Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 05/20/2004 View Wed 05/19/2004 View Tue 05/18/2004 View Mon 05/17/2004 View Sun 05/16/2004 View Sat 05/15/2004 View Fri 05/14/2004
1
2004-05-20 Iraq-Jordan
American Troops Hold Guns to Chalabi’s Head
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Sludj 2004-05-20 10:55:13 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Any speculation on what the strategy is here?
Posted by Sludj 2004-05-20 11:21:01 AM||   2004-05-20 11:21:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 sludj - Speculation. . .

There was no comment from U.S. authorities, but American officials here have complained privately that Chalabi — a longtime Pentagon favorite — is interfering with a U.S. investigation into allegations that Saddam Hussein’s regime skimmed millions in oil revenues during the U.N.-run oil-for-food program.

Money makes the world go 'round.

Maybe Ahmed Chalabi showed up on a list, and he is a double dealer. . .
Posted by BigEd 2004-05-20 11:27:59 AM||   2004-05-20 11:27:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 humiliating

There's that word again.
Posted by Rafael 2004-05-20 11:31:03 AM||   2004-05-20 11:31:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 There was also something on Fox about Chalabi's group receiving $340K a month from the U.S. gov't. Maybe they are just wondering what the money is going for or where it went. Also, some of the pre-war intel provided to us by Chalabi has been privately determined by top-level brass as "false".
Posted by Jarhead 2004-05-20 11:49:31 AM||   2004-05-20 11:49:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Any speculation on what the strategy is here?

Other than rank stupidity you mean?

I've long supported that an early withdrawal in Iraq would be terrible because it would in essense mean handing it over to the fascists. But in the past few weeks it has started seeming to me that the longer the US stays there the less it seems to accomplish and the more it embarrasses and puts into a bad position those pro-Western Iraqis who would be in favour of secular democracy and against both secular and Islamist forms of fascism.

So, I think I'll be changing my position to "leave Iraq as soon as possible, hand over all authority to Iraqis now, let them fight it out among themselves and pray for the best". The chances that the fascists will end up winning are too high for me to have supported that earlier, but the problem is that I see these chances be getting greater, not smaller with every passing second.

Sadr seems no nearer to "destruction" than two months ago when he had been first "slated" for it. If there existed foreign fighters in Fallujah they've neither been contained nor destroyed therein -- the only possibly good thing is that unlike the case with Iranian-backed Sadr, Fallujah (with my admittedly very limited info) now has started appearing to me to have been a simple case of nationalistic rebellion. NOT a progressive rebellion that'd establish democracy and human rights for all ofcourse, but not that much of a case of a Saddamist victory over the democratization forces either. Just a case of Iraqis wanting Americans to butt out. If I'm right about this, then Fallujah may not end up signifantly more adverse to democracy than the rest of Iraq, even with an ex-Baathist general currently in command of it.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-20 11:52:26 AM||   2004-05-20 11:52:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 [Dons asbestos suit] Maybe this is why State was against Chalabi?
Posted by 11A5S 2004-05-20 11:57:35 AM||   2004-05-20 11:57:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Two more speculations: 1) Chalabi's credibility in Iraqis' eyes is enhanced when he is viewed as challenging the US--it erases the initial perception that he is a US stooge. Chalabi and the Pentagon both know this, and both want to enhance Chalabi's chances to exert power as the US hands over sovereignty and eventually withdraws. 2) Bush wants the UN to take significant responsibility in Iraq, making it possible for more countries to step in and help carry the load to establish stability. Chalabi is trying to embarrass the UN. Bush cuts a deal with UN to silence/marginalize Chalabi to obtain more cooperation/cover from the UN. I know these two speculations directly contradict each other. This is true, wild (but entertaining) speculation.
Posted by Sludj 2004-05-20 12:09:36 PM||   2004-05-20 12:09:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 you're a brave man, 115AS.
Posted by B 2004-05-20 12:18:20 PM||   2004-05-20 12:18:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Aris, just as on your side of the Atlantic, this side is in a holding pattern until the US elections in November. You won't see much happening on the political front in Iraq, Europe, UN etc. until this question is resolved first...Kerry or Bush? Of course I need not mention most of the world is hoping for Kerry.
Posted by Rafael 2004-05-20 2:28:10 PM||   2004-05-20 2:28:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Short comment. Chalabi was a weasel from the beginning. Indicted for banking embezzlement from a foreign country (who was it, Jordan?) Our boy in the making. Kind of an embarrassment, given he was financed and backed by America. Kind a makes you proud, don't it? Bad grooming. Big ol' black eye on Uncle Sam. Aw well, we did elect Trick Dick after all...
Posted by TaleWeaver  2004-05-20 2:56:51 PM||   2004-05-20 2:56:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Rafael - The same "most of the world" that supported Hitler.
Posted by B 2004-05-20 3:02:37 PM||   2004-05-20 3:02:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 B - After reading Robert Pelton's The World's Most Dangerous Places (4th edition, not the current anti-American one) several years ago I came to the conclusion that "most of the world" is f*cked.
Posted by Rafael 2004-05-20 3:22:09 PM||   2004-05-20 3:22:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Since the question hasn't yet been resolved, that automatically means that "most of the world" includes about half of the USA, more or less.

