Eye Raki

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Moqtada to Mehdi Army: "Let's Talk"

Mehdi Army militiaman taking a sniper position near the Imam Ali Shrine, 19 April 2004

A recent video has emerged showing Moqtada al-Sadr speaking to members of the Sadr Movement and Mehdi Army in what appears to be Iraq. There are many 'special' moments in this video.

He admits that many of his militia have no prior experience with handling weapons and that they have caused unnecessary damage because of their lack of training. He admits his militia was infiltrated and that corrupt forces have stained the image of his movement. He admits there are factions within his own party that are at war with each other. He admits, inadvertently, that he had no real control of the Mehdi Army and that they have not always been following his direct orders.

He starts by telling his followers that he has "missed them" and wants to take this opportunity to "chat" with them. Followers can be heard crying because it has been a long time since they have seen their leader in person. He smiles and says "come on, finish [crying]"

On more than one occasion he commends the Mehdi Army for the "brave stances" they have taken in trying to "liberate Iraq". He says that his militia has "sacrificed a lot, and their stance will not be forgotten by God, history and society". He explains that if it wasn't for the corrupt forces everyone would have supported the resistance, and that they would have liberated Iraq.

In one part of the video he tries to unite his followers, he says "the enemy has tried to destroy the resistance from the outside, this is expected, but I don't want you to fight between yourselves and destroy the Mehdi Army from within. The infighting stains the image of the Mehdi Army and it is not acceptable... Ali ibn Abi Talib allied with Mu'awiya to fight against the foreigners, so how can you not even unite between yourselves?"

Mehdi Army militiaman fires a mortar in Najaf, 9 August 2004.

In one of the first posts on this blog I mentioned one of the classic techniques used by the militia in Najaf when they were fighting against the Iraqi and US armies in April 2004. The militia would forcibly enter civilian houses, get onto the roof, fire mortars at enemy positions and then quickly flee. Within minutes, the house would be mercilessly leveled to the floor by the US army who would assume it was a militia base.

Moqtada in this video says these tactics are "wrong" and "haram" (forbidden). To fire mortars into populated areas, not knowing whether the bomb would land on innocent civilians or the enemy, is also haram. He relates a story of having his own house in the Hanana district of Najaf being under fire from mortars fired by the Mehdi Army.

He also vaguely refers to the Shari'a Courts set up by his men. "People who use their position in the Mehdi Army to appoint themselves as judges and then punish civilians... is haram"

Members of his movement would place innocent civilians on trial and often execute their victims, leaving their bodies in underground basements to rot. Many people in Iraq would live in terror in areas where the Mehdi Army had a strong hold because anyone could be taken to one of these so-called "Islamic Courts" on a mere whim.

He illustrates the dangers posed by untrained forces when he mentions an incident that occurred when a Spanish contingent passed his brother's house. Bodyguards were positioned on the opposite side of the house and when the Spanish convoy passed the guards opened fire. Many of the bullets ended up being fired directly at the house they were supposed to be protecting.

Another interesting incident he reports is when members of the Mehdi Army attacked members of the Iraqi police. He says "they called [my aide] and explained they had just attacked an Iraqi police convoy. They seemed very excited about it. I told him [my aide] to tell them [militia] it is haram and they replied "what? are you an agent?"... They made me an agent!"

He is angry at the people who act unilaterally and says "Whoever does wrong, [the blame] will reach me, and then [my father] Mohammed al-Sadr, and I will spit on the face of whoever wrongs him"

Mehdi Army militiaman takes position in a street in Basra, 27 March 2008.

The most shocking statement, which reveals his control (or lack thereof) over his own militia, came after he thanked the Mehdi Army for the first and second uprisings in April and August 2004. He praises them but then shockingly adds "on the souls of your fathers, why the third?"

The third uprising, in March 2008, only ceased when the Iranian's intervened. It led many to believe that the clashes were fueled by elements in the Iranian regime.

This effort in trying to sugarcoat his movement and make himself more Mahatma Gandhi-like does not make sense to me for two reasons, firstly because the first and second uprisings also involved the Iraqi police and army, so if it is haram to kill fellow Iraqi's what made it halal to do so in 2004? Secondly, Moqtada himself, with tongue-in-cheek, urged the Iraqi government to honour the soldiers who defected during the March 2008 battle because they were doing their 'duty' to their nation and Islam but now Moqtada is implying he had nothing to do with it.

Moqtada could be trying to disavow himself from the crimes committed by his followers and attempting to cleanse his hands from the blood that has been shed, but as Abraham Lincoln once said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"

The obscure and unpredictable Moqtada just became a lot more enigmatic.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

It's a Pity

I really do pity some of the Islamists. I know that it can be slightly contemptuous at times to feel this way about anyone but there is something seriously flawed about the way their brains are hard-wired. I have seen and heard many weird and wonderful things in my short stay on planet Earth but I am still shocked by the absurdity and stupidity of some human beings. It's such a shame.

Take this as an example. It was a debate last week on Al-Jazeera on their flagship "Opposing View" programme. It was about political Islam. On the one side there was Dhiya al-Mousawi, the moderate, who was claiming that political Islam had died, and on the other side Mohammed Ghulam, the Islamist, claiming political Islam is still on the rise in the Arab and Muslim world. At exactly 35:40 an interesting conversation followed:

Mousawi: "Who killed Sayyid Majid al-Khoei?"

Ghulam: "Who killed him?"

Mousawi: "I don't know you tell me?"

Ghulam: "Do Islamic parties kill?"

Mousawi: "Yes! Some of them kill"

Ghulam: "No! Lies!"

This short excerpt is a classic example of the ignorance of some of the Islamists. Ghulam is actually insulted when he is saying "do Islamic parties kill?". It was actually intented to be a rhetorical question and no one should have the audacity to insinuate in any way, shape or form that Muslims can actually kill.

Mousawi did more than just insinuate. When he gave the correct answer of "yes" Ghulam shot back with "lies". Mousawi is so bewildered at the naiveté, mental incapacity and obtuseness of his opponent the look on his face is priceless.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Iraq, Iran, Shi'ism & "Guardianship of the Jurist"

By now most of the world has calmed down after witnessing the chaos that swept the Iranian capital and elsewhere after Ahmadinejad was proclaimed, by his friend the Interior Minister, to have won the Iranian elections by a landslide. Iranian's have stood strong, either in their support of the current President or in support of the challenger Musavi. The louder of the two of course being the latter. After many rounds of violence and bloodshed it is clear that the establishment in Iran has won the battle. Every day they remained in power the opposition weakened. However the protesters have managed to deal the Supreme Leader a heavy blow that he may never fully recover from. The blow itself was not fatal, but the infection could very well be.

Up until recently, no one would have dared shout "Death to Khamanei" on the streets. That would have been considered to be uncouth even for the dissidents because according to the Iranian-version of Shia Islamic Jurisprudence the "rahbar" (leader) acts on behalf of the 12th Imam, the hidden leader who will return to the Shia as a saviour and spread justice and peace to the world.

Khomeini left no one in doubt of the powers that should be granted to the Supreme Leader. The semi-divine status, given to himself, was at complete odds with traditional and mainstream Shia Islam. Shi'ism was not blind to the fact that religion plays an important role in the daily affairs of the Muslims but it had always called for limited interference from the clerics. Khomeini was not the first to dream of a ruling cleric and he was influenced by the ideas of 18th century father and son scholars Mohammed Mehdi and Ahmed Naraqi.

