Bin Laden's mouse

Abu Maysara — Bin Laden's mouse?
PV Vivekanand


The man who posts video-clippings of beheading of hostages in Iraq and statements attributed to Abu Musab Al Zarqawi calls himself Abu Maysara Al Iraqi, or father of Maysara the Iraqi. But no one knows who he actually is and US and Western intelligence agencies and cyber experts have been unable to pin him down because he constantly switches he on-line accounts and uses new and advanced technologies to post the video clippings and messages in the Internet.
It is a deadly game being played out in cyberspace.
Abu Maysara often appears on chatrooms of Islamic websites, but he does not respond to questions about himself or about the group he represents. He posts message containing the URLs of specially created websties carrying the Zarqawi group's claims of attacks on American soldiers and their allies.
Those chasing him in order to silence him do not know whether the name is real, it is a he or a she or whether he/she is an Iraqi or is in Iraq.
Abu Maysara is the most important source of news and militant statements on the guerrilla war in Iraq as well as images of executions of hostages that reach millions of people.
Silencing him has become a priority for the US since he is hampering American efforts to pacify Iraq; his work terrifies people into staying away from co-operating with the US and also incite "jihadist" anti-American hostilities around the world. Above all, his images and messages highlight that the US has failed in Iraq and is losing the guerrilla war there.
According to counterterrorism consultant, Evan F. Kohlmannm it is extremely frustrating not to be able catch Abu Maysara, who is able to send out quality videos to millions of people uncensored.
Abu Maysara said in a Sept. 19 posting on the Internet that he issues his reports so that his perspective "does not become lost in the media blackout that America imposes in order to deceive its people and its allies."
American law enforcement agencies have been closing down websites carrying Abu Maysara's messages but it has become a cat-and-mouse game.
It is difficult to trace his messages and postings from the very beginning since he used highly advance technology that enables him to access a computer in another country but passing through several other countries and leaving no traceable trail.
In recent times, Abu Maysara has acquired a software called "YouSendIt" that allows senders to create multiple links to a large file so it can be viewed by an unlimited number of people.
Users type in their e-mail addresses, upload the file and YouSendIt creates a free, anonymous Web page for them, according to the Washington Post. To distribute videos of American hostages who were kidnapped last month, Abu Maysara created dozens of links using YouSendIt and sent them to chat rooms all over the Internet, said the paper.
The Washington Post quoted experts who have been trying to trace him as saying that Abu Maysara compressed the files, or made them as small as possible so that they could be copied more quickly. By the time American monitors got word of the videos, they had been anonymously copied from computer to computer so fast, making it impossible to locate, much less destroy, all the copies of the video.
YouSendIt was developed by Canadian programmers but they are unable to check Abu Maysara's use of the software.
They say that they created the programme to help families trade pictures and videos and to help colleagues at work share files. They said they were surprised and saddened to hear that the technology was being used to spread violent messages.
Abu Maysara first surfaced in January in the Muntada Al Ansar and Islah chat rooms, where he confirmed Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and took credit for several attacks on US and other coalition troops. Since then, he has hopped from computer to computer, keeping many steps ahead of American cyberspace experts chasing him.
The messages from Abu Maysara are always in Arabic beginning with a standard greeting such as, "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful." The heart of the message is written in flowery language, recounting an attack. Abu Maysara writes in half-sentences and mixes the details of an incident with religious invocations.
That Abu Maysara was indeed the man behind the website postings was confirmed when some chatters in the chatroom suggested that the Zarqawi group make Kenneth Bigley, the 62-year-old British citizen who had been kidnapped, beg for his life to the "tyrant."
A few days later, a video clip appeared on the website of Bigley pleading to British Prime Minister Tony Blair to save him.

Rumsfeld and masked truth

By 'Inad Khairallah

FOR THE first time, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the senior-most Bush administration officials who pushed for war against Iraq, has admitted — inadverently perhaps but nonetheless the truth —  that he was not aware of any "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Rumsfeld's "clarification" that his comment was "misunderstood" does not pull much water, given the explict way it was made.
Indeed, Rumsfeld's "revelation" came after US President George W Bush also made a comment that somehow implied that he was also not sure whether Saddam had links with Osama Bin Laden.
However, Bush's official response was somewhat different to the finding of the so-called 9/11 Commission's report in June that there was no “collaborative relationship” between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and thus the ousted Iraqi leader had no role in the Sept.11, 2001 attacks.
“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," said Bush at the time despite evidence having shown that Al Qaeda had repeatedly approached Saddam’s regime about working together and the Iraqi strongman had turned down the call. Some accounts say that it was the other way around and that Bin Laden never considered Saddam as a suitable ally and therefore he rebuffed Iraq's approaches.
In any case, Bush and Rumsfeld and a host of other administration officials are now trying to give an impression that US intelligence agencies had given false information and it was not their fault if they had gone wrong in judging that Saddam/Iraq had links with Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. Take it any order you like; it means the same thing.
Rumsfeld's affirmation of what most people in the Middle East had known for long came in an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York this week.
"I have seen the answer to that question (whether Saddam had links with Al Qaeda) migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was," Rumsfeld said.
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.
"I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to Al Qaeda who was in and out of Iraq. And it is the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship and why he might not have had a relationship. It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage."
Let us now go back to what Rumsfeld said on Sept.26, 2002.
"We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Rumsfeld said at the time.
"We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe-haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire ... weapons of mass destruction capabilities," said the defence secretary.
(Obviously, Rumsfeld's comment embarassed the White House, particularly given that it came after Bush was seen fumbling in his campaign debate with rival John Kerry. That explained why Rumseld apparently found it fit to remember, a few hours after Tuesday's comments in New York, that he had made the Sept.26, 2002 statement.That was perhaps why he felt the need to issue a formal Pentagon press release stating his comment "regrettably was misunderstood" by some and affirming that since September 2002 he had stated that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda).
The only explanation, if there is one indeed, is that Rumsfeld was perhaps betting that he could refer to the difference between "strong, hard evidence" and "credible information.... credible evidence" to get himself off the hook.
However, it is not that easy.
Rumsfeld also took cover behind US intelligence on Tuesday.
"Why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say," he said. "I simply don't know. But the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail than they were with him in power."
There could never have been any doubt in the minds of average Americans that Rumsfeld was affirming in September 2002 that Saddam was party to the Sept.11, 2001 attacks that are blamed on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
Indeed, it was not only Rumsefeld but also many others who had made that assertion — explicitly stating that one of the reasons, apart from Iraq's (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction, for the invasion and occupation of that country was the "threat" that Saddam posed through Al Qaeda to the security of the United States of America.
However, they are now falling back on the argument that removing Saddam from power was a good thing for not only Iraq but also for the Middle Eastern neighbourhood as well as the international community at large.
James Bovard, is author of the to-be-released book, "The Bush Betrayal" and policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation, has put together a collection of Bush statements that clearly stated that he was acting against Iraq as part of his war against terror that was launched post-9/11.
In an article titled "Saddam as the 20th hijacker" appearing in the September 2004 edition of Freedom Daily, Bovard notes:
A March 18, 2003 memo that Bush sent to the US Congress states that he was was launching the war against Iraq as part of "the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organisations, including those nations, organisations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept.11, 2001."
Bush's State of the Union address on Jan.29, 2002 groouped Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, was part of an “axis of evil.”
On Sept.25, 2002, Bush told reporters:
"Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, but the danger is... that they work in concert. The danger is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.... You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.... They’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."
The president told a mostly Republican audience in Cincinnati on Oct.7, 2002:
"We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
"Some Al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks...."
(The reference here is to Jordanian militant Ahmed Khalayleh aka Abu Musab Zarqawi, who the Central Intelligence Agency said had an artificial limb fitted in a Baghdad hospital with Saddam's blessing. Now the CIA says it is no longer sure whether that was indeed true).
Again on Nov.1, 2002, Bush told another Republican gathering, this time in New Hampshire:
"We know he’s (Saddam) got ties with Al Qaeda. A nightmare scenario, of course, is that he becomes the arsenal for a terrorist network, where they could attack America, and he’d leave no fingerprints behind."
In the 2003 State of the Union address, Bush pushed the ante all the way up and told Americans that they were vulnerable to a terror attack engineered by Saddam.
“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda....," he said. "Imagine those 19 (Sept.11) hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. "
However, while he consistently implied that Saddam was involved in the Sept.11 attacks, he also stopped short being explicit (perhaps a hindsight that he might be pulled up one day?).
The Christian Science Monitor has observed:
"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.... The White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq."
The administration did succeed in its drive and the the "damage" was done by one month before the invasion of Iraq: a February 2003 opinion poll found that 72 per cent of Americans believed that Saddam was “personally involved" in the 9/11 attacks.
The questions that we face is:
Do we need to convince the Americans that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and thus defend him? What purpose would it serve anyway?
First, we are not defending Saddam; nor are we apologists for him and his oppression of his people. The people of Iraq are better off without him (never mind that they are worse off on the ground today).
But we need to set the record straight. And the straight record is: The Bush administration took not only the Americans but also the international community at large on a ride (read war) on false pretexts. The clinch is: They were perfectly aware that they were (mis)leading everyone on a ground that existed only in their determination to realise their multi-pronged goal: Gaining control of Iraq's oil in order to influence the world market to American advantage; setting up an advance military base in the Gulf; and clearing the ground for Israeli domination of the region by removing a potentially mighty Arab foe.

