Do you truly believe in giving the Iraqis the freedom to determine their own fate via the democratic process? Then let them vote for whoever they want.
Democracy with conditions is not democracy.
In this article, Christopher Hitchens points out that [url=http://slate.msn.com/id/2081968/the New York Times has been actively attacking Chalabi. In his usual snide style, he observes that [ul][]Dowd’s column cited in the OP is an ignorant hit piece.[]Her statement that the troops protecting him could have protected the museaum is wrong, because he was in Nasariya at time of the looting and he had his own bodyguards[]Chalabi is not a puppet, although he’s accused of being one. [] He was in northern Iraq many times and for long periods in the 1990s, helping to organize opposition conferences and to broker an agreement between the opposing Kurdish factions, although he’s accused of not having been there for many decades.[]He frequently risked his life in this enterprise; indeed it was for criticizing the CIA’s own ham-fisted efforts in Kurdistan at the time that he incurred the lasting hatred of the agency. []His activity on Iraqi soil was reported on several occasions in the New York Times.[]Other expatriots like Arafat and the Dalai Lama have commanded support, despite having been away for decades.[]The Times has run other critical articles about Chalabi, in addition to Dowd’s[/ul]It’s not unusual for the Times to mount a coordinated campaign at a particular target. What puzzles me is why Chalabi wound up in their gun sights. Any ideas?
Fixed link: http://slate.msn.com/id/2081968/
The NY times isn’t the only paper that has less than positive things to say about Chalabi.
I’ve cited several other int’l sources already.
mmm? Cause he’s a power mad thief who will screw U.S. relations in the region?
Granted, the following is from the notorious N Y Times, however, the statement appears to have emanated from the military:
It is possible that Chalabi is just a do-gooder who Saddam Hussein, the CIA, the Jordanian government, the US State Department and the NY Times have a conspiracy against, but it seems unlikely. It seems less unlikely, but still highly unlikely that each of these entities would all decide to persecute this fella for no good reason.
“In 1992, Chalabi was tried in his absence and sentenced by a Jordanian court to 22 years’ jail on 31 charges of embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds and currency speculation.”
If he was so innocent, why wasn’t he there to defend himself? And I disagree with the notion that because the Shi’ite’s have no experience governing the country, they shouldn’t even try.
Who are we to tell the Iraqi’s whom to follow, whom to elect? Sending a pro-Israel General to the region, is already creating tension. Installing a known embezzler (sorry, the defense you offered sounded very thin to me. ) is only going to make things worse, and it might sow the seeds for another conflict.
Just like the way Germany was treated after WWI, created the breeding ground for WWII.
It seems that the idea of the INC having a prominent role post-Saddam is unacceptable to some people in the State department, not just because of the tainted “leader”. (I’m not sure he’s even considered the leader.) Discrediting Chalabi is the means to discredit the whole INC, in favor of…something else. So there must be a NYT-preferred solution possibly friendly to the State view that would be threatened by the INC role. I don’t know what it is because I don’t read the NYT.
The INC is an umbrella group which brings several factions together, including the Kurds. Are the Kurds that politically disasterous/untouchable? I went looking at the Kurdistan Observer last night for their views…just happened to see that the US had cought a Turkish special forces unit sneaking into Kirkuk. In civilian clothes. They were escorted home to Turkey. (Time.com also reported this.)
In Iraq the INC is known for its disastrous CIA backed campaign against Saddam Hussein. Two of the most prominent Kurish groups, Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), along with a number of other opposition groups, pulled out of the INC as a result.
IIRC, the KDP and the PUK are now aigned with the Group of Four.
Christ. This is like the equivalent of expecting Australians to welcome Peter Foster as their new US-imposed leader.
Iraqis don’t like or trust this guy. Great start that would be for Iraq v 2.0 - putting a known thief in.
I bet Chalabi won’t become the chief executive officer of Iraq.
I predict that Chalabi will remain in charge of the INC.
I predict that:
INC members will hold at least the major “purse-strings” offices, whatever those may be, and quite likely the major appropriations offices, whatever those may be;
INC members will at least pick the officers for the important military commands and are likely to end up staffing the commands with themselves too;
INC members will do the same for the intelligence agency as for the military.
I think that there will be considerations made for the realtively unappetizing qualities of Chalaby and US backing. I suspect that Chalaby and the INC are a “first bid” by Rumsfeld et al. If the INC/Chalabi leadership thing flies great but if not the next guys “won’t look so bad” when compared to Chalaby.
I’m certainly not an expert. I’m too young to have made these sorts of predictions before.
I’m not claiming wisdom or expertise either, I just see contradictions within the whole “Chalabi is the hand-picked leader” idea and I point them out. Another one: The INC is “known” in Iraq for being backed by the CIA against Saddam, except that the CIA doesn’t back them? How strange.
