portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

imperialism & war | indigenous issues

U.S. Eyes Dictatorial Regime In Baghdad

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) strongly advocates establishing a "stable totalitarian regime" in postwar Iraq on par with other regimes in the region," says an Iraqi political expert who was a collaborator with the U.S. occupation. "The CIA does believe that democracy would bring in anti-U.S. powers, some thing which is not desired by Washington," said Essam Khaffagi, director of Iraq's human resources observatory, who resigned from the U.S.-formed reconstruction and development council.

"Additionally, well-placed Iraqi sources confirmed that the CIA is liaising with Baathists, who were top at Saddam Hussein's dictatorial hierarchy."

 http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=353654&group=webcast
U.S. Eyes Dictatorial Regime In Baghdad: Iraqi Expert

By Khaled Shawkat, IOL Correspondent

AMSTERDAM, October 15 (IslamOnline.net) -- The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) strongly advocates establishing a "stable totalitarian regime" in postwar Iraq on par with other regimes in the region," an Iraqi political expert, who was a collaborator with the U.S. occupation, told IslamOnline.net.

"The CIA does believe that democracy would bring in anti-U.S. powers, some thing which is not desired by Washington," said Essam Khaffagi, director of Iraq's human resources observatory, who resigned from the U.S.-formed reconstruction and development council.

He said the U.S. intelligence bears in mind that a democratic regime in Iraq would be opposed by neighboring countries, given that this regime would not be in their interests.

"The democratic regime would, in a nutshell, expose such countries before their peoples," Khaffagi charged.

"Additionally, well-placed Iraqi sources confirmed that the CIA is liaising with Baathists, who were top at Saddam Hussein's dictatorial hierarchy."

The Iraqi expert said that the CIA had demanded some Arab countries, "who are known for their opposition to a democratic regime in postwar Iraq," to play a bigger role in the occupied Arab country.

He further said the U.S. has tasked Jordan with training Iraqi police, rebuffing French and German requests.

"The Americans do not want the new Iraqi police to act on European security standards, which respect human rights, but rather on the repressive Arab ones," added Khaffagi, who was one of 140 Iraqi experts handpicked by the White House after occupying Iraq.

Pressures

Khaffagi also urged Arab countries and the international community to press the United States into relinquishing powers to the Iraqis as soon as possible, adding that it did not honor its pledges of spreading democracy.

"Past events proved that the Americans did not practice what they preached and that they would only bow to pressures and opposition of the Iraqi people (to their policies)," he said.

"Iraq now is in a dire need to have institutions and a government that derive legitimacy from the Iraqis themselves."

But the Iraqis are fully aware that "they cannot overcome 35 years of dictatorship in a short period of time, but do believe that they have untapped potentials that enable them to run their own matters in a record-breaking time," he said.

U.S. Arrogance

Khaffagi said that the U.S. has become increasingly arrogant after the flash downfall of the Iraqi capital on April 9.

"They unjustifiably scrapped plans and documents that had been drawn up painstakingly by scores of Iraqi experts in 2002 under the tutelage of Washington to secure postwar Iraq and head off ensuing problems," he asserted.

"The documents advised the cheerful Americans not to dissolve Iraqi administrative and military bodies, thinking that they were able to run the country all by themselves," he recalled.

"The U.S. administration is now divided (over Iraq), and there is a power struggle between the State Department and the Pentagon over running the war-scarred country. Unfortunately, the Iraqis are paying the price for such division, which is far from over," Khaffagi concluded in a pessimistic tone.

homepage: homepage: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-10/15/article03.shtml
address: address: Islam Online

IslamOnline 16.Oct.2003 11:03

USA, CIA, AND A FLYING KANGAROO

I'm not going to say this isn't true, because I woudn't put it past the CIA or Bush, but please people use a little logic and consider the source. Oh, and the world ended on Y2K. remember?

to 'Kangaroo'-- 16.Oct.2003 13:33

The Source

Essam Khaffagi, director of Iraq's human resources observatory, who resigned from the U.S.-formed reconstruction and development council.

p.s. "USA, CIA, AND A FLYING KANGAROO":

where are all of those Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction? (CONSIDER THE SOURCE)

what was the reason that the United States pre-emptively invaded--and now militarily occupies--Iraq? (CONSIDER THE SOURCE)
CONSIDER THE SOURCE
CONSIDER THE SOURCE

whether true or not, it would not be surprising. 16.Oct.2003 14:42

this thing here

because a democratic, self-sufficient iraq would be a danger to the bush admin.'s plans for the middle east.

a democratic, self-sufficient (especially politically) iraq, exercising it's freedom and democracy, might take actions which disagree with the bush admin. they may side with the palestinians. they may change the currency with which they trade their oil. they may undertake economic policies which run counter to bush admin. objectives. they may elect people which are hostile to bush admin. interests.

