San Jose Mercury News
How U.S. missteps may cloud Iraqi vote: "Posted on Sun, Jan. 23, 2005
San Jose Mercury News--Perspective Section P-1
Sunday, January 23, 2005
How U.S. missteps may cloud Iraqi vote
By William O. Beeman
The United States was determined from the outset to keep religious Shiites from power in Iraq. The administration's assumption is that governments based in Islamic law are dangerous to the United States and that Iran's religious rulers would gain more control of the region if their fellow Shiites took over in Baghdad.
Just one week before the scheduled Iraqi elections, the administration is just where it didn't want to be. There are two ``lists'' of candidates most likely to win the majority of Assembly seats in the upcoming elections -- and one of them consists of predominantly religious Shiites. The second list, also mostly Shiite, is openly secular and backed by the United States.
It is probably no surprise, then, that the United States has tried to help the secular slate to victory, including by facilitating up to a million Iraqis living outside the country -- a group perceived as more secular -- to vote. At the top of that slate is Ayad Allawi, the current prime minister. The U.S.-backed Allawi is a former Baathist who broke with Saddam Hussein and later was associated with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. If he continues in power, he almost certainly will favor a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.
Among the many unanswered questions in next Sunday's election -- beyond whether militant Sunnis will hopelessly disrupt the voting -- are whether U.S. support will help or hurt the Allawi slate and whether the United States will try to control the outcome of the election further.
Will the U.S. military, for instance, work hard to ensure calm in more secular Baghdad to let more voters get to the polls"
Monday, January 31, 2005
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Informed Comment
Informed Comment--Iraqi Electoral Lists, courtesy of Juan Cole
Juan Cole has kindly posted a translation of the Electoral Lists for the January 30 election in Iraq, courtesy of a "kind person in Baghdad." Cole's Blog--Informed Comment--is essential reading for anyone interested in Iraq, or on the Middle East in general. Profssor Cole has made enormous personal sacrifices to make his expertise available to the public to great, good effect.
Juan Cole has kindly posted a translation of the Electoral Lists for the January 30 election in Iraq, courtesy of a "kind person in Baghdad." Cole's Blog--Informed Comment--is essential reading for anyone interested in Iraq, or on the Middle East in general. Profssor Cole has made enormous personal sacrifices to make his expertise available to the public to great, good effect.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Shi'aphobia I: The Iran-Iraq Connection
"Shi'aphobia I: The Iran-Iraq Connection
by William O. BeemanReleased: 3 Jan 2005
As the Iraqi election begins to loom on the horizon, the world is witnessing a growing epidemic of Shi'aphobia -- fear of the Iraqi majority Shi'a community, and the role it might play in a future Iraqi state. These fears are overwrought.
The Sunni community is fearful because it realizes that it can not have a significant role in a future Iraq if the Shi'a population dominates by voting in a bloc, as seems almost inevitable.
The Kurds are afraid that a Shi'a dominated government will be unsympathetic to the continuation of their semi-autonomous state in northern Iraq.
The Bush administration and its neoconservative surrogates are the most frightened of all. They have convinced themselves that Shi'a victory in the election will result in the unambiguous failure of their Iraqi adventure. This will supposedly come about as the victorious Shi'a ally themselves with Iran and start taking orders from Tehran. They will supposedly then establish a religious dictatorship, persecute the Sunnis, overrun the Kurds, and kick the American military out of their land.
All of these scenarios are unwarranted-unless the attacks against the Shi'a become so acute that they touch off a cycle of revenge, and an eventual civil war.
The Sunnis are making the most dramatic physical attacks on the Shi'a. They started a year and a half ago on August 28, 2003 by assassinating Ayatollah Baqer al-Hakim -- significantly, in front of the shrine of Imam Ali, who was cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed, and the only Caliph of Islam to rule unambiguously over Shi'a and Sunni believers.
Recently, the attacks have continued to target Shi'a believers in Shi'a shrines in Karbala and Najaf, t"
by William O. BeemanReleased: 3 Jan 2005
As the Iraqi election begins to loom on the horizon, the world is witnessing a growing epidemic of Shi'aphobia -- fear of the Iraqi majority Shi'a community, and the role it might play in a future Iraqi state. These fears are overwrought.
The Sunni community is fearful because it realizes that it can not have a significant role in a future Iraq if the Shi'a population dominates by voting in a bloc, as seems almost inevitable.
The Kurds are afraid that a Shi'a dominated government will be unsympathetic to the continuation of their semi-autonomous state in northern Iraq.
The Bush administration and its neoconservative surrogates are the most frightened of all. They have convinced themselves that Shi'a victory in the election will result in the unambiguous failure of their Iraqi adventure. This will supposedly come about as the victorious Shi'a ally themselves with Iran and start taking orders from Tehran. They will supposedly then establish a religious dictatorship, persecute the Sunnis, overrun the Kurds, and kick the American military out of their land.
All of these scenarios are unwarranted-unless the attacks against the Shi'a become so acute that they touch off a cycle of revenge, and an eventual civil war.
The Sunnis are making the most dramatic physical attacks on the Shi'a. They started a year and a half ago on August 28, 2003 by assassinating Ayatollah Baqer al-Hakim -- significantly, in front of the shrine of Imam Ali, who was cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed, and the only Caliph of Islam to rule unambiguously over Shi'a and Sunni believers.
Recently, the attacks have continued to target Shi'a believers in Shi'a shrines in Karbala and Najaf, t"
The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - Najaf's growing influence is a key to Iranian moderation
The Daily Star - Opinion Articles - Najaf's growing influence is a key to Iranian moderation: "Najaf's growing influence is a key to Iranian moderation
By William O. Beeman
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
As the Iraqi election looms at the end of this month, the world is witnessing a growing epidemic of Shiite-phobia - fear of the Iraqi majority Shiite community and the role it might play in a future Iraqi state. These fears are overwrought.
The Sunni community is fearful because it realizes that it cannot have a significant role in a future Iraq if the Shiites dominate by voting in a bloc, as seems almost inevitable. The Kurds are afraid that a Shiite-dominated government will be unsympathetic to the continuation of their semi-autonomous entity in northern Iraq.
However, it is the Bush administration and its neoconservative members who are the most frightened of all. They have convinced themselves that a Shiite victory in the election will result in the unambiguous failure of their Iraqi adventure. This will supposedly come about because the victorious Shiites will ally themselves with Iran and start taking orders from Tehran. They will supposedly then establish a religious dictatorship, persecute the Sunnis, overrun the Kurds, and kick the American military out of their land.
All of these catastrophe scenarios are unwarranted - unless the attacks against the Shiites become so acute that they touch off a cycle of revenge, and an eventual civil war.
The Sunnis are mounting the most dramatic physical attacks on the Shiites. They started a year and a half ago on August 28, 2003, by assassinating the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqer al-Hakim - significantly, in front of the shrine of Imam Ali, who was cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mo"
By William O. Beeman
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
As the Iraqi election looms at the end of this month, the world is witnessing a growing epidemic of Shiite-phobia - fear of the Iraqi majority Shiite community and the role it might play in a future Iraqi state. These fears are overwrought.
The Sunni community is fearful because it realizes that it cannot have a significant role in a future Iraq if the Shiites dominate by voting in a bloc, as seems almost inevitable. The Kurds are afraid that a Shiite-dominated government will be unsympathetic to the continuation of their semi-autonomous entity in northern Iraq.
However, it is the Bush administration and its neoconservative members who are the most frightened of all. They have convinced themselves that a Shiite victory in the election will result in the unambiguous failure of their Iraqi adventure. This will supposedly come about because the victorious Shiites will ally themselves with Iran and start taking orders from Tehran. They will supposedly then establish a religious dictatorship, persecute the Sunnis, overrun the Kurds, and kick the American military out of their land.
All of these catastrophe scenarios are unwarranted - unless the attacks against the Shiites become so acute that they touch off a cycle of revenge, and an eventual civil war.
The Sunnis are mounting the most dramatic physical attacks on the Shiites. They started a year and a half ago on August 28, 2003, by assassinating the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqer al-Hakim - significantly, in front of the shrine of Imam Ali, who was cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mo"
Attacking Ayatollah Khamene'i: a Dangerous Misunderstanding
Shi'aphobia II--Attacking Ayatollah Khamene'i: a Dangerous Misunderstanding: "Shi'aphobia II--Attacking Ayatollah Khamene'i: a Dangerous Misunderstanding
William O. Beeman and Donald Weadon
The United States government is unable to abandon an obsessive view that the Iranian government is working to destroy the success of the U.S. Occupation of Iraq. The Administration and its neoconservative surrogates fear a Shi'a victory in upcoming Iraqi elections. They also cling to the false assumption that the Iraqi Shi'a are being supported by the Iranian state, and derive all of their power from Tehran. This view has generated many bizarre suggestions for action which, being misguided and counterproductive, should be abandoned.
