion that democracy is going to flourish is absurd. Iraq could very well go the way of Central Asia.

I also don;t believe the democratic domino theory that is being passed around. If iraq ends up being a Kurdish and Shi'a run dmeocracy, it's worth as a model to the Sunni Arab world is dimished. BUt it will take decades for Iraq to be a worthwhile example anyway-and as I say over and over, this bunch in power seems to me to be the worse group in the US possible to carry out this dream correctly.

1. Re another mideast regime - what i said was that if it becomes like another contemporary Latin American regime, which would be FAR BETTER than almost any mid east regime. Though not like a western european regime.

2. A shia demo not a model - well thats a good point. Though if Iraq only proves a model for Iran that would be a mighty good thing. And I do agree that integrating sunnis into the system is important for IRaq to serve as a model. But im quite sure at least SOME sunni arabs will be integrated, and fairly soon, even if half or more of the sunnis take longer to integrate. My impression is that the Sunnis are not a homogeneous block - they differ by class, by urbanization, by locality and by tribe.

3. re the current bunch

I largely agree with you - i think neither Powell and the Saudi friendly realists, nor the unilateralists like Cheney and Rummy really "get" the democracy pushing thing - I think its really only Wolfie and Feith among the key players who do. 9/11 pushed their way thinking to the fore, since the admin didnt really have any better strategy they could agree on. Id be much happier if Joe Lieberman were running this, rather than Bush. But we are where we are.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

. But im quite sure at least SOME sunni arabs will be integrated, and fairly soon, even if half or more of the sunnis take longer to integrate. My impression is that the Sunnis are not a homogeneous block - they differ by class, by urbanization, by locality and by tribe.

.

which returns us to gepaps original point - what difference does saddams capture make? One could well argue, BASED ON CURRENT EXPRESSIONS OF SUNNI OPINION, that im overly optimistic - that at least 90% of all sunnis are bitterly opposed to the occupation, the IGC, and the coalition backed political process. Even if this is so, we must ask about the context and origin of this opinion - does it truely represent Sunni attitudes to ANY democracy in Iraq, given that any conceivable democracy will represent a lessening in Sunni arab power? Or is it a response to current conditions - to coalition failure to establish order, to the rise in street crime, to massive unemployment, and, at least in most Sunni arab areas outside of Baghdad to the very limited nature of reconstruction? IF the capture of Saddam leads to a decline in the insurgency, as it may, then it should be possible to extend order, and with it economic recovery to the sunni areas. Will many sunnis still oppose the new order? probably. Will the opposition be as widespread as now? I think it will not be, though of course I cant prove that.

[Ramo]

Written right before the capture of Saddam:

In Iraq's Sunni heartland, rebels have a new cause
They're against Saddam and occupiers

But the real fear is rising Shiite power


MITCH POTTER
MIDDLE EAST BUREAU

FALLUJA, Iraq? There is a new kind of resistance taking hold in this rebel stronghold of Iraq's seething Sunni triangle and its name is not Saddam Hussein.

Nor, in fact, is it composed of imported fighters serving the call of Al Qaeda.

Though Baath party loyalists and foreign jihadists are almost exclusively cited by American-led coalition authorities as the sources of the insurgency that continues to harass Iraq's stability, the streets of Falluja are filled with talk of a patriot uprising far more grassroots in nature.

On paper ? and there is paper, in leaflet form, making the rounds in this city 60 kilometres west of Baghdad ? at least one branch of the new resistance calls itself the Popular Iraqi Liberation Front.

Its avowed mission: ousting the occupation forces.

But not in the name of Saddam.

The group is calling for the United Nations, the Arab League and the Islamic Conference to take over the task of giving Iraq back to the Iraqis.

"The front claims its legal responsibility for all the armed actions against the American and British occupying forces and their allies," the pamphleteers said in a notice picked off a Falluja street this week.

"And it also announces its non-alliance with the oppressive Baath regime. There is no link between the current popular and national resistance and any oppressive Baath regime resistance."

In a threatening aside to the Iraqi police, the group warned that members of the newly constituted security force are under continuing surveillance and any information provided to the occupying forces "will cost you a just price."

And in an aside to Iraqis at large, the pamphleteers disclaim any responsibility for acts of sabotage against Iraqi infrastructure, blaming instead the Americans and British "as efforts to plant sedition and hatred between the resisters and the people."