so this is crux of the matter: can the bush admin. control a country and it's government and it's policies, in order to protect the bush admin's interests, and still call it free and democratic? no. the bush admin. MUST leverage some kind of control over the nation of iraq. otherwise, why spend all the resources on invasion and occupation only to throw all that you have gained into the hands of the iraqi's?

so this argument that the bush admin. can go in and create a "democratic" country, WHILE STILL MAINTAINING CONTROL OVER IT, is a tremendously disingenuous argument on the part of the bush admin. and it's neo-authoritarian/straussian advisors, such as paul wolfowitz. it was wolfowitz who i believe was the one to put forward an argument which ran something like "democracies aren't agressive and hostile, democracies are less likely to attack other nations, democracies agree with one another."

hmm. that's funny paul, because didn't america and britain attack another country in an offensive, aggressive fashion? and didn't france and germany disagree with america? so either america didn't do that, or america isn't a democracy. either america didn't do that, or france and germany aren't democracies. so either iraq will be truely free and autonomous, or it won't be a democracy.

what men like wolfowitz are trying to do is have it both ways. they wish to control the world, yet they wish to call the world free in their control. they wish to free a country, but not before they control the degree of that country's freedom. not only is this immensely misleading, but it is also impossible. a free, self-sufficient, democratic and autonomous world cannot be the goal of the same nation which is trying to exercise control and dominance over it. in fact, a truely free world would be a severe threat to a power seeking total dominance and control. so this argment and the policies it has spawned are a nothing but a sweet tasting poison for those who believe them.

the same paradoxical impossibility would happen to any nation wishing to exercise total control over the world, while trying to claim at the same time all are free or "liberated". and as for america, the contradictions in this policy are profound. here we see a country which is comparatively (or maybe just for argument's sake) free and democratic and liberal at HOME, yet which is comparatively authoritarian and unilateral ABROAD. i don't see how this paradox can be reconciled. something will have to give. either we will loosen our grip over the world abroad, or we will tighten our grip at home. unfortunately, it's obvious how the bush admin. has chosen to reconcile this contradiction...

"strongman needed" -- Pipes 16.Oct.2003 18:42

Arlo Guthrie

"Therefore: Iraq needs - and I write these words with some trepidation - a democratically-minded Iraqi strongman who has real authority."
--Daniel Pipes, GW's ultraright appointee to the US Institute for Peace

US not at all interested in fostering democracy in Iraq 17.Oct.2003 10:16

GRINGO STARS

The corporate press and the corporate government talk of the liberation of Iraq. Many of us recognize that this liberation is false; it never was intended and it is not in the plans. Here are just a few examples.

On April 28, the U.S. and Britain organized a meeting in Baghdad to start the political process. Many parties were not invited, and the two largest pre-Saddam Hussein parties-the Communist Party and the Islamic Da'wa Party-were excluded, while outside thousands protested.

On May 26, the new leader of the U.S. occupation forces, L. Paul Bremer III, decided to indefinitely postpone the formation of the Iraqi interim authority, even though this "interim authority" would still be subservient to Washington, since the White House would retain the crucial levers of power for an indefinite period.

And it is not only the U.S. forces. On May 26, the British forces, eager to stay in line with the U.S. forces, announced they would replace an Iraqi city council that had been hailed as a model of post-war cooperation with a committee of technocrats chaired by a British military commander. The decision provoked an angry reaction from the 30-member council, which is headed by a local tribal chief and has labored to reestablish civic order in the south.

Still not enough?

On May 29, U.S. forces set up a meeting in Baghdad with the chiefs of the local tribes. During this meeting, Arabic television network Al-Jazeera reported that U.S. officials were asked straight up by one Iraqi chief: "We need to understand. Are you here as liberators or as occupiers?" Bremer's representative responded in Arabic: "It is a difficult word, but, yes, we are here as occupiers."

If the present weren't proof enough, let us remember that the policies of Bush Jr. are an expansion of policies by previous administrations. Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Bush Sr. clearly stated his opposition to free elections in Iraq. He said: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely not going to let them take over."

Much of this isn't new. The vast majority of justice activists in this country recognize that the U.S. government is not interested in any democracy in Iraq. Nor could one reasonably argue that this government-either the administration that disenfranchised African American voters (and not just in Florida) or the Democratic Party that silently allowed this theft-could even set up a democracy.

Nevertheless, all too often, activists and leftists (to name a few) parrot the government's phrase, and speak about "the reconstruction of Iraq."


The above was written by Rania Masri;
 http://www.isreview.org/issues/30/corporateinvasion.shtml

Just curious 17.Oct.2003 18:32

Bill

Why do you always ask other people what your opinioin is?