Opposition In Iraq

The Patriotic opposition

- Visit of the Delegation of The Iraqi National Coalition to Baghdad and its Talks with the Iraqi Officials
- National Reconcilement and democracy: Our Way to Resist and Defeat the American Aggression

- “Iraqi Communist Party’s support of embargo is crime” Interview with Ahmed Karim, National Democratic Communist Movement of Iraq

- Report from the 3rd congress of the Iraqi Patriotic Opposition

- Interview  with Abd al-Jabbar al-Kubaysi, leader of patriotic Iraqi opposition

- They might take Baghdad, but not the entire country

- Unveiled - the thugs Bush wants in place of Saddam (22/09/02)

- Who is the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?

- Iraq: Funding For Iraqi Opposition Groups

- STORIES ON Iraqi opposition

- Where is the opposition in Iraq? Pursuing its own vicious quarrels, writes Said Aburish

- James Woolsey's law firm represents the INC

- US picks Saddam's successor: General Nizar Khazraji

- LAWSUIT AGAINST General Nizar Al-khazraji (23/3/02)

- Washington fetes its enemy's enemy - Doubts about Iraqi opposition leader's probity are put to one side

- America 'chasing phantoms' in Iraq says arms expert

- BAGHDAD: Opposition forces target oil installations

- U.S. Suspends Funding to Iraqi Opposition Group

- IRAQI OPPOSITION FIGURE DESCRIBES AFTERMATH OF SADDAM HUSSEIN
Arabic News, 18th February

- KURDISH PARTIES OPPOSE TOPPLING SADDAM Arabic News, 16th February

- Ex-General Works to Topple Saddam [Account of Nizar al-Khazraji who, whether or not he was actually responsible for the use of chemical weapons against Halabja, was clearly involved in the war against the Kurds and is now tipped as Washington¹s man to replace Saddam.]

- US pursues ex-generals to topple Iraq leader [Dispute between the apparently virtually non-existent INC and a bunch of Saddam Hussein lookalikes.]
- Iraq in the balance:  The Bush team is looking for some former Iraqi generals to help oust Saddam Hussein. NEWSWEEK has tracked down the top candidates. They’re all veterans of war-and a few may be war criminals.

Iraq's major opposition groups
Please see the contact details at the end if you are able to add to or correct any of this information.

Back to the Main Index.
To suggest corrections, comments and additions, please contact gr10009@cam.ac.uk
Permission to reprint in whole or in part can be assumed, but please indicate source.

Or Iyad Allawi, who himself was a devout member of the Ba’th party and a product of its principles?
Or Saad Salih Jabr, the son of the Prime Minster who signed the Portsmouth agreement with Britain, causing the death of hundreds of Iraqis?

The issue of the legality of US intervention, and the morality of the act doesn’t seem to be of importance. And that is strange, if not dangerous.

Ali then says:” Iraq, 35 years ago was a prosperous country, its political position was stable, economy was fit and people were reasonably wealthy.”

I am afraid this statement is not correct. 35 years ago, Iraq was under the rule of Abdul-Rahman Arif. His brother and predecessor, Abdul-Salaam Arif, died in a Helicopter crash in April 1967, which most Iraqis think was arranged by a foreign power, namely the British.
Iraq then wasn’t a prosperous country, unless you consider the measly money given by the American and British oil companies as prosperity.
Abdul-Rahman was an army officer, and chief of staff. He had no knowledge of politics, nor was ever a politician. He was outside Iraq when his brother got killed, and returned to be told he had become President. He was only the front for the US/British forces struggling over Iraq. And he was the first person to inherit a republic from his brother…
During Abdul-Rahman’s time, the police stormed colleges for the first time in Iraq’s history, violating the “sanctity” of those colleges. Students were attacked and arrested, simply because they went on strike. I was a student in a college in Baghdad, and we had to escape by climbing over the back fence to avoid being caught and interrogated by the police. Anyone who left the college campus was taken by the police; some were roughed up, some were questioned.

Iraq had suffered a budget deficit since 1955. The reason was perhaps huge investments in projects, but also because it had no control of its wealth; all went to US and British oil companies.

The government was at war with the Kurdish north, and the situation in the centre and south was not exactly great. There was a sense of discontent, because of the weak and corrupt government. Thus when the coup of 1968 came, it was no surprise to anyone.

Ali al-Hilli goes on to say:”In came the Baath party of Saddam.  What Iraq saw since then was war after war, continuous murder and executions of the Iraqi opposition by the regime, poverty, sanctions on the Iraqi people (not Saddam) and political instability.”

That statement carries more faults than truths. The Ba’ath part is not “of Saddam”. He wasn’t even the top man in 1968, though among the leadership.

