Listening to Voices of the Middle East

The day after the 2006 election, many celebrated, but Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington set off to the middle east on a "listening" tour. Originally, five other Legislators had agreed to go with him as a delegation, but one by one, they begged off. He went anyway, and took Progressive Government's Dal LaMagna, to meet with delegations from Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan. These included members of Iraqi and Jordanian Parliament, economists, former Iraqi officials, Dalayin tribal people from Anbar, a Palestinian businesswoman, an Iraqi female civil engineer and others. They created the Iraq Reconciliation Plan.

This is the plan:

1. Listen to the people.
2. Work for an immediate ceasefire with the resistance.
3. Close the borders.
4. Freeze the Constitution.
5. Disband the militias.
6. Recall the Iraqi Army.
7. Return the technocratic government workers.
8. Keep Iraq as a unified state.
9. Involve all of Iraq's neighbors in the solution.
10. Turn the occupation over to UN trusteeship.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

\
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Annotated version of the plan:

1. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE
Tribal leaders from Anbar did not feel that they would ever be listened to by the US government. It has been difficult for Iraqi Parliamentarians to visit the US in order to speak to our Congress. We are given a slanted view in the press. Al-Malaki has spoken to Congress but he is a former Iranian and a Shia. The US is pinning their hopes on a man with this background and this creates great skepticism in the middle east. More correct information would be achieved by really listening to Iraqis.

2. WORK FOR AN IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE WITH THE RESISTANCE.
Those interviewed frequently felt that anyone who resists is called a "terrorist" and this is true for nationalists who feel they are fighting for their country. Tribal leaders from Anbar did not worry about Al Quaida. They expressed no interest in terrorism or Jihad. Finding out what their aspirations really are would make a ceasefire more likely and possible.

3. CLOSE THE BORDER
Under Saddam, there were 24 border checkpoints. Now there are two and many militant Shiite Iranians have come into the country, and they are well-supplied. If their supply lines were cut off, they could be dealt with. It is curious that the US is willing to send National Guards to the border between US and Mexico but not to deal with the Iran/Iraq border permeablity. It would be possible to close the border, after engaging the Iranians diplomatically and assuring them an attack was not imminent, as soldiers massed at the borders.

4. FREEZE THE CONSTITUTION
The Iraqis interviewed knew full well that the new Constitution for Iraq came from a conservative think tank in Virginia. They know that it allows for the country eventually to be split into three partitions and they consider this part of a greater plan to remake the middle east, eg. to "divide and conquer" it so as to make it easier to manage its assets. That is their fear. They feel that a "junta" makes decisions and this is not democratic. If the Constitution were frozen, some of the suspicion would dissipate and work could begin toward one that is more truly representative of what Iraqis want.

5. DISBAND THE MILITIAS
If the borders were closed and supply lines for outside agitators, such as from Iran, were closed, there would soon be less need for the militias. Many used to belong to the general military of the country, which was disbanded. If they were employed or joined the regular Army and no longer felt so under threat by death squads and outsiders, they were not be so inclined to join or form militias.

6. RECALL THE IRAQI ARMY
The Americans don't speak Arabic. They are not Iraqis. They don't really know the country, culture, history or terrain. Why not find the old Generals and have them call back their units. They were professionals. "We know who is who" - said some of the Iraqis. Such an Army would not be sectarian.
It wasn't before. It was the military of the nation of iran. Reconstituting former divisions under former professional Iraqi military should improve security in Iraq and allow US withdrawal to occur sooner.

7. RETURN THE TECHNOCRATIC GOVERNMENT WORKERS
Iraq has an unemployment rate of 70%, which is both unbelievable and appalling. Lost military and civilian jobs created desperation, resistance and mass migration out of Iraq. Some people joined militias simply to feed their families. Why not bring back workers that were below a certain level? The US did it in Nazi Germany. Why not hire, for example, a teacher who formerly belonged to the Ba'ath party? Such sensible steps would help heal Iraq and aid the reconstruction.

8. KEEP IRAQ AS A UNIFIED STATE
Congressman McDermott presented the current map of the middle east and the version for the future, if the world unfolds in line with Neoconservative theory, in the form of "The New Middle East." Iraq, for example, would consist of a Shia state in the oil-rich south, a Sunni state in the middle with mostly barren land, and a huge Kurdish state in the north which has expanded to include parts of Turkey and Iran where Kurds now reside. This could require a thirty-year war, with Saudi Arabia also split. The US is already enmeshed in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, with Ethiopia's inroads in Somalia seen as a blueprint. To most Iraqis, Iraq needs to be Iraq, not a new version of the Balkans. Iraq should not be partitioned into three sections.