Rather than attack the Iraqi Shi'a directly-an action that even the most ham-fisted policy wonk can see as disastrous - the Administration, a stampeded Congress and neoconservative conflict enthusiasts have chosen to attack Iran. The accepted theory seems to be that if Iran is destroyed, the power of the Iraqi Shi'a will atrophy.
The ongoing squabble over Iranian nuclear development is a transparent ploy to give the United States a plausible excuse for launching a widely-discussed military enterprise. The probability of such an attack is now so high that the debates in Washington revolve around how to do the deed, rather than if. Rumors of a signed Presidential Directive for covert and military action abound.
One perscription for constructive action short of military attack was recently forwarded by The Committee on the Present Danger, a neoconservative group 'Dedicated to Winning the War on Terrorism' and to that end, dedicated to regime change in Iran. Their paper, 'Iran-A New Approach,' was published on"
William O. Beeman and Donald Weadon
The United States government is unable to abandon an obsessive view that the Iranian government is working to destroy the success of the U.S. Occupation of Iraq. The Administration and its neoconservative surrogates fear a Shi'a victory in upcoming Iraqi elections. They also cling to the false assumption that the Iraqi Shi'a are being supported by the Iranian state, and derive all of their power from Tehran. This view has generated many bizarre suggestions for action which, being misguided and counterproductive, should be abandoned.
Rather than attack the Iraqi Shi'a directly-an action that even the most ham-fisted policy wonk can see as disastrous - the Administration, a stampeded Congress and neoconservative conflict enthusiasts have chosen to attack Iran. The accepted theory seems to be that if Iran is destroyed, the power of the Iraqi Shi'a will atrophy.
The ongoing squabble over Iranian nuclear development is a transparent ploy to give the United States a plausible excuse for launching a widely-discussed military enterprise. The probability of such an attack is now so high that the debates in Washington revolve around how to do the deed, rather than if. Rumors of a signed Presidential Directive for covert and military action abound.
One perscription for constructive action short of military attack was recently forwarded by The Committee on the Present Danger, a neoconservative group 'Dedicated to Winning the War on Terrorism' and to that end, dedicated to regime change in Iran. Their paper, 'Iran-A New Approach,' was published on"
Agence Global - Article
Agence Global - Article: "Cowards and Bullies�The American Election Dilemma
by William O. BeemanReleased: 26 Oct 2004
Why is the American presidential election of 2004 so difficult? The answer may lie in an understanding of American culture. In many elections voters are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. In this election, they are choosing the lesser of two fears.
In her classic work on American Culture, And Keep Your Powder Dry, anthropologist Margaret Mead explained America�s two great fears in pursuing power in the world: The fear of being a coward and the fear of being a bully. This year�s presidential race seems to be driven by precisely those fears.
According to Mead, Americans hate both characterizations. Americans tell their children that they must never be a coward--failing to defend self, family and loved ones. Yet, having attained power, they must never use it to become a bully--coercing and intimidating others.
Mead was writing during World War II, but her observations are eerily accurate for America�s presidential elections in 2004.
Those who fear that the United States is seen as a bully in the world oppose President George W. Bush, who embodies the essence of bully-dom both in his tough talk and his pre-emptive military aggression. His colleagues in the White House: Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft become, with him, a �gang of four,� running roughshod over both the U.S. domestic population and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. This group takes as the Machiavellian dictum �it is safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking.� In their actions they fulfill the worst stereotype of the hated schoolyard aggressor.
Those who fear that the United States will be seen as a coward oppose Senator John Kerry. They see consultation, coalition bu"
by William O. BeemanReleased: 26 Oct 2004
Why is the American presidential election of 2004 so difficult? The answer may lie in an understanding of American culture. In many elections voters are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. In this election, they are choosing the lesser of two fears.
In her classic work on American Culture, And Keep Your Powder Dry, anthropologist Margaret Mead explained America�s two great fears in pursuing power in the world: The fear of being a coward and the fear of being a bully. This year�s presidential race seems to be driven by precisely those fears.
According to Mead, Americans hate both characterizations. Americans tell their children that they must never be a coward--failing to defend self, family and loved ones. Yet, having attained power, they must never use it to become a bully--coercing and intimidating others.
Mead was writing during World War II, but her observations are eerily accurate for America�s presidential elections in 2004.
Those who fear that the United States is seen as a bully in the world oppose President George W. Bush, who embodies the essence of bully-dom both in his tough talk and his pre-emptive military aggression. His colleagues in the White House: Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft become, with him, a �gang of four,� running roughshod over both the U.S. domestic population and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. This group takes as the Machiavellian dictum �it is safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking.� In their actions they fulfill the worst stereotype of the hated schoolyard aggressor.
Those who fear that the United States will be seen as a coward oppose Senator John Kerry. They see consultation, coalition bu"
Agence Global - Article
Agence Global - Article: "Good News from Tajikistan
by William O. BeemanReleased: 13 Aug 2004
Most Americans would have a hard time identifying Tajikistan on a map, but this small Central Asian nation is a ray of hope in a troubled region. With a rising economy and increasing personal freedom, there is genuine good news here. Tajik citizens, who have suffered greatly in the past, are cautious, however. They wonder if the positive developments will last, and hint that there may be a dark side to the current improvements in their lives.
A review of the recent history of Tajikistan reveals a grim litany of social, political and environmental problems that justify a cautious look at the changes taking place in Tajikistan. Concerns about political corruption, media censorship, drug trade and its accompanying HIV/AIDS afflictions, water pollution, and economic desperation are endemic to this region of the world, and Tajikistan has more than its share of these problems.
But I have been working in Tajikistan for the past seven years, and having spent a month this summer visiting every region of the country, I can state unequivocally that life has been visibly improving from year to year with a big spurt in the last year. Civil liberties have increased significantly since the debilitating civil wars of the mid 1990�s. Food is abundant, and construction is active everywhere. The cities are looking very spiffy, and the countryside is green and lush. Internet cafes -- the modernization symbol of choice these days -- are abundant, even in smaller towns.
Tajikistan has always had extensive natural resources. The dramatically beautiful Fan and Pamir mountain ranges are the sources of water for abundant hydroelectric electricity. Although the amount of arable land is small, it is highly fertile. Agricultural production has increased"
by William O. BeemanReleased: 13 Aug 2004
Most Americans would have a hard time identifying Tajikistan on a map, but this small Central Asian nation is a ray of hope in a troubled region. With a rising economy and increasing personal freedom, there is genuine good news here. Tajik citizens, who have suffered greatly in the past, are cautious, however. They wonder if the positive developments will last, and hint that there may be a dark side to the current improvements in their lives.
A review of the recent history of Tajikistan reveals a grim litany of social, political and environmental problems that justify a cautious look at the changes taking place in Tajikistan. Concerns about political corruption, media censorship, drug trade and its accompanying HIV/AIDS afflictions, water pollution, and economic desperation are endemic to this region of the world, and Tajikistan has more than its share of these problems.
But I have been working in Tajikistan for the past seven years, and having spent a month this summer visiting every region of the country, I can state unequivocally that life has been visibly improving from year to year with a big spurt in the last year. Civil liberties have increased significantly since the debilitating civil wars of the mid 1990�s. Food is abundant, and construction is active everywhere. The cities are looking very spiffy, and the countryside is green and lush. Internet cafes -- the modernization symbol of choice these days -- are abundant, even in smaller towns.
Tajikistan has always had extensive natural resources. The dramatically beautiful Fan and Pamir mountain ranges are the sources of water for abundant hydroelectric electricity. Although the amount of arable land is small, it is highly fertile. Agricultural production has increased"
Agence Global - Article
Agence Global - Article: "Blaming Iran for Everything (Again)
by William O. BeemanReleased: 21 Jul 2004
The Bush administration is now perpetually under fire for the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also faces criticism for its failings in preparing for and reacting to the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Consequently it has adopted an old, tried and true ploy of muddying the waters to deflect negative press: Blame Iran for everything.
On July 17, President Bush stated that although the Central Intelligence Agency had found 'no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of Sept.11,' nevertheless, he said, 'We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved.' What is he referring to? Some of the September 11 hijackers may have been allowed to travel through Iran in 1991 without having their passports stamped. This trivial event, if it happened at all, took place a decade before the tragedy itself. Moreover, it predates the earliest known Al-Qaeda planning concerning the September 11 plot.
And accusations against Iran do not stop with September 11. Resident analysts at the neo-conservative, right-wing American Enterprise Institute and other similar bodies have tried to blame Iran for the faulty intelligence presented to justify the Iraq war by the Bush administration. The scenario is this: Iran wanted the United States to remove its old enemy, Saddam Hussein. Iranian intelligence therefore worked through the Defense Department�s now-discredited leader-in-waiting, Ahmad Chalabi, to provide false information to U.S. officials about weapons of mass destruction.