The Naraqi's (pictured) take their name from the village they were born in near Kashan, Iran in 1716 and 1771 respectively. They theorized that the scholar should also have power even in the political sphere and that an able jurist could also become a ruler. This theory was put into practice by Khomeini who expanded on the thesis and became an absolute authority over his subjects in Iran.

For those who are unfamiliar of the lengths Khomeini went in his argument that he should be obeyed as an absolute ruler this is an extract taken from the website of the Supreme Leader - note the constant references and comparisons Khomeini makes with the infallible Prophet and Imams;

"If an eligible person with these two characteristics [knowledge of the law and just] rises and comes to power, he will acquire the same wilāyah (authorities) which were established for the noble Prophet Muhammad (s.) as far as administering the society is concerned. And, therefore, all people are required to obey him."

This revival of Naraqi's thought did not go down too well with the majority of Ayatollahs. One man who did back Khomeini was Hussein Ali Montezeri. He published "Studies in Guardianship of the Jurist" and advocated the rule of the jurist on Islamic grounds. Ironically, after the revolution Montezeri saw the failure of good governance and was silenced after he raised his concerns with Khomeini. He is now still under house arrest in Qum for his opposition to the Islamic government.

Khomeini paved the way for this revival in a series of lectures he gave in Najaf in 1970. His lectures were quickly compiled and published as a book that was distributed to his followers. His main opposition at the time came from Abul-Qasim al-Khoei, who dismissed the idea of unlimited 'wilayat al-faqih' (Guardianship of the Jurist) because it had no legal basis or precedent for the Shia. He bases his argument on a verse of the Quran:

Only Allah is your Wali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow. [Shakir 5:55]

The meaning of the word "wali" is a major point of debate between the Shia and Sunni schools of thought. Regardless of differences in opinion between the two schools the Shia all agree that this is the verse in the Quran which explains the divine status of the 12 Imams. My grandfather argues that there can never be a jurist who can have the same "wilayah" (guardianship/authority) as the Imams and Prophet because God makes it clear that 'only' a certain few can have this status.

The schism that appeared continues to be relevant today. It is the focal point of everything that is going on in Iran today and it has also affected the future of Iraq. Debates over who was right and how much influence the clerics should have over the daily lives of Shia Muslims continue to this day with both sides passionately disagreeing with each other.

The issue of 'wilayat al-faqih' is still the most obvious difference between the Najaf school in Iraq and the Qum school in Iran.

The ignorance of this issue, or indifference, was a factor that led to the crushing of the 1991 uprising in Iraq. The United States feared, most likely due to resident Arabists, that if the rebels overthrew Saddam they would establish an Iranian-style theocracy in Baghdad. However, the Najaf seminary, and Iraqi's in general, would never have allowed the clerics to have the same powers their counterparts enjoy in Iran. This is even more evident when one looks at Iraq today.

"Wilayat al-Faqih" will be at the heart of the debate in the Middle-East and for Shia's in particular for many more years to come because it is so central to what makes their world tick.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Natural Alliance

An article I wrote on the historical relationship between the Kurd's and Shia Arab's in Iraq published in the Kurdish Herald.

It was one of the most famous attacks against the British after the end of World War I. 200 Kurdish rebels joined forces with 400 Arab Shia rebels, led by Sheikh Hadi al-Makdoor, and attacked a British post in southern Iraq just before dawn. It was a surprise attack and the rebels overran the British barracks and killed over 300 enemy soldiers while capturing more than 100 British-Indians. This particular Shia-Kurdish attack against the British was immortalised by a famous Arab who shouted after the battle in poetic prose “Two-thirds of paradise is for our Hadi, and one-third is for kaka Ahmad and his Kurds!” [Continued...]

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Essay: Why did the US invade Iraq?

‘Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy [towards Iraq] … is dangerously inadequate…in the long term, [the only acceptable strategy] means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy’ –

The above is part a letter that was sent to former US President Clinton in January 1998 and was signed by 18 former senior government officials, including some who made a come back in the Bush administration, like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (Allawi 2007, p.62). Later that year regime change was officially on the agenda when the Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Clinton and outlined the measures to be taken to support Iraqi opposition groups in order to bring democracy to Iraq.

Some of the reasons for going to war include geo-political ambitions, oil, Israel, WMD’s, the war on terror, spreading democracy and a flex of American muscle.

Regime change was on the agenda when Clinton signed the ILA but the wheels were set in motion long before the Act was even drafted. In July 1996, a new report titled ‘A Clean Break – A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’ was produced and signed by many neo-conservatives who called for the removal of Saddam Hussein as ‘a strategic objective for Israel’ (Allawi 2007, p.65).

While protecting Israel could be a reason for going to war it could not be the publicly stated reason, for very obvious reasons. One of the most mentioned reasons for going to war against Iraq was the threat posed by WMD’s. One thing for certain is that Saddam not only had these weapons but he had used them against his own people in horrific acts of genocide and mass-murder. But did he still have them by 2003? The Bush and Blair administrations certainly believed, or at least wanted the rest of the world to believe, that he in fact not only still had access to these weapons but that Iraq could deploy them within 45 minutes of the order given by Saddam. The report on Iraq’s capability became infamously known as the ‘dodgy dossiers’.

In September 2002 in response to a parliamentary question on whether or not Blair would support regime change in Iraq the Prime Minister responded by saying that while regime change in Iraq would be a good thing it would not be the purpose of going to war against Iraq. The purpose was clearly defined as disarming Saddam of weapons (Hansard). In January and February, just one month before the shock and awe campaign began, Blair made it clear that the reason for going to war against Iraq was WMD’s. Blair said in an official statement on Iraq “I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.”

While Blair doggedly stuck to the WMD line, the US government persuaded its people by adding the threat of these weapons with the benefit of regime change in order to re-shape the Middle-East. The Americans have not signed up to the International Criminal Court and were less worried about the legality of war. Blair couldn’t speak about regime change because if that was his reason the war would have been illegal under International Law. For the Americans however, regime change in Baghdad was to be the ‘key that unlocked the whole of the Middle-East’ (Dodge 2005, p.7)

Another reason for going to war, and one not lost on members who encouraged and supported the war in the US was to give the world a mighty show of American muscle. David Frum & Richard Perle (2003,p.33) argue that as well as the obvious victory over Saddam, promoting democracy and eliminating the threat of WMD’s the invasion of Iraq meant the world could see ‘vivid and compelling demonstrations of Americans ability to win a swift and total victory over significant enemy forces’ and this would no doubt send a clear message to countries like Iran and North Korea. Patrick Cockburn (2007, p.2) also points out that the main reason for the invasion was because ‘the White House thought it could win such a conflict very easily and to its great advantage’.

The invasion plan was born out of a new foreign policy that advocates pre-emptive strikes in order to safeguard US and her allies’ interests. Speaking to Congress shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks the US President pointed his finger at several states who he claimed were state sponsors of terror. This was in effect the pre-battle speech on the ‘War on Terror’. Bush made it clear when he said ‘this [Iraq] is a regime that has something to hide from the civilised world, states like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an ‘axis of evil’, arming to threaten the peace of the world.’ (Galbraith 2007, p.71)

Another reason for war was that the Pentagon had a certain circle of neo-conservatives who believed that the Gulf War in 1991 had left ‘unfinished business’ which had to be dealt with (Tripp 2007, p.270). In other words, Bush the son needed to finish off what Bush the father started and topple Saddam for real this time with brute force and not just threats.

