Iraq from an Iraqi's Perspective

[Darth Wong]

Link

Abuse worse than under Saddam, says Iraqi leader

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday November 27, 2005
The Observer

Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record, according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime.

'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.'

In a damning and wide-ranging indictment of Iraq's escalating human rights catastrophe, Allawi accused fellow Shias in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centres. The brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police, he said.

Allawi, who was a strong ally of the US-led coalition forces and was prime minister until this April, made his remarks as further hints emerged yesterday that President George Bush is planning to withdraw up to 40,000 US troops from the country next year, when Iraqi forces will be capable of taking over.

Allawi's bleak assessment is likely to undermine any attempt to suggest that conditions in Iraq are markedly improving.

'We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated,' he added. 'A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.'

He said that immediate action was needed to dismantle militias that continue to operate with impunity. If nothing is done, 'the disease infecting [the Ministry of the Interior] will become contagious and spread to all ministries and structures of Iraq's government', he said.

In a chilling warning to the West over the danger of leaving behind a disintegrating Iraq, Allawi added: 'Iraq is the centrepiece of this region. If things go wrong, neither Europe nor the US will be safe.'

His uncompromising comments came on the eve of Saddam's latest court appearance on charges of crimes against humanity. They seem certain to fuel the growing sense of crisis over Iraq, both in the country itself and in the US, where political support for the occupation continues to plummet.

Allawi was selected to serve as prime minister of the first interim government, before last January's first national elections. Admired in both Downing Street and the White House as a non-sectarian politician committed to strong centralised government representing all Iraqis, Allawi's supporters struggled in last January's elections, where they were eclipsed by Shia religious parties, some of which have been implicated in the violence.

Recently, however, his reputation has enjoyed a resurgence as he has tried to build alliances with Sunni political groups ahead of next month's national elections.

His comments come as a blow to those hoping that Iraq was moving towards normalisation under the new government. In a speech on Wednesday, Bush is expected to hail the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for withdrawing US forces.

But the proximity of the latest round of elections appears to have only intensified political murders and intimidations, including members of Allawi's own list, who have been killed and attacked by political rivals.

Despite denials of wrongdoing by the Ministry of the Interior, which has been implicated in much of the abuse, a series of damaging disclosures, including the discovery of a secret detention centre run by the ministry, has heaped embarrassment on the Iraqi government and its foreign supporters.

The intervention by one of Iraq's most prominent political figures promises to turn human rights abuses into a key election issue.

Allawi's scathing assessment of the collapse of human rights in Iraq under the country's first democratically elected government came amid an angry denunciation of the involvement of the Iraq government's institutions in widespread disappearances, torture and assassinations.

He added that he now had so little faith in the rule of law that he had instructed his own bodyguards to fire on any police car that attempted to approach his headquarters without prior notice, following the implication of police units in many of the abuses.

Allawi saved his strongest condemnation for the Ministry of the Interior, whose personnel have been accused of being behind much of the abuse: 'The Ministry of the Interior is at the heart of the matter. I am not blaming the minister [Bayan Jabr] himself, but the rank and file are behind the secret dungeons and some of the executions that are taking place.'

Responding to the former prime minister's comments, Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said: 'It is inconceivable in the higher reaches of the command of the multinational forces that there was not an awareness of what is being done by some Iraqis to their own countrymen.

'The assertions by Mr Allawi simply underline the catastrophic failure to have a proper strategy in place for the post-war period in Iraq.'

The Americans never found WMD, and if the so-called humanitarian mission also turns out to be a failure, what new reason will they invent for justifying the war?

[Rapax]

They certainly removed Saddam and no one can take that away from them.

[the_mango55]

It will be justified as a humanitarian mission, whether it succeeds or not.

and Wong, what is your solution to the war? Sure, you can say it was a bad idea, I will say that myself, but what is your solution now? You don't like the job US troops are doing, should we leave now? Should Europe step in? Do we need to finish the job?

Myself, I did not support the reasons for going to war (even if they had WMDs, who cares? so do we). But we went to war, it was a mistake in my opinion. But war came about anyway. So now that we are in it, I have no choice but to support it, as if we leave now it will just leave one big mess-o-potamia (to quote Jon Stewart)

[Tiwaz]

It will be justified as a humanitarian mission, whether it succeeds or not.

and Wong, what is your solution to the war? Sure, you can say it was a bad idea, I will say that myself, but what is your solution now? You don't like the job US troops are doing, should we leave now? Should Europe step in? Do we need to finish the job?

