From: map@economicdemocracy.org
To: map@pencil.math.missouri.edu
Subject: SADDAM-HATING IRAQI DEFECTOR OPPOSES BUSH'S MILITARY ASSAULT PLANS
Reply-to: map@economicdemocracy.org

Interestingly, BBC ran a story about one of the most senior Iraqi
defectors -- a passionate hater of Saddam -- and his opposition to the
murderous military assault preferred by Washington. Below is a short
excerpt, followed by information ( mostly hidden from the eyes of
Americans) about the history of Washignton's attitudes towards the
anti-Saddam Iraqi opposition groups:

BBC:

One of Iraq's most senior defectors has told the BBC that an
American-led invasion would spell a "very dark future for all".

General Nizar al-Khazraji, who led the army during the Gulf War, said
the Iraqi people would gladly overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime
themselves but feared a foreign intervention would make things "even
worse". 

For a rebellion to succeed, he said, the West needed to give clear
assurances that a post-Saddam Iraq would be democratic while retaining
its independence and territorial integrity. 

General Khazraji said the international community should focus on
"moral and diplomatic" support for ordinary Iraqis, rather than
military help. 

He offered his own services to lead any Iraqi rebellion against Saddam
although appeared to rule out a political role for himself. 

The former commander said Iraq's armed forces remained the best hope
of bringing down Saddam and he was willing to lead a rebel army into
the country. 

Iraqis, he said, would gladly oust Saddam but they were receiving
"mixed" signals from the international community and needed
guarantees. 

"I'm sure if the armed forces, if the people inside Iraq believe that
the West will help the Iraqis in lifting the sanctions, promising too
to help the Iraqis in the future, to keep the country unified, to keep
Iraq independent - that will encourage us to overthrow the regime." 

[End BBC excerpts]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2275446.stm

This is exactly what so many of patriotic anti-war dissidents have
been saying. Only it goes even further: it's not just that
there have been "mixed signals" from the US; in fact, the signals from
the  US have been *against* the Iraqi democratic opposition
overthrowing Saddam, simply because a democratic Iraq is going
to put the welfare of Iraq's people first, while Washignton's
wishes are to replace Saddam with someone like Saddam with the one
exception that they "run" Iraq with obedience to Washington's demands.

Consider this highly revealing excerpt from Deterring Democracy,
written around 1991, and surveying what happened just before and
after the Gulf War -- revealing a history of the Iraqi democratic
opposition being rebuffed -- with candid admission as to why:

[Begin Excerpt:]

Iraqi opposition forces have always been given short shrift in
Washington, hence ignored in the media. They were rebuffed by the Bush
Administration in February 1990, when they sought support for a call
for parliamentary democracy. The same was true in Britain. In
mid-August, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani flew to Washington to seek
support for guerrilla operations against Saddam's regime. Neither
Pentagon nor State Department officials would speak to him; he was
rebuffed again in March 1991. The likely reason was concern over the
sensibilities of the Turkish "defender of civilized values," who
looked askance at Kurdish resistance.11

The Iraqi democratic opposition was scrupulously excluded from the
mainstream media throughout the Gulf crisis, a fact readily explained
when we hear what they had to say. 

On the eve of the air war, the German press published a statement of
the Iraqi Democratic Group reiterating its call for the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein but also opposing "any foreign intervention in the Near
East," criticizing US "policies of aggression" in the Third World and
its intention to control Middle East oil, and rejecting UN resolutions
"that had as their goal the starvation of our people." The statement
called for the withdrawal of US-UK troops, withdrawal of Iraqi troops
from Kuwait, self-determination for the Kuwaiti people, "a peaceful
settlement of the Kuwait problem, democracy for Iraq, and autonomy for
Iraq-Kurdistan."