One of the most important achievements of the regime was the nationalisation of Iraq’s oil, which restored the wealth to its people. That certainly is a great achievement, regardless of what we may think of the Ba’th regime.

War with Iran started only in 1980, and Iraq is not to blame alone. With a strong neighbour next to you, who has been a dangerous enemy for decades, and who threatens to export its revolution to you, it would seem natural that that would lead to tension in the area.

The Kurds never put down their arms; they have been fighting every Iraqi government since 1920, changing alliances with the wind... Once pro US, once pro Iran, once pro Soviet Union, and cooperating even with Israel. I am sure that if the Native Americans would now take up arms against the central government, demand autonomy or independence, and receive arms and funding from Cuba or China,  the US would wipe them out in the “democratic” residential areas, called “reservations”... Northern Ireland is a good example. Why do the British governments have the right to crush Northern Ireland’s demands for independence?

Until 1991, Iraq did not suffer from poverty. On the contrary, Iraq was an affluent society, suffering from over consumption… The markets were so flooded with goods, even Kuwaitis used to come to Iraq to buy subsidised goods. Government employees paid no income tax, and health and education services were the best in the area. I am repeating information that has been said many times before, but it seems necessary. Women were given a fully paid one year maternity leave, which no other country in the area gave… I lived those times, and I know what I am talking about.

The reference to the “popular uprising” is very misleading. Whenever it is mentioned, it is presented in such a way as to give the impression that the “people” rose out of their will. No one tells them the readers that Iran and Baqir al-Hakim group were involved, with thousands of “volunteers” brought into Iraq. In fact, the last group of Iranians captured in 1991 in southern Iraq was released only last March by Iraq…
The havoc this “uprising” created is matched only by the destruction done by the US and its allies. Would a person who loved his country go around destroying schools and burning their contents?

As to killings and executions of political opponents, then I must admit that I have always been against them. I have no understanding for that, and I have always condemned these acts. But if we look at the US itself, we can not forget that the same things happen there too. Let’s read the following:” "We must mark [Martin Luther King, Jr.] now, if we have not before, as the most dangerous Negro in the future of this Nation..." Assistant Director of the FBI, Wiliam C. Sullivan, 1963. It is no secret who was behind Mr. King’s assassination…

Blaming the death because of sanctions on Saddam is something not even the US does. We all remember Madeleine Albright’s famous statement, "...we think the price is worth it." - 60 Minutes, May 12, 1996.

Sanctions were imposed on August 6, 1990, with two conditions only: Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, and negotiations between the two countries to solve their conflict. The Kuwaiti ruling family refused any negotiations. Iraq’s withdrawal was achieved, one way or another, on February 28, 1991. The conditions for the UN resolution were thus met. The US did not lift sanctions, but imposed them again with a new set of conditions, that continue to change and be interpreted all the time. The sanctions against Iraq, like the “military actions”, were to destroy Iraq and prevent it from posing any threat to Israel. This has been explained a million times, and the limitations on the range of Iraqi missiles is one good proof of that.
And to show that the Kuwaiti invasion had nothing to do with sanctions, see the following: "We do not agree that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted." --Madeleine Albright
from an essay by John Pilger (The Guardian 03/04/2000)

Ali asks: ”Is this what the Americans are going through? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of the US, but I think you cannot logically compare the atrocities in Iraq and US, mainly because of its different political history, society and religion.”

I suppose that by reading the history of the US, we can have quite a good picture of what has happened there.

Slaves being uprooted from their lands, and taken by force to serve the white settler, forcing them even to adopt another religion..

The original inhabitants of the land killed and displaced, and their lands taken by the white settler by force. Those people were moved by force into “reservations”, where they continue to be in the 21st century.

The oppression of minorities in the country. Discrimination and racism. The US refuses to sign the International agreement for the rights of Women and the International agreement for the rights of the child..

The US accuses Iraq of “killing its own citizens”. Let’s look at the following: “Having defined Utahns as a ‘low-use segment of the population’ the Atomic Energy Commission only tested bombs in the Nevada desert when the wind was blowing in the ‘right direction’ – over Utah. As the population developed cancers they were used for research.” American Ground Zero, Carole Gallagher.

Can’t we compare those atrocities?
Was it alright for the US to use nuclear bombs against Japan? Was it alright for the US to attack Vietnam?
The US has invaded Grenada and Panama, killing thousands of people for no reason. The US has used depleted uranium in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
General Norman Schwarzkopf has said "I want every Iraqi soldier bleeding from every orifice." . Shouldn’t we compare those atrocities?

And in all honesty, I do not see what the “different political history, society and religion” has to do with comparing atrocities as such.