Myself, I did not support the reasons for going to war (even if they had WMDs, who cares? so do we). But we went to war, it was a mistake in my opinion. But war came about anyway. So now that we are in it, I have no choice but to support it, as if we leave now it will just leave one big mess-o-potamia (to quote Jon Stewart)

I have said this few times already but guess it doesn't hurt to say once more.

You will stay in Iraq and pay in blood for your stupidity. Why? Because the moment coalition leaves Iraq will end up in civil war. That civil war will cause great problems in Middle East which, due to being great source of oil, will have impact on global economy. It is time for fools who started this to buy others time to hopefully reduce the inevitable impact of civil war.

Because civil war WILL come. There is no way around it.

[Erik]

You will stay in Iraq and pay in blood for your stupidity.

I fully agree.

America choose to start this war, now they have to finish it no matter how many of their soldiers get killed.

[RZZZA]

"To be brutally honest, you need to drop the ridiculous BS pretenses and admit that this was a war of conquest: an attempt to create a vassal state. Put enormous numbers of troops into the country, commit yourselves to decades of occupation and a long-term insurgency which has to be managed continuously, and rebuild its governmental organizations in your own image rather than maintaining this sham pretense of "liberating" Iraqis so that they can run their own government.

Imperialism is a funny thing: it should either be done all the way, or not done at all. Half-assed imperialism, of the sort that was attempted in Vietnam and again in Iraq, is nothing more than big mess."


I disagree with this statement Darth Wong. I think history and past precedent goes against your argument. I think what America is doing is neo-imperialism. That is...do the least work possible to get the most benefits possible out of the deal. Similar to what we did with Germany and Japan. America never had any illusions about enforcing their might and power over the japanese...we did have a military presence there and its the same with Iraq, only the difference is, Iraqi insurgents are offering up more resistence than was expected. America doesnt want to make Iraqi a vassal state technically...we are looking to do the same thing with Iraq that we did with Japan...that is try to help them, try to establish a government that will always have pro-U.S. policies so that we can benefit from their existence much later on, in the future. I guess this could be considered a TYPE of vassalage, but by no means is America trying to create a "51st state" in the middle east. We love countries that obey American wishes such as Kuwait and we're looking to form a government that will tend to bend to our will in the future. That is not to say that we're purposely trying to establish a sham democratic state...thats not the case...Iraq will still be Iraq in almost every way possible, except now they'll have the U.S. as an ally, and they will accept our influences and benfit from them and we will benefit from the much improved relationship with Iraqi's, and all the trade they wish to do, they will do with us.

Wether or not this will happen is still uncertain. Will the Iraqi's put down the insurgency and accept U.S. influences with open arms? Will they sell us their oil for low prices like Kuwait and remain our steady ally in the middle east? Nobody knows...but I think this is what Americans are hoping for. One thing is certain though...vassal state or not...Iraq is America's problem now and if foreign invasion or internal strife becomes a problem once again, the load will be on American shoulders and the Iraqi government will appeal to the U.S. for help first and foremost. Even though Iraq won't be a client nation technically, it will have to be protected like one from time to time.

[Darth Wong]

It will be justified as a humanitarian mission, whether it succeeds or not.

What on Earth does that mean? How can something be justified regardless of whether it makes things better or worse?

and Wong, what is your solution to the war? Sure, you can say it was a bad idea, I will say that myself, but what is your solution now? You don't like the job US troops are doing, should we leave now? Should Europe step in? Do we need to finish the job?

To be brutally honest, you need to drop the ridiculous BS pretenses and admit that this was a war of conquest: an attempt to create a vassal state. Put enormous numbers of troops into the country, commit yourselves to decades of occupation and a long-term insurgency which has to be managed continuously, and rebuild its governmental organizations in your own image rather than maintaining this sham pretense of "liberating" Iraqis so that they can run their own government.

Imperialism is a funny thing: it should either be done all the way, or not done at all. Half-assed imperialism, of the sort that was attempted in Vietnam and again in Iraq, is nothing more than big mess.

Myself, I did not support the reasons for going to war (even if they had WMDs, who cares? so do we). But we went to war, it was a mistake in my opinion. But war came about anyway. So now that we are in it, I have no choice but to support it, as if we leave now it will just leave one big mess-o-potamia (to quote Jon Stewart)

First, the fact that one has already screwed up does not mean it is wrong to point out that one has screwed up. Second, like it or not, there are no good solutions here. There is no happy ending. The situation has been sufficiently screwed up that no matter what you do, things will not turn out the way the American people expected them to, based on the false claims they were conned into buying before the war began.