A similar stand was taken by the Teheran-based Supreme Assembly of the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq (in a communique from Beirut); the Iraqi
Communist Party; Mas'ud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan
Democratic Party; and other prominent opponents of the Iraqi regime,
many of whom had suffered bitterly from Saddam's atrocities. Falih
'Abd al-Jabbar, an Iraqi journalist in exile in London, commented:
"Although the Iraqi opposition parties have neither given up their
demand for an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait nor their hope of
displacing Saddam some time in the future, they believe that they will
lose the moral right to oppose the present regime if they do not side
with Iraq against the war." "All the opposition parties are agreed in
calling for an immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait,"
British journalist Edward Mortimer reported, "but most are very
unhappy about the military onslaught by the US-led coalition" and
preferred economic and political sanctions. 

A delegation of the Kuwaiti democratic opposition in Amman in December
1990 had taken the same position. On British television, anti-Saddam
Arab intellectuals, including the prominent Kuwaiti opposition leader
Dr. Ahmed al-Khatib -- who had already, in October 1990, strenuously
opposed military action -- were unanimous in calling for a cease-fire
and for serious consideration of Saddam's February 15 withdrawal
offer. 

THE SILENCE HERE WAS DEAFENING, AND INSTRUCTIVE. UNLIKE BUSH AND HIS
ASSOCIATES, THE INTERNATIONAL PEACE MOVEMENT AND IRAQI DEMOCRATIC
OPPOSITION HAD ALWAYS OPPOSED SADDAM HUSSEIN. BUT THEY ALSO OPPOSED
THE QUICK RESORT TO VIOLENCE TO UNDERCUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A PEACEFUL
RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT. Such an outcome would have avoided the
slaughter of tens of thousands of people, the destruction of two
countries, harsh reprisals, an environmental catastrophe, further
slaughter by the Iraqi government and the likely emergence of another
murderous US-backed tyranny there. But it would not have taught the
crucial lesson that "What we say goes."  [Bush Sr preferred, as
Washington does generally, to have all international matters settled
not by diplomacy but in the arena of force, where it has virtual monopoly]

With the mission accomplished, the disdain for Iraqi democrats
continued unchanged. A European diplomat observed that "THE AMERICANS
WOULD PREFER TO HAVE ANOTHER ASSAD, or better yet, another Mubarak in
Baghdad," referring to their "military-backed regimes," Assad's being
particularly odious [and nasty]. A diplomat from the US-run coalition
said that "we will accept Saddam in Baghdad in order to have Iraq as
one state."  A State Department official told a European envoy that
the US would be satisfied with "an Iraqi Assad," "a reliable and
predictable enemy."

In mid-March, Leith Kubba, head of the London-based Iraqi Democratic
Reform Movement, ALLEGED THAT THE US INSISTENCE THAT "CHANGES IN THE
REGIME MUST COME FROM WITHIN, FROM PEOPLE ALREADY IN POWER," AMOUNTED
TO A CALL FOR MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.

Another leading activist, banker Ahmad Chalabi, observed that the US
was "waiting for Saddam to butcher the insurgents in the hope that he
can be overthrown later by a suitable officer," an attitude rooted in
the US policy of "supporting dictatorships to maintain stability."
["stability" being a euphemism for: US hegemony and control; it's not
called "stability" when Russia or China do the same...so "stability"
is hardly an honest word for it -HB] Official US spokesmen confirmed
that the Bush Administration would have no dealings with Iraqi
opposition leaders: "We felt that political meetings with them...would
not be appropriate for our policy at this time," State Department
spokesman Richard Boucher stated on March 14, as Saddam's "iron fist"
was decimating the opposition.

Kuwaiti democrats too discovered that Bush would lend them no
support. The reason offered was the President's commitment to the
principle of noninterference in internal affairs, so profound,
officials explained, that he could not mention the word "democracy"
even in private communications to the Emir. "You can't pick out one
country to lean on over another," one official said.  [an
absurd statement as Chomsky notes ironically:]
Surely we will never find the US "leaning on" Nicaragua or Cuba, for
example, or moving beyond the narrowest interpretation of
international law. As human rights abuses mounted in postwar Kuwait,
Bush became "the foremost apologist for the perpetrators," observed
Aryeh Neier, director of Human Rights Watch, noting that Bush's
apologetics for repression were featured on the front page of the
Kuwait government daily. 