Like I said it is (or was) an umbrella group that brought exile opposition groups together. The people themselves are no longer exiles, and no longer have anything to oppose…they have a common goal at this moment because there is a pressing need for an Iraqi interim government. So yes, we will see the Kurds working with the INC, the Shia, the monarchists…how else is Iraq itself going to elect a leader? And those who want or expect a theocracy (SCIRI - the Ayatollah living in Iran) are the ones boycotting the attempts to form an interim government. I get a kick out of that one, their whole contribution to the process is protesting in the streets. Naturally that’s what the press focuses on.
Ummm…INC is known for its disastrous CIA backed campaign. Why is it so strange that after Chalabi burned the CIA as to the monies it provided for training soldiers who never showed appeared and other programs that were paid for but not implemented that the CIA should decide to back the Iraqi National Accord instead?
It was seven years ago or so.
The Group of Four is a much more inclusive umbrella group that, IIRC, includes the SCIRI, PUK and KDP and the INA.
Other than the allied withdrawal from Iraq and a Iraqi government that’s formed w/o US influence, it’s not at all clear what the SCIRI want exactly. They have been on record saying that they don’t want a replica of Iran.
Apparently, the SCIRI have one of the largest and most cohesive followings of the various Iraqi opposition groups. Not finding a way to include them in the formation of an Iraqi interim government is a recipe for civil strife.
The press should focus on it. It’s a critical element of what’s going on.
That’s not strange at all…so the INC is known in Iraq for burning the CIA? Or INC is known to the opposition as burning the CIA. Or is it just Chalabi himself. I can’t find anything saying that he “leads” the INC, or that any members of the INC are his subordinates…that’s my point.
Yes, with a substantial following already in Iraq, and representing a whole exiled community (temporarily) in Iran. SCIRI = The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. I agree with you, it’s a critical element and possibly a recipe for civil strife. I suspect that the civil strife was part of the plan though.
In Iraq, the INC is known for its disastrous CIA backed campaign against Saddam Hussein.
In Iraq, the INC is known for its disastrous campaign.
Cites previously provided.
After the disastrous campaign, the CIA stopped backing the INC. The CIA no longer backs the INC. While the INC is known in Iraq for its disastrous campaign that was backed by the CIA, (years ago), it’s not backed by the CIA now. The CIA stopped backing the INC because they got burned by the INC.
From http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqiopposition.html, (previously provided):
IIRC, Chalabi’s leadership role is also mentioned in a few other cites previously provided.
For further info, here’s a link to the INC’s homepage: http://www.inc.org.uk/ (previously provided)
But they actually had popular support during their absence. The Dalai Lama is still seen as the leader of his people, and Arafat has long been the visible face of the PLO. Chalabi does not enjoy that kind of support; the only thing keeping him and his organization afloat is the US government. (That, at least, is how it’s seen - not that I disagree.)
I would add - and this is not a recent critique - that there was never really a single, strong Iraqi opposition leadership group, i.e. someone who could lead if and when Saddam was removed. The INC wasn’t really a viable alternative because they had no military power (their army is 700 people??) and again, nobody really wanted them.
I’d also add that Iraq could face problems if Chalabi is a major player (of whatever sort) in their government when it comes to dealing with other countries. Do you think Jordan is going to want to deal with the guy, especially regarding finances? I can easily envision other Muslim nations not wanting to deal with an American-backed person of such shady repute.
If Chalabi’s in a position of power he will control some of Iraq’s wealth. I suspect that Iraq’s oil wealth can buy at least the appearance of friendliness from those who could acquire it through trade.
In case anyone wondered, SCIRI home.
I’m sorry, I don’t agree. The CIA stopped backing the INC uprising prior to the disastrous campaign, which is pretty much why it is now referred to as a disastrous campaign.
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/cia/plot.html
It’s touched upon briefly in your long post on page 1, where you refer to it leading to the death of hundreds or thousands of Iraqis. That’s including the INC deaths I assume. Yes, people have been burned, but it may not be in dollar figures and it may not be the CIA - why they have the high moral ground to bitch about here I don’t know. So, do we know what the INC “is known for” inside Iraq, independent of the CIA view, or not?
In that same post btw you say this:
The Badr Brigade is led by SCIRI, which you also just mentioned. Why the scare bolding?
Not to be tangential, but the Iran/Shia thing is almost amusing. It’s out of fear of Iran’s power that Saddam was sold so many terrible weapons in the first place and why he was supported during the war against them. That also, I think, was among the reasons that he was left in power after the Gulf War (and after). Now he’s gone and it almost seems like the government didn’t bother to figure out how to avoid this issue. At least some of the people in Iraq seem to want a government in the style of Iran - despit the great enmity between the two nations. (Too bad they can’t ask the Iranian people how much fun a theocracy is…)