Ties with terrorist organizations were also cited as one of the reasons for going to war. Although Saddam was a secular dictator, it is argued (Frum & Perle 2003, p.46), that he would, and did, join forces with Islamists who although have radically different ideologies actually have something in common. Hatred for America. Documents recovered in Iraqi Intelligence HQ revealed that Bin Laden had discussed with the Iraqi government a joint campaign against the US. There is also some intelligence to suggest that Ayman al-Zawahiri, now al-Qaeda’s no.2, visited Baghdad and received funds from Saddam in 1998, before he joined forces with Bin Laden.

Another often cited reason for the war was of course oil. The codename of the invasion of Iraq was only changed to ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ after the acronym for the suggested codename ‘Operation Iraqi Liberation’ - OIL - was noticed.

Former President Bush and former VP Cheney have strong ties to the oil industry and securing a country such as Iraq, with its vast seas of undiscovered crude oil would be extremely beneficial both personally and for the interests of their country. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan revealed in 2007 ‘I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.’

Just a few months after the war started the Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said ‘We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities... [access to oil] is our ultimate objective’ (BBC).

Whether it be because of oil, WMD’s, links with terrorism, Israel, human rights, promotion of democracy or even divine intervention, the war against Iraq will forever change the Middle-East and we all had front-row seats to see the removal of one of the most horrific and brutal dictators of the 20th century.

Bibliography:

Cockburn, Patrick. 2007, The Occupation, War and Resistance in Iraq, London: Verso.

David Frum & Richard Perle 2003, An End to Evil, How to Win the War on Terror, New York: Random House.

Galbraith, Peter W. 2007, The End of Iraq, How American Incompetence Created a War Without End, London: Pocket Books.

Tripp, Charles 2007, A History of Iraq, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dodge, Toby. 2005, Iraq’s Future: The aftermath of regime change, London: Routledge.

Allawi, Ali 2007. The Occupation of Iraq, Winning the War, Losing the Peace, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Premier In London

Maliki arrives for the "Invest Iraq 2009" conference at the Landmark Hotel in central London last Thursday. Photo from Sky News.

On Saturday evening over 500 Iraqi expats packed the King's Suite in the Hilton Metropole on Edgware Road to listen to PM Maliki and to have a chance to ask him questions face to face. Almost every sect, political ideology and denomination was represented in the hall.

Maliki was pretty impressive, and reminded me of an Arab version of Tony Blair. Although he looked grumpy the whole time, he was calm and confident when he spoke and answered questions. Maliki lacks the charisma of Blair and Obama, but like many other good politicians he has mastered the art of answering a question without really answering it. Sometimes people hear just what they want to hear, and applaud anyway.

Speaking to the professionals living outside Iraq, he urged them to come back and help build up their country. He argued "You say you cannot come back until everything is secure and Iraq is prosperous, but I say Iraq will not be prosperous until you come back and help in the reconstruction effort... It is the chicken or egg dilemma... Of course you will not enjoy the same services you enjoy in the UK or the same salaries, things will be different but you have to make sacrifices because your country needs you"

He added "I appreciate many of you cannot simply lock your houses and leave everything behind, as I did in Syria, and that many of you have children growing up and studying here, but those willing to make the sacrifice can come back with me". He quipped "My plane back to Baghdad is empty" and the crowd applauded at the gesture.

The security was extremely tight, nothing like when Talabani or Hakim were in London, although of course this time half the executive government was sitting in the same room. Security would regularly walk up and down the rows of chairs scanning faces and talking quietly into their microphones.

The only incident of the day happened when a Ba'athist told Maliki "Those who killed and hurt the Iraqi people remain Iraqi". Although technically what he said was correct, it did not go down too well with the crowd, who jeered at him and cut him off. One man got up and tried to confront the Ba'athist but was forced to sit back down. The Ba'athist did the right thing and walked out as soon as he saw the hostile reaction from the people. Maliki did nothing, he just sighed and rolled his eyes.

On the issue of the Ba'ath Party Maliki said "There are many Ba'athists working now in Iraq, we allow those who have no blood on their hands to join us. Our problem is with the people who have killed... the criminals"

Maliki's only slip up of the day was when he was asked by a member of the Mandaei community "What is the government doing to protect the Mandaei people in Iraq from ethnic cleansing?". He started off with a good answer. "The Mandaei people were not the only ones being targeted in Iraq, the terrorists targeted all the Iraqi people. The Shia and Sunnis in Iraq were being slaughtered before the terrorists started with the Mandaeis". But then he continued "I have a strong personal relationship with..." He paused. "Sheikh..." and another pause. He forgot the name of the Mandaei leader. He looked to his left and asked the chair "What's his name?" and after being told said "Yes, Sheikh Sattar, I have seen him many times and we keep in contact constantly"

On corruption the message was clear. "It's happening" he said "and we trying our best to combat it. Corruption is something we inherited from the previous regime". Another issue according to Maliki was that a lot of the Iraqi politicians are being targeted by their enemies who throw corruption allegations left, right and center. Many honest people have their names tarnished by anonymous posters on the Internet who may have a personal grudge against them. "We cannot rely on people who write up stories on the Internet and then sign off with names like 'Truth teller' and 'Loyal citizen'. If anyone knows something about someone let them come forward with evidence and we will take action"

The crowd burst into laughter when one women asked the Iraqi Prime Minister "What is the status of women and what role do women play in society in Iran?". After the hall had settled down she managed to compose herself and ask the question again correctly this time. Maliki said "Do not ask me what the role of women and what the role of men is, ask me what the role of the Iraqi individual is". Another round of applause.

When questioned about the deficit in the Iraqi budget, and how the government expected to pay salaries with oil prices so low Maliki reassured everyone that this will not affect salaries. I hope he is right.

Friday, May 01, 2009

All That Studying

Looks like Sadr has started growing a white beard. It must be due to all that hard work hitting those books in his home in Qum. The only difference with all the other students studying in the hawza is that teachers actually go to Moqtada's house to teach him so that he doesn't have to go through the trouble of hailing a cab or taking the bus.

Also there are no signs of a chelo kebab diet. Speaking of food, Moqtada is in Turkey having talks with the Turkish leaders who must be extremely bored. It raises a few questions though, why would the Turkish government invite him in the first place? What is the nature of the visit? According to his aide its for the Turkish leaders to catch up on some Iraqi politics but a) They can find 100 better ways to do that and b) If they are desperate for a one on one surely they could have found other Iraqi politicians who could have done a better job informing the Turkish leaders on the state of Iraq. I am pretty sure there is a much more sinister explanation for this visit, which has been in the making for over 6 months.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Fresh From Najaf

Latest joke from the ground.

Q: Why did Hakim lose the recent elections?

A: Because his slogan "Ma'akum Ma'akum" (with you, with you) was misheard by the people of Iraq as "Ma'a Qum Ma'a Qum" (with Qum, with Qum).

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Dogs & Politics

Last week just on the outskirts of Diwaniya I saw something very weird. I knew there was something different about Iraq the moment I set foot on its soil. I could smell it in the air and I could see it on the faces of the people. But what I saw was my first proper sign. Near a police checkpoint a stray dog ran up to an officer, careful not to be within kicking distance, and wagged its tail. The officer who was enjoying a sandwich threw it on the floor and gave the dog a snack. For those that remember, there used to be special curfews in place not to curb suicide car bombs and terrorism but to give police space for their periodic dog culling. Sometimes all you can hear is a single shot and silence, but sometimes after the bang comes the moaning and agonizing cries and you just know the dog is bleeding to death. In anycase this time the dog was not given poisoned meat or thrown into a cage as food for the big cats. It was a nice thing to see.

