----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 3:04
PM
Subject: [Futurework] Iraq Realities (was
Ramadan....)
Greetings, Harry,
There are several truths about Iraq, and they are
only superficially incongruent. In fact, they are all aspects of the same
situation.
1.
Yes, it is quite possible for Westerners and even Americans to travel about
Iraq safely. The prerequisites are that the visitor not be associated with the
US/UK invasion, that he be in sync logistically with what daily life has
devolved to, and that he fit within the patterns of traditional Iraqi welcome
and hospitality. None of these prerequisites are hard to
meet.
2.
For those who are there with the invasion, they are, to put it simply,
targets. This will get worse and worse, to the point the US seeks a way out.
It may be like the infamous retreat from Viet Nam -- the fatal and egotistic
"peace with Honor" demanded by Nixon and Kissinger. May they answer for the
tens of thousands of lives that were lost as a result. Or it may be like the
retreat from Mogadishu, clean and politically courageous though
embarrassing. With Bush and advisors, it is most likely to be the
former, if Bush is still around to preside over the
defeat.
3.
Iraqis who collaborate with the US are in jeopardy, and there will be some
Iraqis who make a point of harassing and from time to time killing
them. These people are viewed as traitors, though some believe that they
are helping create conditions in which the US will leave.
4.
Iraq and the US invasion will increasingly serve as a magnet to people who are
willing to use force against the American presence in the Middle East and the
Muslim world generally. In the same way that Muslims from all over the
world went to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, so will they go to fight the
US in Iraq. No one should be surprised by this, nor view it as a 'new'
reality. But it is important to realize that the glamour of 'foreign
fighters' not withstanding, as in Afghanistan, the strength and bulk of
resistance to the US occupation of Iraq comes from the Iraqis themselves. They
have plenty of technical military skill, weapons, war materials, training,
communication networks and motivation to do it all themselves. Foreign
assistance will be welcomed and much public relations advantage gained for
them -- solidarity, etc. --
5. Generally, Iraqis do not want the
US to remain in Iraq. No one there is impressed with the 'we are here to
help', 'we are bringing democracy' nonsense. Of course, many Iraqis are
delighted with the US' willingness to pour billions into Iraq and will be
happy to receive portions of that. But this does not translate into approval
of the US invasion or presence. This is a fundamental reality that US
policy-makers seem blissfully unaware of, and part of the overwhelming
ignorance that pervades US knowledge of Iraq and the Middle East,
generally.
6.
To the extent that Westerners start to understand Iraq and the Middle East,
they light of some exotic-sounding factoid, and then see everything that
happens through that perspective. Nowhere is this more evident in the
discovery of shi'is, sunnis, Ba'athists, the 'Sunni Triangle', Marsh Arabs,
etc. The reality is that none of these support the US/UK invasion of presence.
Left alone, I think the chances of a civil war are extremely low, though I
would guess that we would see quite a bit of old scores being evened.
The US presence skews and undermines the process of Iraq rebuilding itself, as
we are 'playing favorites', forcing many Iraqis into collaborating (if only by
dangling money in front of them), and pushing some into guerilla actions
against the occupying forces, and all the social dynamics that go along with
that.
7.
We can foresee Arab-Kurdish fighting, I think. And I don't think that -- stay
or leave -- the US will be able to prevent that. For many decades,
Western powers have tried to favor one ethnic group in the Middle East over
another, and it has never succeeded. Past examples of such efforts
include: Armenia, Kurds, Greeks (in Anatolia), Hashemites, Maronites, Copts,
French pieds-noirs in Algeria, Berbers in Morocco, and Turkish Cypriots. We
have a current example in Palestine, where the West supported Jewish-Zionist
migration and where, it is becoming increasingly clear, only disaster
awaits.
8.
All but the hard-core Ba'athists were delighted to get rid of Saddam Hussein
-- no doubt about that! But that does not mean that the US is welcome to
stay. The Iraqis are a pretty sophisticated people, compared to
Americans, and are far more able to rebuild their country than anyone
else. The notion that they need outside help is, to put it simply,
laughable, though it would be nice if the US and others compensated Iraq for
the economic suffering and destruction caused by the sanctions and
invasion.
Best
regards,
Lawry
Lawry,
Keith, in particular, was not very happy about my
posting Stein's article, in which he wandered around the hinterland of Iraq,
including Saddam land and the northern oilfield, apparently without being
harmed or even fearing harm.