Zarqawi is not Al Qaeda

This is the first time that it has been made
explicit that Zarqawi is not an Al Qaeda activist.
The interview is credible and Al Hayat would not have
carried it if the source was not credible.

Jordanian militant Ahmed A Khalayleh, better
known as Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who is blamed for the
wave of guerrrilla attacks, kidnappings and beheadings
in Iraq, has never been an Al Qaeda activist; nor has
he sworn allegiance to Osama Bin Laden although he
shares Bin Laden's militant ideology.
This is the assertion made by an unidentfified source
— an "Islamist Arab" — who is said to have recently
met Zarqawi in the Iraqi town of Fallujah, according
to an interview carried by the respected London-based,
Saudi-owned Al Hayat Arabic-language daily.
Al Hayat quoted the source as saying in reply to a
question whether Zarqawi and Bin Laden were linked
with each other:
"I wish that he (Zarqawi) was an Al Qaeda
representative in Iraq. But the truth is that Zarqawi
has his own organisation. He is not an Qaeda member
and has no connection to Sheikh Osama (Bin Laden).
They only employ the same method.
"There is no organisational connection between them –
on the contrary, many Arab youth have said that they
will swear allegiance to Zarqawi provided that he
swear allegiance to Sheikh Osama. They say that so far
he has not sworn allegiance, and that he used to say:
'to this day I have not sworn allegiance to Sheikh
Osama and I am not acting in the framework of his
organisation..'.."
The assertion of the source fitted in with the view of
seasoned observers in the retion that Bin Laden and
Zarqawi were not working together.
Reports have spoken about how Zarqawi went to
Afghanistan in late 80s, but was disappointed that the
Soviet army had by then left that country, worked as a
writer before returning to Jordan where he was
imprisoned for several years because of suspected
links with Bin Laden.
However, observers and analysts say that there has
never been any evidence that Bin Laden had enlisted
Zarqawi in is Al Qaeda group.
Those who knew Zarqawi in prison in Jordan say he was
too independent-minded to affiliate himself with Bin
Laden.
Zarqawi went back to Pakistan/Afghanistan in late 1999
and stayed there but he operated his own group based
in Peshawar in Pakistan and in Kandahar in Afghanistan
where he had his own camp unconnected with Al Qaeda.
No one has reported seeing Zarqawi and Bin Laden
together.
Zarqawi has never claimed to speak on behalf of Al
Qaeda; he has said he leads the Al Tawhid Wa'Al Jihad
organisation, which he calls an independent group
dedicated to "replace Arab regimes" with Islamist
leaders.
In the interview carried by Al Hayat, the unidentified
source made the following points (Pls note the quotes
and unquotes):
Zarqawi believes that "we are fighting in Iraq but our
eyes are raised not only to Iraq but also to other
places, such as Jerusalem." He "has a strategy and an
aspiration to expand the fighting to the entire
region."
Zarqawi "came to this arena only to expel the
Americans from the Muslims' country (Iraq) and to
establish an Islamic government. This is part of the
goal, because if this is not done, how will we be able
to bring about coups d'etat in neighboring countries?
How can we rescue Jerusalem when we have no base from
which to set out? Rescuing Jerusalem and the
neighbouring countries will come only after the rise
of an Islamic state from which the youth will set out
to liberate the neighboring areas."
On killing of hostages, according to the source,
"Zarqawi is convinced that his operations are
permitted by Shari'a [Islamic law], and that the
hostages are not truly hostages. There is a difference
between a hostage and a spy or a captive. The sentence
for spies is death. But there is some dispute about
how it is to be carried out – by the sword or by
shooting."
According to the source, Zarqawi "accepts comments"
from ulema (Muslim religious leaders) regarding
whether his killing operations are permitted or
forbidden according to Islam — provided that the ulema
are not connected to a regime and are offering
opinions out of personal conviction, and not to please
their rulers."
Zarqawi believes that "there is evidence in the
Shari'a that his killings are permitted, even if they
include the mutilation of corpses: 'Allah has
permitted us to repay them in kind, with the same
means that they use. If they kill our women, we will
kill their women'."
Zarqawi rejects the suggestion that he is attacking
Shiites in Iraq.
According to the source, "Zarqawi's position [on
Shi'ites] is clear… The entire Salafi stream believes
that the Shi'ite is an infidel ideology. I believe
this and Zarqawi believes that the Shi'te is heresy.
But this does not mean that we declare the Shi'ite
masses infidels. We must call upon them to atone to
Allah."
Zarqwi maintains that "anyone who enters this country
(Iraq) together with the Americans in the context of
their occupation is an infidel. We are not talking
about an apostateregime, regarding which there is
disagreement whether it should be declared infidel.
(But) there is no dispute regarding anyone who
collaborates with the occupation – he is a traitor and
he must be killed, regardless of whether he is a
Sunni, a Shi'ite, or a Turk."