Despite the recent lapse in security, things for the most part have been steadily improving. If only the terrorists knew that with every car bomb and suicide attack their chance of a future in Iraq goes further and further down the drain. I mean all the terrorists. The Ba'athists still dreaming of a united Arab nation, the Arabs still dreaming of a Caliphate, and the Shia militia still dreaming of their own country. The recent attacks in Baghdad have not been different from previous attacks. Still cold-blooded, still indiscriminate, still cowardice.

On the political side there is now a stalemate with regards to the next Najaf Governorate. There was a meeting on Saturday between the main parties concerned and each sides stubbornness was only matched by the other. The Sadrists are not worried about positions in the council but they want to head the security effort in the province. SIIC who would rather drop dead then see their arch nemesis ask them where they are going at checkpoints have refused outright. Although Maliki has allied himself with Sadr's men he is also determined not to risk even more lapses in security by handing the security keys over to the side who went to war with the Government several times. Da'wa will keep security firmly in their hands and will likely tempt the Sadrists with a few key positions.

The biggest problem now is the number one spot. No one knows who exactly is going to be the next Governor. SIIC, who have won 7 seats, have threatened to pull out altogether if they do not get the no.1 prize. Da'wa, who have also won 7 seats, have been saying that they have formed a coalition (something SIIC could not do) and so it should be they who dictate the terms. SIIC's counter is that Abdul Hassan Abdan, the previous Deputy Governor, came second in Iraq in terms of votes to his name. He was beaten only by Haboobi in Kerbala. Da'wa do not care if Abdan came second or last. They do not want him to be in charge. As an ex-member of the Badr militia, Abdan has strong ties with the Iranian regime and Da'wa do not want the future Governor of Najaf to 'open the doors' to Iran. The tension in the room was rising and neither side was willing to give in.

Today the issue is still not resolved but a decision is going to be made very soon.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

6 Years Today

I can't believe it has already been 6 years. It seems like yesterday I watched the statue of Saddam fall in a symbolic ceremony that indicated the Ba'ath regime was finished. Three years ago I wrote the post "3 Years On". At the time I was angry that people had given up on Iraq. Many journalists wanted to portray Iraq as a failed state because that type of news sells well. I was angry because they did not understand Iraq and they did not understand what the people of Iraq had already gone through in the past. Iraq is a great nation and its proud people cannot be destroyed no matter how hard the Sheikhs from Saudi, the terrorists from the Levant or the agents from Iran try. Iraq will prevail and it will become strong and remain a thorn in the eyes of its many enemies. I wrote:

"Why do people expect so much so fast from a country whose people had to suffer 3 decades of unimaginable terror!?

"It took Great Britain 500 years to agree on a constitution (that isn't even written) and to unite. Over 600,000 American's died during 5 years of bloody war fighting for freedom and for their constitution. How long did it take Germany to recover after Hitler and his Nazi party!? How long did in take for Japan to recover after WWII!? How long has it been since Baghdad fell!? 3 years...Only 3 years. It will take at least a generation of time before we can finally have peace in Iraq."

Basically my message was give Iraq a chance. Today, I am glad that the last sentence I wrote 3 years ago was wrong. Completely wrong. We will have peace much sooner. Time will never heal the scars but the country will return to normal before long. When the youth of today grow up and read/hear about the chaos that spread through their country they will be upset and angry but at the same time they will admire the courage and determination of their people.

At the time of writing Iraq was almost slipping into an all-out civil war. The terrorists had just blown up the holy shrine in Samarra and that was the trigger that caused even more chaos in Baghdad. Many Shia were unwilling to show restrain in their retaliation. It was indiscriminate, violent and at times, simply barbaric. The journalists were not making things up but the bias was clear. This was Bush's war. Bush is bad so the war was wrong and nothing good could come of it. It was that type of news that was regurgitated so many times it made you sick.

A year later, when the terrorists finished off what they started in Samarra and blew up the shrine (again!) Maliki put it much more eloquently in an article in the WSJ. America had its civil war. Why expect freedom to come easy to Iraq?

I don't know how Iraq managed to survive. I don't know how the Iraqi's managed to survive. But they did. Every morning bad news and then in the evening even more bad news. The instinct for survival was probably just as vital as the surge and Maliki's jihad against the terrorists.

During the battle for Basra I was in Najaf waiting for a friend who was stuck in the south because of the fighting. The people of Basra, who must have been living through hell, stood firm and they prayed for the Iraqi soldiers. I remember in every phone call I could hear loud gunfire and explosions and my friend was not phased. He would say that people had already stocked up on food, couldn't leave to go anywhere and on top of that they would have soldiers storm their houses one by one in a bid to cleanse the city. Yet they were not complaining. They were in fact happy that finally someone was doing something about the criminal gangs that controlled the city like war lords. In a couple of weeks Maliki had defeated the militias and less than a year later had a swift victory in the local elections.

Many people deserve praise for turning Iraq into what it is today; The coalition soldiers whose blood has been shed on Iraqi soil and mixed with the blood of Iraqi policemen and soldiers fighting a common enemy. The Iraqi politicians who had many sleepless nights trying their best to make sure Iraq does not free fall to disaster on their watch. Perhaps no one deserves more praise than the people of Iraq who are truly the unsung hero's of this tragic story. Hopefully a story that will have a happy ending. They sacrificed for their family and they sacrificed for their country. They stood strong against foreign powers and today the message is as clear and strong as ever. A new Iraq was born in 2003 and it is here to stay.

Friday, April 03, 2009

LOL

This is what one senior SIIC official had to say about the election results to a group of Iraqis when he recently visited Iran.

"Does Maliki really have a strong mandate in Iraq? How many votes did he actually manage to get? One million? More? Well in the general election Allawi managed to get a very similar number of votes. Most Shia parties were against Allawi, the marja'iya was against him too, and yet he still managed to get over a million votes. There is nothing special about Maliki this time.

"It was a conspiracy against SIIC. The election results were fixed by people who wanted to make sure SIIC failed. In many areas in Baghdad where we had a strong footing the people were forced to vote in a different area to where they were living. This of course means not everyone could go out and vote. We lost many votes like this.

"Even after the votes were cast, our observers would call us immediately and tell us we did very well, yet when the containers get sent over to the central office for finalization, strangely our numbers decrease dramatically. This happened many times. Something went wrong and we are sure many of our votes were deliberately not counted and ignored"

Although this is comical it is no surprise. I was in my home in London watching the elections with friends on different Iraqi channels. Mainly Iraqiya, Forat, and Sharqiya. Three channels all with a different agenda to push. We sat for hours switching between these channels and they were pretty consistent. Iraqiya was all Maliki, Maliki and more Maliki. Sharqiya was having a heart attack over fraud and vote rigging and Forat was airing good news about how smooth things have run. Then something very strange happened. Forat suddenly put breaking news that there have been security breaches (i.e. rigging) and Sharqiya was now airing opinions that for the most part the elections were transparent. Sharqiya turned into Forat and Forat turned into Sharqiya. We couldn't believe our eyes and ears.

This is the Bush/Kerry 2004 conspiracy...Iraqi style. The million dollar question is who is going to be the Iraqi Obama and put the fake Prime Minister Maliki to the sword. And who says politics is boring?