Iran has also been accused of supporting Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his al-Mahdi Army in their opposition to the U.S. occupation. The accusation came from neo-conservative pundit, Michael Rubin, who until recently was an advisor to"
by William O. BeemanReleased: 21 Jul 2004
The Bush administration is now perpetually under fire for the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also faces criticism for its failings in preparing for and reacting to the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Consequently it has adopted an old, tried and true ploy of muddying the waters to deflect negative press: Blame Iran for everything.
On July 17, President Bush stated that although the Central Intelligence Agency had found 'no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of Sept.11,' nevertheless, he said, 'We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved.' What is he referring to? Some of the September 11 hijackers may have been allowed to travel through Iran in 1991 without having their passports stamped. This trivial event, if it happened at all, took place a decade before the tragedy itself. Moreover, it predates the earliest known Al-Qaeda planning concerning the September 11 plot.
And accusations against Iran do not stop with September 11. Resident analysts at the neo-conservative, right-wing American Enterprise Institute and other similar bodies have tried to blame Iran for the faulty intelligence presented to justify the Iraq war by the Bush administration. The scenario is this: Iran wanted the United States to remove its old enemy, Saddam Hussein. Iranian intelligence therefore worked through the Defense Department�s now-discredited leader-in-waiting, Ahmad Chalabi, to provide false information to U.S. officials about weapons of mass destruction.
Iran has also been accused of supporting Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his al-Mahdi Army in their opposition to the U.S. occupation. The accusation came from neo-conservative pundit, Michael Rubin, who until recently was an advisor to"
Agence Global - Article
Agence Global - Article: "The Kurds are Betrayed �Again
by William O. BeemanReleased: 10 Jun 2004
'The Kurds have no friends,' is a bitter Kurdish proverb stemming from centuries of mistreatment at the hands of outside powers. In the Iraqi settlement agreement, pushed through the United Nations Security Council by the United States, the Bush administration has now proven the truth of the Kurdish proverb once more. Only this time, this American mistake may launch the long-feared Iraqi civil war.
The U. N. settlement agreement, Resolution 1546 (2004), endorses the timetable for the political transition leading to a constitutionally elected government by 31 December 2005, as well as the convening of a national conference. However, the resolution makes no mention of Kurdish independence or even autonomy, thus cheating the Kurds of the homeland for which they have longed for centuries.
It further tells the Kurds that they will never be able to be selected as President or Prime Minister of the country. In the interim government Kurds were indeed represented, but the highest echelons of power eluded them. The best they could do was Vice-president (Roj Nuri Shawis), Deputy Prime Minister for national security (Barham Saleh) and perhaps most important, Foreign Minister (Hoshyar Zebari). Barham Saleh in particular will be under a great deal of pressure from his own community as a result of the U. N. resolution, since he has been heavily backed by the United States.
This is not the first time the Kurds have been sacrificed to expediency. Articles 62 to 65 of the Treaty of S�vres, signed on 10 August 1920 between Ottoman Empire and the Allied powers (including the United States), provided for the formation of an autonomous Kurdish administration out of the Southeast Provinces of Turkey. The Kurds of northern Ir"
by William O. BeemanReleased: 10 Jun 2004
'The Kurds have no friends,' is a bitter Kurdish proverb stemming from centuries of mistreatment at the hands of outside powers. In the Iraqi settlement agreement, pushed through the United Nations Security Council by the United States, the Bush administration has now proven the truth of the Kurdish proverb once more. Only this time, this American mistake may launch the long-feared Iraqi civil war.
The U. N. settlement agreement, Resolution 1546 (2004), endorses the timetable for the political transition leading to a constitutionally elected government by 31 December 2005, as well as the convening of a national conference. However, the resolution makes no mention of Kurdish independence or even autonomy, thus cheating the Kurds of the homeland for which they have longed for centuries.
It further tells the Kurds that they will never be able to be selected as President or Prime Minister of the country. In the interim government Kurds were indeed represented, but the highest echelons of power eluded them. The best they could do was Vice-president (Roj Nuri Shawis), Deputy Prime Minister for national security (Barham Saleh) and perhaps most important, Foreign Minister (Hoshyar Zebari). Barham Saleh in particular will be under a great deal of pressure from his own community as a result of the U. N. resolution, since he has been heavily backed by the United States.
This is not the first time the Kurds have been sacrificed to expediency. Articles 62 to 65 of the Treaty of S�vres, signed on 10 August 1920 between Ottoman Empire and the Allied powers (including the United States), provided for the formation of an autonomous Kurdish administration out of the Southeast Provinces of Turkey. The Kurds of northern Ir"
Agence Global - Article
Agence Global - Article: "Prime-Minister Iyad Allawi Guarantees Chalabi's Power
by William O. BeemanReleased: 29 May 2004
The choice of Iyad Allawi as prime-minister designate of Iraq further cements Ahmad Chalabi�s hold on power, virtually guaranteeing that he and his family will be the rulers of Iraq in the future. A look at the post-June 30 government reveals that virtually all of the players are from the Chalabi extended family.
Iyad Allawi is related to Ahmad Chalabi by blood and marriage, and in Middle Eastern terms, is part of his extended family. Though somewhat distantly related by American standards, Allawi and Chalabi would be expected to be in close contact in the tightly knit, almost corporate kinship networks of the Middle East.
Ahmad Chalabi has been the Iraqi leader of choice by Donald Rumsfeld and the American Department of Defense since long before the invasion of Iraq. In him they felt they had a reliable �plumber� who could represent American interests. Since he would be beholden to the United States for his office, he would �cooperate� with the United States in military, political and economic matters. Chalabi was somewhat discredited in recent weeks for having misled the United States concerning the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and for his undisguised ambitions for power. Supporting a surrogate for himself from his own family was diabolically clever on his part, allowing him to bide his time until after the American presidential election, when he could emerge to assume a clear leadership position.
Although Ahmad Chalabi was not present for the vote on Iyad Allawi, his representative cast a positive vote. It is notable that in choosing Allawi, the council also acceded to Ahmad Chalabi�s wish that they not choose the neutral, 80-year-old Sunni, Adnan Pachachi, former Iraqi "
by William O. BeemanReleased: 29 May 2004
The choice of Iyad Allawi as prime-minister designate of Iraq further cements Ahmad Chalabi�s hold on power, virtually guaranteeing that he and his family will be the rulers of Iraq in the future. A look at the post-June 30 government reveals that virtually all of the players are from the Chalabi extended family.
Iyad Allawi is related to Ahmad Chalabi by blood and marriage, and in Middle Eastern terms, is part of his extended family. Though somewhat distantly related by American standards, Allawi and Chalabi would be expected to be in close contact in the tightly knit, almost corporate kinship networks of the Middle East.
Ahmad Chalabi has been the Iraqi leader of choice by Donald Rumsfeld and the American Department of Defense since long before the invasion of Iraq. In him they felt they had a reliable �plumber� who could represent American interests. Since he would be beholden to the United States for his office, he would �cooperate� with the United States in military, political and economic matters. Chalabi was somewhat discredited in recent weeks for having misled the United States concerning the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and for his undisguised ambitions for power. Supporting a surrogate for himself from his own family was diabolically clever on his part, allowing him to bide his time until after the American presidential election, when he could emerge to assume a clear leadership position.
Although Ahmad Chalabi was not present for the vote on Iyad Allawi, his representative cast a positive vote. It is notable that in choosing Allawi, the council also acceded to Ahmad Chalabi�s wish that they not choose the neutral, 80-year-old Sunni, Adnan Pachachi, former Iraqi "
Agence Global - Article
Agence Global - Article: "The House of Chalabi: The Future of Iraq?
by William O. BeemanReleased: 20 May 2004
On May 20, U.S. forces raided the offices of Ahmad Chalabi, seizing documents and computers. Conventional wisdom is that Mr. Chalabi has now been discredited as a future Iraqi leader. Appearances are deceptive, however. In a few months Ahmad Chalabi will be the next ruler of Iraq, starting what looks to be a hereditary regime.
He is establishing himself in all of the key structures of government from his position on the Iraqi Governing Council including the Council's economic and finance committee, which he heads. He also heads the De-Baathification Commission and has been able to appoint the minister of oil, the central bank governor, the minister of finance, the trade minister, the head of the trade bank and the designated managing director of the largest commercial bank in Iraq.
These officials are all beholden to him, but to make sure that his support in the future government will be solid, Chalabi has created extra insurance by installing his relatives everywhere in the post June 30th governmental structure, in true Middle Eastern fashion. They are the most loyal employees of all, and his potential successors. First and foremost among them are his nephews.