Year-ender 2004 Palestine

IN SHARP CONTRAST with the situation when we entered the year 2004, the New Year this time around holds out a ray of hope, at least for apperance sake, for some movement in the Israeli-Palestinian track for peace. Let us put aside all our reservations and scepticism for a moment and welcome the year 2004 with guarded optimism that the new realities on the ground would usher in a fresh atmosphere conducive to realistic progress towards peace in Palestine.
However, we should not lose sight of the constants in the equation ie. Israel's predetermined state of mind not to recognise, respect and honour the central pillars of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people — their right to set up an independent state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital and a fair and just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees, a problem that has been haunting the world for more than 56 years now.
The most positive plus point for the Palestinians, the underdogs who are pitted against an country and government backed to the hilt by the world's sole superpower, would be that the person who would lead the effort to make peace with Israel would be undeniably their own choice exercised in transparent democracy. That is what they would be doing on Jan.9.
Israel's hawkish camp led by Ariel Sharon would not be able to argue against whoever emerges the winner in the Palestinian presidential elections next week. They would not be in a position to assert that autocracy is the rule of the day for the Palestinians and brush aside all efforts to renew negotiations for peace.
As things stood this week, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) appeared to be headed for victory in the elections (although the decision by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to throw its weight behind Marwan Barghouthi would indeed have an effect on the elections).
We know Abu Mazen as a man committed to his people's cause. We know of his unwavering rejection of any compromise of his people legitimate political and territorial rights although Sharon seems to be betting that he would be able to twist Abu Mazen around his fat thump.
The responsibility for the course of the peace process from Jan.9 rests with the United States. On Jan.10, the US, and the international community at large, would indeed have a Palestinian president to succeed Yasser Arafat and who is committed not to spare any effort to achieve peace in Palestine based on the rights of the Palestinians.
Despite all criticism of the US bias in favour of Israel, we are aware that the administration in Washington, whether led by George W Bush or anyone else for that matter, has its limitations while dealing with Israel. It requires a sea change in thinking in Washington to be more realistic and objective in its approach to efforts to solve the Palestinian problem.
We have heard Bush reaffirming his vision of a "two-state solution" to the Palestinian problem. Indeed, that is the only solution. But then, what matters is the shape and nature of the Palestinian segment of the two-state solution. If Bush or anyone else believes that the Palestinian state should be confined to the Gaza Strip and some parts of the West Bank then that is no solution. It is only the best recipe for continued bloodshed in Palestine.
We are not appealing to the US to rally behind the Palestinians and take on Israel at whatever cos. Far from it, if anything.
All that Bush and his Mideastern strategists have to do is to step out of the shackles imposed on them by Israel and its powerful supporters and think and act with an independent mindset based, first and foremost, on American interests.
It does not need years of research to figure out that the present US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict only harms American interests. The Americans should know it themselves without we having to point it out, but then they seem to be in a slumber and it is incumbent upon us to remind them of some of the facts of life.
The American administration is deceiving no one but itself and the American people at large when they argue that the threat of terrorism that they face has to do with a hatred towards their way of life. They are deliberately ignoring the truth that their successive governments' strange commitment to uphold Israeli interests over American interests had given birth of the anti-American sentiment that was evident in the Sept.11 attacks and is very visible in the continuing assaults against American and allied targets around the world.
One does not have to look far to realise that the US-led "war against terror" has collapsed far short of achieving anything tangible in terms of averting the threats that the security of the people of America.
Today, the Americans are living in perpetual fear, conceived or otherwise, that someone, somewhere is plotting terror attacks against them. Is it because the plotters hate the American way of life? Well, that is what the Bush administration would like them to believe and that is exactly where the White House has to do some soul-searching.
The US is a great country founded on the noblest of noble principles that uphold the dignity of people and their right to determine their future without any external influence. All the Bush administration has to do is to ensure that these principles are the basis for all conflicts involving foreign occupation and an occupied people.
We know that it is wishful thinking that things were as simple as that. But then, is that asking for too much?

"Zarqawi" in beheading video?