9. INVOLVE ALL OF IRAQ'S NEIGHBORS IN THE RESOLUTION
Neighbors know that Al-Malaki has come from Iran and is affiliated with death squads. They know that soldiers are trained to knock down doors. They know that Americans frequently arrest and imprison Iraqi women. They realize that part of the "surge" is to "secure Bagdad" and to partition it into "gated communities." Creating ghettos does not bode well for the local economies. Who will go to the souk? The middle eastern people interviewed did not feel that Iran and Syria would willingly agree to a partitioned Iraq. Everyone needs to talk. "You can not wait til there's peace to have a peace conference," as Jim McDermott says. Peace talks need to start and immediately.

10. TURN THE OCCUPATION OVER TO UN TRUSTEESHIP
This idea does not necessarily go over well in the United States, but was popular in the middle east. The American Congress has not put its foot down. The US is perceived as having double standards in the middle east rather being fair. Specifically, they are often viewed as being on the side of the Shia and Iranians (regardless of rhetoric to the contrary) and the israelis. The US should not be always calling the shots.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

WHAT WENT WRONG

There is the issue of what went wrong in Iraq, though I focus first on the plan. Yet what went wrong definitely affects what the "voices from the middle east" felt needs to be contained in the plan. This is a summary of the flaws in our tactics, as expressed by those in the discussions.

The US government did not listen to "middle eastern voices." They sent 140,000 soldiers, most of whom know no Arabic. Bremer dismantled Iraq, wiped out the Army and government, which encouraged sectarian violence. The educated class left Iraq en masse for fear of being assassinated by death squads. Bremer neglected to close the borders of Iraq. Saddam had 25 checkpoints - only two remain. The US listened to Ahmed Chalabi, wanted in Jordan for bank fraud, and gave him 40 million dollars. Former Iranians were allowed to get into high positions, following the vacuum created when the military and government fired. This created a civil service sector replete with nepotism and corruption. The new Constitution specified 13 Shia (Iranian-leaning) positions and 10 positions for the rest. President Bush railed against Iran, yet his policies created the vacuum which encouraged Iran to take advantage of the destabilization of Iraq.

As ex-officers were humilated and punished, this also meant they had no salaries, no pensions, no way of feeding their families. Is it any wonder that they began to resist - 500,000 unemployed and frustrated, with guns? Iranians flooded in, with the borders opened and no military guarding them. Even if the Americans were to leave, these Iranians would remain. Many Iraqis feel that the US actions gave Iraq to Iran and that they now must drive out both the US and the Iranians. They feel that it is a myth that Shiites are fighting Sunnis. More correctly, Arabs are fighting Persians, as they did for a decade under Saddam, and many times over the centuries.

Now as the conflict widens, some Saudis propose helping Sunnis in Iraq, as a way of dealing with the Persians (Iranians). Then the neocons, who are not based in reality, have wanted to go to "zero base" (ie. destroy everything and start over, building democracy). During the question and answer session, several brought up the obvious question of whether the neocons would dare to attack Iran. In the middle east, the position was generally that this would be insane. Iran has a population of 70 million and a large military that the US has partially armed. Add to this the Hezbollah and Al Quaida that would opportunistically get involved and our military in Iraq would be even more tragically "sitting ducks." They pointed out that there are thousands of little smuggling harbors where small boats could deliver missiles to tankers just as surely as they can be delivered from motorcycles.

Let's do all we can to ensure that sanity prevails! The President did not listen to American voices either, as we voted in the 2006 election primarily on the war issue. Congress needs to listen to sensible plans such as this plan and that of McGovern.

As Winston Churchill said, "Americans always do the right thing - after they have done everything else."
_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
(The local Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Arab American Community Coalition, and the Arab American Policy Forum sponsored Jim's report to the Seattle community on his fact-finding mission to the middle east.)

Comments

[DiAnne]

This is fascinating!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/812597.html

KING OF THE IRANIAN BLOGGERS

[DiAnne]

Financial Times editorial NAILS IT

George W. Bush’s new direction in Iraq is certainly not a strategy for victory, whatever that word, which is used ever more desperately by the US president, now means. It may be one last heave. It may be a cover for US withdrawal. But two things are quite clear.