Freedom of expression was mentioned. American citizens were imprisoned simply because they were Communists. Vietnamese were killed just because they were communists. Cuba has been under siege simply because it believes in communism. People loose their jobs now simply because they question the legality or morality of the US war. People have been in prison in the US for months without trial and without charge just because they are Muslims or Arabs, suspected of terrorism…

And so, things are always relative. Everything depends on how you see things and how you interpret happenings. But whatever, the history we have lived through can not be changed nor invented. What I saw and heard myself can not be eradicated by any expert.

Finally, I leave you with an excellent comparison.
"Surely the extermination of Jews in gas chambers is not comparable to the slow death inflicted in Iraqi children by deprivation. But from another angle the latter is even more despicable. The genocide against Jews was perpetrated in the greatest secret and without the blessing of the "civilized world". The crimes against Iraqi civilians are committed in full day-light, with the blessing of the ruling "civilized nations" and with the tacit support of the educated classes in these nations. Those who keep silent and are legally able to speak up, are morally accomplices to this crime." -- Elias Davidsson, Musician and a Palestinian Jew, 4/16/1999 posted in the open forum of www.arabamerican.com

Regards to all..
Hassan Zeini

Hello,

I find the logic in this message and in similar ones difficult to understand.

While everyone expresses worry about Iraqis, the issues is in the end summarized into "removing Saddam". As if Iraq is only Saddam, not 26 million people. As if sanctions are not killing people.

Regime change is at the heart of discussion. It is an illegal act which no law or agreement in the world accepts. For someone who accepts to change a regime in one place, it must also mean agreeing to change the regime in other places. Would Sama agree to a regime change in Iran, for example, or Syria or Egypt or Saudi or Kuwait? Shi'a muslims are oppressed in Easetern Saudi Arabia and in Hijaz... The list is long. So where does the line stop??

I thought the whole discsussion in the world has been about Iraq's non-compliance with SC resolutions. Only the US talked of regime change, a thing which all states in the world rejected. The only people who supported it are part of the opposition groups.

What is being suggested here is that the US should violate international law and the sovereignty of a state, without a mandate from the people, and go by force to change a regime (no matter what we think of that regime). The US did that in Iran in the 1950s and in Chile in the 1970s and in numerous other places in the world. And we know what that brought and meant to the people. What is to stop Russia or China later on from the changing the same regime that the US installs in Iraq? Would that then be accepted by Sama?

The following sentence struck me as expressive of what Sama meant: "if the secret police ('amn) and the Republican Guard are symbollically bombed - thus removing the fear by which Saddam holds power - then this would be the best scenario for the US and for Iraqis because: a) it will be the quickest way to get rid of Saddam and thus better for the US, and b) it will cause the least amount of Iraqi civilian casualties.".

Since when has what is best for the US been what is best for the Iraqis? Are we here looking for what is best for the US? I thought our concern was the people of Iraq not the US!!!

The conclusion that :"Opposing a war on Saddam, calls - at least in the short term - for the current situation to remain: Saddam oppressiong and slaughtering Iraqis, sanctions starving the people" is mistaken. Opposing the war also means opposing sanctions, because sanctions are a weapon in war used to force Iraq to comply with US demands. To suggest that the alternative to unseating Saddam would be to continue sanctions suggests that the writer approves of contiunuing sanctions as long as Saddam is in power. That is what the US has always said...
Sama also says:"our interests (the removal of saddam and the lifting of sanctions) can only result from the same interests of the US policy to remove Saddam.." Since when has US policy coincided with "liberation movements" anywhere in the world? And what are the US interests in removing Saddam? And who but the US has advocated linking the lifting of sanctions to the removal of Saddam? What kind of Iraqi would support maintaining sanctions?

And I find it naive to believe that the US would change the regime and then let those "democrats" in the opposition take over without a price. When one watches those in the opposition debating on TV between themselves, one wonders if Saddam would eventually be better than those people. While in opposition and in exile, receieving salaries from the CIA and MI5, those people are already fighting with each other and accusing each other of treason. If while in the opposition they don't allow others to differ with them, what would they do when they are in power?? And when one knows that most of those "neo-deocrats" come from within the same regime, one would wonder what lies ahead for Iraq should those really take over..

I agree that we should campaign for democracy in Iraq, but not on the "proportional" lines suggested; we would have a government based on sectarian and ethnic divisions, where the lines are already drawn and where democracy is suspended. How can we achieve democracy if we already know that the selections would be on sectarian lines? Haven't we learned from the Lebanese example, where the same "proportional" division caused a civil war in the end? Do we want people to move into opposition on secctarian basis, simply because Iraq's majority are Shi'i?? This sounds to me very dangerous..
And it is also naive to think that the US would bend to public pressure and that any election would be democratic under US control, so that the US would find it difficult to install a puppet government. I suppose Sama is suggesting that if the US doesn't respect the people's decision, those people would kick it out or demonsrate against it? The elected democratic government of Chile was overthrown and thousands killed without as much as an apology from the US... Who cared for the will of the people?