Friday, March 27, 2009

Newton's Third Law

In the spring of 2006 when hardly anyone outside of Baghdad (including me) had even heard of a man named 'Jawad' al-Maliki the SCIRI leader made a strong statement to his officials. It was a private meeting and Hakim intended to make sure no one left the room with even a shred of doubt of his influence, power and status in Iraq. In the typical swagger that was, at the time, epidemic in the party Hakim said "Who is Maliki? I told Ja'fari that the road in front of him was closed. He had no other option but to step down. Now if I want to I can order Maliki to step down and make Abdul Mehdi the Prime Minister"

Adel Abdul Mehdi was not present when those words were spoken but no one else in the room had even raised an eye-brow. This was the most powerful politician in Iraq, of course he could change the Prime Minister and President if he but said the words.

One of the main reasons the election results came as such a shock to the SIIC politicians was because everyone even remotely affiliated with the party believed they were invincible. And why would they think otherwise?

They had a leader who has a history of opposition in Iraq, comes from one of the most powerful Shia religious families in the country, lost dozens of family members in the struggle against Saddam, has more money than anyone can count and finally but not least commands his own private army. Each one of these factors in itself is enough for someone in Iraq to be important.

History in our culture is very important. It matters who your father, brother, uncle and grandfather is. In official documents the name of a person consists of his name, his father's name, and his grandfather's name. Religious lineage is even more important. Hakim is the son of a Grand Ayatollah. If your famous family happens to be a famous religious family, that is an extra bonus point.

Martyrdom in Iraq is seen as a privilege and honour. If someone's father or son is martyred he or she will have a label for life; "the son of the martyr/the mother of the martyr". Hakim not only had dozens of family members (including 6 brothers) executed by Saddam but he had just recently lost his last remaining brother in a terrorist attack on the shrine in Najaf. Money and guns...well that's a no-brainer. Suffice to say that when Hakim spoke, everyone listened.

Anyone going through the check-list could easily tell that Hakim beats Maliki where it matters. Except of course in something which is a new phenomenon in Iraq. The ballot.

Although SIIC feels defeated and let down by the people they also feel betrayed by Maliki. The only consistent thing I have heard from SIIC so far is the sense of betrayal. They believe it was Hakim who made Maliki into what he is today. Without Hakims support and defence Maliki would have just been another Da'wa member. Maybe one day a Minister. Or so they say.

It is not just the ascent to power that they argue was down to Hakim and SIIC, but also his stay in power. Hakim gave Maliki his unconditional support in the fight against the Sadrists in 2008. Ex-Badr militiamen played a role in helping the IA tear apart the Mehdi Army. Maliki should owe his very existence and survival to Hakim. Although these claims are far fetched (the Sunnis and Kurds played the biggest hand in making sure Ja'fari stood down and Hakim was not the only supporter of Maliki in his war with Sadr) the result remains the same. Hakim helps Maliki defeat Sadr. Maliki trumps Hakim in the elections. Maliki allies with Sadr. Hakim, who is already isolated, now feels betrayed.

Now it seems SIIC officials actually care about what the people want. One angry official told me "And what about the people of Basra and Baghdad? They voted for Maliki not because Da'wa had a better manifesto than us, but because Maliki fought against Sadr. Their vote was a vote against Moqtada, so how can Maliki now ally himself with them?" and after a short pull on his cigarette added "What would the people say?"

At best, SIIC will now take a back seat, distance themselves from Maliki, pray the next provincial governments are not better than the previous ones and hope to come back in 4 years time with an election campaign that revolves around the failure and incompetence of the local authorities. At worst, they will make sure Maliki fails.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Strange Bedfellows

Discussions to form coalitions in the provincial governments between the winners and losers are almost over. As no party won the majority they need each other in order to effectively run the provinces and watching how this plays out is somewhat fascinating.

Almost immediately after the first indications hinted at a Maliki victory the secular ex-Ba'athist Allawi who chose to stay in opposition because he couldn't stand UIA policies on many issues, including federalism, was seen cosying up with the Islamist Hakim who is still dreaming of an autonomous oil-rich south. The Sadrists, still bearing the scars from Maliki's relentless onslaught against the Mehdi Army in the Spring of 2008, have decided to be on Maliki's team.

It is precisely this weird dynamic nature of Iraqi politics, I think, that makes Iraq such an interesting subject for foreign scholars. For some Iraqis its just downright funny. The Iraqi Army, on direct orders from its Commander-in-Chief, spent three months last year fighting, and more importantly defeating, the "outlaws" (a fancy name Maliki decided to give the Sadrist Mehdi Army) in Basra, Baghdad and Amara but now the Sadrists are willing to form coalitions in the south just for the sake of seeing Hakim on the losing side. Allawi who was given harsh treatment, to put gently, by Hakim's followers has suddenly decided it would be a good thing to work with Hakim.

Perhaps these rounds of negotiations show that rivalry between the Sadrists and Hakims has previously been underestimated. It is true that the Mehdi Army has clashed with the Badr Brigade on previous occasions, most spectacularly in Kerbala when the Sadrists tried to take over the shrines, but these clashes could be seen as petty when compared to the battle, or rather war, that raged between Maliki and Sadr's Mehdi Army.

When the Mehdi Army burnt down the offices of Badr and Hakim across Iraq the Badr gunmen inside the buildings were given strict orders to evacuate and offer no resistance. The rivalry between Sadr and Hakim must now be so bitter that Sadr prefers to join Maliki, the man who destroyed the Mehdi Army, and ignore Hakim, the man who has shown restraint and caution towards the Mehdi Army.

Although the Sadrists were beaten by Hakim in some of the southern provinces they will be able to effectively marginalise SIIC once they complete the deal with Maliki. It will be back to the drawing board for Hakim and rumours are already spreading about plans to undercut the local provinces with social welfare programmes. Also the $2.4 billion allocated to the provincial authorities will need to be cleared through the Finance Ministry, which is controlled by SIIC.

Maliki and Sadr will need to be careful to make sure they do not step on SIIC's toes because no one knows what will happen if they are pushed into a corner. There is fresh talk of assassinations and newly discovered "Nejadiyat" (named after the Iranian President) IED's in Najaf and the last thing anyone, not least Maliki himself, needs is bloodshed. Although that is highly unlikely to be the work of the high ranking officials in SIIC the fear is from rogue elements in the party and disgruntled players who may not necessarily take their orders from Baghdad.

Friday, February 13, 2009

New Era

The provincial election results seem for the most part to be a vote of confidence for Maliki who managed to defeat Hakim in all the provinces previously controlled by SIIC. Maliki managed to gain Basra from the Fadheela party and also Maysan from the Sadrists.

Strangely though Kerbala, the only province Maliki's party had previously controlled was lost to Yusif Haboobi, an independent candidate, but Maliki is not going to worry too much about losing a province when he just gained 9 others.

Throughout 2008 I heard from many people who had simply had enough of SIIC and their direction, policy and attitude. Many of those I spoke to predicted that Hakim would lose a few provinces but no one predicted that this would happen. The results came as a complete shock to everyone in Iraq, not least to members of SIIC and the Hakim family.

The most embarrassing defeat for SIIC seems to be Najaf, Hakim's birthplace and what was once his power base in the south. This defeat is not only shocking because Najaf has always been historically linked with the Hakim family but because Najaf was one of the few cities in Iraq where the provincial government actually provided many services for the people.

