Thieves of Baghdad

August 25 2004

Thieves of Baghdad

by pv vivekanand

PARALLEL to the mounting crises the US-led military coalition is facing in post-Iraq are the emerging details of a multi-billion dollar scam that could put to shame the Arabian tale, The Thief of Baghdad.
The outstanding difference is that the scam is not a tale; the thieves are many, they are not Iraqi but American, and the money involved was indeed Iraqi.
This is what has emerged from audit reports of the accounts of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that was disbanded on June 28.
Paul Bremer, who headed the CPA, and his entourage flew out of Baghdad on the same day, leaving behind what American auditors now determine as misuse of proceeds of Iraqi oil exports to benefit American contractors, with the major beneficiary being none other than Halliburton.
In 11 reports drawn up since June, auditors from CPA inspector-general Stuart Bowen's team have reported a pattern of spending which an ambiguity that left the door open not only for gross wastage but also for corruption.
Scrutinising the accounts of money spent in Iraq, the Defence Contract Audit Agency, the General Accounting Office (the investigative arm of the US Congress), and Bowen's team have singled out Halliburton for its pricing and spending practices.
However, seen from the Middle Eastern vantage point, a line has to be drawn between American money and Iraqi money being spent in Iraq. American money, whether spent or pilfered in Iraq, is an American problem, but not so with Iraqi money that belongs to the people of Iraq.
Yet to be revealed is whether members of the dissolved Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) were party to the scam. Surely, observers point out, some of them should have benefited from the hundreds of millions of dollars flying around. Probably, an expanded investigation by an independent authority might bring out some names.
There were three sources of funding — war chests as some commentators call them — for the war and occupation of Iraq. The first was $65 billion directly allocated as military spending by the US Congress and administered by the US Defence Department. It was American taxpayer's money.
The second was $18.4 billion, also approved by the US Congress, but administered by the CPA. Again, it was American taxpayer's money and supposed to be spent on reconstruction of Iraq along with $16 billion or so pledged by other countries.
The third was the Development Fund for Iraq, which represented proceeds from Iraq's oil exports and leftover money from the oil-for-food programme that the UN ran in co-ordination with the Saddam Hussein regime. The fund handled about $20 billion by the time the CPA was disbanded when the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government in late June.
From the first war chest, the Pentagon has overspent the military spending allocation of $65 billion by $12 billion and now the Bush administration is seeking an additional $25 billion. Since the money represented strictly American money, let us leave that to the American taxpayer to figure out and wonder why the war against Iraq and occupation of that country cost an average American family $3,500 so far.
From the $18.4 billion allocation for reconstructing Iraq, the CPA spent only two per cent. Why? The answer is simple: Allocating American funds for reconstruction projects in Iraq has riders, including a transparent tendering system that starts with prequalification of bidders and the whole works.
The CPA could not touch that money without going through the complicated process involving competitive bidding subject to scrutiny and inspections throughout.
The catch is with the third source: According to the auditors, the CPA seems to have violated the guidelines and procedures by dipping its hand deep into the Development of Iraq Fund — which is strictly Iraqi money — and paid contractors, mainly Hallyburton. The money from the fund should have been used only for running the administration of Iraq and should not have been used to pay contractors.
Pratap Chatterjee of the UK-based Corporate Watch (www.corporatewatch.org) has written extensively about how Iraqi or US Congress-appropriated funds were being spent in Iraq.
He notes that the Pentagon was not unable to explain just how Halliburton gained possession of Iraqi funds when neither the US Congress nor the Iraqi government authorised their transfer to Halliburton in the first place.
A yet-to-be released audit report, unveiled in the American media, says that the auditors found that $8.8 billion allocated by the CPA from the Development Fund for Iraq could have been misappropriated. The findings have prompted three American senators to demand that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld account for the money.
The auditors first classified the $8.8 billion as "missing" and tried to trace the money.
The auditors found that had Bremer allocated the money to Halliburton, to the CPA itself and Iraqi ministries for "administrative expenses" including salaries of hundreds of thousands of government employees – including pensioners —  teachers, medical staff and administrators as well as to fund Iraqi security and police forces.
But then, the accounts of the CPA as well as that of the ministries were "padded." An example was the existence of 74,000 "security guards" on the CPA payroll, where the auditors discovered that the actual number was not even one third of that figure. Obviously, Bremer's top American aides had a lot to do with that padding, as American commentators assert.
CPA accounts showed equipment worth tens of millions of dollars were bought with the money, but there was no trace of the items bought. The auditors reportedly found that some of the equipment existed only in paper while others were bought but spirited away to unknown destinations.
A classic example was a giant generator bought for nearly $750,000 which could not be located. The auditors traced it to the stores of Halliburton, in which US Vice-President Dick Cheney owns a million shares. Halliburton immediately explained that its officials had misplaced or forgotten to turn in the receipts to the correct people.
In mid-June, shortly before Bremer left Iraq, an unexplained haste was seen in allocating funds, with reports suggesting that the CPA was rushing to dispose of whatever funds are left from the Iraqi oil proceeds in order not to have to hand over the funds to the interim government.