Let us remember that Ricciardone told the opposition that even if Saddam is overthrown, sanctions will remain in place .... Thatcher said in 1992 that even if Iraq complies with all SC resolutions, sanctions should not be lifted... And Bolton recently said that Iraq would not be allowed to develop its arms industry even after Saddam is overthrown.

The perfect scenario would be for the world to intervene and prevent the US from forcing its will on sovereign states and nations. The perfect scenario would be for the sanctions to be lifted and for the genocide to end and for the blackmail of the Iraqis and Arabs to cease.... Short of that, the Iraqis will die, under Saddam or under Baqir al-Hakim...

Hassan Zeini 16/9/2002

Hassan Zeini: 13/09/2002

There is again a clear effort to draw us into side discussions through
personal attacks. This happens every time discussions over a new aggression against Iraq dominate the news. It seems there are some in the anti-sanctions lists who are delegated the job of distracting us from our objective. Perhaps that is where some of those CIA millions are going...

I am an Iraqi, and I declare here that the opinions expressed in the original message of Yasser are not mine, nor of those Iraqis whom I know and with whom I talked in Iraq, the US, Europe, Egypt and Syria.
The difference between us is that I was raised in Iraq where I lived most of my life. I left Iraq when Yasser was born.  My understanding is that Yasser was raised in the UK, and as a young man of 22, he still doesn't know about Iraq except what is told to him by a certain "group" of Iraqis.

To say "we, the Iraqi people, cannot get rid of Saddam Hussein", presupposes having some mandate to represent the Iraqis and talk in their name. That, I assure you, is not the case.

Let us not forget that the same people who are now opposing Saddam Hussein, were part of his regime and enjoyed the positions and the benefits they brought with them. Many of them supported Saddam and helped him get to the position where he is in now. Suddenly, in the 1990's they discover he was a bad guy... Of course
that is accepted. But it is not accepted when Scott Ritter changes his mind; he is accused of being bought...

Who are the opposition that are referred to:

As I explained in a previous post some time ago, they are groups of people who have no credibility inside Iraq or among Iraqis, nor even among Iraq's neighbors.

Who would trust a banker who emptied his bank into his pockets and escaped, and who would go jail if he sets foot in Jordan?

Who would trust the son of the former Prime Minister who sold his country to the British in an agreement that caused riots and the death of tens of Iraqis in Baghdad? All that man did since the 1950's was run a horse race track in the US....

Who would trust Iyad Allawi or Salah Omar al-Ali, two former Ba'athists and Saddam supporters, who fell off with Saddam for personal reasons?

Who would trust Wafiq al-Samarrai, Saddam's chief of Military Intelligence until 1994?

Who would trust Nizar Al-Khazraji, Saddam's Chief of Staff during the Kuwait crisis and the Gulf War and the commander of Anfal campaign

Who would trust Najib Al-Salihi, or Tawfiq al-Yassiri or the rest of officers who all served under Saddam, supported his regime, and got where they got because of being members in the Ba'ath Party?

Who would trust Sharif Ali Hussein, who wants to be king of Iraq? Iraqis never accepted King Faisal who was forced unto them by the British, and now someone who is not even eligible for the throne wants to claim it. The Rules of succession should thus be explained.

"The Iraqi Constitution (as amended in November 1943, and on which Sarif Ali seemingly bases his claim) stipulates that the Crown is only heritable by lawfully begotten males of Iraqi nationality, according to primogeniture, and from the family of King Faisal I of Iraq by his Queen. Failing male heirs of King Faisal, the next in succession being his brothers, the sons of King Hussein ibn 'Ali of the Hijaz, and their male issue, according to primogeniture, provided they were also Iraqi nationals."
Sharif Ali is the son of Princess Badi'a bin Ali and his father was Husain ibn Ali, an Egyptian by birth and nationality. He does not fulfill any of the above requirements...

And finally, who would trust Baqir al-Hakim and his group, who have no problem cooperating with the same powers that let them down, gassed them in 1918 and killed their brothers, in Iraq and Iran? Baqir al-Hakim has a party, on whose central committee sit a few Iranian officials, and who can not do anything without the approval of Iran. That man should rule Iraq? One of his advisers was Adel Abdul-Mahdi Al-Mintafji, another former Ba'athist, who decided to change sides..