The reconstruction of Najaf by Governor As'ad Abu Gilal and his Deputy Hassan Abdan (both members of SIIC) was used as a model by the other provinces because Najaf set the bar at a higher standard. New roads, schools, hospitals, bridges and even an International Airport are just some of things accomplished by the local government.

Last summer when I was coming back to Najaf from Rifa'i, a city in Dhi Qar, I asked the taxi driver whether or not we had reached Najaf and he said, in a depressing tone "Well can't you tell? Look at the roads and pavements. Of course we're in Najaf". The progress in Najaf both in terms of security and infrastructure was clear for all to see and drivers who pass by or stop in Najaf always complain about the state in their cities. So for people of Najaf to vote for Maliki instead of Hakim is a bold statement. No doubt SIIC members have been asking themselves where it all went wrong every since the initial results were published.

Parties in Iraq tried to use some very desperate measures in order to gain votes. These tactics could very well have worked 4 years ago but now the average Iraqi who receives a blanket or radiator from a political party just a week before the elections starts to question this act of charity. He or she will wonder why they did not receive this blanket last winter, or the winter before that.

Al-Forat used classic propaganda tricks to fool the public into thinking they will be the winners. A few days before election day they were broadcasting sample polls from across southern Iraq indicating that SIIC had around 50% of the votes in many of the cities. These attempts, as well as Hakim's sectarian "Ya Hussain" campaign proved to be futile.

There is a clear sign of maturity of the electorate and the success of these elections should be a lesson to all the politicians in Iraq. If these results are anything to go by then the next general elections could be a turning point in Iraq's history. The people will no longer vote for a party because it is more "Shia" or "Sunni" than another. The people want security, water and electricity (for now) and the politicians better listen up good or they will meet the same end every Governor in Iraq is about to face.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Elections & Imam Hussain

With over 500 political parties taking part in the coming elections and with over 14,000 candidates running for office it is no wonder why so many Iraqi's have trouble making up their minds.

Everywhere in Iraq, streets are lined with election posters and there are pictures of candidates in every pose you can possibly think of. For the Iraqi parties these elections are important because each provincial government can pass its own laws and decide how and where money is spent. For the people it is better still because they know the names of the candidates and can vote for a specific person. The Shia parties have not run as a single coalition and this will make the results much more interesting than the previous elections. They, as well as the people, will know how much of the 'street' they control in specific cities.

The two big Shia lists, Maliki's State of Law Coalition and Hakim's Al-Mehrab Martyr list are expected to take the majority or large minority of the vote. The Sadr Movement are not taking part in the election but have given their support to the Free Independent Movement. Many "Independent" lists are taking part because they feel the big parties have failed to provide the necessary services for the people and the big parties have thrown in many of their followers in some of these lists so as to not put all their eggs in the one basket.

There is a political war being fought in the name of Islam between the Hakim and Maliki parties over the rituals and traditions that take place in Muharram. The spiritual leader of the Da'wa Party is Ayatollah Fadhlallah and the spiritual leaders of the Supreme Council are the "Marja'iya", a name that vaguely refers collectively to the Grand Ayatollah's based in Najaf.

Ayatollah Fadhlallah considers the shedding of blood by Shia Muslims an innovation that has nothing to do with Islam. He was publicly demonised by the clerics in Najaf and Kerbala for attacking such a widespread practice. The majority of the Grand Ayatollah's however, do not consider "tatbir" to be forbidden per se and accept it with a few conditions that differ from Ayatollah to Ayatollah but the general conditions are that it is allowed if it does not cause serious damage to one's health and also if it does not cause damage to the image of Islam.

As a young kid growing up in London I have been (and taken part) in countless "tatbir" debates and every now and then a prominent scholar does something or says something that sparks these debates again. This time it was Sayyid Hussain al-Shami who caused outcry among the clergy. Hussain al-Shami is the Imam of the Dar al-Islam Foundation in London, a veteran Da'wa member and cultural aide to Prime Minister Maliki. In a speech given this year to members of his London congregation he condemned many of the rituals that take place in Muharram. Although nothing he said was new or out of line with what many Da'wa leaders have repeatedly said it was the timing that made the difference. This was in Muharram and in the middle of an election campaign and his rivals made sure to counter attack.

In Najaf, scholars were quick to condemn al-Shami and the Da'wa Party in a letter that was later published in Buratha, one of Hakim's media outlets. The letter started with "The Islamic seminary in Najaf condemns the speech by the Prime Ministers' aide [Shami] and demands the party he belongs to to seek forgiveness from Allah and apologise to the millions of 'Hussainis' after his damaging speech on the rituals of Muharram". It is important to note that not a single cleric signed the letter personally and it could possibly have been written by a single person. In the same letter another Da'wa member Walid al-Hilli was accused of giving a speech in Mecca in front of Shia and Sunni scholars saying that the millions who marched to Kerbala do not pray i.e. are not religious Muslims. A week later, Hilli refuted these claims in a press release and denounced them as lies.

A recording of the Shami speech in London was played to all four Grand Ayatollah's in Najaf. They expressed their strong beliefs that the rituals that take place in Muharram should continue in Iraq but were careful in not pointing their fingers directly at the Da'wa Party.

This couldn't have come at a better time for Hakim whose political party used the attack on the rituals of Muharram to their advantage in their election campaign. Al-Forat, the station owned by Hakim and used as his political mouthpiece, changed their 290 (election number) logo to include the words "Oh Hussain". Hakim's aides, including his son Ammar, have toured the cities of Iraq warning the people that the legacy of Hussain is under attack and that if they want to make sure these traditions are kept alive they should vote for their list. An unorthodox mixture of politics and religion that reduced many in the crowd to tears.

What makes the attack by Hakim strange is that his party was quick to point fingers at the Da'wa Party but not once have they ever spoken out against Iran, where the practice of tatbir is strictly forbidden. The Basij, a paramilitary unit loyal to Ayatollah Khamanei, are deployed on the 10th of Muharram in many Iranian cities and publicly beat up anyone carrying a dagger that is used for tatbir. Although it is obvious why Hakim does not condmen the Iranians and why Gaza was on the agenda in his election campaign it just goes to show that contrary to what many are claiming, this has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with politics.

Forget about water, electricity and services, this election for many will be about who loves Imam Hussain more, the 'sell-outs' in Malikis list or the 'standard bearers' in Hakims list.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Traditions

The festivals of Muharram in Iraq are like no other across the globe not least because of the Battle of Kerbala took place in Iraq in 680 AD. In every city, from North to South, Iraqi's mourn the tragic event that would cement the Shia-Sunni divide for centuries to come. Across the world many have lost their lives for the innocent crime of belonging to one of these two sects. Sunnis have massacred Shia and the Shia have massacred Sunnis for no other reason than being members of opposite sects of the same religion.

The fuse of this bomb was lit immediately after Prophet Mohammed's death when Abu Bakr became Caliph but the explosion occurred when Hussain Ibn Ali and his companions had their heads decapitated and paraded in Damascus while their bodies were left unburied in the scorching desert of Kerbala. The battle is seen as a civil war by historians because on one side of the battle field stood the grandson of the Prophet with 71 of his closest family members and friends and on the other side a 30,000 strong army led by Omar Ibn Sa'ad sent by the Ummayad Caliph Yazid Ibn Mu'awiya. Hussain refused to pay allegiance to Yazid and the price he paid was his head. The battle ended after only a few hours. The end result a quick and decisive victory for Yazid. Every man, and in some instances, child, that faced the army of Yazid was killed.