The US-controlled Programme Review Board was in charge of
managing Iraq's finances. In the second week of June, it approved the expenditure of nearly $2 billion for reconstruction projects from the Development Fund for Iraq.
At that time questions were raised why the $2 billion additional funding for projects for which the US Congress
has already allocated funds from American taxpayer's
money.
For example, $500 million were earmarked for Iraqi security forces, even though Congress allocated $3.2 billion for the same purpose (and where the UN estimates the cost to be less than $2.5 billion); $315 million are allocated for the electricity sector despite a $5.5 billion Congress appropriation for the same sector (UN estimate $4 billion); and $460 million are allocated to the oil sector where the US Congress has allocated $1.7 billion.
Experts who keep a close watch on Iraqi oil sales and funds questioned why these allocations were not made when the 2004 Iraqi budget was adopted and subsequently revised in March.
The interim government is dutybound under UN Security Council 1546 of June 8 not to raise questions and honour all outstanding obligations against the Development Fund for Iraq made before June 30.
The experts pointed out at that time that American corporate giants with rebuilding contracts in occupied Iraq are being
benefited by the additional funds with the interim government having no say in the affair.
Halliburton has been in the eye of the storm since the beginning. It has billions of worth of contracts from the defence department to provide meals, accommodation, laundry and Internet connections for American soldiers in Iraq as well as fuel to the US military has been found to have overcharged the Pentagon by hundreds of millions of dollars.
The allegations led to a Pentagon announcement that it would withhold payment of 15 per cent of all Halliburton invoices until the company offers satisfactory explanations. But the next day, the Pentagon corrected itself and Hallyburton had two weeks of grace to meet the demand.
Non-governmental organisations working in Iraq have raised complaints of gross mismanagement of funds by the CPA.
Britain's charity group Christian Aid said in June that at least $20 billion in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds intended to rebuild the country have disappeared from CPA bank accounts.
Three Democrat senators, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Byron L Dorgan of North Dakota and Tom Harkin of Iowa, have demanded a "full, written account" of the money that was channelled to Iraqi ministries and authorities by the CPA.
"We are requesting a full, written account of the $8.8 billion transferred earlier this year from the CPA to the Iraqi ministries, including the amount each ministry received and the way in which the ministry spent the money," said the letter.
Now Rumsfeld has to answer the Democrat senators' questions.
One of the questions Rumsfeld is likely to asked is whether he was aware that Cheney was continuing to receive money from Halliburton although he is not at its helm anymore.
The Guardian newspaper of Britain reported in March 2003 that Halliburton is still making annual payments of upto $1 million classified as "deferred compensation."
According to the Guardian, when Cheney left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush's running mate, he instructed the company to pay him his settlement dues him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.
Cheney sold most of his Halliburton shares when he left the company, but retained stock options worth about $8 million and arranged to pay any profits to charity, according to the newspaper.
In June this year, Time magazine cited a Pentagon email dated March 5, 2003, indicating that Cheney was directly involved in the selection of Halliburton for a major contract in Iraq.
The email, said to be sent by an official for the Army Corps of Engineers, saying that the contract for construction of oil pipelines in Iraq was approved by Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith “contingent on informing WH (White House) tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP’s (Vice President’s) office.” Time noted that the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for allocating contracts, and thus the email suggests that Halliburton was awarded the deal in coordination with Cheney’s office.
The contract was given to Halliburton three days later without any bids from other companies.
Cheney has denied any involvement in the contract process.
One his spokesman denied that the email implied any direct involvement of Cheney.
Halliburton has admitted to overcharging by $6 million on its contracts to supply meals to US soldiers. It drew up invoices and got paid for meals that were never eaten and never cooked.
According to Time reporter Jyoti Thottam, “Why would a company like Halliburton, which, after all, runs a successful oil-field-services business far removed from Iraq, agree to stay there? Profits. Iraq contracts have added $5.7 billion to Halliburton’s revenues since January 2003, accounting for almost all the company’s growth at a time when it was struggling with $4 billion in asbestos claims. The fact is, war is one of Halliburton’s specialties.”
Halliburton, which already has contracts worth $17 billion in Iraq, is one of five large US corporations - the others are the Bechtel Group, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, and the Louis Berger Group vying for contracts in the war-torn country. None of the other companies has been cited in an Iraq scandal yet.
Bechtel has contracts worth about $2 billion in Iraq. They include rehabilitation of Iraq’s power, water and sewage systems that were destroyed in the war, rehabilitation of airports, and the dredging of the Umm Qasr port, repair and reconstruction of hospitals, schools, government buildings and irrigation and transportation systems.
Indeed, Iraq sounds more like the fabled cave of the 40 thieves that Alibaba stumbled upon. But what it contains is not loot but national wealth that belongs to the people of Iraq, who are still left without proper water and power supply and means to make a living despite the tens of billions of dollars spent purportedly to make their life better.