Between 1958 and 1963, when Iraq was almost controlled by communists inside the army and around Abdul-Karim Qassem, almost all members of the Hakim family were communists. Simple Shi'is were convinced to become communists because those Shi'is who approached them told them that being a Shiu'i (communist) meant also being a Shi'i.
A group of Shi'i Ba'athists and Arab Nationalists approached the then Shi'i supreme spiritual leader, Sayyed Muhsin Al-Hakim (the father of Baqir), asking him to intervene and state that Communism was not in line with Islamic teachings. He refused... Now the same people are suddenly either devout Muslims, or human rights activists...

Until those in the opposition can find respectable people with a clean history to represent them, they will not enjoy any support nor gain respect from anyone.

Perhaps it is comical when people say "let the Iraqi people decide", but it is not as criminal as saying that bloodshed from a US aggression against Iraq is acceptable, because blood will be shed anyway. Well, it is not their blood that will be shed, so who cares. Iraqis can die, by sanctions or bombs, while they live in comfort in the US and the UK, enjoying millions from the CIA and fighting
Saddam by telepathy...

My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend. Syria tried that in 1990-1991, only to discover how wrong it was. Having cooperated with the US against Iraq, pressure against it increased instead of decreasing, and it is threatened more now that before. Only the simple minded don't learn from history.

Regards
Hassan

Traitor: is someone who betrays his country and cooperates with the enemy during war between his country and that enemy. This is the worst crime anywhere in the world. In the US, which is supporting those people with money and even arms and encouraging them to betray their country, this crime is punishable by death..

Iraq: Funding For Iraqi Opposition Groups (Taken question)
(EXCERPT) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman For
Immediate Release
May 2, 2002
Question Taken at May 1, 2002 Daily Press Briefing
Iraq: Funding For Iraqi Opposition Groups
Question: Can you provide a list of Iraqi opposition groups other than
the Iraqi National Congress that receive US funding?
Answer: The U.S. government has provided roughly $11.6 million to groups other than the Iraqi National Congress as part of broader effort to work towards our objective of achieving a different government for the Iraqi people. Much of this money has gone towards advancing a war crimes case against Saddam Hussein and the senior
Iraqi leadership. Among the recipients of these funds are INDICT, the Iraq Foundation, Iraq Press, AMAR, Washington Kurdish Institute, Iraqi Jurists Association, and the Alliance Internationale pour Justice.
See
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/ for all press statements

STORIES ON Iraqi opposition

On Thu Feb 14, 2002, the following post by "alamir" appeared:

``In today's Swisspaper "24 Hours", an article mentions that a swiss
national of Kurdish origin has filed suit against General Nizar AlKhazraji in Danish courts.  Mr. Ismet Chériff Vanly accuses the general of crimes against humanity.  Mr. Vanly claims that the US chosen general to replace Saddam was the one who led the armed campaign against the kurds in the North of Iraq beteen 1987 and 1988 which caused the death of thousands. During that period Khazraji was amongst those responsible for the Northern Bureau based at Kirkuk and directed by Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan Al Majeed. In 1993 The Organization Human Rights Watch presented a report to the US Congress entitled, "Genocide in Iraq, the campaign 'Anfal' against
the Kurds."  The report designated General Al Khazraji as directly responsible for the massacre. General Al Khazraji left Iraq in 1991 to settle in Denmark.''

On February 14, 2002, AFP apparently reported that a Danish party had "called on the government to prevent a former Iraqi general under investigation by Danish police for alleged involvement in Kurdish massacres from leaving the country."  "Danish deputy Soeren Soendergaard, from the left-wing Unity List, called on the Danish justice minister to guarantee that the former general must remain in the country until police rule out his involvement in war crimes. 
The 63-year-old is under investigation for alleged involvement in the
massacre of Kurds in the north of Iraq between 1987 and 1989." (try
searching AFP 2/14/02)

On February 23, 2002, Brian Whitaker of The Guardian wrote:

``General Khazraji, formerly Saddam's chief of staff, fled to the west in 1996 and was eventually granted political asylum in Denmark. There are claims that he was reluctant to leave Iraq, but that the CIA induced him to do so with promises of a major political role. The main Kurdish parties, the KDP and PUK, apparently support him, but a smaller Kurdish group has sought to have him prosecuted for war crimes. This relates to his alleged role in the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988. Gen Khazraji says the allegations have been invented by Iraqi intelligence services. Some in the Iraqi opposition say he may have scuppered his political chances in a recent interview by appearing too eager to take over from Saddam - he described it as an honour and "a sacred duty".'' ("After Saddam", Brian Whitaker, 2-23-02)

It is sort of interesting the two main Kurdish parties support him.