Right now, Mr Bush has the support of no more than one in four Americans for this so-called surge of an extra 20,000 or so troops. Very soon, as the already indecipherable ethnic and sectarian patchwork of Iraq is pulled further and even more bloodily to pieces, he will have none.

Second, this policy will not succeed in fixing an Iraq traumatised by tyranny and war and then broken by invasion and occupation. But it may end with the US “surging” into Iran – and taking the Middle East to a new level of mayhem that will spill into nearby regions and western capitals.

Mr Bush’s body language in the speech bespoke a chastened man. Yet, caught in a wilfully spun web of delusion and denial, he seems still unable to comprehend the depths of the debacle he has caused in Iraq.

Iraq has reached advanced societal breakdown, with ethnic cleansing on a regional, neighbourhood and even street-by-street basis. There has been a mass exodus of its professionals and managers, civil servants and entrepreneurs, a haemorrhage of its future. The time for the occupying authorities to have surged was 2003, after the fall of Baghdad; like everything they have tried since, this is far too little, much too late. The US deployed a similar number of troops last summer to “lock down” Baghdad, since when the number of killed in the capital alone has rocketed to more than 100 a day, while on average an attack occurs against Anglo-American forces every 10 minutes, and this in a fight now mainly between the minority Sunni deposed from power and the hitherto dispossessed Shia majority drunk with it.

It is hard, even for ardent democrats, to see this Iraq as a young democracy fighting for its life, as Mr Bush’s discourse of good guys against bad guys would have it. The invasion has solidified a system divided into sects and operating on the basis of patronage and intimidation. The composition of parliament is nearly two thirds Islamist. There are no institutions. Ministries are sectarian booty and factional bastions. The one institution that did more or less survive Saddam Hussein, the national army, was disbanded by the occupation and current attempts to reconstitute it have failed to move beyond rebadged militia. The three brigades the Shia-dominated government of Nuri al-Maliki has promised to add to the five extra US brigades are mostly Peshmerga – Kurdish militiamen – adding another account to be settled once the Americans withdraw.

What is still, in spite of Mr Bush’s attempts to dress it up, an essentially military strategy is just not credible. The US army is not designed to deal with insurgency and, in any case, does not have the troops to master one on this scale – especially if its own masters are planning to open a new front.

It has failed to control the insurgency in the Sunni triangle – a rebellion by a minority of the minority. Now it aims to confront Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia radical, and his 60,000-strong Mahdi army, in a fight that could set fire to east Baghdad and south Iraq, where British troops could easily be enveloped in the flames.

The contradiction at the heart of the US approach, however, is this: after casually overturning the Sunni order in Iraq and empowering the Shia in an Arab heartland country for the first time in nearly a millennium, Washington took fright at the way this had enlarged the power of the Shia Islamist regime in Iran. Now, while dependent on Tehran-aligned forces in Baghdad, and unable to dismantle the Sunni Jihadistan it has created in western Iraq, the US is trying to put together an Arab Sunni alliance against Iran. This is a fiasco with the fuel to combust into a region-wide conflagration.

The only feasible way forward is the approach of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission – which the new US Congress should embrace and insist on.

This would make support for the Iraqi government and army conditional on their real effort to promote national reconciliation, which would in turn, as it progressed, be rewarded with billions of dollars in long-term aid from the US and Iraq’s neighbours. This external support – from Turkey to Saudi Arabia and Iran to Syria – would be built up within a wide-ranging diplomatic offensive in the region that would include Tehran and Damascus. Mr Bush is instead threatening to expand the war.

“Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops” he said on Wednesday. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.” The Iraq surge is beginning to look like the Vietnam escalation, spilling over into Iran and Syria the way that one did into Cambodia and Laos.

Mr Bush is right to argue that defeat in Iraq would be very serious. He is wrong in failing to recognise defeat is what he is staring at – and that this approach will help guarantee it.

[DiAnne]

This is the "map of the new middle east" by General Peters that Jim mentioned. It fits perfectly with what Condi Rice referred to during the recent Israel/Lebanon conflict.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061116&articleId=3882

[DiAnne]

US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add. Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn’t include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16169.htm

[DiAnne]

Good site on history of Jihad -

http://www.historyofjihad.org/persia.html