The term �nepotism� comes from the Italian nepote �nephew.� Mr. Chalabi has nephews galore. If anyone tries to prevent him from his ruthless ascendancy to power, his nephews are there to provide the tools to destroy his enemies. He has them well positioned in the judiciary, in the military and in finance to anchor all of his other appointees. After June 30, when there is little or no competing administrative organization in Iraq, such as the Coalition Provisional Authority, it will be hard to prevent Chalabi from assuming power with such str"
by William O. BeemanReleased: 20 May 2004
On May 20, U.S. forces raided the offices of Ahmad Chalabi, seizing documents and computers. Conventional wisdom is that Mr. Chalabi has now been discredited as a future Iraqi leader. Appearances are deceptive, however. In a few months Ahmad Chalabi will be the next ruler of Iraq, starting what looks to be a hereditary regime.
He is establishing himself in all of the key structures of government from his position on the Iraqi Governing Council including the Council's economic and finance committee, which he heads. He also heads the De-Baathification Commission and has been able to appoint the minister of oil, the central bank governor, the minister of finance, the trade minister, the head of the trade bank and the designated managing director of the largest commercial bank in Iraq.
These officials are all beholden to him, but to make sure that his support in the future government will be solid, Chalabi has created extra insurance by installing his relatives everywhere in the post June 30th governmental structure, in true Middle Eastern fashion. They are the most loyal employees of all, and his potential successors. First and foremost among them are his nephews.
The term �nepotism� comes from the Italian nepote �nephew.� Mr. Chalabi has nephews galore. If anyone tries to prevent him from his ruthless ascendancy to power, his nephews are there to provide the tools to destroy his enemies. He has them well positioned in the judiciary, in the military and in finance to anchor all of his other appointees. After June 30, when there is little or no competing administrative organization in Iraq, such as the Coalition Provisional Authority, it will be hard to prevent Chalabi from assuming power with such str"
Agence Global - Article
Agence Global - Article: "Schizophrenia on Iran's Role in Iraq
by William O. BeemanReleased: 15 Apr 2004
The Bush administration is clearly confused about what to do with the current military debacle in Iraq, but nothing shows their confusion more acutely than their inability to decide what Iran�s role should be there, now and in the future.
U.S. attacks against the young militant cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr over the last month were most likely prompted by the Defense Department�s chosen ruler-in-waiting, Ahmad Chalabi, who saw him as a threat to his own future rule of Iraq. On April 4, American chief administrator Paul Bremer announced the new defense minister for the post-June 30 government, Ali Allawi, who is Mr. Chalabi's nephew. The attack against Mr. al-Sadr's organization took place the day before on April 3. The coincidence is hard to dismiss.
When al-Sadr struck back with his al-Mahdi Army, the first accusation out of the gate was that he was �supported by Iran.� The accusation came from neo-conservative, Michael Rubin, who until recently was an advisor to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.
Rubin laid out a baroque set of connections between Iran and al-Sadr. Rubin named Ayatollah Kazim al-Husayni al-Haeri, a cleric based in the Iranian shrine city of Qom, as a conduit of funding to Mr Sadr. Predictably, the news headline became, �Iran supports al-Sadr rebellion!� Having briefed the Department of Defense on this implausible scenario, he also published it on April 6 in the National Observer, the virtual house organ of the American Enterprise Institute, where he is a fellow.
The cry was quickly taken up by conservative New York Times columnists William Safire and David Brooks, thus ensuring that this tenuous connection would become common wisdom.
Rubin�s story i"
by William O. BeemanReleased: 15 Apr 2004
The Bush administration is clearly confused about what to do with the current military debacle in Iraq, but nothing shows their confusion more acutely than their inability to decide what Iran�s role should be there, now and in the future.
U.S. attacks against the young militant cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr over the last month were most likely prompted by the Defense Department�s chosen ruler-in-waiting, Ahmad Chalabi, who saw him as a threat to his own future rule of Iraq. On April 4, American chief administrator Paul Bremer announced the new defense minister for the post-June 30 government, Ali Allawi, who is Mr. Chalabi's nephew. The attack against Mr. al-Sadr's organization took place the day before on April 3. The coincidence is hard to dismiss.
When al-Sadr struck back with his al-Mahdi Army, the first accusation out of the gate was that he was �supported by Iran.� The accusation came from neo-conservative, Michael Rubin, who until recently was an advisor to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.
Rubin laid out a baroque set of connections between Iran and al-Sadr. Rubin named Ayatollah Kazim al-Husayni al-Haeri, a cleric based in the Iranian shrine city of Qom, as a conduit of funding to Mr Sadr. Predictably, the news headline became, �Iran supports al-Sadr rebellion!� Having briefed the Department of Defense on this implausible scenario, he also published it on April 6 in the National Observer, the virtual house organ of the American Enterprise Institute, where he is a fellow.
The cry was quickly taken up by conservative New York Times columnists William Safire and David Brooks, thus ensuring that this tenuous connection would become common wisdom.
Rubin�s story i"
Agence Global - Article
Agence Global - Article: "The United States has no Contract with Iraq
by William O. BeemanReleased: 8 Apr 2004
Suddenly Iraq has exploded in our face, and the White House has no plan to contain the violence. The Bush administration can speak all it wants to about Al-Qaeda, the world terrorist threat, and the holy mission of democratizing Iraq, but the plain truth is that America has failed in Iraq because our officials have failed at grass roots politics.
The United States has established no social contract with the Iraqi people and thus it has no authority to lead. It is no surprise, therefore, that our troops are fair game on all fronts.
The Bush Administration continues to maintain a mythology: that those attacking American troops are a monolithic enemy spurred on by 'external forces.' 'We1re not going to be intimidated by thugs and assassins,' announced President Bush in a speech on April 6.
These are brave words, but merely labeling all the attackers with a single set of adjectives does not establish them as a unified group. In fact, it hinders creating an effective defense, by blurring the lines that separate the attackers. These attackers belong to disparate, unconnected groups whose concerns are local. Moreover, they are unmotivated and unaffected by the likes of Osama bin Laden.
So now Iraq is a free-for-all. Different groups are attacking the United States for completely different reasons. They are even attacking the United States as a vehicle for weakening each other in a prelude to what appears to be a potential civil war. Though their motives differ, the groups are unified in one sense: each individual group views their attacks on the United States as justified, if not admirable.
The attacks in the Sunni Arab towns of Ramadi (Ramadiyah) and Falluja bear all the cultural marks of "
by William O. BeemanReleased: 8 Apr 2004
Suddenly Iraq has exploded in our face, and the White House has no plan to contain the violence. The Bush administration can speak all it wants to about Al-Qaeda, the world terrorist threat, and the holy mission of democratizing Iraq, but the plain truth is that America has failed in Iraq because our officials have failed at grass roots politics.
The United States has established no social contract with the Iraqi people and thus it has no authority to lead. It is no surprise, therefore, that our troops are fair game on all fronts.
The Bush Administration continues to maintain a mythology: that those attacking American troops are a monolithic enemy spurred on by 'external forces.' 'We1re not going to be intimidated by thugs and assassins,' announced President Bush in a speech on April 6.
These are brave words, but merely labeling all the attackers with a single set of adjectives does not establish them as a unified group. In fact, it hinders creating an effective defense, by blurring the lines that separate the attackers. These attackers belong to disparate, unconnected groups whose concerns are local. Moreover, they are unmotivated and unaffected by the likes of Osama bin Laden.
So now Iraq is a free-for-all. Different groups are attacking the United States for completely different reasons. They are even attacking the United States as a vehicle for weakening each other in a prelude to what appears to be a potential civil war. Though their motives differ, the groups are unified in one sense: each individual group views their attacks on the United States as justified, if not admirable.
The attacks in the Sunni Arab towns of Ramadi (Ramadiyah) and Falluja bear all the cultural marks of "
Pacific News Service > News > The Emerging Shiite Bloc
Pacific News Service > News > The Emerging Shiite Bloc: "The Emerging Shiite Bloc
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, May 21, 2003
The U.S. lifted the veil on the real face of power in Iraq by bringing down the secular regime of Saddam Hussein. A powerful Shiite Muslim bloc now exists across the Middle East. PNS contributor William O. Beeman probes the religious, social and political reasons for its strength.
The war in Iraq has produced an unintended consequence -- a formidable Shiite Muslim geographical bloc that will dominate politics in the Middle East for many years. This development is also creating political and spiritual leaders of unparalleled international influence.
It is easy to see the Shiite lineup. Iran and Iraq have a Shiite majority, and so does Bahrain. In Lebanon, Shiites are a significant plurality. In Syria, although they are a minority, they are the dominant power in government. They are the majority in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and have a significant presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
The United States is used to thinking of the world in terms of individual nation-states. But the Shiites are a transnational force.