I'll leave others to figure out what this turns the "Hitler-supporting" comment into.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-20 4:11:34 PM||   2004-05-20 4:11:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Since the question hasn't yet been resolved, that automatically means that "most of the world" includes about half of the USA, more or less
Just the half that's stupid enough to vote for Kerry.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-05-20 4:24:41 PM||   2004-05-20 4:24:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 "Americans of holding guns to his head." Too bad they didn't pull the trigger! This guy is a Saddam wannabe and should be dealt with accordingly. He offers NOTHING to the council and upt till last week was raking in $350k a month. He is also the one that lined up witness after witness about Saddam's WMD program. Shoot him and be done with it.
Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-05-20 7:07:24 PM||   2004-05-20 7:07:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Aris, I wonder what information you are basing your assessment on (that the longer the US stays the less it accomplishes.) Are you basing it on what the media says? If the past is any guide, I would bet that the media has almost no clue about the reality in Iraq, just as it has no clue about many other aspects of how the world works.
Posted by virginian 2004-05-20 7:26:37 PM||   2004-05-20 7:26:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Aris, I wonder what information you are basing your assessment on (that the longer the US stays the less it accomplishes.)

Well, just some time ago no city was in the hands of insurgents as far as I know. Now, Fallujah, Najaf and a couple others whose names I may be forgetting (Kerballa?) seem no longer under the control of those who are trying for secular democracy.

So I can't help but wonder -- if control had been relinquished to the Iraqis a bit earlier on, would the insurgents have an excuse or reason to fight? Might they not have just tried for the political domination games that take place in every democracy? Now they've instead taken by force defacto power to themselves that'll be hard to remove.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-20 8:18:10 PM||   2004-05-20 8:18:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 "This guy is a Saddam wannabe and should be dealt with accordingly."

In free democracies, the way to deal with "Saddam wannabes" is to not vote them into office. It isn't to act judge-jury-and-executioner on them before they actually commit any crime.

He is also the one that lined up witness after witness about Saddam's WMD program.

That only really matters if he made you take a wrong decision in regards the invasion of Iraq.

Which means that Chalabi arranging for false witnesses is a minor point *unless* you say that invading Iraq was in retrospect a mistake, a mistake only made because of Chalabi's false info.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-20 8:24:27 PM||   2004-05-20 8:24:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Listened to KFI this afternoon - word is that Chalabi has been exposed as a paid Iranian agent!!
WTF??
Posted by Frank G  2004-05-20 8:26:52 PM||   2004-05-20 8:26:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I remember hearing rumors about that before, Frank; anyone else able to confirm that?

Interesting theory, though probably partially based in ignorance of the Iraqi political situation: if Sadr has been helped by the Iranians or indeed is an Iranian agent, and if Chalabi is, that might mean that random important political and perhaps even strategic info is being leaked to Sadr via, ultimately, Chalabi. A mole advising the rebel, so to speak.

I feel like I'm going out on a limb with that; it's completely wild speculation. Shoot me down at will; I have nothing to back it up.
Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-20 8:37:44 PM||   2004-05-20 8:37:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 "anyone else able to confirm that? "

I also remember such rumours been mentioned in Rantburg -- and I remember that at the time I considered it more probable that such rumours were part of Iranian misinformation rather than true.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-05-20 10:11:50 PM||   2004-05-20 10:11:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Aris: "Now, Fallujah, Najaf and a couple others whose names I may be forgetting (Kerballa?) seem no longer under the control of those who are trying for secular democracy."

It is true that this is a bad development but why does a setback like this make you change your position? Would you not expect there to be setbacks and tactical victories by the other side? I know of no wars in which all the battles are won by one side. The setbacks that the US and its allies faced in WWII were monumental compared to anything going on today. But even given these setbacks, what is the information that allows you to conclude that they are not just a minor sideshow in a very large and complex play of forces, both positive and negative, in Iraq. I don't believe that anyone outside of the intel organizations on the ground has anything like an accurate picture of the situation.
Posted by virginian 2004-05-21 12:17:01 AM||   2004-05-21 12:17:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Sorry, all of the anti-Chalabi stuff so far is either unsubstantiated or plain baloney (the Petra Bank thing being the biggest baloney of all).

I fear this is State doing Brahimi's (Baathist/Sunni/corrupt UN) dirty work. I hope it's DoD ensuring Chalabi some street cred.
Posted by someone 2004-05-21 2:07:24 AM||   2004-05-21 2:07:24 AM|| Front Page Top

16:29 Quarterdeck
23:49 cingold
23:34 Anonymous5102
15:12 Anonymous5013
20:59 Anonymous4974
10:44 jules 187
02:58 SON OF TOLUI
02:07 someone
00:33 Edward Yee
00:27 Edward Yee
00:25 scott
00:17 virginian
00:13 Anonymoose
00:02 Lucky
23:57 Lucky
23:54 virginian
23:53 Lucky
23:43 Lucky
23:35 Charles
23:33 Charles
23:29 OldSpook
23:21 Laurence of the Rats
23:17 Lucky
23:02 Carl in N.H.
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com