Every year, for the past 1,320 years, the Shia have mourned the death of Hussain. For many of these years, and especially during the reign of Saddam, the Shia have been arrested, tortured and even executed for publicly mourning. The pilgrimage to the Imams shrines is always encouraged except for when there is a danger to ones life, property or family. However, the pilgrimage to Kerbala is the only exception and is not discouraged even if one fears death. Because of the persecution the Shia have faced it has become part of their "Shia" identity.

Every gathering that mourns in some way or another is called a "Majlis" and there are lecturers who speak to large crowds of the lessons to be learnt from Kerbala in almost every main road, neighbourhood and mosque in Najaf. These usually take place inside buildings or under tents erected solely for this purpose. After the lecture the people are reminded in graphic detail what fate awaited the men in Hussain's army who charged the enemy against the odds. Men cry and beat their chests ("Latum") to the poems that are recited.

Meshiq

On the streets, for the last 3 days, the "Meshiq" starts after sunset. Hundreds of men wielding swords stand side by side and swing their swords in union to the sound of drums beating away. They are signifying symbolically that they would have been ready to fight with Hussain if they had been born in a different era. The most time consuming, colourful and most watched ceremony in Najaf is the "Masha'el" procession.

Masha'el

Before the days of electricity, when a tribe or family had a funeral procession at night they would use fire to show who ever was watching that they were mourning and this is a tradition that continues to take place in Iraq. Huge aluminum coated wooden beams with burning flames weighing over 100kg are lifted by well-built men and carried towards the holy shrine. Surrounding the wooden beams are dozens, and sometimes hundreds of men, most wielding swords and daggers, who march with the flames. Every so often the man carrying the beam swings it around in circles and the people around them duck to avoid being hit. Twice I saw men who couldn't duck in time and ended up being dazed for several minutes after the heavy beam hit them across the head.

On the last night, the 9th of Muharram, there were 84 lit beams representing different families, tribes, areas and even streets in Najaf. It took almost 5 hours for the procession to end. After it finished I headed towards Kerbala with a few friends and due to the special occasion the security was unprecedented. The car could not enter the city center and so we had to walk the rest of the journey.

Dweyreej run

Around a century ago, a tribe from Dweyreej in Southern Iraq decided to run bare foot from the Imam Hussain shrine to the Abbas shrine and this is another tradition that has been resumed after the fall of Saddam and is known as the ''Dweyreej run''. It becomes so crowded at the shrine gates it is a miracle none of them get trampled to death.

The most controversial act of mourning is "Tatbir". Thousands of men shed blood by striking the top of their heads with razor sharp daggers to the sounds of trumpets and drums. Sunnis condemn it outright but the Shia are divided. Some openly encourage it and others forbid it. Many of the people get dizzy from the loss of blood and their daggers end up being forcefully taken away from them for fear of death.

Tatbir

The controversy surrounding some of these traditions has recently come to light in spectacular fashion and my next post will be about how this division has played a role in the coming provincial elections.

Friday, January 09, 2009

Border Issues

Last Thursday I went to visit Iraq to see Najaf and Kerbala during the first 10 days of Muharram, a mourning period for millions of Shia across the world who commomorate the death of Imam Hussain.

The first shock came at the Iraqi-Iranian border crossing in Mehran. The Iranian official who was meant to check our bags was like a little girl at a sweet shop. "I'll have that one, that one, no not that one...and yes that one". At first I thought she was joking but when I didn't see her smile I put the bags she pointed to on the scanner belt. I went with a group of friends and only 4 out of 11 bags were scanned.

We had already arranged with the Iraqi officials on the other side but I was left behind and when I went around the queue to catch up with the group I could hear someone shout "Stop...stop!" in Arabic. I turned around slightly and saw a skinny US soldier wearing dark sunglasses. I pretended not to notice him but he quickly ran ahead of me and stopped me just before I could reach the Iraqi guard. When he spoke broken Iraqi with me I said "It's okay you can speak English". He sighed and said "Ex-see-cuse mee meester...ve sayyed to you es-stooop...vyy you did e-noot es-stoop".

I couldn't believe it when I heard his hardcore Farsi accent. He was Iranian, wearing US Army uniform, unarmed, standing less than 20 feet away from the last official Iranian border guard and was in charge of checking passports. I would have assumed he was an Iranian-American but the dark sunglasses (in winter) and the fact that he was the only 'American' unarmed baffled me. He took me to a cabin where I was searched by the real Americans and had my fingerprints and picture taken. The first thing I did when I got out was ask one of the Iraqi policemen what the hell was an Iranian doing on this side of the border. He looked over his shoulder and said "Mujahadeen" (MKO).

The real shock came when I realised not a single bag was checked by either the Iraqi or American soldiers. No scanners, no dogs, no nothing. The driver who took us to Najaf was not worried when I jokingly told him I could have smuggled a bomb from Iran. He laughed "A petty bomb? They have factories inside Iraq that make them!".

It was as if the Iranians, Iraqis and Americans couldn't care less what enters Iraq through the border. If this is what happens in one of the busiest official borders in Iraq I dread to think what goes on in the desert.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Farewell Kiss

Rarely will you find an Iraqi who has not been on the receiving end of a flying shoe or slipper, at some point or another during their childhood, as punishment for mischievous behaviour. The person throwing the slipper/shoe is usually the mother, and if shoe-throwing were an Olympic event Iraq would be guaranteed a Gold medal every 4 years. Shoe-throwing is a serious insult in Iraqi culture because the shoe is the lowest thing on the ground and conversely when you want to show respect to an Iraqi you say "on my head".

This isn't the first time a high ranking official has been insulted in this way. Sadrists in Najaf threw shoes at Iyad Allawi when he visited the holy shrine 3 years ago because he went to war with the Mehdi Army. Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim also received similar treatment in Iran in 1999. His Iranian security guards were baffled when angry Sadrists pelted him with shoes in Qum forcing him to cancel a scheduled speech on the death of Moqtada's father. Neither incident caused as much fuss as the latest attack, and for good reason. This time it was the US President.

$10 million in cash, men offering their own daughters, and becoming famous with a prosperous future that pays. That is the prize up for grabs for anyone willing to act like a complete idiot in the Arab and Muslim world. To be honest I did not think much of the shoe-throwing per se. Yes it was a very stupid thing to do, but I was not going to lose sleep over an incident which has a casualty figure of 0. What is even more important is what happened after the incident because it says a lot about almost everything that has gone wrong in that part of the world.

What I am still trying to digest is the disgusting response from across the Arab and Muslim world. In Iraq it was the usual players who were making noise and I apologise in advance for the next sentence which is going to be sectarian. The Shia slum-dwellers who support Sadr and the Sunnis who have had their lives turned upside down since Saddam's early and unnatural demise where the two major groups showing support for Muntadhar al-Zaidi. In Kurdistan there was no real jubilation at the very unprofessional and childish behaviour. Why? Because my sectarian sentence is true.

Outside Iraq in the wider Arab and Muslim world the response has been astonishing. I am not the type of person who is unfamiliar with the backward ways of that part of the world but even I was surprised at the prevailing attitude. Edward Said would probably turn in his grave if he hears me use "that part of the world" in such a derogatory manner but I am not going to window-dress or sugar-coat here. They are backward and most of the inhabitants seem to take up a specific geographical area on this planet. I made a vow to myself to limit my political correctness as much as I could when I first started this blog and I am not about to break that promise. I will only ever start being diplomatic one day if it's in my job description.