Omission or oversight?

August 23 2004
'Omission or oversight?'
PV Vivekanand



Tommy Franks, the retired American four-star general who commanded the war against Iraq, seems to have deliberately steering clear in his forthcoming book from a very sinister aspect of the American strategy in the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein — the US had "bought" the loyalty of many of the top commanders of Saddam's Republican Guards in order to win the war.
Instead, Franks' book, American Soldiers, cites an intelligence "coup" as the key that opened the door of Baghdad to the invading US forces; that Saddam was given misinformation on American military plans and thus he was not ready for the ground thrust from the south (he was expecting an assault from the north); hence his forces were not in place to engage the invaders in what could have turned out to be a ferocious battle.
The book says that prior to the war an American intelligence agent codenamed April Fool was approached by an Iraqi diplomat, and that, with Frank's knowledge, the American agent — April Fool — sold the Iraqi false "top secret" invasion plot.
According to Franks, "the story line we sold them went as follows: the coalition was planning to build up only a portion of its ground force in Kuwait, while preparing a major airborne assault into northern Iraq>'
As a result, Franks argues, Saddam focused on the north and left the south vulnerable.
Had Saddam been ready in the south and engaged the American invaders in battle there, the American forces would have taken heavy casualties, judging from Saddam's military defences and fortifications around Baghdad. There was no shortage of heavy guns and ammunitions, rockets and explosives that were shown in the television footage as the US military advanced unchallenged into the heart of Baghdad.
However, Franks very conveniently fails to mention in the book that American intelligence agents were in Baghdad ahead of the war (some of them posed themselves as pro-peace, anti-war "human shields") and contacted senior Republican Guards officers, according to sources closely familiar with the events of the war (Manorama reported it on April 13, 2003).
In the first days of the war that was launched on March 20, US warplanes bombed Republican Guard bases outside Baghdad for three consecutive nights in what was aimed to a massive show of force that would convince any military officer of the superior firepower of the US.
Subsequently, the undercover agents approached the Guards officers and influenced them into accepting that Iraq's defeat was inevitable in view of the massive firepower of the world's sole superpower, and then bribed them with cash, safe passage out of Iraq for them and their families and guaranteed resettlement elsewhere under new identities.
In early April, a few days before the fall of Baghdad, the officers and their families were airlifted out of the Iraqi capital in the darkness of the night. While some senior officers left behind instructions to their soldiers to abandon their posts, others left no instructions, and thus total confusion prevailed among the ranks. That explained the half-hearted defence of Baghdad put up by Saddam's soldiers for a few hours before they melted away into the civilian population between April 7 and April 9, 2003. Baghdad fell on Aug.9.
Why did Frank, who would have definitely known about the betrayal of the Iraqi generals, omit this particularly important piece of information from his book?
The reason is clear: For a career military officer like Franks, it is almost a disgrace to admit that his military victory was the result of enemy officers' betrayal of their country rather than the success of his own military strategy.
To reveal that the fall of Baghdad was achieved with only a handful of American casualties because Iraqi generals were bribed and taken away from the scene would be a big blow to the American commanders, including President George W Bush himself.