The beheading of an American on video by
militants who said it was in retaliation for American
abuse of Iraqi prisoners has highighted the intense
focus on Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the man who has emerged
as the key Al Qaeda militant active in Iraq.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has said that it
tends to believe that the masked man who was seen as
sawing off Nicholas Berg's head was indeed Zarqawi as
the video, released ll May 2004, is titled: "Abu Musab
Al Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American."
A CIA assessment of the video showing Berg's death
concludes it is a "high probability" Zarqawi is the
hooded speaker who is shown decapitating Berg.
According to intelligence information made available
to Malayalamanorama, Zarqawi, 37, a
Jordanian-Palestinian Sunni, leads a group called
Jamaat Al Tawhid wa'l-Jihad (Unity and Jihad Group) as
well as Ansar Al Islam, which is said to be linked to
Al Qaeda.
Zarqawi, who real name is Ahmed Fadeel Al Khailaleh
and who is also known as Ahmad Fadil Nazzali Abu Al
Mu'ataz, comes from a prominent Palestinian family
which fled to Jordan when Israel was created in
Palestine in 1948.
He worked with Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in
Afghanistan in the 90s and maintained his own unit and
camp in Herat, Afghanistan, until the US-led invasion
of that country in 2001. He financed himself to a
large extent from funding received from a business his
family operated in Europe.
The US is offering a $10 million reward for
information leading to his capture dead or alive.
Following is a summary of the intelligence information
available on Zarqawi:
He has ties with several groups, including Al Qaeda,
Asbat Al Ansar and Hizbollah as well as Beyyat Al
Imam in Turkey. He was behind the October 2002
killing of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman.
He was earlier indicted indicted in absentia in
Jordan for his role in an Al Qaeda Millennium bombing
plot targeting the Radisson SAS hotel in Amman as well
as other American, Israeli, and Christian religious
sites in Jordan.
In Iraq, he is said to have been behind the bombing of
the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad in 2003.
Nearly 120 alleged members of his group have been
arrested in various countries, including Germany,
France, Spain, Turkey and Jordan.
His links with Al Qaeda dates back to 1999 when he
went to Pakistan and contacted Bin Laden with a
request that Jordanian militants be trained in use of
weapons and making of bombs. as well as chemical
weapons. Bin Laden agreed.
Subsequently, Zarqawi moved to Afghanistan and
supervised the flow of Jordanians and
Palestinian-origin Jordanians for training at Al
Qaeda's Al Farouq camp. He called his followers Jund
Al Sham. He was in Kandahar in June and July 2001.
He moved to northern Iraq in an area beyond the reach
of Saddam Hussein when the US invaded Afghanistan in
2001. There he set up an Ansar Al Islam camp. The camp
was cited by the US government as evidence that Saddam
has links with Al Qaeda. But, the intelligece report
shows that, there was no such link and Washington
officials were totally off the mark when they said
chemical weapons were stored in the northern Iraq
camp. When the claim was made, international media
organisations rushed to the site and found no trace
whatsover of any chemical weapons. "The closest to any
chemical we found there was detergents to wash
clothes," said one newspaper report.
While in Iraq, Zarqawi established contacts with
Lebanon-based secretive Asbat Al Ansar, which the US
has designated as an international terrorist
organisastion, and Hizballah of Lebanon in order to
smuggle Palestinian fighters into Israel to fight the
occupation forces in Palestine. Some of the fighters
managed to make it while others were caught. Those who
made it have given training on explosives, poisons,
and remote controlled devices to other Palestinians in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Zarqawi travelled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for
medical treatment and stayed for two months during
which secret meetings were held with Iraqi groups and
fellow militants from the Arab world who had gone to
Iraq to meet him.
His Iraqi contacts helped him co-ordinate the movement
of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq
for his network. He received funds from Bin Laden, but
there is no estimate of the amount.
There is no evidence to support charges that he had
met with senior Saddam Hussein aides during the two
months he spent in Baghdad.
(An earlier intelligence report has said that Zarqawi
was wounded in the Afghan war and he reached Iraq
through Iran and that he had one of his legs amputated
during the two months of "medical treatment" in
Baghdad. He was fitted with a prosthetic device).
Abuwatia, said to be a Zarqawi follower and detained
by the US during the Afghan war, has admitted to
dispatching at least nine North African extremists to
travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive
attacks. They planned chemical attacks with various
toxins in Britain, France, Georgia's Pankisi Gorge,
and Chechnya, says the intelligence information.
According to Matthew A. Levitt, a senior fellow in
terrorism studies at the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy:
"The Zarqawi network highlights the matrix of
relationships that define today's international
terrorist threat. Indeed, international terrorism is a
web linking many disparate groups. Senior US and
European officials have noted that although Hizbollah
and Al Qaeda do not appear to share operational
support, they have engaged in logistical cooperation
on an ad hoc and tactical basis, as well as
co-operative training."
Zarqawi is blamed for the March 2 bombings in Baghdad
and Karbala in which at least 181 people died and the
coordinated suicide bombings in Basra in April in
which at least 74 people, including many
schoolchildren, were killed.
Zarqawi was targeted for killing on three separate
occasions for US military strikes since June 2002,
according to NBC News. And three separate times the
attack was called off.
German intelligence information shows that Zarqawi
heads Al Tawhid ("unity of all the faithful" ), which
is a core Palestinian Sunni movement with roots in
Jordan and waging a campaign against the Jordanian
royal family.
The group advocates "jihad" as a "fight against
non-believers and crusaders."
The group, which was set up in Beckum, Germany around
the same time as the Sept.11 attacks in the US,
included as members Mohamed Abu Dhess Shadi Abdallah,
Ashraf Al Dagama and Ismail Shalabi.
It group specialised in smuggling militants and
forging passports of dozens of countries. It planned
to carry out an attack on a busy square in a German
town or city and to explode hand grenades in another
German town in the immediate vicinity of an Israeli or
Jewish property with the aim of killing as many people
as possible. The plans were foiled because German
intelligence was keeping tabs on the group and
arrested Shadi Abdullah, Mohammed Abu Dhess, Ashraf
Al Dagma and Ismail Shalabi as well as
Dusselfdorf-based Jamal Mustafa on April 23, 2002.
All five of them are currently in detention in
Germany.
Zarqawi slipped through the fingers of Jordanian
security agencies in mid-September 2002 when he was
there planning and financing the murder of Lawrence
Foley. He managed to evade capture and entered Syria,
from there he crossed into Iraq and went to the Ansar
Al Islam camp in northern Iraq.
That camp was attacked by the US invaders in March and
April 2001 during the war that toppled Saddam Hussein.
Several key Zarqawi aides were caught alive and now
they are in US custody.
Zarqawi again managed to elude arrest and went
underground. Since then, he appeared in Baghdad
several times, but the US forces were not able to
capture him. He left a hideout apartment in the Dora
neighbourhood of Baghdad less than 10 hours before the
US forces stormed the place late last year.

Editors (For your information only):
Please note that it is widely held among the Arabs
that the Berg beheading was staged by American agents
in order to deflect public opinion from the Abu Ghraib
prison abuses. The Arabs who favour this theory
believe that Zarqawi died sometime in Iraq and the
Americans are maintaining that he is alive in order to
keep reports of the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda terrorism
link, which Washington has not been able to prove.
It has been suggested that Berg was in American
custody shortly before his decapitated body was found
by the roadside outside Baghdad).
Both Pravda and Al Jazeera have questioned the
authenticity of the Nick Berg video (as has this guy).
The thesis is that Zarqawi has a prosthetic leg, but
the tape's alleged Zarqawi seems limber. Zarqawi
identifies himself by name on the tape but wears a
mask, presumably to hide his identity. why?

Betting on confusion

pv vivekanand

GEORGE W Bush is betting on the American people's
confusion over the outcome so far of his war against
terrorism to see him through to another four years at
the White House. Bush's challenger John Kerry's
scathing criticism, citing the administration's
failure to remove the threat of terrorism in the US,
is at best dented since there has been no extremist
attack in the US since the Sept.11, 2001 air assaults.