The following was an AP story that evidently ran earlier this month, which provides more details about al-Khazraji.

-Ed

---------------------------------
Ex-General Works to Topple Saddam
By JAN M. OLSEN
.c The Associated Press
SOROE, Denmark (AP) - The highest officer to defect from Iraq maintains contact with the fragmented opposition abroad while defending himself against allegations of war crimes from his home in exile in this Scandinavian country.

Gen. Nizar al-Khazraji, Iraqi chief of staff from 1986 to 1990, said Saddam Hussein's days as a dictator are numbered but wouldn't discuss exactly how the regime could be toppled.

``I can't talk about details. Next year this time of the year, we will be home,'' al-Khazraji said in an interview with The Associated Press in Soroe, 60 miles outside Copenhagen.

Al-Khazraji, who insists he want no career in politics, said he was fired as head of the Iraqi army in 1990 but kept as a military adviser to Saddam. He said he criticized the invasion of Kuwait that led to the 1991 Gulf War and was eventually placed under house arrest. He fled from Baghdad in 1995.

After settling in Jordan, the general met with various groups in the fragmented Iraqi opposition in Europe and the Middle East, but said he has not joined a specific group.

In July 1999, al-Khazraji, his wife and son sought political asylum in Denmark. The government rejected his request because of suspicions that he may have been responsible for the use of chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s. He was allowed to stay in Denmark while the government investigates to determine whether he should face war crimes charges.

Immigration Minister Bertel Haarder said al-Khazraji would not be allowed to return to Denmark if he leaves, except in ``special circumstances.''

Al-Khazraji maintained the allegations were planted by the Iraqi regime to discredit him with the opposition. He said he had no authority over units involved in the attack. ``It was directly organized by Saddam Hussein and (his confidant) Ali Hassan al-Majid,'' al-Khazraji said.

The general said opposition representatives visited him in January and he has kept in touch with them by telephone and fax. He welcomed U.S. support for the opposition but was hesitant to endorse direct American military action.

``We don't want any collateral damage,'' he said. ``We want Saddam
Hussein toppled, but it doesn't mean that we want the Iraqis to suffer.''

Where is the opposition in Iraq? Pursuing its own vicious quarrels, writes Said Aburish

- New Statesman (U.K.) - A tale of 70 factions and 400 suits - Said Aburish 

President Bush, beware: if you really want to extend the Afghan war to Iraq, you should know that the nightmarish internal politics of Afghanistan are as nothing compared with those of Iraq. The Northern
Alliance may not be a very palatable alternative to the Taliban, but it has a certain rough credibility. There is no equivalent in Iraq.

Over the two years I spent writing his biography (Saddam Hussein: the politics of revenge), I got to know Saddam's opponents. They are such a corrupt, feckless and out-of-touch lot that they make the Butcher of Baghdad look good.

The four million Iraqi Kurds are divided into two tribes, the followers of Massoud Barazani (Kurdistan Democratic Party) and those of Jalal Talabani (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan). Together, they occupy a large enclave in northern Iraq where they have conducted an on-and-off civil war for years. Barazani and Talabani disagree, often bloodily, over how to divide the money they get from the CIA, which pays them to keep Saddam off balance. They fight over the proceeds from smuggling goods, including oil, between Iraq and Turkey. And they compete for the bribes Saddam offers them.

Their hostility to each other keeps them from doing anything to bring down the Iraqi regime. In fact, they choose to forget that Saddam used chemical weapons against them, and shamelessly accept financial and military support from him. They even accept financial help from Iran.

Iraq's Shi'as, 60 per cent of the population, are equally split. Some want an Iraq with close ties to Shi'a Iran; others insist they are Arabs and that, to succeed, they should depend on fellow Arabs, namely Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. A third group believes in co-operating with the US, and accordingly gets paid for it. The US and UK are reluctant to help the two Shi'a groups that command real followings inside Iraq, largely because Daawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq are Islamic fundamentalist.

In addition to the Kurds and Shi'as, there are more than 70 other "opposition" parties. Some are made up of Saddam's old cronies, people who turned against him after they lost their jobs. To make a living,
they accept the backing of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They publish newspapers and magazines no one reads. They have no offices or followers. In private conversation, they admit that their cause is hopeless.

Other anti-Saddam parties are led by former Iraqi army officers; some are Saddam-appointed generals, people who rose through the ranks because of their loyalty to him, rather than any military competence. Their reasons for opposing him are also mostly personal - demotions or sackings.

The last anti-Saddam faction is made up of old politicians who left Iraq in the 1950s, when the monarchy was overthrown. Having lived abroad most of their lives, the leaders of these groups know very little about Iraq and its people. According to one of them, Saddam should not rule Iraq because he came from a poor background and "we don't even know who his father is". Another claims that Saddam is an undercover Mossad agent, part of "a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Iraq".