Trouble waiting round the corner

PV Vivekanand

MOQTADA Sadr appears to have managed to cut a deal with the interim government in Iraq and pre-empted a US-backed Iraqi security forces' storming of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf that would have possibly led to his capture or death.
He has agreed to disarm his Mahdi Army militia and leave the city and also integrate his movement into Iraqi politics.
However, one could not but be sceptical about the strength of the commitments in the deal. The priorities and approaches of Sadr and the interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, might have converged on the compromise to defuse the crisis in Najaf, but the two are fundamentally poles apart in their visions of the future of Iraq.
Allawi has no choice but to follow the US-drafted course for Iraq since the US military has Iraq in a stranglehold. His political future is tied with the US version of Iraq for in the interim at least. That course would not allow him any room to have someone like Sadr who could pounce at the right moment and scramble the scenario.
Sadr is not of the mold where he would hold his peace while Allawi gets ahead on the US-designed course. Definitely, at some point, sooner than later, the two would clash, even if Sadr were to enter the evolving mainstream Iraqi politics.
With the guerrilla war showing little sign of abating, Allawi would be hardpressed to meet the basic demands of the people of Iraqi in a satisfactory manner, whether for water, power, food, jobs and security. Given that the south of Iraq had not been given a fair share of attention for development during the Saddam Hussein reign, the situation in that region is all the more precarious for Allawi as he tries to restore normalcy to the country.
As such, apart from the wide gap in ideologies with Allawi, Sadr would also have to confront the interim prime minister with the daily life issues of his people; that is, if Sadr follows the traditions of politics. On both counts, the scene is the perfect reciple for trouble pitting the two. The only question is how long will it take for fresh blood to spill.

Spare us the exonerations

August 12 2004

Please spare us the exonerations

pv vivekanand

IT IS disgusting to read reports after reports about reports of the findings of the dozens of secret and public investigations conducted into the abuse of prisoners at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison and other detention facilities in post-war Iraq. Almost all the reports exonerate top political officials of the Bush administration and the Pentagon as well as the top brass in the US military while media reports are lavish with suggestions that only a "handful" of "rogue elements" and "undisciplined" soldiers and private contractors were behind the abuse.

But then, does it really matter to us who exactly in the American hierarchy was responsible for the worst kind of violations of human dignity in recent history?

It is a collective responsibility that should weigh down heavily on the American mind.

We do realise that investigating the abuses and identifying those directly responsible for the abuses is an American imperative. The legal process has to be followed the guilty should be punished; that is what the American sytem demands.

It is a more of an internal issue for the Americans.

For us in this part of the world, everyone, from the senior-most official, elected or otherwise, in the US down to the private American who treated Iraqi prisoners likes the worst animals on earth, is equally guilty of prejudice and hatred cultivated by the policies of successive American administrations.

Can the US administration wriggle out of the reality that dehumanising Arabs, particularly the Palestinians and Iraqis, through the mainstream media and project them as unworthy of being treated as human beings was a direct or indirect American policy objective? Will the American public would ever be told of this reality?

As such, reports of repeated exonerations of top political officials of the Bush administration makes us want to throw up.

Where does the buck stop?

Indeed, a line has been drawn between the officers who actually served in Iraq and those who pulled the strings from Washington.

Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, who was the top American military officer in Iraq at the time of the abuse, was quietly removed from the post months after reports of the abuse appeared in the media.

Sanchez as well as his boss, General John Abizaid, head of the US Central Command, have testified in the US Congress that they did not find out about the abuse until this year when a military policeman revealed the problem at the prison. However, other accounts have spoken of complaints of abuse being filed in the third quarter of last year.

The senior most officer to be suspended in this connection was Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade in Iraq late last year. She has been issued a letter of reprimand and been suspended from her post. Seven other military police reservists are facing charges. All except one of them have pleaded innocent saying they were only following orders. Even the one who pleaded guilty says he had instructions to treat the prisoners that way.

If Karpinski is to be believed, then she is also innocent. She could not be expected to know what was going on in the corridors of the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad except from reports filed by her juniors.

The latest US Army report also has cleared top US military officers in Iraq of abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib but implicates 20 or more intelligence troops in the scandal.

The report, according to Reuters, recommends disciplinary action such as administrative reduction in rank and loss of pay as well as further investigation that could lead to military trials.

It does not matter to us if US President George Bush pleads that he did not know what was going in the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad; that he did not know his soldiers and "private experts in interrogation" were playing sadistic football with Iraqi prisoners, humiliating them to the lowest level that any human being would ever consider himself to be and torturing them and subjecting them to conditions where they longed for death.

Whoever they are, the torturers and tormentors did not happen to walk into Abu Gharaib on their own. They were brought there and unleashed on the Iraqis by the US government. Can Washington argue its way out of that responsibility?

It has been nearly five months since the news hit the headlines that an internal investigation has unearthed gross violations of human rights, dignity and self-respect at Abu Ghraib. Probably, had it not been for journalists like Seymour Hersh and others the world would not have known about it either until sometime later (let us respect the integrity and investigating skills of American journalists in general; someone or another might have unveiled the findings of the investigation sooner or later).

For sure, top officials in Washington knew about the abuses several months earlier since they should have but been informed about complaints being received before the investigation was launched.

Throughout this period, the administration only tried to keep it away from the world that there were credible reports about prisoner abuse in Iraq. It is surprising that they hoped to get away with it, expecting to keep everything under wraps under the rules of confidentiality of the US military.