The United States unwittingly supplied the key linkage for this bloc. By destroying the secular government of Saddam Hussein, it brought that country's Shiite majority to the fore, revealing a solid line of Shiite majority nations from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea.
This force is magnified because devout Shiite followers have a primary loyalty to spiritual leaders rather than secular officials, and that leadership is supremely well equipped to secure the loyalty of its followers. Shiite leaders are organized, well funded, and set up to provide charitable aid, health care "
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, May 21, 2003
The U.S. lifted the veil on the real face of power in Iraq by bringing down the secular regime of Saddam Hussein. A powerful Shiite Muslim bloc now exists across the Middle East. PNS contributor William O. Beeman probes the religious, social and political reasons for its strength.
The war in Iraq has produced an unintended consequence -- a formidable Shiite Muslim geographical bloc that will dominate politics in the Middle East for many years. This development is also creating political and spiritual leaders of unparalleled international influence.
It is easy to see the Shiite lineup. Iran and Iraq have a Shiite majority, and so does Bahrain. In Lebanon, Shiites are a significant plurality. In Syria, although they are a minority, they are the dominant power in government. They are the majority in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and have a significant presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
The United States is used to thinking of the world in terms of individual nation-states. But the Shiites are a transnational force.
The United States unwittingly supplied the key linkage for this bloc. By destroying the secular government of Saddam Hussein, it brought that country's Shiite majority to the fore, revealing a solid line of Shiite majority nations from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea.
This force is magnified because devout Shiite followers have a primary loyalty to spiritual leaders rather than secular officials, and that leadership is supremely well equipped to secure the loyalty of its followers. Shiite leaders are organized, well funded, and set up to provide charitable aid, health care "
Pacific News Service > News > Washington's Iran Accusations Aimed at Justifying Regime Change
Pacific News Service > News > Washington's Iran Accusations Aimed at Justifying Regime Change: "Washington's Iran Accusations Aimed at Justifying Regime Change
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, May 27, 2003
None of the Bush administration's recent accusations against Iran - that it is developing nuclear weapons, that it harbors al Qaeda or that it is linked to the recent Riyadh bombing in Saudi Arabia - stand up to scrutiny, writes PNS contributor William O. Beeman.
The United States has accused Iran of harboring al Qaeda leaders. There is not a shred of evidence that this is true. The accusation is so insubstantial that it leads one to believe that the accusation is a prelude to some dramatic political or military move, such as an attempt at regime change in Iran.
The latest accusation is nothing new. The United States has a long list of unsubstantiated accusations against Iran. These fall into several categories of supposition:
Forward accusations about what Iran is likely to do in the future, such as develop nuclear weapons.
Unproven suspicions of Iranian involvement in past attacks against the United States, such as the 1996 attacks on the Al Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
Complicity with American enemies, such as the accusation that Iran is harboring al Qaeda leaders.
All these charges fall apart upon closer examination.
Iran's nuclear program was advised and engineered by the United States. In the 1960s, before North Sea and Alaskan oil had been developed, the United States urged Iran to develop nuclear power, as a way of saving its oil reserves for high- value uses such as petrochemical and pharmaceutical production. In reality, America wanted Iran to save its oil for the use of the West. The United States"
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, May 27, 2003
None of the Bush administration's recent accusations against Iran - that it is developing nuclear weapons, that it harbors al Qaeda or that it is linked to the recent Riyadh bombing in Saudi Arabia - stand up to scrutiny, writes PNS contributor William O. Beeman.
The United States has accused Iran of harboring al Qaeda leaders. There is not a shred of evidence that this is true. The accusation is so insubstantial that it leads one to believe that the accusation is a prelude to some dramatic political or military move, such as an attempt at regime change in Iran.
The latest accusation is nothing new. The United States has a long list of unsubstantiated accusations against Iran. These fall into several categories of supposition:
Forward accusations about what Iran is likely to do in the future, such as develop nuclear weapons.
Unproven suspicions of Iranian involvement in past attacks against the United States, such as the 1996 attacks on the Al Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
Complicity with American enemies, such as the accusation that Iran is harboring al Qaeda leaders.
All these charges fall apart upon closer examination.
Iran's nuclear program was advised and engineered by the United States. In the 1960s, before North Sea and Alaskan oil had been developed, the United States urged Iran to develop nuclear power, as a way of saving its oil reserves for high- value uses such as petrochemical and pharmaceutical production. In reality, America wanted Iran to save its oil for the use of the West. The United States"
Pacific News Service > News > Rumblings in Azerbaijan -- Bush's Hawks Eye Northern Iran
Pacific News Service > News > Rumblings in Azerbaijan -- Bush's Hawks Eye Northern Iran: "Rumblings in Azerbaijan -- Bush's Hawks Eye Northern Iran
Commentary/Analysis, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Jun 06, 2003
Editor's Note: Bush administration meetings with a charismatic leader from one of Iran's most fiercely independent regions suggest the White House is plotting its next regime change.
Washington officials continue to look for a way to dislodge the clerical leadership of Iran's Islamic Republic. The latest ploy may be to inflame passions in the most politically active part of Iran -- Azerbaijan.
According to the Washington Times, Pentagon officials have been meeting quietly with Mahmud Ali Chehregani, who heads the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakeness Movement (SANAM, also known by the acronym GAMOH). SANAM operates inside Iran, in the Iranian province of Azerbaijan -- a region separate from the country of Azerbaijan, the former Soviet republic on Iran's northern border. Defense officials emphasized their meetings were not aimed at supporting or encouraging a change in Iran's government, according to the Times. It is hard to believe such an assertion.
It is now no secret that the Bush administration would like to see regime change in Iran. However, military planners know that an Iraq-style invasion could not win in a military conflict with Iranian troops. Therefore the most satisfactory strategy for the White House hawks will be to try to find an indigenous resistance movement, provide it with financial and possibly logistical support, and hope for the best.
Chehregani seems ideal. He is an academic (a linguist), and a charismatic figure. He was a popular Majlis (parliament) representative from Azerbaijan, elected with 60"
Commentary/Analysis, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Jun 06, 2003
Editor's Note: Bush administration meetings with a charismatic leader from one of Iran's most fiercely independent regions suggest the White House is plotting its next regime change.
Washington officials continue to look for a way to dislodge the clerical leadership of Iran's Islamic Republic. The latest ploy may be to inflame passions in the most politically active part of Iran -- Azerbaijan.
According to the Washington Times, Pentagon officials have been meeting quietly with Mahmud Ali Chehregani, who heads the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakeness Movement (SANAM, also known by the acronym GAMOH). SANAM operates inside Iran, in the Iranian province of Azerbaijan -- a region separate from the country of Azerbaijan, the former Soviet republic on Iran's northern border. Defense officials emphasized their meetings were not aimed at supporting or encouraging a change in Iran's government, according to the Times. It is hard to believe such an assertion.
It is now no secret that the Bush administration would like to see regime change in Iran. However, military planners know that an Iraq-style invasion could not win in a military conflict with Iranian troops. Therefore the most satisfactory strategy for the White House hawks will be to try to find an indigenous resistance movement, provide it with financial and possibly logistical support, and hope for the best.
Chehregani seems ideal. He is an academic (a linguist), and a charismatic figure. He was a popular Majlis (parliament) representative from Azerbaijan, elected with 60"
Pacific News Service > News > Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis (Part 1)
Pacific News Service > News > Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis (Part 1): "Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis (Part 1)
News Analysis, William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer,
Pacific News Service, Jun 26, 2003
Editor's Note: The Bush administration is turning up the heat on Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, but the authors say the evidence just isn't there. Part 1 of a two-part series.
President Bush declared on June 25 that 'we will not tolerate' a nuclear armed Iran. His words are empty. The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.
Iran is building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Bushehr with Russian help. The existence of the site is common knowledge. It has been under construction for more than three decades, since before the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
Two other nuclear research facilities, now under development, have come to light: a uranium enrichment plant in the city of Natanz and a deuterium ('heavy water') facility in the city of Arak. Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not.
The Bushehr plant is only part of the argument that Iran is embarked on a nuclear weapons program, but it is the part that can readily be analyzed. State Department accusations of dangerous Iranian intentions for the Natanz and Arak facilities are based on a patchwork of untestable, murky assertions from dubious sources, including the People's Mujahedeen (Mujahedeen-e Khalq, MEK or MKO), which the United States identifies as a terrorist organization. These sources assert that there are centrifuges for enriching uranium (a"
News Analysis, William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer,
Pacific News Service, Jun 26, 2003
Editor's Note: The Bush administration is turning up the heat on Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, but the authors say the evidence just isn't there. Part 1 of a two-part series.
President Bush declared on June 25 that 'we will not tolerate' a nuclear armed Iran. His words are empty. The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.