Most Americans have difficulty in judging whether the
Bush administration succeeded or failed in its
anti-terror campaign.
On the internal front, the majority of Americans seem
to believe that the campaign has so far been fairly
successful, notwithstanding the fears that senior
administration officials have been drumming up of an
impending Al Qaeda attack in the US.
On the external front, it is not lost on the US
electorate that removing the Taliban from power in
Afghanistan and ousting the Saddam Hussein regime in
Iraq has not brought down the level of threats that
the Americans face outside their country.
The Americans are aware of the administration's
failure to capture Osama Bin Laden and his top aides
and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. However, in the
absence of any terror attacks within the US since
9/11, they seem to be satisfied with the performance
of the Bush White House so far in this context.
If indeed, the administration could capture Bin Laden
and parade him for the benefit of the public (as the
Americans did with Saddam Hussein) ahead of the
elections, then it would seal the outcome of the polls
in favour of Bush. At this juncture, it could not be
ruled out either.
On Iraq, the president is coming under increasing
criticism. A commentary carried by the Washington Post
pinpointed where he went wrong and is going wrong in
the American perspective.
"His description of Iraq is bland to the point of
dishonesty," it said on Sunday, adding that Bush has
been saying "despite ongoing acts of violence," Iraq
has a strong prime minister, a national council and
that it will hold elections in January.
"Not only has Mr. Bush not said how, or whether, he
intends to respond to the worsening situation - he
doesn't really admit it exists," the Post said. "This
duck-and-cover strategy may have its political
advantages, but it is also deeply irresponsible and
potentially dangerous," it said.
Notwithstanding such criticism, the reality that the
US has only reaped more hostility and enmity from the
anti-terror war and that the Bush administration
resorted to deception and false intelligence to
justify the war against Iraq has not yet dealt a
serious blow to Bush's re-election prospects. That is
what we could judge from the lead that Bush has shown
in recent opinion polls.
Otherwise, the situation in the ground in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the worsening strife in both countries
should have damaged Bush beyond repair ahead of the
elections in November.
In Afghanistan, the situation is fluid ahead of that
country's first post-war presidential elections in
October. The country remains largely lawless in many
parts where warlords with conflicting agendas reign
supreme. The Taliban seem to be regrouping and gaining
strength. The attack last week on the helicopter
carrying President Hamid Karzai was the best evidence
of the uncertain security situation there.
In Iraq, two weeks of murderous attacks by insurgents
as well as the US-led coalition forces have underlined
the truth that control of the country is drifting
farther from the US military and its allies there.
Without dramatic action that would result in massive
civilian casualties, the US would not be able to
prepare the ground for Iraqi elections in January.
However, Bush re-election strategists are also aware
that images of massacres in Iraqi towns which resist
the US presence in the country would detrimental to
Bush if they are flashed to the Americans before
Nov.2.
Probably that is why they have opted to give an
impression through the US military that an assault on
insurgent-controlled areas like Fallujah, Ramadi,
Baqouba, Samarra and others would come only after the
November elections, perhaps as late as December.
Again, it could easily be predicted that insurgent
attacks against American and allied forces in Iraq
would go up dramatically in the run-up to the
elections, leaving the US strategists no option to
but to retaliate with a heavy hand.
Obviously, there is no consensus or agreement among
the various groups fighting the coalition forces in
Iraq on what strategy to follow.
If it was left to Al Qaeda, that is, of course, if the
group has its own political strategists, then it is a
safe bet that it would follow a course that would
ensure that Bush returns to the White House for a
second term. For, only then Al Qaeda would continue to
benefit from mounting Arab and Muslim anger over the
US policies, particularly in the Palestinian and Iraq
contexts.
The other groups — Saddam loyalists, independent and
Sunni factions and Iraqi "nationalists" as well as
"foreign Islamists" —  taking part in the guerrilla
war against the coalition forces are hoping to wear
down the US military into leaving the country.
Ironically, most of them do not seem to have realised
that quitting Iraq is not an American option.
However, it is unlikely that they would call off their
war even if they did realise that maintaining control
over Iraq and building a powerful American advance
base in the Gulf to deal with any eventuality is a
strategic objective of the US.
In any event, Kerry seems to be rolling up his
sleeves to fight Bush where the incumbent president is
deemed vulnerable by his election strategists:
Exposing that Bush has taken the US deeper into abyss
of international hostility that is the breeding
ground for extremist threats against Americans and
thus he failed in his war against terrorism.
Kerry has six weeks to thrust home his message to the
American people, and a lot could happen in those weeks
that could work either way. But, in a conservative
perception, six weeks is too short a period to swing
American voters except without a mighty weapon, and
the current resident of the White House is better
equipped to wield  whatever that might be than his
challenger.

Veilng the truth

September 10 2004

Veiling the truth and hoping for best


THE Bush administration does not want the Americans to be told of the grim realities of Iraq. It has maintained a tight veil against media coverage of American soldiers being brought home in body bags . No journalist, photographer or television cameraman is allowed into any US military base when the body bags arrive. The recent exposure of dozens of American flag-draped coffins was an accident. A Pentagon employee cleared those images for release to the public without realising he was breaking a taboo. Sure enough, he was packed off to a faraway place where he posed no threat the media strategists of the Bush administration.

I bet not many Americans know that several thousand American soldiers are maimed for life in guerrilla attacks in Iraq. They will never be normal again.

Such details are not released by the US military. No major American newspaper has undertaken an effort to collect any statistics on them.

One would think that had there been a loophole in the freedom of information in the US, the administration would have clamped down totally on any confirmation of American soldiers' death in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would have banned every media outlet from reporting any development in Iraq that would cast a negative cloud on Washington's assertions of "progress" in bringing "democracy" to Iraq.

Recently, the US military has limited itself to terse sentences on American casualties in Iraq.

"One US marine, assigned to the First Marine Expeditionary Force, was killed on Wednesday while conducting security and stability operations in Najaf."

Not a word more. What was the soldier doing in Najaf? Of course, "security and stability" operations. What exactly do they mean? Patrolling the street and looking for the occasional burglar?

More details of how the soldier died fighting with the forces of Moqtada Sadr in a battle that is worsening the American quagmire in Iraq might get carried by a few "small-time" newspapers in the US. None of the majors would carry those details since they have more important things to report, like a $12 million contract signed for garbage collection in Baghdad that would create a few jobs, as Britan Coughley, a seasoned American commentator observes in an article titled "Moral Cowardice, as Practiced by Experts."

Coughley writes: "In the unlikely event of a prominent newspaper or television company getting details of how this Marine was killed, they would spread it as an important story (except Fox, of course). But they don't know (or want to know?) what is going on, and, therefore, neither does the American public, because sure as eggs the Bush administration isn't going to tell them." (www.counterpunch.org).

Mind you, it is an American commentator's words and of an Arab or Muslim or even someone from the developing world.

No doubt, such comments would not appear in newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Now, look at what is happening in the media scene in Iraq itself.

The interim government has closed down the offices of Qatar's Al Jazeera television for one month. Obviously, the US authorities approved the move.


What was Al Jazeera's fault?

Obviously, the US authorities and the interim government could not digest that Al Jazeera was beaming the realities on the ground in Iraq, including kidnappings, death threats and executions. These vivid images go a long way in letting the world know that the US military or the US-backed interim authority is not exactly having a picnic in post-war Iraq. Simply put, the US is steadily losing countrol of the country, and, as every day passes, the US and the interim government are making more enemies and creating more resistance guerrillas with the scorched-earth policy. That is the message contained in the real life footage from Iraq.

Forget Al Jazeera. Iraqi and Arab journalists working in Iraq have been told to tone down their criticism of the interim government or face prosecution (expulsion for non-Iraqis).

But then, isn't freedom of information — the right to know the truth and reality — an essential part of democracy? And isn't it democracy that the US says it wants to bring to Iraq?


Where is the problem then?

It is not simply that Washington has made a switch in its approach in the context of the war in Iraq. It goes much deeper than that to the point that the Bush administration does no longer care to respect the very founding principles of the US, whether democracy or the right of the people to know.