US picks Saddam's successor: Report
 
AFP [ MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2002  1:29:51 PM ]
 
UBAI: Former Iraqi army chief of staff General Nizar Khazraji has been picked by the United States to run Iraq after the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein, a newspaper reported Monday.

Khazraji, who lives in exile in Denmark, "is the favoured candidate" among 62 ex-officers earmarked by Washington as potential leaders, Al-Hayat daily said, quoting Iraqi opposition sources in Damascus.

Contacts have been made with the general who enjoys "virtual unanimous support in Kurdish, Shiite and Sunnite circles", the London-based paper reported.

However another exile, General Najib al-Salhi, who lives in Jordan, is also seen as a potential "Karzai" for Iraq, said the sources, referring to Hamid Karzai, the leader of the interim Afghan government installed after the United States ousted the Taliban regime.

Al-Salhi "recently went to New York for contacts with the Americans," said Al-Hayat, which is Saudi-owned.

Several countries in the Middle East and the West have had consultations with exiled Iraqi officers to prepare for a possible regime change in Baghdad, it added.

The United States has threatened to extend its anti-terror war to Iraq and openly calls for Saddam Hussein's overthrow.

However one of the main stumbling blocks is the weakness of Iraq's opposition, which has been silenced within the country and unable to unite into an effective force abroad.

LAWSUIT AGAINST General Nizar Alkhazraji (23/3/02)

Friends

In today's Swisspaper "24 Hours", an article mentions that a swiss national of Kurdish origin has filed suit against General Nizar AlKhazraji in Danish courts. Mr. Ismet Chériff Vanly accuses the general of crimes against humanity.

Mr. Vanly claims that the US chosen general to replace Saddam was the one who led the armed campaign against the kurds in the North of Iraq beteen 1987 and 1988 which caused the death of thousands. During that period Khazraji was amongst those responsible for the Northern Bureau based at Kirkuk and directed by Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan Al Majeed.

In 1993 The Organization Human Rights Watch presented a report to the US Congress entitled, "Genocide in Iraq, the campaign"Anfal"against the Kurds." The report designated General Al Khazraji as directly responsible for the massacre.

General Al Khazraji left Iraq in 1991 to settle in Denmark.

My opinion: All this US Admin. talk is nothing but an empty bag blabla.

It is is merely to satisfy some public opinion thirsty for some more blood.  Iraq is not Haiti. And Saddam Hussain is no Jean Bertrand Aristide.  Remove
all the sanctions against Iraq and Saddam will either be toppled or forced to
introduce the necessary political, economical and social reforms.

But the question remains: "Why should the USA overthrow Saddam who is
the only reason to justify the presence of US bases in the Gulf "tribal" States?"

Regards

Washington fetes its enemy's enemy - Doubts about Iraqi opposition leader's probity are put to one side

Like many people in Washington these days, Ahmed Chalabi has a plan to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi opposition leader just needs 11 weeks of training for his followers, anti-tank weapons, air cover, the support of special forces and some protective gear against chemical or biological attack.

Mr Chalabi is confident that he will get all he seeks. In the current political climate, he has been feted from one end of Washington to the other as the man of the hour.

But the drums of war cannot entirely drown out persistent questions over his integrity. There are some in Washington who doubt that the 57-year-old former mathematician and banker even has a guerrilla force to command any more, and suggest that his war plan is simply the latest in a series of confidence tricks designed to squeeze money out of the US government.

Many of the doubters work in the state department and the CIA, which view his Iraqi National Congress (INC) with ill-disguised contempt. But as the resolve to fight President Saddam spreads in Washington, Mr Chalabi's adversaries have been on the defensive, while his backers in the Pentagon, Congress and White House have brushed away the nagging questions - at least for the time being.

Only days before George Bush's recent bellicose state of the union message, the state department had threatened to cut off the INC's funding because of bookkeeping irregularities. But by January 30, the doubts were overtaken by patriotic resolve. Anyone prepared to fight the Baghdad regime was embraced, and on that very day Mr Chalabi had his funding restored.

As for his war plan, he said he was "encouraged by the response". Wheels have begun to turn, Mr Chalabi confided, but he could not give details.

"The United States will help us to train and equip light anti-tank battalions, well-trained and highly mobile. Those people, once on the ground, will be able to defeat Saddam's forces."

It would take 11 weeks to train and equip those forces, he added.
In the course of a 90-minute interview, a confident Mr Chalabi frequently laughed, and discussed the defeat of the 400,000-strong Iraqi army as if it was a mere formality. In his view, President Saddam's army was hollow - packed with ill-trained conscripts.