Iran is building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Bushehr with Russian help. The existence of the site is common knowledge. It has been under construction for more than three decades, since before the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
Two other nuclear research facilities, now under development, have come to light: a uranium enrichment plant in the city of Natanz and a deuterium ('heavy water') facility in the city of Arak. Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not.
The Bushehr plant is only part of the argument that Iran is embarked on a nuclear weapons program, but it is the part that can readily be analyzed. State Department accusations of dangerous Iranian intentions for the Natanz and Arak facilities are based on a patchwork of untestable, murky assertions from dubious sources, including the People's Mujahedeen (Mujahedeen-e Khalq, MEK or MKO), which the United States identifies as a terrorist organization. These sources assert that there are centrifuges for enriching uranium (a"
Pacific News Service > News > Is Iran Building Nukes? An Economic Analysis (Part 2)
Pacific News Service > News > Is Iran Building Nukes? An Economic Analysis (Part 2): "Is Iran Building Nukes? An Economic Analysis (Part 2)
News Analysis, William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer,
Pacific News Service, Jun 27, 2003
The Bush administration argues that nuclear power generation makes no sense for an oil-rich country like Iran, implying that the country's power plants are for arms manufacture. The authors examine the facts. Part 2 of a two- part series.
The furor in Washington over possible nuclear weapons development in Iran is fueled in part because Bush administration officials claim that Iran doesn't need to generate nuclear power. They assert that Iran's nuclear energy program is unnecessary given its oil reserves. Therefore, officials say, its nuclear plants must exist for weapons production.
In fact, for Iran, generating nuclear power makes sense. Moreover, the plans to do this were started decades ago, and with American approval.
Ex-CIA director James Woolsey, in an interview on the PBS program Frontline on Feb. 23, claimed 'there is no underlying (reason) for one of the greatest oil producers in the world to need to get into the nuclear (energy) business.'
At first glance, such logic seems sound. Countries with vast oil reserves also have large reserves of natural gas sitting on top of those reserves. Some years ago, the natural gas was regularly burned off to get at the oil beneath. However, technological advances today make it feasible to use this gas for power generation.
Even so, nuclear power still makes sense in a country with vast amounts of natural gas, particularly given the unusual circumstances in the Iranian hydrocarbons industry. There are needs for gas in Iran that command much higher prioriti"
News Analysis, William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer,
Pacific News Service, Jun 27, 2003
The Bush administration argues that nuclear power generation makes no sense for an oil-rich country like Iran, implying that the country's power plants are for arms manufacture. The authors examine the facts. Part 2 of a two- part series.
The furor in Washington over possible nuclear weapons development in Iran is fueled in part because Bush administration officials claim that Iran doesn't need to generate nuclear power. They assert that Iran's nuclear energy program is unnecessary given its oil reserves. Therefore, officials say, its nuclear plants must exist for weapons production.
In fact, for Iran, generating nuclear power makes sense. Moreover, the plans to do this were started decades ago, and with American approval.
Ex-CIA director James Woolsey, in an interview on the PBS program Frontline on Feb. 23, claimed 'there is no underlying (reason) for one of the greatest oil producers in the world to need to get into the nuclear (energy) business.'
At first glance, such logic seems sound. Countries with vast oil reserves also have large reserves of natural gas sitting on top of those reserves. Some years ago, the natural gas was regularly burned off to get at the oil beneath. However, technological advances today make it feasible to use this gas for power generation.
Even so, nuclear power still makes sense in a country with vast amounts of natural gas, particularly given the unusual circumstances in the Iranian hydrocarbons industry. There are needs for gas in Iran that command much higher prioriti"
Pacific News Service > News > After Saddam, the Deluge: U.S. Misjudges What Dictator's Downfall Will Bring
Pacific News Service > News > After Saddam, the Deluge: U.S. Misjudges What Dictator's Downfall Will Bring: "After Saddam, the Deluge: U.S. Misjudges What Dictator's Downfall Will Bring
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Jul 24, 2003
Editor's Note: The drama of the hunt for Saddam Hussein and the recent killing of his two sons can't hide the fact that taking out an evil dictator may paradoxically bring more ruin to Iraq.
Finding Saddam Hussein is 'definitely the most important thing we have to do right now,' declared Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in the wake of the killing of Saddam's sons on July 22.
But what should be worrying Wolfowitz is not how to find Saddam, but how to contain the disintegration of Iraq that looms even as U.S. forces try to track Hussein down and put a definitive end to his rule.
From the outset, the neoconservative theory of the Iraqi war promoted by Wolfowitz, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Advisor Richard Pearl, among others, was simplistic. It asserted that Saddam and his sons held the nation in a reign of terror and the removal of these terrible tyrants would be greeted with gratitude and cooperation among the Iraqi people and lead to an instant national solidarity and the rise of a democratic state.
This theory is not dead, as seen in the White House's stated belief that eliminating Saddam once and for all is the key to peace and order in Iraq. However, as evil as he was, Saddam paradoxically unified rather than divided Iraq and provided order, albeit repressive.
Iraq was a misbegotten nation, cobbled together from three provinces of the Ottoman Empire with spit, bailing wire and the British Army after World War I. The Britons crown"
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Jul 24, 2003
Editor's Note: The drama of the hunt for Saddam Hussein and the recent killing of his two sons can't hide the fact that taking out an evil dictator may paradoxically bring more ruin to Iraq.
Finding Saddam Hussein is 'definitely the most important thing we have to do right now,' declared Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in the wake of the killing of Saddam's sons on July 22.
But what should be worrying Wolfowitz is not how to find Saddam, but how to contain the disintegration of Iraq that looms even as U.S. forces try to track Hussein down and put a definitive end to his rule.
From the outset, the neoconservative theory of the Iraqi war promoted by Wolfowitz, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Advisor Richard Pearl, among others, was simplistic. It asserted that Saddam and his sons held the nation in a reign of terror and the removal of these terrible tyrants would be greeted with gratitude and cooperation among the Iraqi people and lead to an instant national solidarity and the rise of a democratic state.
This theory is not dead, as seen in the White House's stated belief that eliminating Saddam once and for all is the key to peace and order in Iraq. However, as evil as he was, Saddam paradoxically unified rather than divided Iraq and provided order, albeit repressive.
Iraq was a misbegotten nation, cobbled together from three provinces of the Ottoman Empire with spit, bailing wire and the British Army after World War I. The Britons crown"
Pacific News Service > News > Japan's Hidden Agenda in Iraq
Pacific News Service > News > Japan's Hidden Agenda in Iraq: "Japan's Hidden Agenda in Iraq
Commentary/Analysis, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Jul 31, 2003
Editor's Note: The Bush administration, in encouraging Japan to send troops to Iraq and break its longstanding post-World War II prohibition against troop deployments on foreign soil, may have helped open a can of worms in East Asia.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, with Bush administration support, is pursuing a dangerous political course. By committing his nation to military involvement in Iraq, he's trying to end one of the last vestiges of World War II -- the prohibition against Japanese military action on foreign soil.
His effort is problematic on many fronts. Most seriously, it paves the way for Japanese military action against North Korea.
Koizumi fought fiercely for parliament's approval of a bill that would 'allow the dispatch of troops from the Japanese Self Defense Forces' to Iraq for peacekeeping operations.
In late July, after fierce public outcry, Koizumi back-pedaled, pointing out that the bill 'is not one that requires the sending of Self-Defense Forces...it's a bill that allows the dispatch of the SDF.'
On July 31, a delegation of Japanese lawmakers was dispatched to Iraq to assess whether it is safe enough for Japanese forces.
For most other nations, a troop deployment abroad would be uncontroversial. But for Japan, it will be the first since World War II, except for U.N.-sanctioned peacekeeping operations. It has, therefore, an enormous symbolic meaning for the Japanese.
For much of the Japanese public, militarism is the hallmark of the ultra-nationalism that fueled Japanese involvement in World War II. The Jap"
Commentary/Analysis, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Jul 31, 2003
Editor's Note: The Bush administration, in encouraging Japan to send troops to Iraq and break its longstanding post-World War II prohibition against troop deployments on foreign soil, may have helped open a can of worms in East Asia.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, with Bush administration support, is pursuing a dangerous political course. By committing his nation to military involvement in Iraq, he's trying to end one of the last vestiges of World War II -- the prohibition against Japanese military action on foreign soil.
His effort is problematic on many fronts. Most seriously, it paves the way for Japanese military action against North Korea.
Koizumi fought fiercely for parliament's approval of a bill that would 'allow the dispatch of troops from the Japanese Self Defense Forces' to Iraq for peacekeeping operations.
In late July, after fierce public outcry, Koizumi back-pedaled, pointing out that the bill 'is not one that requires the sending of Self-Defense Forces...it's a bill that allows the dispatch of the SDF.'