Before anyone bothers to send me hate mail accusing me of being a self-hating Arab Muslim I would like to put my hands up now and say guilty as charged. I hate the Arab and Muslim world and I hate a lot of the things they stand for.

In Egypt a man offered his virgin daughter to fulfill the desires of this Iraqi "hero". There is nothing in the Arab world that comes before a man's honour. The wife, the sister, the mother and the daughter are the most precious things in the Arab world so you Westerners can imagine how valuable this "gift" is. Of course when I say they are the most precious things in the Arab world that does not mean they cannot (double negative) be regarded as mere objects or a commodity that can be given in exchange for other commodities.

In Jordan and Palestine Zaidi was hailed as a hero, but that is not so surprising because the list of people regarded as heros over there include the likes of Saddam, Uday, Zarqawi and Bin Laden.

A Saudi Arabian man offered $10 million for the shoes so that the next time his obese friends come over to eat a camel he can point at the shoes and say, while still chewing on camel fat, "these were the shoes that were thrown at Bush". That phrase would elevate his standing in society to degrees unthinkable in the Western world. The Saudi would need to spend $50 million on property, cars, yachts and private jets to achieve the same results, so from his point of view $10 million is a decent investment.

The real irony in this case is that it was only because of what Bush did in 2003 that gave people like Zaidi the opportunity to express their 'opinions' in this way. This brave Iraqi hero could not have shown the world the extent of his 'honour' and national 'pride' if it wasn't for the evil infidel Bush who forced Saddam to live in a rat-hole not even worthy of rabid rats.

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Status Of Forces Agreement

Prime Minister Maliki's Chief of Staff, Dr Tarik Najem Abdullah, was a guest speaker at an event organised by the Muslim Youth Association. The event took place on Saturday in the Dar al-Islam Foundation in north-west London. The issue was of course the SOFA and the future of Iraq.

Abdullah went into detail regarding what the SOFA really means for Iraq and how it was dealt with. He spoke with a certain degree of equanimity, and considering this is such a highly controversial subject, I found it both refreshing and impressive.

He started by emphasising the fact that everyone was in on the details of the negotiations, both groups inside the government and also those outside. After every round of negotiations all the different political groups were briefed on the developments. Even before the cabinet agreed to sign the agreement Maliki had a meeting with all the political heads in Iraq, and no one, except the Sadrists, opposed the final agreement. There were differences of opinion on some aspects of the SOFA with some groups but the Sadrists refused to accept it outright.

"The Iraqi government had a choice", he said, "between asking the US forces to stay in Iraq for one more year, under the current circumstances, or start negotiating the SOFA". He also told the audience to bear in mind that any military force stationed in any other country in the world would need to have some sort of agreement with the local government otherwise nothing would work. Signing the SOFA was in the best interest of Iraq.

The negotiations reached an impasse in June 2008, when Maliki voiced his concerns over Iraqi sovereignty and again when negotiations officially ended in October 2008, when there were still 155 points that the Iraqis could not agree on with the Americans. While 90 of these revolved around the use of language, some of the others infringed Iraq's sovereignty. Talks were revived again in early November and in the revised version, which according to Abdullah was a victory for Iraq, the Americans were forced to compromise on many issues. Some issues were dealt with and agreed on just two days before the deal was approved by the Iraqi cabinet.

The major issues, such as prosecution of US forces or contractors in Iraqi courts ended up being in the favour of the Iraqis. Also the Iraqi forces are allowed to search the Americans but the Americans are not allowed to search or detain without the approval of an Iraqi Judge. There will also not be a single permanent US military-base in Iraq.

Abdullah mentioned on more than one occasion that the Iraqi negotiators managed to strike a deal with the Americans that is unique and nothing like any SOFA the Americans have around the world with over 80 other countries. He said "We should be proud of the negotiators". The German Ambassador in Baghdad was so impressed by the deal he told the Iraqis "What you have managed to get, we could only have dreamed of".

Now it seems Britain will also have to sign a SOFA with Iraq and I think someone should remind them, just in case they forget, to sign it with the Government of Iraq and not the militias.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

What Next? Iraq & SIIC

18 months ago, when news reached the party stalwarts of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim may not be around for much longer there was a silent and bloodless coup d’état that was headed by his son Ammar al-Hakim with the backing of Adel Abdul Mehdi. A deal was struck between the two that while Ammar may be the official head and symbolic leader after the imminent death of his father, any decision made would have to go through Abdul Mehdi.

Since the spring of 2007 Ammar has been effectively running SIIC, and he stepped down from his previous position as Secretary General of the Al-Hakim Foundation (Al-Mehrab Martyr Foundation) and appointed Hussain al-Hakim, and then Hassan al-Hakim, both cousins, to run the multi-million dollar welfare institution in his stead.

Although Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is a workaholic and insists on 7am meetings to make most of the day, he is considered, even by some of his friends and family, as being old-fashioned and boring. Ammar on the other hand is a prolific public speaker and more flamboyant. His swagger, pompous bodyguards and flashy convoys, which include a bullet-proof BMW X5, has earned him the nickname “Uday" al-Hakim, a phrase I seem to be hearing more often when I am in Iraq. This summer I inadvertently insulted a taxi driver by laughing after he told me with absolute conviction “Ammar has used cash to buy half the land in Najaf”.

In the emergency meeting that was held in Baghdad to discuss the future of SIIC, Abdul Mehdi proposed the idea of a committee, which he will head, that will help Ammar lead the party. When the senior officials present were asked for their opinions the awkward moment of silence that followed was deafening. No one opposed the idea of Ammar leading but it was obvious not all of the nervous-looking officials seemed too keen either.

Abdul Mehdi, although intellectually superior to Ammar and decades his senior, has one major disadvantage; his surname is not Hakim. Abdul Mehdi threw his weight behind Ammar for insurance purposes; to guarantee seeing off any challenge from other senior SIIC officials.

Things will be further complicated if, or when, Abdul Mehdi becomes the new Prime Minister next year. Officially, even though premier of Iraq, he will be outranked in his own party by the 38-year-old Ammar. Abdul Mehdi was just one vote away from becoming Prime Minister back in December 2005, however all the Sadrist MP's voted for Ibrahim al-Ja'fari who won 64-63 and then immediately froze my fathers murder case, in which Sadr is chief suspect. It seems likely Abdul Mehdi will take over from Maliki, unless Da'wa fight hard for the premiership.

The way things run inside the Supreme Council is similar to how democracy works in Iran. “We have committees and sub-committees, we have elections and decisions are made by all”, a veteran SIIC official told me earlier this year “But if Hakim says ‘Yes’, no one will dare to say no”. A paradox even he found funny.

Things may be a little more democratic inside SIIC if Ammar is leader but if no one had the steel to challenge him in the meeting then it doesn’t seem likely things will change dramatically once the younger Hakim takes one step higher up the pyramid. For now though, Ammar has had to take a step back as his fathers treatment in Iran has been extremely successful, but he is still in prime position to make the transition quick and smooth.

With Adel Abdul Mehdi leading Iraq, and assuming he remains loyal, the rising star Ammar al-Hakim will certainly become even more influential and powerful. It remains to be seen what exactly this will mean for Baghdad, some expect him to be invaluable when it comes to dealing with Iran, where he lived and studied, but it is that very reason that seems to be worrying others.