As such, the pledges by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top officials that they were committed to thoroughly investigating the reports of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan sounded hollow and meaningless and seemed aimed only at public consumption. That is not to say that they would not investigate the cases, but that they are trying to divert attention from the fact that they had created the atmosphere that led to the abuses.

When the news of the abuses came out, everyone tried to pass the buck for some time and then the president and his defence secretary offered an "apology" but they did not know about the incidents until the investigation report was released.

It is the second part that we find insulting our intelligence, because it was precisely the indifference and contempt with which consecutive American administrations treated the Arabs that led to emboldening whoever abused Iraqi prisoners into thinking that it was permitted. Secondly, the administration knew well that such practices were common in Guantanamo Bay and it was no coincidence that one of the top commanders there was transferred to Iraq to introduce the same there.

A relevant question is: Would Bush or any other administration official would ever admit that they would not care how their military collects "information" that help the battle against Iraqi resistance? Would they really care that it came through torture of the worst degree?

We also know that Washington strategists hired Israeli "experts" at interrogating Palestinians and deployed them at Abu Ghraib. They were not sent there to hold the hands of the prisoners but to unleash a reign of terror among the detainees. Indeed, the Israeli experts would have loved doing it, if only because some of their own rules restrain them from exercising such sadism and brutality against Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. They had no such constraints in Iraq. They were free to do whatever they wished with the detainees with no questions asked.

American 'tradition'

In a broader context, it is an American tradition, as author and commentator Doug Stokes argues, to use whatever means to contain and destroy social forces considered inimical to US interests.

Stokes has described the reports prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib as merely confirming "what has long been a legitimate tactic within US counter-insurgency warfare: the targeting and torture of civilians."

"This terror serves not only to break the will of those targeted but has a wider symbolic psychological function in that it dramatically raises the cost of dissent," he writes. "Whether it is was a 'war on communism' during the Cold War, or a 'war on terrorism' in the post-9/11 era, the targets and tactics have remained the same and the abuses at Abu Ghraib are the logical outcome of what the US has long been teaching both its own counter-insurgency specialists and those of allied nations."

He goes on to say: "The abuses committed at Abu Ghraib thus form part of a covert tradition within the history of US imperial policing and counter-insurgency warfare."

That might indeed be true when seen through an American point of view. However, for us here in the Middle East, the American and Israeli abuse of Iraqi prisoners has a sinister perspective: The victims were Arabs and Muslims.