On July 31, a delegation of Japanese lawmakers was dispatched to Iraq to assess whether it is safe enough for Japanese forces.
For most other nations, a troop deployment abroad would be uncontroversial. But for Japan, it will be the first since World War II, except for U.N.-sanctioned peacekeeping operations. It has, therefore, an enormous symbolic meaning for the Japanese.
For much of the Japanese public, militarism is the hallmark of the ultra-nationalism that fueled Japanese involvement in World War II. The Jap"
Pacific News Service > News > Killing of Ayatollah Is Start of Iraqi Civil War
Pacific News Service > News > Killing of Ayatollah Is Start of Iraqi Civil War: "Killing of Ayatollah Is Start of Iraqi Civil War
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Aug 29, 2003
The bombing of one of Islam's holiest shrines not only killed an important Shi'a leader, it also signals the first shot in an Iraqi civil war that Middle East experts warned would ensue if Saddam were removed without careful planning.Traducci�n al espa�ol
The assassination of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim in Najaf on August 28 is the opening volley in the coming Iraqi Civil War. The United States will reap the whirlwind.
One of the most consistent and ominous prewar warnings to the Bush administration by Middle East experts was that removal of Saddam Hussein without the most careful political and social engineering would result in the breaking apart of Iraq into warring factions that would battle each other for decades.
The hawks in the White House would not listen. They were so wedded to the fantasy scenario that the removal of Saddam in an act of 'creative destruction' would result in the automatic emergence of democracy. They brushed aside all warnings.
Present-day Iraq was three provinces of the Ottoman Empire before World War I. It was cobbled together by the British for their own convenience after that conflict. The British installed a king, the Hashemite son of the chief religious official of Mecca (Faisal, of Lawrence of Arabia Fame) and glued the whole mess together with the resident British Army.
The three regions were incompatible in ethnicity, religious confession and interests. The Sunni Muslim Kurds occupied the north. The Sunni Arab Bedouins occupied the center and Southwest. The Shi'a Arab and Persian population occupied the South and Southe"
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Aug 29, 2003
The bombing of one of Islam's holiest shrines not only killed an important Shi'a leader, it also signals the first shot in an Iraqi civil war that Middle East experts warned would ensue if Saddam were removed without careful planning.Traducci�n al espa�ol
The assassination of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim in Najaf on August 28 is the opening volley in the coming Iraqi Civil War. The United States will reap the whirlwind.
One of the most consistent and ominous prewar warnings to the Bush administration by Middle East experts was that removal of Saddam Hussein without the most careful political and social engineering would result in the breaking apart of Iraq into warring factions that would battle each other for decades.
The hawks in the White House would not listen. They were so wedded to the fantasy scenario that the removal of Saddam in an act of 'creative destruction' would result in the automatic emergence of democracy. They brushed aside all warnings.
Present-day Iraq was three provinces of the Ottoman Empire before World War I. It was cobbled together by the British for their own convenience after that conflict. The British installed a king, the Hashemite son of the chief religious official of Mecca (Faisal, of Lawrence of Arabia Fame) and glued the whole mess together with the resident British Army.
The three regions were incompatible in ethnicity, religious confession and interests. The Sunni Muslim Kurds occupied the north. The Sunni Arab Bedouins occupied the center and Southwest. The Shi'a Arab and Persian population occupied the South and Southe"
Pacific News Service > News > Samarra Massacre Will Haunt U.S. in Iraq
Pacific News Service > News > Samarra Massacre Will Haunt U.S. in Iraq: "Samarra Massacre Will Haunt U.S. in Iraq
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Dec 02, 2003
Editor's Note: The firefight in Samarra, Iraq, will come to haunt U.S. troops in the country, the writer says. The attackers deliberately wore black to evoke symbolic battles from Iraqi history that resonate with Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a alike. Now, the fighters are being hailed as heroes.
U.S. commanders say their troops killed at least 54 Iraqis in the northern city of Samarra on Nov. 30. Townspeople say far fewer died, but that they were mostly civilians. Either way, it was a massacre, and the shocking surprise for Americans is that the organized Iraqi troops who provoked the attack are being hailed as heroes.
Of all the places to incur a military attack in the area that has quixotically become known as the 'Sunni triangle,' Samarra was the worst. It is not only a Sunni Arab stronghold, it is also a shrine city sacred to the Shi'a population of Iraq. In its action, the U.S. military has thus offended almost everyone in Iraq at one fell swoop.
The U.S. troops were provoked into attack, but in retaliation they not only fired on a kindergarten and a mosque, they also fired on those trying to evacuate the wounded.
Such actions make the hearts of Middle East specialists sink, because they create such long-lasting resentment -- the kind that breeds terrorists. Eventually such events lead to perpetual cycles of revenge. Already the residents of Samarra are vowing retribution."
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Dec 02, 2003
Editor's Note: The firefight in Samarra, Iraq, will come to haunt U.S. troops in the country, the writer says. The attackers deliberately wore black to evoke symbolic battles from Iraqi history that resonate with Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a alike. Now, the fighters are being hailed as heroes.
U.S. commanders say their troops killed at least 54 Iraqis in the northern city of Samarra on Nov. 30. Townspeople say far fewer died, but that they were mostly civilians. Either way, it was a massacre, and the shocking surprise for Americans is that the organized Iraqi troops who provoked the attack are being hailed as heroes.
Of all the places to incur a military attack in the area that has quixotically become known as the 'Sunni triangle,' Samarra was the worst. It is not only a Sunni Arab stronghold, it is also a shrine city sacred to the Shi'a population of Iraq. In its action, the U.S. military has thus offended almost everyone in Iraq at one fell swoop.
The U.S. troops were provoked into attack, but in retaliation they not only fired on a kindergarten and a mosque, they also fired on those trying to evacuate the wounded.
Such actions make the hearts of Middle East specialists sink, because they create such long-lasting resentment -- the kind that breeds terrorists. Eventually such events lead to perpetual cycles of revenge. Already the residents of Samarra are vowing retribution."
Pacific News Service > News > Iraq War a Poor Vehicle for the Spread of Democracy
Pacific News Service > News > Iraq War a Poor Vehicle for the Spread of Democracy: "Iraq War a Poor Vehicle for the Spread of Democracy
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Nov 12, 2003
Editor's Note: As the situation in Iraq deteriorates, President Bush has outlined a grand vision for democracy in the Middle East. But the U.S. will have to change tactics quickly if legitimate elected bodies are to rule in Iraq.
The Bush administration is trying to sell the disastrous war in Iraq to the American public as a vehicle for promoting democracy in the Middle East. This approach is misbegotten, especially given the vehicle the United States has chosen to promulgate democratic institutions -- the Iraqi Governing Council.
Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction, the original reason given by the White House for the war, were never found. The administration was forced to admit that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 tragedy, thus eliminating their second reason. With these linchpins in the official justification for the war removed, the entire logic of the operation collapsed.
Even the mantra, 'The Iraqis are better off without Saddam,' began to fall flat, as U.S. mercenary redevelopers Halliburton and Bechtel proved unable to turn on the power and water and as killings of Iraqi citizens became part of the routine of daily life.
Then the worst disaster of all for the Bush administration occurred: American public support for the war dipped precipitously."
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Nov 12, 2003
Editor's Note: As the situation in Iraq deteriorates, President Bush has outlined a grand vision for democracy in the Middle East. But the U.S. will have to change tactics quickly if legitimate elected bodies are to rule in Iraq.
The Bush administration is trying to sell the disastrous war in Iraq to the American public as a vehicle for promoting democracy in the Middle East. This approach is misbegotten, especially given the vehicle the United States has chosen to promulgate democratic institutions -- the Iraqi Governing Council.
Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction, the original reason given by the White House for the war, were never found. The administration was forced to admit that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 tragedy, thus eliminating their second reason. With these linchpins in the official justification for the war removed, the entire logic of the operation collapsed.
Even the mantra, 'The Iraqis are better off without Saddam,' began to fall flat, as U.S. mercenary redevelopers Halliburton and Bechtel proved unable to turn on the power and water and as killings of Iraqi citizens became part of the routine of daily life.
Then the worst disaster of all for the Bush administration occurred: American public support for the war dipped precipitously."
Pacific News Service > News > Bush's New Year's Message Torpedoed U.S.-Iranian Rapprochement
Pacific News Service > News > Bush's New Year's Message Torpedoed U.S.-Iranian Rapprochement: "Bush's New Year's Message Torpedoed U.S.-Iranian Rapprochement
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Jan 05, 2004
Editor's Note: Iran's rejection of a U.S. humanitarian visit clearly came about due largely to an offhand and baseless remark by President Bush, the writer says. Now, two countries that should be seeking improved relations are back to square one.