Bush's spin doctors want to limit media coverage of events in Iraq that tear the mask from the "business-as-usual" in Iraq image that they want to show the American public. That is all the more important in the run-up to the race for the White House in November.

Israel-Iran face-off

September 8 2004

New clear crisis in the Middle East
pv vivekanand

CONVENTIONAL wisdom says that Israel or Iran is unlikely to launch any attack on each other at this juncture in time despite the heightened tensions in the wake of American and Iranian statements.

The situation in the region is too tense for such a course of action and everyone involved knows too well that an Israeli-Iranian conflagration could trigger unpredictable consequences.

The US military is bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire and any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could be not only be disastrous to American efforts to pacify the Iraqis, particularly the Shiites in the south, but also would also herald grave dangers to its soldiers present in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

It is no coincidence that Iran, which is not believed to have developed a nuclear weapon, has warned the US of "pre-emptive" strikes against American soldiers in the region. Tehran has also warned to hit back at Israel if the Jewish state attacked Iranian nuclear installations.

The Iranian-Israeli military equation burst forth again following the successful testing of Israel's Arrow-2 missile last month. Two weeks later, Iran test-fired a new version of its ballistic Shahab-3 missile, which it said had been upgraded to match Israel's' weapons development. The Shahab is already capable of reaching Israel, and Israeli experts said Arrow-2 missile needed more work to be able to hit and destroy Shahab-3 while on flight to targets in Israel.

Obviously, Tehran is disturbed by unexplained American military movements across the border in Iraq as well as in the Gulf and feels that it had to deal with the issue on the international scene particularly after recent American statements that any means would be adopted not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

For the moment, the US has opted avoid a war of words with Iran after the warning by Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani of the possibility of pre-emptive Iranian action against US or Israeli forces in the region.

State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli said he was not interested in "chasing statements" by foreign officials. But he said he would certainly characterise Iranian concerns about the US presence in Iraq as "unwarranted."

Ereli argued that the US military is part of a multinational force in Iraq at the invitation of the country's interim government and in line with UN Security Council resolutions. He said they are present to help support the stability and security of Iraq so there is "no cause" to see them as a threat.

However, Iran, and indeed the rest of the world, is aware that the US is working behind the scenes to stir trouble for the theocratic regime in power in Tehran and a hyped up situation brought about by military action could be the forerunner of an American effort for "regime change" in Iran with help from what Washington considers as restless Iranians.

Apparently, Iran also fears that the administration of President George Bush might be tempted to use the Iran card to create a new situation where the American voters would not have a choice but to rally behind Bush in November's presidential elections.

At the same time, there is no definite clue to what course of action the Bush administration against Iran.

It is known that "regime change" in Iran is one of Bush's priorities in the Middle East. He has pledged to topple the Iranian regime if he is re-elected for a second term at the White House. If he remains true to his promise, then he is unlikely to undertake the risky action of military strikes against Iran ahead of the elections.

Simultaneously, there are signs that Israel, which is believed to have at least 200 nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them, is getting impatient to close the "Iranian nuclear file" by decimating Iran's nuclear facilities. And Tehran asserts that neither Israel nor the US would launch any attack on its nuclear facilities because it has the ability to hit back at anywhere in Israel with its Shihab-3 long-range missiles. Iran needs only medium-range missiles to target American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Interestingly, the Israeli expert opinion that the Arrow-2 missile system — said to the most effective missile defence network — needs more work to be effective against Shihab-3 missiles is seen by many as a ploy to drag Iran into a long-range missile war where Israel would feel free to use its own long-range missiles as well as fighter bombers against Iran.

In 1981, Israeli long-range warplanes bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant saying Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.

Israel does have a strong military edge against Iran. It has an advanced Dolphin-class submarine patrolling the Arabian Sea, keeping an eye of Iran's as well as Pakistan's nuclear facilities. The sub is said to be equipped with long-range missiles capable of hitting anywhere on the Indian subcontinent as well as Iran if fired from the right range.

Apart from newspaper editorials, there has been no Israeli response to the Iranian statements.

Military analyst Zeev Schiff wrote in the Haaretz that Iran might have sensed that Washington had given Israel the green light to attack Iran's nuclear facilities when Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that all means are being considered to prevent Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Schiff argued that Tehran now believes that until after the US presidential elections, Washington will not dare to open another military front.

That is definitely what Shamkhani had in mind when he said: "America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq."

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

In the hyped-up situation, the ball is in the Israeli court since as long as it stays away from carrying out a pre-emptive attack against Iran the situation is unlikely to worsen. But if it does, then the biggest loser is likely to be the US, whose forces would be sitting ducks in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Neocons itching for Iran

PV Vivekanand


THE so-called neoconservatives in Washington have emerged again, although not necessarily on their own but dragged out by revelations of Israeli spying at the Pentagon and, more importantly, of their behind-the-scene moves, away from the eyes of the Bush administration, to prepare the ground for regime change in Iran. It is possible that Israel, backed by the neocons, might be tempted to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities before the US presidential elections in November and thus herald unpredictable consequences not only for the American military presence in the Middle East but also for the region itself.
A REPEAT of the Iran-contra scandal of the Reagan administration years seems to be in the offing in the wake of revelations that top-level Pentagon officials were involved in back-channel contacts with Iranian dissidents to advance Washington's quest for "regime change" in Tehran.
The revelations came following a report that Lawrence A. Franklin, a veteran Defence Intelligence Agency analyst, had passed on to Israel a White House draft directive on Iran through the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the strongest Washington lobbying group which could "swing anything in the US if it puts its mind to it," as some analysts observe.
Franklin worked under Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's number three official and an avowed non-conservative who has made little secret of his commitment to serving Israel and who played a major role in creating the false intelligence that was cited by the Bush administration to justify the war against Iraq.
Two aspects to the spying affair are of immediate relevance to the Middle East. The first is the reality that Israel has always kept itself abreast of administration thinking in Washington with a view to exploiting it to its best advantage, including influencing policy decisions and strategies. This has always worked against Arab interests since no Arab country has such intelligence access to Washington's secrets.
The New York Times has said: "American counterintelligence officials say that Israeli espionage cases are difficult to investigate, because they involve an important ally that enjoys broad political influence in Washington. Several officials said that a number of espionage investigations involving Israel had been dropped or suppressed in the past in the face of political pressure.”
The second is the existence of a parallel group in the corridors of power in Washington engaged in a relentless drive to implement an Israeli agenda using American resources —  political, military, human, financial, technical and whatever else — to serve the interests of Israel.
Many believed that this group —  the so-called neoconservatives — had lost its clout in Washington in the wake of the debacle that the Bush administration finds itself in since the neoconservatives had fabricated the ground for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the name of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. More importantly, they convinced Bush it would be a cakewalk to take over Iraq.
(Alexander Cockburn, editor of Counterpunch, writes: "The neo-cons told Bush that eviction of Saddam would rearrange the chairs in the Middle East, to America's advantage. Wrong. They told him it would unlock the door to a peaceful settlement in Israel.Wrong. They told him that there was irrefutable proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq. Wrong. They told him the prime Iraqi exile group, headed by Ahmad Chalabi, had street cred in Iraq. Wrong. They told him it would be easy to install a US regime in Baghdad and make the place hum quietly along, like Lebanon in the 1950s. Wrong).
Franklin's boss Douglas Feith oversaw the work of the Office of Special Plans and the Counter-terrorism Evaluation Group, two bodies established by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in order to have the Pentagon's own intelligence analysis on the Saddam Hussein regime's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs and links to Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group.
The two offices worked independent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and all other similar arms of the American intelligence network. More importantly, they co-ordinated closely with a special intelligence unit set by Sharon — meaning that the Israelis played a key role in providing the false intelligence that set the ground for the war against Iraq.
The analyses supplied by the Office of Special Plans and the Counter-terrorism Evaluation Group and endorsed by Feith disregarded CIA findings and formed the basis for the Bush administration's publicly presented arguments for the war against Iraq.
The analyses were found to be based on false intelligence findings since no weapon of mass destruction or Saddam's connection with Al Qaeda was found in post-war Iraq.