[IamthePope]

To be brutally honest, you need to drop the ridiculous BS pretenses and admit that this was a war of conquest: an attempt to create a vassal state. Put enormous numbers of troops into the country, commit yourselves to decades of occupation and a long-term insurgency which has to be managed continuously, and rebuild its governmental organizations in your own image rather than maintaining this sham pretense of "liberating" Iraqis so that they can run their own government.

Imperialism is a funny thing: it should either be done all the way, or not done at all. Half-assed imperialism, of the sort that was attempted in Vietnam and again in Iraq, is nothing more than big mess.

Wow, you actually think this is imperialism at work. Sorry to burst your bubble but none of the Senator who supported the war did so for imperialistic reasons. I think we have already established that the Iraq war was morally justified so we really don't need to go into this again.

[Rapax]

Wow, you actually think this is imperialism at work. Sorry to burst your bubble but none of the Senator who supported the war did so for imperialistic reasons. I think we have already established that the Iraq war was morally justified so we really don't need to go into this again.

Actually you have established that, but no one really cared about it. So what else is new?

[the_mango55]

What on Earth does that mean? How can something be justified regardless of whether it makes things better or worse?

What that means is that whether the war was justified or not, that is the reason that the ones responsible are going to use. That is not me justifying the war, as I was opposed to it.

To be brutally honest, you need to drop the ridiculous BS pretenses and admit that this was a war of conquest: an attempt to create a vassal state. Put enormous numbers of troops into the country, commit yourselves to decades of occupation and a long-term insurgency which has to be managed continuously, and rebuild its governmental organizations in your own image rather than maintaining this sham pretense of "liberating" Iraqis so that they can run their own government.

Ha, The war was not about creating a "vassal state" we have plenty of those already, although I will admit that that was one of the expected outcomes. The war was about WMD's, George Bush believing he could create democracy in the Middle east, and depending on how you feel about bush, possibly vengance on Saddam for the attempted assassination of his father.

First, the fact that one has already screwed up does not mean it is wrong to point out that one has screwed up. Second, like it or not, there are no good solutions here. There is no happy ending. The situation has been sufficiently screwed up that no matter what you do, things will not turn out the way the American people expected them to, based on the false claims they were conned into buying before the war began.

Where in my post have I showed that I am not willing to admit where America has screwed up? I say that I support the war now, which does not mean I agree with it. It means the same as when you say we need to stay in it and when Tiwaz says we will pay with our blood (feeling a little melodramatic there?)

[Guderian]

To be brutally honest, you need to drop the ridiculous BS pretenses and admit that this was a war of conquest: an attempt to create a vassal state. Put enormous numbers of troops into the country, commit yourselves to decades of occupation and a long-term insurgency which has to be managed continuously, and rebuild its governmental organizations in your own image rather than maintaining this sham pretense of "liberating" Iraqis so that they can run their own government.

Imperialism is a funny thing: it should either be done all the way, or not done at all. Half-assed imperialism, of the sort that was attempted in Vietnam and again in Iraq, is nothing more than big mess.

I agree, it's all or nothing. The thing is Americans don't like war, it is only thier government who does.

[Polemides]

Iraqi president angry at claim that abuse is 'worse than before'
MARGARET NEIGHBOUR

IRAQ'S president Jalal Talabani yesterday hit back at the former prime minister Iyad Allawi, dismissing as "nonsense" his claims that human rights abuses were as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

Mr Allawi was quoted yesterday as saying that people were "doing the same as Saddam Hussein's time and worse" and warning of the dangers of widespread human rights abuses, which he described as a "disease" which would spread throughout government.

His reported remarks provoked fury from Mr Talabani. "I cannot imagine that such nonsense has been said by Dr Allawi because he is very well aware that now in Iraq we are enjoying all kinds of democratic rights," he said.

"If we go back to Saddam's Iraq, we see that it was turned by Saddam into concentration camps on the ground and mass graves underground. How can one compare this new situation with that situation, which was unique?"

Mr Talabani insisted that the government was against any form of torture of detainees. "But even in his [Mr Allawi's] time more than three people were killed in the Ministry of Interior under torture - it doesn't mean that Allawi was worse than Saddam Hussein," the president said.