This, because Stein's truth was not the revealed
truth of most of the journalists who report on Iraq. Then I posted, Jon
North of England's Channel four who visited Baghdad, expecting the worst
(like many UK news outlets, bad news is good news). He spent the day at the
races along with thousands of other Iraqis. The biggest danger seemed to be
emptying your wallet. Maybe things are not so bad as some people
hope that are.
This anti-Bush fervore really prevents
people from thinking and observing.
One notes that a couple of people with
rifles practically brought DC to its knees. I would place the happenings in
Iraqi in the same category.
Relatively few people -- with some certainly
from across the borders -- causing lots of trouble.
Serious? Certainly, because they kill people and
cause heavy damage.
Absolute disaster? No, it's just something to
be dealt with.
Harry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:16
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Ramadan a
launch date for global terror?
So
Lawry who do you trust?
Good morning Karen and all,
After a interesting start some time back, "Stratfor" has revealed
itself as predominantly interested in Israeli affairs.This means that
everything that touches on Israel's security is viewed through an
Israel-first perspective. This is another of those. The subject of
terrorism has been one of the topics so exploited. The writer
reveals himself ignorant of:
1. Ramadan and its meaning
2. Terror organizations, their capabilities and their
communications
3. Al-Qaida
The US will find it useful to blame resistance in Iraq on 'bad
guys', including 'foreign fighters.' By doing so, the US hopes to
regalvanize domestic support for our actions in Iraq. But keep in
mind that the US does not have much of a local human intelligence
capability in the Middle East. We depend much on others to tell us what is
going on there. Like the "WMD" fakery, the US is prone to be taken in on
other matters, including 'foreign fighters' and 'global terrorism'. The
difference this time around may be that our journalists, having been burnt
once, may this time insist on some of the first-hand checking of
facts that journalists are supposed to do.
Meanwhile, I would recommend a healthy dose of skepticism on
anything coming from "Startfor".
Best regards,
Lawry
Stratfor Weekly (free intel)
10.27.03: Ramadan attacks raise fears of global
violence
Key selected excerpts:
"The
string of attacks in Iraq raises an alarming question for U.S. and other
Western countries fighting al Qaeda: Were these attacks a symbolic
trigger -- a message from al Qaeda to its allies around the globe -- to
kickstart
a campaign of
attacks against Western allies, assets and infrastructure across the
globe? Although the answer currently is unclear, the bombings will cause
Western governments and businesses to respond as though Ramadan will be
a month of bloodletting.
...The
ability of militant Islamist organizations to act in
concert on a global scale is a
critical concern for the United States and its allies. Washington's war
against al Qaeda is in part psychological, and both sides need to
demonstrate that the other cannot operate globally without substantial
risk. Al Qaeda hopes to raise the costs of U.S. involvement in the Gulf
region high enough that Washington will pull out. The United States
needs to break al Qaeda's global network so that it eventually can back
the group's leadership into a geographic corner, lock it down and
finally quash its operational capability.
...
Who carried out the attacks remains unclear, and the suspect list is
long. The multiple
attacks, coordinated within a 45-minute window and
targeting sites in the central, north, south and western parts of the
city, indicate that the
group responsible is sophisticated, has
a solid
knowledge of the areas and experience in planning and logistics
necessary for carrying out such operations.
...Decision-makers
in Washington, London, Canberra, Madrid and elsewhere will be desperate
to know the answers to these questions: Were these attacks dictated
solely by local issues? Were they conducted by the Sunni guerrillas or
foreign fighters? Are they tied only to the U.S. occupation in Iraq, or
are they meant to signal to groups -- such as the Jemaah Islamiyah in
Indonesia, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Salafist Group for Preaching
and Combat in Algeria and the Aden-Abyan Army in Yemen or sleeper cells
in the United States -- to launch their own attacks against Westerners
and their allies?
Al
Qaeda is a global network but also an operational unit formerly based in
Afghanistan that might still be directing attacks against the United
States and its allies in the Gulf. Al
Qaeda Prime, the
senior leadership's operating unit based in Afghanistan -- which
conducted the Sept. 11 attacks and other major operations -- has never
used symbolic dates for operational
activities.
... Al
Qaeda Prime still needs to show that it continues to survive if it hopes
to take the war against the Americans beyond the Gulf.
Using
the start of Ramadan as an agreed launch date for a
global terrorism campaign would resonate with radicals throughout the
world.
..
Western governments are worried about Ramadan attacks.
Australia,
Britain and the United States all
warned their citizens within the last few days of specific plots in
Saudi Arabia........A spate
of bombings in Los
Angeles, New Delhi, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Sydney would serve as a
remarkable victory for al Qaeda and a mortal blow to the U.S. war
against terrorism. (end
of excerpts. Attached in full)