Deceptive games

The crisis that hit the US in the face in Iraq — both in terms of credibility at home and on the international scene as well as American casualties in what is proving to be a no-win situation — has done little to weaken the neoconservatives, who are continuing their wheeling and dealing in Washington to advance their agenda of removing all potential threats to Israel, including Iran, Syria and groups like Hizbollah and others.
More importantly, the neocons, many of whom occupy key executive positions in the administration, are willing to circumvent the executive authority as represented by the White House in their determined campaign. Their clout is not scaled down by changes in the White House since their influence is bipartisan. That partly explains why American administration are often found to be flouting the very founding principles of the United States regardless of who occupies the White House.
According to James Bamford, author of the recent book Pretext for War, "The neoconservatives surround themselves with people who are fanatically pro-Israel, and maybe they were too over confident, or felt that no one would notice or no one would care, or that they were running things so it wouldn't matter, but luckily the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is independent of the Pentagon."
Under the effective guidelines supported by law, any US government official seeking the co-operation of foreign nationals to take secret action against other countries need a so-called presidential finding to engage in such activity. There is no indication yet that this was the case with the neocons' involvement with Iranian dissidents in planning regime change in Iran at the behest of Israel.


The Franklin affair

It is not the first time American officials have been found passing on American secrets to Israel or violating American laws and guidelines behind the back of the administration to serve Israeli interests.
The AIPAC officials involved in the Franklin affair have been identified as Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman.
Rosen is AIPAC’s director of research and said to the most influential people in group. . He has been with AIPAC since 1982, and "mentored both Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s current executive director, and Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel," says the Jerusalem Post.
Weissman is deputy director of foreign policy issues and specialises in relations with Iran, Syria and Turkey.
Franklin is also said to have had several meetings with Naor Gilon, described as the political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington, and a specialist on Iran's nuclear weapons programme.
Founded in the early 50s, AIPAC claims it has 65,000 members spread out through the US and says its central mission is to support US interests in the Middle East and to strengthen the US-Israeli relationship.
The group's self-professed agenda includes "Stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
Predictably, the Israeli government and AIPAC have refuted the spying allegation.
Israeli officials say the government had forsworn against spying in the US after Jonathan Pollard, a naval analyst, was found to have given Israel top-secret information relevant to the Soviet Union as well as details of American weapons and military equipment sold to Arab countries in 1985. Israel in turn traded the information with the Soviet Union in return for Moscow increasing the number of Russian Jews allowed to migrate to Israel.
According to John Davitt, former chief of the Justice Department's internal security section, "when the Pollard case broke, the general media and public perception was that this was the first time this had ever happen.
"No, that's not true at all. The Israeli intelligence service, when I was in the Justice Department, [1950-1980] was the second most active in the United States, to the Soviets."
Jewish American leaders have voiced concern that the new scandal could have on the reputation of AIPAC and Israel, but, in all probability, the issue would be played down and buried soon, say some analysts.
"I would describe the reaction to this scandal in the intelligence community as one of anger and of contempt, but not of surprise," said Jason West, who has written extensively on US military and intelligence issues. "No one believes, at all, that Israel does not spy on the United States, and no has believed that since Pollard. ... Of course," he said in comments carried by Lebanon's Daily Star.
The neocon camp in Washington include many influential officials in the Bush administration; and they are interlinked.
Feith's office has close ties  with Vice-President Dick Cheney's office. Feith is known to be a diehard supporter of Israel. His former law partner Marc Zell has migrated to Israel and has served as a spokesman the Jewish settlers on the occupied West Bank.
Feith, who served the Reagan administration its initial two years, was removed from the job in 1982 after coming under investigation for providing classified information to Israel. He was, however, brought back into active service by Richard Perle, another known neocon who the served as assistant secretary of defence for international security policy (ISP)
According to Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service, the close collaboration between the neoconservatives and Israel date back some 30 years and some of the neocons have come under investigation in the past. They include Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz as well as Feith and Perle, who resigned as Defence Policy Board (DPB) chairman last year. Another noted neocon is William Luti, a retired vavy officer who was Franklin's immediate supervisor.
Wolfowitz came under investigation for promoting Israel's export of advanced air-to-air missiles to Beijing in violation of a written agreement with the US on arms re-sales. But that is only a scratch on the surface of Wolfowitz's involvement with Israel.
Feith and Perle were the main authors of a 1996 policy recommendation document presented to the then Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, suggesting that Israel's domination of the region depended on removing Saddam from power and installing a US-friendly regime in Baghdad.
Also under FBI investigation is the links between Franklin and disgraced Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a favourite of the neocons. Apart from providing false information on Iraq's weapons programmes and nudging the US into launching war against that country, Chalabi has also been accused of providing classified information to Iran.