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY ALSO TOOK THE USUAL LICKING. POLLS A FEW DAYS
BEFORE THE MID-JANUARY BOMBING SHOWED ABOUT 2-1 SUPPORT FOR A PEACEFUL
SETTLEMENT BASED ON IRAQI WITHDRAWAL ALONG WITH AN INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON THE ISRAEL-ARAB CONFLICT. Few if any of those who
expressed this position had heard any public advocacy of it; the media
had been virtually uniform in following the President's lead,
dismissing "linkage" as an unspeakable crime, in this unique case. It
is unlikely that any knew that their views were shared by Iraqi
democratic forces; or that an Iraqi proposal in the terms they
advocated had been released a week earlier by US officials, who found
it reasonable, and flatly rejected by Washington; or that an Iraqi
withdrawal offer had been considered by the National Security Council
as early as mid-August, but dismissed, and effectively suppressed,
apparently because it was feared that it might "defuse the crisis," as
the Times diplomatic correspondent reported Administration concerns.12

Suppose that the crucial facts had reached the public and the issues
had been honestly addressed. Then support for a diplomatic settlement
would have been far higher, and it might have been possible to avoid
the huge slaughter preferred by the Administration for its particular
purposes: to establish the efficacy of violence and teach lessons in
obedience, to secure the dominant role of the US in the Gulf, and to
keep domestic problems in the shadow. 

[http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-after-s04.html]
Full footnotes are in these links.

******************************

Perhaps surprisingly, Washington's reasons for the constant rebuffing
of Iraqi democratic opposition which hates Saddam and its preference
for another thug in Iraq, only a more obedient one this time, was
candidly admitted by the chief diplomatic correspondent of the New
York Times  (and obedient virtual spokesman for the administration)
Thomas Friedman, notes Chomsky:

**
The goal of the attack on the civilian society was no secret: the
population was to be held hostage to induce the military to overthrow
Saddam and wield the "iron fist" as he himself had done with US
support before stepping out of line. Administration reasoning was
outlined by New York Times chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas
Friedman. If Iraqis suffered sufficient pain, some general might
topple Mr. Hussein, "AND THEN WASHINGTON WOULD HAVE THE BEST OF ALL
WORLDS: AN IRON-FISTED IRAQI JUNTA WITHOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN," A RETURN
TO THE HAPPY DAYS WHEN SADDAM'S "IRON FIST...HELD IRAQ TOGETHER, MUCH
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AMERICAN ALLIES TURKEY AND SAUDI ARABIA,"
not to speak of the boss in Washington.6
**

[See  http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-after-s02.html with footnotes]

..this "satisfaction" being a sharp contrast to the cold shoulder
treatment given to the true anti-Saddam Iraqi opposition (who unlike
Bush were not in bed with Saddam for years on end) who have just one
"disadvantage", namely, a democratic Iraq would be a "threat"
to control of Iraq by US elites.

Real democracy in the US, including real democratic media which tell
the truth, would be a similar "threat" -- a "threat" we would be wise
to help bring about if future adventures in mass-murder abroad,
smashed democracy and worker rights at home, and environmental
omnicide on earth, are to be prevented.

-HB

-- 
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial
of strength, and bid defiance to the laws our country" --THOMAS JEFFERSON,
1816.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and
causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the
war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high
places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor
to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people
until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is
destroyed." --ABRAHAM LINCOLN, letter to Col. William F. Elkins,
Nov. 21, 1864.  (p. 40 of The Lincoln Encyclopedia, by Archer H. Shaw
(Macmillan, 1950, NY))

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and
demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of
justice and mercy"  -- Wendell Berry