Battle won, but war is lost

by pv vivekanand

THE US military's assault on Najaf with a view to dislodging Motqada Sadr and his militia from the holy city is definitely a make-or-break drive. The US military will win the battle for Najaf, but the victory will be another brick in the tomb of American hopes of winning the war in Iraq and another contribution to increasing anti-US sentiments in the Islamic world, particularly the 120 million Shiites.
Temporary deals might be worked out that could prolong the crisis in Najaf by holding back the climax of the assault, but the US would not be dissuaded from its objective  — neutralising Sadr as a challenger to the US military's efforts to pacify Iraq and improve conditions for implementing the Washington-backed process to conduct elections in January to a government that would give legitimacy to the American role in the country.
American strategists are perfectly aware that Sadr's declarations that he would never bow to the US and is ready to fight until death as well as his exhortations to his Mahdi's Army militia to continue fighting after his death are strengthening the resolve of anti-US forces in Iraq. The less he is allowed to say the better, as seen from Washington.
Neutralising Sadr is a political as well as security imperative for the interim government. Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, has to show his people that he is strong and capable of overcoming all challenges and also send a tough warning to other militant groups by setting an example in Najaf.
However, a no-holds-barred assault against Najaf and a possible storming of the Imam Ali Mosque there — even if by Iraqi Muslim security personnel — would be like stirring an already troubled hornet's nest and further alienate the Shiites against the interim government.
Sadr loyalists have already warned if their leader is harmed — he was reported to have been wounded in the US assault on Friday — then they would turn to be suicide bombers against the US forces and allies. The warning should not be taken lightly since it signals a deadly turn of events for the US military in southern Iraq.
The demonstrations in Iraq and Iran on Friday against the US operations in Najaf are the forerunners of much worse Shiite repercussions against the US-led coalition forces and their allies in Iraq. The events in Najaf could lead to sparking an anti-US Shiite revolt in the south of the country along the lines of the rebellion in the so-called "Sunni triangle" encompassing areas near Baghdad and the Anbar province adjoining the border with Jordan and Syria.
The US also risks alienating Shiites beyond the immediate Iraq-Iran theatre, including those in countries like Pakistan and Lebanon.
The Shiites had largely stayed put in south of Iraq and refrained from militarily challenging the US role in the country for one year after the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. Obviously, they were hoping to gain power by virtue of their numerical strength in the country.
But they rose up in protest when they saw that their "natural" role as the majority sect in the 25-million population Iraq was being sidelines by people they considered as too close to the US for comfort. Allawi is indeed a Shiite, so are several other members of the interim cabinet, but many Shiites in Iraq are not willing to grant Allawi and others the Shiite legitimacy that they need.
When the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government in late June, most Iraqis — Sunnis and Shiites — were willing to Allawi a chance to prove its independence and ability to take control and administer the country. However, the interim authority's decisions and actions since it took over have not been very popular.
The Shiites would like to have their own say as to who their representative should be in the government — and it need not be Moqtada Sadr. They believe that their right to have a dominating say in the affairs of the country was hijacked when the US handed over "sovereignty" to the interim government, whose members were chosen by Washington.
Sadr has also declared his boycott of the Iraqi national convention to be held this week to elect an interim assembly of 100 members who would guide the interim government to elections next year.
The Iranian link, if any, to the crisis in Najaf is unclear. US officials have suggested that Tehran is closely aligned with Sadr, but they have not come up with solid evidence to substantiate the theory.
At this juncture, the US military's attack on Najaf itself is seen as targeting Shiites rather than Sadr and his supporters per se. And the first to pay the price in terms of alienation with the Shiites will be the interim government, whose image as an independent authority would be further undermined.
Cracks have also started appearing in the interim government itself.
Vice-President Ibrahim Jaafari, head of the influential Dawa Party, has called for the departure of the US forces from Najaf whose very presence there was invited by Allawi after his ultimatum to Sadr's forces to quit the city went unheeded.
Also having an effect against the interim government is the fatwa issued by the Sunni Association of Muslim Clergymen that no Iraqi should co-operate with the US forces in killing other Muslims.
While the fatwa appeared to be oriented more towards the clashes in the Anbar province — Fallujah, and, to a limited extent, Ramadi — pitting local residents against the US military, it is deemed to have an impact on Shiites as well.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the most reverred Shiite leader, is undergoing treatment in a London clinic for heart ailments. Some reports have suggested that the US-coalition, which includes the UK, had engineered his trip to London in order to clear the ground for an all-out assault against Sadr.
The demands laid down by a Sadr aide to end the crisis in Najaf are unlikely to be accepted by the US military. Sadr wants the departure of US forces from Najaf and handing over the city to the Marjayia, the Shiite religious authority; in return the Mahdi Army will also leave the city but will not be disarmed.
The militia is demanding recognition as an ideological movement and that members should allowed to carry weapons for self-defence, with an option to turn itself to be a political party. These are the minimum demands. Beyond them, Sadr wants all his "followers to gather under a legitimate constitution written by a free, elected government."
Giving in to the demands would mean a serious setback to the American resolve against militants in Iraq and questions raised over the credibility and legitimacy of the interim government. That is something the US strategists or the interim government could ill-afford. For them, Sadr has to be removed from the scene and his armed followers should never again be allowed to pose a challenge to the US domination of the country.
Therefore, compromise deals, if any is made, would only be stop-gap measures that would only slightly delay a US-led assault to end the crisis once and for all. What happens thereafter is clear: A low-intensity but sustained war of attrition between Shiites and the US-led coalition and their Iraqi allies that could wreck the Washington's vision of elections and transition of power to a "democratically elected government."

Golan - it's water not security

August 10 2004
It's water, not security

pv vivekanand

An Israeli general's statement that his country does not need to keep Syria's Golan Heights under occupation should be seen strictly in the military context. It does not mean that Israel is ready to return the Golan Heights to Syria as the basis for a peace agreement or it has any intention to do so. All it might mean is that the Israeli military says it is capable of "defending" Israel without having military forces present on the Golan Heights.

Indeed, it signals a shift from consistent Israeli contention that it was prompted to seize the Golan Heights in 1967 because the Syrians were using the Heights to shoot down at Israeli farmers and that the Jewish state needed to retain the Heights in order to ensure its security. However, it does not seem to have a political context at this jucture.

Given that Syria possesses missiles capable of hitting almost everywhere in Israel, the "security" claim has always sounded hollow. Therefore, the latest statement is only an affirmation that retaining the Golan Heights is not central to Israeli security.

That the hawkish prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, is holding back any comment on the remark by Chief of Staff General Moshe Yaalon indicates that Sharon would like the idea to be floated to drag out a Syrian response if only for theoretical purposes. Sure enough, Syria has rebuffed the idea by insisting on definite Israeli action on the ground with a commitment to withdrawing from the Golan.