Core issue — Iran

The Franklin back-channel meetings involving Iranian dissidents began in late 2001, more than 16 months before the war against Iraq was launched and have continued since then.
Given that the Bush White House might not have been privy to details of the back-channel, which was operated out of Feith's office, it is also clear that the neoconservatives are pursuing their agenda with or without the administration; or using the administration's powers whenever they need it but otherwise ignoring the chief executive of the US.
In this case, they definitely have an added spur from Israel, which is itching to "take out" Iran's nuclear facilities. Not that Iran really poses a nuclear yet to Israel, but the Israelis cannot stand the thought of anyone developing or even thinking of developing nuclear weapons in the Middle Eastern neighbourhood.
In early 2004, Stephen Green, a freelance journalist with proven credibility and objectivity and who has been following Israeli spying in the US for many years, raised a very pertinent question in an article titled "Serving Two Flags: Neocons, Israel and the Bush Administration":
"Have the neoconservatives — many of whom are senior officials in the Department of Defence (DoD), National Security Council (NSC) and Office of the Vice President — had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?"
He also suggested that the "underlying agenda (of the neoconservatives) is the alignment of US foreign and security policies with those of (Israeli Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration’s new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with US soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neocon campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counter-force to Israeli military hegemony in the region —Iran and Syria."
Green's question, which represented the thoughts and analyses of many other American commentators, seems to have been answered resoundingly and his observations confirmed by the latest "Israeli-mole-in-the-Pentagon" revelation that also exposed the extent of the effort for regime change in Iran.
According to the Washington Monthly, an investigative magazine, the FBI came upon the findings of a back-channel on Iran when it investigated Franklin, who is now working in the office of Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's number three civilian official.
"In particular, the FBI is looking with renewed interest at an unauthorised back-channel between Iranian dissidents and advisers in Feith's office, which more-senior administration officials first tried in vain to shut down and then later attempted to cover up," said the Washington Monthly.
The back-channel, according to the report, was created as a result of a power struggle pitting hawks in the Defence Department who want an aggressive bid for "regime change" in Iran and moderates in the State Department and the CIA who advocate a more cautious approach.
Franklin — who, by the way, is not a Jew but has worked in Israel —  and another expert on the Middle East, Harold Rhode, were involved in meetings and contacts with Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar and other Iranian exiles, dissidents and government officials, said the report.
Other officials involved in the first meeting in Rome in December 2001 included another American, the neoconservative writer and operative Michael Ledeen, who was then working for Feith as a consultant, and a former senior member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who claimed to have information about dissident ranks within the Iranian security services as well as Nicolo Pollari, the head of Italy's military intelligence agency, and Italian Minister of Defence Antonio Martino.
According to the Washington Monthly, the CIA and the US embassy in Rome were not told of the meeting (it says the US ambassador, who had just taken charge, heard about the meeting during a dinner with Martino, who apparently assumed that the diplomat had known about the meeting).
(Ghorbanifar was once classified as a non-desirable by the CIA since he played a key role in embroiling the Reagan administration in the Iran-Contra affair which involved two secret US government operations to provide assistance to the military activities of the Nicaraguan contra rebels despite an official ban from October 1984 to October 1986, and the sale of US arms to Iran in contravention of stated US policy and in possible violation of arms-export controls).
(In late November 1986, Reagan Administration officials admitted that some of the proceeds from the sale of US arms to Iran had been diverted to the Contra rebels. Investigations found that high-ranking administration officials violated laws and executive to the contra rebels. Several were prosecuted and some were pardoned by Reagan, who pleaded memory lapses as his defence).
The meetings involving the "undesirable" Ghorbanifar — in breach of standing administration guidelines — continued despite warnings issued by senior State Department officials alerted by Ambassador Sembler. Particularly involved in the meetings was Ledeen, who was working for Feith at that time. Ledeen, who is affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, ignored repeated cautions to stay away from Ghorbanifar and pursued contacts — the extent of which are as yet unknown — aimed at preparing the ground for regime change in Iran.
According to some reports, the meetings with Ghorbanifar was aimed at sabotaging an agreement between the US administration and Iran to exchange Iranian dissidents captured by the US in Iraq for Al Qaeda suspects in Iranian custody. Today, the Iranian dissidents are given "special status" and American "protection" in Iraq, with a pledge that they would not be turned over to the Iranian government.
The Bush administration has not disclosed the details of the back-channel on Iran, but, as some analysts believe, it might not have known the details either.
The Washington Monthly suggests: "The administration's reluctance to disclose these details seems clear: the DoD-Ghorbanifar meetings suggest the possibility that a rogue faction at the Pentagon was trying to work outside normal US foreign policy channels to advance a 'regime change' agenda not approved by the president's foreign policy principals or even the president himself.
In terms of determination, the scenario is not much different from that was played out ahead of the invasion and occupation of Iraq last year, with the only exception that overthrowing Saddam Hussein became one of the policy objectives of George Bush in days after he assumed office in 2000. Since then, however, Bush went on to include Iran in his list of targets for regime change and has promised that the goal would be realised if he is re-elected for a new term in November.

Israel itching to go

Pat Buchanan, a former presidential candidate, writes that Sharon, the Israeli premier, is rumoured to have told the White House that if the US does not "effect the nuclear castration of Iran, Israel will do the surgery herself...."
The neoconservative agenda, says Buchanan, is "to have America widen her wars with Afghanistan and Iraq with a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities."
"For the neoconservatives, Iraq was simply Phase II of 'World War IV' for imperial domination of the Middle East and serial destruction of the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as of Hizbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority."
"The neocons have not abandoned this imperial project. Nor has Bush removed a single one from power, though they may yet cost him his presidency. And the neoconservative commentariat is again beating the drums for war -- this time on Iran."
Israeli commentator Martin Van-Creveld has suggested that Sharon might very well order an attack on Iranian nuclear plants before the November presidential elections in November.
Israel is said to have already conducted "trial runs" for attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities using Turkish airspace.
However, most analysts question the reports and doubt whether the Islamist-led government would allow Israel to use its airspace to launch attacks on Iran, particularly that which Ankara has been seeking to improve relations with Iran.
Israel cites the Islamist nature of the Iranian regime, Tehran's refusal to recognise Israel and its alleged support of Palestinian resistance groups fighting Israeli occupation as the reason for its "fears" that the alleged Iranian nuclear programme is Israel-specific.
However, this argument is countered by Tehran's affirmation that it would accept any solution to the Palestinian problem as long as it is acceptable to the Palestinians themselves.
It is open to debate but subject to the thinking of Sharon and his hawkish camp to pick the time for an Israeli strike against Iran on whatever pretext.
However, what has emerged from the latest revelations from Washington is that the neoconservatives are preparing the ground and action against Iran could come when Israel thinks the time is right, notwithstanding the numerous considerations linked to logistics and what many see as the impossibility of completely wiping out Iran's nuclear capabilities at whatever level they are.
Any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could be not only be disastrous to American efforts to pacify the Iraqis, particularly the Shiites in the south, but also would also herald until dangers to its soldiers present in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
Iran has already warned of "pre-emptive" strikes against American soldiers in the region and owed to hit back at Israel if the Jewish state attacked Iranian nuclear installations. 
Tehran asserts that neither Israel nor the US would launch any attack on its nuclear facilities because it has the ability to hit back at anywhere in Israel with its Shihab-3 long-range missiles. Iran needs only medium-range missiles to target American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Interestingly, the Israeli expert opinion that the Arrow-2 missile system — said to the most effective missile defence network — needs more work to be effective against Iran's Shihab-3 missiles is seen by many as a ploy to drag Iran into a long-range missile war where Israel would feel free to use its own long-range missiles as well as fighter bombers against Iran.
One thing is clear: Any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would not be as easy as the 1981 Israeli bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, and Iranian retaliation for any such Israeli action would be far more damaging to the US than anyone else. But then, is that a serious source of concern for the pro-Israeli neocons?

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.