In one ill-chosen, offhand remark on New Year's Day, President Bush undercut the immediate possibility of improved relations with Iran, savaging the efforts of his own State Department.
It seemed that Washington was at last doing something positive for American-Iranian relations in the wake of the terrible human tragedy of the earthquake in Bam, Iran. The State Department was poised to sponsor a blue-ribbon humanitarian visit by relief experts headed by former Red Cross director, now U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.).
In his remarks on the Bam tragedy, President Bush first praised his own administration for its compassion. Then he knocked the Iranians on the head. 'The Iranian government must listen to the voices of those who long for freedom, must turn over Al Qaeda (members) that are in their custody and must abandon their nuclear weapons program,' Bush said.
The Iranians thanked the United States for its concern, and then rejected the humanitarian visit, saying that such an event was 'premature.'
There is no doubt that President Bush's remarks were the prime reason for the rejection of the humanitarian visit when one examines the reactions of Iranian officials as reported by London's Financial Times and other press sources on Jan. 5. The Iranians immediat"
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Jan 05, 2004
Editor's Note: Iran's rejection of a U.S. humanitarian visit clearly came about due largely to an offhand and baseless remark by President Bush, the writer says. Now, two countries that should be seeking improved relations are back to square one.
In one ill-chosen, offhand remark on New Year's Day, President Bush undercut the immediate possibility of improved relations with Iran, savaging the efforts of his own State Department.
It seemed that Washington was at last doing something positive for American-Iranian relations in the wake of the terrible human tragedy of the earthquake in Bam, Iran. The State Department was poised to sponsor a blue-ribbon humanitarian visit by relief experts headed by former Red Cross director, now U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.).
In his remarks on the Bam tragedy, President Bush first praised his own administration for its compassion. Then he knocked the Iranians on the head. 'The Iranian government must listen to the voices of those who long for freedom, must turn over Al Qaeda (members) that are in their custody and must abandon their nuclear weapons program,' Bush said.
The Iranians thanked the United States for its concern, and then rejected the humanitarian visit, saying that such an event was 'premature.'
There is no doubt that President Bush's remarks were the prime reason for the rejection of the humanitarian visit when one examines the reactions of Iranian officials as reported by London's Financial Times and other press sources on Jan. 5. The Iranians immediat"
Pacific News Service > News > Laws Can't Define 'Man' or 'Woman,' So How Can They Ban Gay Marriage?
Pacific News Service > News > Laws Can't Define 'Man' or 'Woman,' So How Can They Ban Gay Marriage?: "Laws Can't Define 'Man' or 'Woman,' So How Can They Ban Gay Marriage?
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Feb 05, 2004
Editor's Note: Legislators' attempts to codify marriage as 'between a man and a woman' won't work, writes PNS contributor William O. Beeman. Like it or not, there is no single, clear biological, psychological or cultural definition of 'male' and 'female.' Already, courts are faltering on the ambiguity of gender.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court advisory, stating that nothing short of marriage for same-sex couples would satisfy the state constitution, has sent legislators throughout the nation as well as President Bush scrambling to define marriage as between 'one man and one woman.'
These legislative attempts are doomed, because there is no clear, scientific and strict definition of 'man' and 'woman.' There are millions of people with ambiguous gender -- many of them already married -- who render these absolute categories invalid.
There are at least three ways one might try to codify gender under law -- biologically, psychologically and culturally. On close inspection, all of them fail.
Biologically, one must choose either secondary sexual characteristics -- things like facial hair for men or breast development for women -- or genetic testing as defining markers of gender. Neither method is clear-cut. Some women show male secondary characteristics, and vice versa. Before puberty, things are not necessarily any clearer. A significant proportion of all babies have ambiguous gender development. It has been longstanding -- and now, increasingly, controversial -- medical pra"
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Feb 05, 2004
Editor's Note: Legislators' attempts to codify marriage as 'between a man and a woman' won't work, writes PNS contributor William O. Beeman. Like it or not, there is no single, clear biological, psychological or cultural definition of 'male' and 'female.' Already, courts are faltering on the ambiguity of gender.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court advisory, stating that nothing short of marriage for same-sex couples would satisfy the state constitution, has sent legislators throughout the nation as well as President Bush scrambling to define marriage as between 'one man and one woman.'
These legislative attempts are doomed, because there is no clear, scientific and strict definition of 'man' and 'woman.' There are millions of people with ambiguous gender -- many of them already married -- who render these absolute categories invalid.
There are at least three ways one might try to codify gender under law -- biologically, psychologically and culturally. On close inspection, all of them fail.
Biologically, one must choose either secondary sexual characteristics -- things like facial hair for men or breast development for women -- or genetic testing as defining markers of gender. Neither method is clear-cut. Some women show male secondary characteristics, and vice versa. Before puberty, things are not necessarily any clearer. A significant proportion of all babies have ambiguous gender development. It has been longstanding -- and now, increasingly, controversial -- medical pra"
Pacific News Service > News > Violence in Uzbekistan Not the Mark of Al Qaeda
Pacific News Service > News > Violence in Uzbekistan Not the Mark of Al Qaeda: "Violence in Uzbekistan Not the Mark of Al Qaeda
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Mar 30, 2004
Editor's Note: Recent violence in Uzbekistan is likely the result of home-grown frustration with one of the world's most oppressive regimes, the writer says. But by pointing the finger at Al Qaeda, President Islam Karimov, who let U.S. forces use an Uzbek air base during the war in Afghanistan, gets a free pass from the Bush administration on human rights abuses.
Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov has blamed recent violence in his country on 'foreigners,' suggesting possible Al Qaeda connections. Al Qaeda is almost certainly not directly involved. The current suicide bombings and earlier insurrections in 1999 in Uzbekistan's Ferghana valley are the likely result of home-grown, explosive frustration with Karimov's heavy-handed regime.
Why does the mythology of Al Qaeda's connection to these events persist?
The short answer is that the governments of both Uzbekistan and the United States find it politically expedient to promote a false view of this ongoing confrontation. Karimov's government does so to avoid criticism for its own repression of its citizenry; the United States, to continue the image of the 'United States at War,' upon which President Bush is hanging his re-election hopes. "
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Mar 30, 2004
Editor's Note: Recent violence in Uzbekistan is likely the result of home-grown frustration with one of the world's most oppressive regimes, the writer says. But by pointing the finger at Al Qaeda, President Islam Karimov, who let U.S. forces use an Uzbek air base during the war in Afghanistan, gets a free pass from the Bush administration on human rights abuses.
Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov has blamed recent violence in his country on 'foreigners,' suggesting possible Al Qaeda connections. Al Qaeda is almost certainly not directly involved. The current suicide bombings and earlier insurrections in 1999 in Uzbekistan's Ferghana valley are the likely result of home-grown, explosive frustration with Karimov's heavy-handed regime.
Why does the mythology of Al Qaeda's connection to these events persist?
The short answer is that the governments of both Uzbekistan and the United States find it politically expedient to promote a false view of this ongoing confrontation. Karimov's government does so to avoid criticism for its own repression of its citizenry; the United States, to continue the image of the 'United States at War,' upon which President Bush is hanging his re-election hopes. "
Pacific News Service > News > U.S. Failures in Iraq Start at the Grassroots
Pacific News Service > News > U.S. Failures in Iraq Start at the Grassroots: "U.S. Failures in Iraq Start at the Grassroots
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Apr 07, 2004
Editor's Note: Fighting in Iraq has widened and intensified dramatically. The U.S., the writer says, has failed at grass-roots politics in Iraq, pursuing policies that guarantee that a social contract with Iraqis -- necessary for successful reconstruction -- cannot be established.
Suddenly Iraq has exploded in our face, and the White House has no plan to contain the violence. The Bush administration can drone on about Al Qaeda, the world terrorist threat and the holy mission of democratizing Iraq, but the plain truth is that America has failed in Iraq because our officials have failed at grass-roots politics.
The United States has established no social contract with the Iraqi people and thus it has no authority to lead. It is thus no surprise that our troops are fair game on all fronts."
Commentary, William O. Beeman,
Pacific News Service, Apr 07, 2004
Editor's Note: Fighting in Iraq has widened and intensified dramatically. The U.S., the writer says, has failed at grass-roots politics in Iraq, pursuing policies that guarantee that a social contract with Iraqis -- necessary for successful reconstruction -- cannot be established.
Suddenly Iraq has exploded in our face, and the White House has no plan to contain the violence. The Bush administration can drone on about Al Qaeda, the world terrorist threat and the holy mission of democratizing Iraq, but the plain truth is that America has failed in Iraq because our officials have failed at grass-roots politics.
The United States has established no social contract with the Iraqi people and thus it has no authority to lead. It is thus no surprise that our troops are fair game on all fronts."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