Mr Chalabi gave a theoretical example: a rebel incursion across the Kuwaiti border to capture a frontier town. The rebel force would be protected from counter-attack by US air power, and within days the key southern city of Basra would fall as its garrison mutinied.
"Once that happens, our problem will not be finding people - our problem will be absorbing people," he said.
His main concern was retaliation with chemical or biological weapons, and he would want his men to be trained and equipped to protect themselves, he said.

First of all, however, Mr Chalabi has to survive the doubters in Washington.
Questions about his probity are part of the problem. He was convicted in a Jordanian court about 10 years ago for embezzling money from depositors in a banking scandal. More recently, the state department found that about half of a $4m ( £2.8m) disbursement in US funding was not properly accounted for.

Mr Chalabi said he was the victim of a setup in Jordan by cronies of the late King Hussein. The accounting issue was dismissed as the quibbles of a bureaucracy which was ill-suited to a covert war, in which few receipts were issued.

The more serious question, given Washington's stated aim of "regime change", is whether he can rally opposition forces.

Leith Kubba, who helped Mr Chalabi to found the INC a decade ago, but who left after concerns that it was becoming a US foreign policy tool, has serious doubts. He believes that the only substantial rebel forces in Iraq are commanded by the Kurdish Democratic party leader, Massoud Barzani, and the Tehran-based Shi'ite cleric, Mohammed Bakr Hakim. "These people dictate the agenda," Mr Kubba said.

Both Mr Barzani's party and Mr Hakim's Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq are formally INC affiliates, but that does not mean that they take Mr Chalabi's orders.

Mr Chalabi lost credibility after orchestrating an uprising in northern Iraq in 1995, only to be abandoned by the CIA, acting on government orders. The insurgency, and the INC's presence in the country, was swept aside by Iraq in 1996.

Six years on, Mr Chalabi must perform a double act: convince Washington that he has support in Iraq while persuading sceptical resistance leaders that Washington is serious this time.

It is an impresario's job, and for that at least, he has the perfect background.
Ahmed Chalabi is seeking weapons and expertise from the US Photograph: Mike Nelson/AFP.


Source: GUARDIAN 22/02/2002 P17

America 'chasing phantoms' in Iraq says arms expert
By Robert Fisk in Beirut
17 February 2002

Scott Ritter, America's former top arms inspector in Iraq, has a neat phrase for Saddam's regime. The "phantom threat", he calls it. And he backs up his argument with an impressive assault on the credentials of Ahmed Chalabi, the head of Iraq's opposition in exile, whose bogus claims of defectors "proving" Iraq's connection to the 11 September mass murders are persuading Washington to put Saddam on America's next hit list.

Scott Ritter's damning evidence late last month should be taken seriously in the White House, even if Mr Ritter did once admit that he shared intelligence on the UN's Iraqi arms inspections with the Israelis. It was Mr Chalabi, he claimed, who promoted the Iraqi-Bin Laden connection by publicising the alleged meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence agent and the soon-to-be 11 September suicide pilot Mohamed Atta. Mr Ritter says that the subject of their discussion - supposedly an attack on the anti-Saddam Radio Free Europe transmitter in Prague - was a far cry from the 11 September attacks and that the Czech government's reports on this supposed meeting were conflicting.

Far more seriously, Mr Ritter says that when he was arms inspector, he was tasked to liaise with Mr Chalabi and the "Iraqi National Congress" to gather intelligence information - "more flash than substance" as Mr Ritter puts it - from Mr Chalabi's defectors. Among the latter was a supposed engineer who helped to build a network of underground tunnels beneath Saddam's palaces, all packed with documents on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Mr Ritter's men dutifully went after the treasure
trove of files. They found one drainage tunnel and no documents.

When Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz needed a link between Iraq and the 11 September attacks, Mr Ritter says, Mr Chalabi discovered "defectors" who knew of the training of "Arab" hijackers by Iraqi intelligence at a facility near the Iraqi town of Salman Pak, complete with a commercial airliner that was used by would-be air pirates using only knives and - a lovely touch, this, in view of 11 September -
practising only in "groups of five". The Salman Pak facility exists, Mr Ritter says, but its use as an al-Qa'ida training camp has never been substantiated.

The UN, Mr Ritter reveals, "stopped using Chalabi's information as a basis for conducting inspections once the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear". Mr Chalabi's "sponsors", according to Mr Ritter in the Christian Science Monitor, are Mr Wolfowitz, former CIA director James Woolsey, and former Under Secretary of State Richard Perle, who rejoices in the nickname of "Prince of Darkness".

En wat doet die oppositie zoal ?