Many in Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland would love to persuade the rest of the country the conflict is as simple as this. But in one of the world's most complicated societies, it stands to reason that what exists now is one of the world's most complicated resistance movements.

There are indeed many Baath loyalists waging war, and indeed some foreign jihadists, although coalition sources privately admit their numbers may be far fewer than first believed.

And even those homegrown Iraqi mujahedeen warriors who denounce both Saddam and the occupation in the same breath appear to be fighting what they perceive as a horrifying threat to generations of Sunni privilege as much as an infidel occupation.

Fully eight months after the fall of Saddam, something appears to be happening in the Sunni Muslim heartland so favoured by his largesse. Pugnacious anti-Americanism remains as strong as ever, but the motivation behind it appears to be changing from an almost sullen longing for the way things were to a more survivalist and clearly sectarian view of what will come next.

"We confess Saddam was a bad man. And he was Sunni," said Falluja shopkeeper Omar Ali Jasm, 28, who described himself as "a sympathizer to the new Sunni political movement" represented by the pamphlets now papering the triangle.

`Iraq needs us. We are the only ones who can run this country. This is our history.'

Omar Ali Jasm, Sunni shopkeeper

"We in the resistance also hate him. Our struggle is not to get him back. It is about stopping the Shiites from taking power and destroying Iraq," he said.

"Iraq needs us. We are the only ones who can run this country. This is our history."

If Jasm and other Sunnis in Falluja suffer from a decidedly undemocratic sense of entitlement about the notions of the new Iraq, they come by it honestly. For it was not only Saddam, but also the British mandarins of the early 20th century, and indeed the Ottoman Turks, who saw in the Sunni minority the makings of natural leadership.

By contrast, Iraq's historically vanquished Shiite majority ? now comprising at least 60 per cent of Iraq's estimated 25 million people ? is warming to the idea of democracy as never before. Let the voting begin now is the message from the Shiite spiritual leaders of Najaf.

But with centuries of historic advantage at stake, the living generations of Sunnis weaned on 35 years of dictatorial brutality are starting to make the sounds of a post-Saddam ultimatum: no peace with democracy.

"The Shiites are not the kind of people who can rule even themselves, let alone a country," Jasm said. "They can play a role, but not as leaders. They are influenced by Iran. And we believe they will try to run the country according to religion. It won't work."

The overlapping tribal and Islamic loyalties of Iraq's Sunni population are all the more indecipherable now, as leaders in both camps duck journalists for fear of risking arrest on the basis of pro-resistance statements or, alternately, failing to empathize with grassroots resentment.

But in the backroads of Falluja, Sheikh Bilah Ahmed Ismail, an Islamic scholar specializing in sharia law, was unafraid to speak. Seated in a spartan living room as U.S. F-16 warplanes flew overhead, Ismail offered clear delineations on how and why the resistance will continue.

"Even many Sunnis suffered under Saddam. Some of the resistance is fighting in his name, but the stronger voice among Sunnis is fighting against his name," said Ismail.

"So the mujahedeen of the resistance, Saddam has nothing to do with them. Instead, they fight for two reasons: We will never accept colonization; we see a national task to drive the Americans from our country.

"And just as important, we fear Shiite power."

Ismail said the call has been taken up virtually across the tribal spectrum. And though the imams of Falluja and other Sunni cities have gone silent, their voice is hardly needed.

"There is no need for the imam to speak out. We already know. He will be arrested for speaking of jihad. Islam says very clearly that everybody is obliged to join jihad to defend people, country, property," he said.

Discord among the varying threads of rebellion centres on the targets. For Ismail and many others, the distinction between resistance and sabotage should be clearly drawn.

"Anyone who attacks a pipeline with bombs is wrong. They deserve to be turned in to the (coalition) authorities," he said.

"Anyone who attacks Iraqi policemen, they are also wrong. And anyone who would attack the United Nations, or the clerics of Najaf, they too are wrong.

"For these acts, I blame the infiltrators to Iraq. As Donald Rumsfeld confessed, Iraq is becoming a front for terrorism. We don't need these people. And it was the Americans who opened the borders and allowed them to come."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1071272706076&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

[lord of the mark]

"FALLUJA, Iraq"


Confirms my sense that Fallujah has the largest non-Baathist Sunni insurgency. Probably nearby Khaldiya as well.