Sharon, a military general who has also served as Israel's minister for water, could not but be acutely aware of the importance of the Golan Heights for his country's paranoia and preoccupation with securing water sources.

Sharon should be aware that it is as much as a military strategy as a need to ensure its main source of water that is behind Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights and its refusal to give it up in return for peace with Syria.

The Golan is the source for more than 55 per cent of Israel's fresh water needs. Given the scarcity of water in the region and its paranoia of being forced to depend on Syria, Israel would never give up the Golan. At best, it might be willing to make a face-saving compromise by returning part of the Golan and would never agree to return the whole of the strategic Heights, which overlook the See of Galilee in northern Israel (it also known as Lake Tiberias and Israelis call it Lake of Kinneret. Lake Tiberias is best known for its association with the lives of Jesus Christ and his disciples. In the Bible the lake is referred to as the Sea of Chinnereth or Chinneroth, Gennesar, Lake of Gennesaret, Sea of Galilee, and Sea of Tiberias, a name that has survived in the modern Arabic Bahrat Tabariya. It is 20 kilometres long and 12 kilometres wide and lies around 220 metres below sea level).

Securing water sources has been an Israeli priority since its founding in 1948 and it remains a preoccupation today; the per capita consumption of water in Israel is eight times that of the Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, which accounts for 18 per cent of Israel's needs of drinking water.

In 1950, the then Israeli prime minister, Ben Gurion, declared that Jews were fighting a battle for water and that the Jewish existence in Palestine was contingent on the outcome of such battle.

Water from Syrian upstream sources flown down the Golan and is accumulated at the Sea of Galilee before flowing further to the River Jordan and onto the Dead Sea, the lowest point on earth.

Israel, which occupied the Golan in the 1967 war and unilaterally annexed it in 1981, usually argues that since the Golan overlooks northern Israeli towns a withdrawal from the Heights would leave northern Israeli towns vulnerable to Syrian missile and infantry attacks.

In what was a departure from that assertion, Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon said in an interview published on Friday there was no military reason why Israel could not withdraw to its pre-1967 war border with Syria.

Yaalon's comments was a departure from the military's traditional view that Israel needs at least part of the plateau as a "security buffer."

Yaalon told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot: "If you ask me, theoretically, if we can reach an agreement with Syria ... my answer is that from a military standpoint it is possible to reach an agreement by giving up the Golan Heights.

"The army is able to defend any border. This is correct for any political decision that is taken in Israel," he said.

Yaalon warned that Syria still represents a threat to Israel's "security" and that the two counties could once again find themselves engaged in a war.

"I can't ignore the scenario in which an escalation on the Lebanese front leads to a confrontation between the two armies," he said.

Yaalon noted that Syria has "missiles that put all of Israel in range and chemical capabilities."

Sharon has consistently opposed a withdrawal from the Syrian plateau. Sharon's predecessor, Ehud Barak, offered to withdraw from parts of the heights in 2000, but insisted on retaining some of the territory and American guarantees.

Syria wants action

Syria responded to Yaalon on Friday saying that it will not take seriously Israeli offers to pull out of the Golan Heights unless they are backed by moves on the ground or an open commitment to withdraw.

Ahmad Haj Ali, advisor to the Syrian information minister, said:

"We don't give such statements any weight unless they are associated with a serious move (towards peace) and with international guarantees. Whoever is willing to make peace should return the land to its owners and withdraw immediately or declare that openly and clearly."

Haj Ali said he believed Yaalon's statement was designed to "show Israel was the party seeking peace in order to look good in the upcoming American elections."

Syrian-Israeli peace talks were launched in 1991 in Madrid, but they collapsed in 2000, with Syrians insisting on a complete withdrawal from the Golan, and Israel seeking border adjustments near the Sea of Galilee,.

Now, Israel says Syria must first end its support for Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Palestinian groups it hosts in Syria itself. Syria rejects the demands saying it is supporting the legitimate right of people to resist foreign occupation.

In the Syrian view, Israel will not to relinquish the Golan, where some 20,000 Jewish settlers live, because it considers the Heights as a part of Israeli land. Furthermore, Israel believes its present borders should be recognised as such in any peace agreement.

It will reject any plan which includes any relinquishment of any part of Israel's land as opposing the right of the Jews in such land and jeopardising Israel's security and existence. That is why Israel will not withdraw from the Golan under all circumstances and will not demolish any settlement on the Heights, says the Syrian National Information Centre.

Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who represents a majority in the Likud party of Sharon and seen more hawkish than the prime minister, has said: "We are ready to continue negotiating with the Syrians on the basis that they are aware that they won't get back the Golan and that we, from our side, won't give up a total peace."

However, the Syrians have been insisting that the peace negotiations be resumed from the point they broke off while Barak was in power where he had promised to withdraw from virtually all of the Golan Heights except a one-square-kilometre area on a condition that the US provides certain guarantees.

At this point in time, it seems unlikely that Sharon finds himself under any compulsion to make any overture to Syria. He is too busy securing his own position while advancing his plan for "unilateral disengagement" from the Gaza Strip.

9/11 and Israeli insider trading

rican Investigators have established that in the
two weeks before the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York
and Washington, a group of Israeli speculators did a
particular manoeuvring in the stock market by selling
"short" stocks of 38 companies that were expected to
lose in value as a result of the attacks. They made
tens of millions of dollars through the deal, which
clearly indicated that they had prior knowledge of the
attacks.
Selling "short" means passing the shares of a friendly
buyer and then buy them back when the price falls. No
money actually hands except in books and both seller
and buyer are winners. If such deals take place just
ahead of events that have economic impact in the
market, then they automatically become suspect and are
treated as having carried out by people who had prior
knowledge of such events.
The deals were made between Aug.26 and Sept.10, 2001,
and according to
the American Securities and Exchange Commission these
speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and
Frankfurt, Germany stock exchanges.
The deals were made despite strict monitoring by the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which uses special
software to keep a watch on stock market trading with
a view to check for possible warning sign of a
terrorist attack or suspicious economic behaviour.
The CIA immediately suspected that the Aug.26-Sept.10
deals had something to do with prior knowledge of the
attacks. The agency requested the Financial Services
Authority in London to investigate the suspicious
deals, with the hope that trail might lead to the
terrorists.  
However, what the agency found was the trail led to a
group of Israeli speculators operating out of Canada.
And then it emerged that the deals were also made
through the stock markets of Japan, Germany, the
United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, Hong Kong,
Switzerland and Spain, and the same Israeli group were
behind those deals.
According to Adam Hamilton of Zeal LLC, a North
Dakota-based private consulting company that
publishes research on markets worldwide, as much as
$22 million were made as profit by the speculators.
London broker and analyst Richard Crossley has said
that that someone was selling shares in unusually
large quantities beginning three weeks before the
Sept.11 attacks and he had decided that this as
evidence that someone had insider foreknowledge of
the attacks.
According to the the Interdisciplinary Center, a
counter-terrorism think tank involving former
intelligence officers, "insider trading" — another
name for "short selling" —  made nearly $16 million
profit by short selling shares in American and United
Airlines, the two airlines that suffered hijacking,
and the investment firm of Morgan Stanley, which
occupied 22 floors of the WTC.
The CIA failed to link any of the suspicious
transactions with Osama Bin Laden or anyone remotedly
connected with it, and when the Israeli connection
became known, there was a total blackout of any
reports what the agency had found. At that time, many
suspected that the trail led to American firms or
intelligence agencies.
The companies whose stocks were sold "short" include:
he list includes stocks of American Airways, United
Air, Continental, Northwest, Southwest and US Airways
airlines, as well as Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin
Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American
International Group, AMR Corporation, Axa SA, Bank of
America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp,
Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb
Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc,
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation,
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive
Corp.,  General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal
Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies,
American Express, the Citigroup Inc. ,Royal & Sun
Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado
Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL
Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns. The names of these
companies were released by the American Securities and
Exchange Commission, which, at that time, was seeking
information on whoever had sold short their shares and
repurchased them after the Sept.11 attacks.
All these companies suffered directly or indirectly as
a result of the attacks and all their shares fell
steeply after the attacks. The four planes used in the
attacks in New York and Washington belonged to
American Airways and United. On Sept.,6, 2001, alone
     2,075 sell-short deals were made on shares of
United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the
attacks, 2,282 sell-short deals were recorded for
American Airlines. The profit from the deals were
estimated at b etween $2 million and $4 million.
What is more interesting is that most of the short
selling deals were handled primarily by Deutsche
Bank-A.B.Brown. Until 1998, the bank was chaired by A.
B. Krongard, who later became executive director of
the CIA.
Also interesting is that despite conflicting reports
in the beginning, it was reported by the New York
Times on Sept.22, 11 days after the attacks, that only
three Israelis were confirmed as dead: two on the
hijacked planes and another who had been visiting the
World Trade Centre towers on business.
The FBI and CIA say that they are continuing
investigations, but other sources say the
investigations have been completed some months ago,
and the findings were being held back just as key
parts of the congressional investigation into the 9/11
attacks are being kept away from the public eye.
After all, that the stranglehold that Israel has on
Washington.