Mr Allawi was Iraq's first prime minister of the post-Saddam era but failed to win January's election, which brought current prime minister Ibrahim Jaafari, an Islamic Shiite, to power.

A secular Shiite who has a seat in parliament, Mr Allawi is critical of some Shiites in power viewing them as overly Islamic and too close to Iran.

In a newspaper interview Mr Allawi - in an apparent reference to the discovery of a bunker at the Shiite-run Interior Ministry where 170 men were held prisoner, beaten, half-starved and in some cases tortured - claimed that many Iraqis were being killed in interrogations.

"People are doing the same as in Saddam Hussein's time and worse," said Mr Allawi, a former Baathist who is standing in elections due to be held on 15 December.

"It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These are the precise reasons why we fought Saddam Hussein and now we are seeing the same things.

"We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated.

"A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them."

Mr Allawi warned it would be dangerous for the multinational force to withdraw from Iraq until the country was stable.

"Iraq is the centrepiece of this region," he said. "If things go wrong, neither Europe nor the US will be safe."

He claimed the Interior Ministry, which has tried to brush off the scandal over the bunker, was afflicted by a "disease".

If it is not cured, he said, it "will become contagious and spread to all ministries and structures of Iraq's government".

He added: "I am not blaming the [interior] minister himself, but the rank and file are behind the secret dungeons and some of the executions that are taking place."

http://news.scotsman.com/internation...?id=2313312005

So who is right and who is wrong? Who is lying and who is telling the truth?

[Darth Wong]

So who is right and who is wrong? Who is lying and who is telling the truth?

Actually, the President does not deny the allegations about torture and human-rights abuses at all. He merely tries to brush them off by saying that Saddam was still worse.

I disagree with this statement Darth Wong. I think history and past precedent goes against your argument. I think what America is doing is neo-imperialism. That is...do the least work possible to get the most benefits possible out of the deal. Similar to what we did with Germany and Japan. America never had any illusions about enforcing their might and power over the japanese...we did have a military presence there and its the same with Iraq, only the difference is, Iraqi insurgents are offering up more resistence than was expected.

Ummm, America did enforce their might and power over the Japanese. They did dictate rules to them. They did not promise their own citizens that they would be in and out with no heavy costs in money or lives. They did exert rigid control over Japanese society, Japanese media, the Japanese economy, etc. They were able to pull out after 7 years because the Japanese people would not defy them; after all, they were a defeated enemy, not a supposedly liberated people. They knew the Americans would have no compunctions about bombing them to oblivion if they were too defiant.

[RZZZA]

Well Darth it was a different situation with the Japanese, Americans hated them after pearl harbor and it was total war all through out WWII up until they surrendered. But look at Japan now. If American intentions truly were classically imperialistic as you made them out to be, wouldn't Japan still be under strict american control? Is it?

The situation with Iraq is cleary very different, we arent making war on the Iraqi citizens as a whole as we did with the japanese, who were all percieved to be fiercely loyal to their emporer and all were potential enemies....except of course, after we dropped our two bombs...after that the back of the average japanese person was broken and none had any more wish to resist American occupation. At first, you're right, we were harsh conquerers but it was out of necessity and safety four American soldiers. Does an American flag fly over Japan today? Are the japanese any less japanese today? Are they weak and insignificant?

I think that precedent shows...most countries we've attacked and defeated later on actually beenfit from our form of imperialism in the long term. We don't oppress or silence our conquerers, and theoretically, every nation we've conquered has the means today to revolt against american influence and become 100% independant again. It would be unadvisable, but it is still an option.

My point is that...American imperialism isnt as harsh or unforgiving as the imperialists in the past...and the reason is obvious. Its because Americans arent looking to oppress a population of people or exert their authority over anyone directly...what Americans want to do is "win the hearts and minds" of people all over the world...and the way we do that is conquer our enemies and make friends out of them basically, make them dependant on America's benefits and every once in awhile politely remind them of what America has done for them in the past to get what you want out of them in the future. Now, the Iraqi people were never our enemies but you get my point I think.

[Polemides]

Actually, the President does not deny the allegations about torture and human-rights abuses at all. He merely tries to brush them off by saying that Saddam was still worse.

That was the thrust of my questions. ARE the human rights abuses truly worse? Who do you believe? The disgraced former Prime Minister of Iraq with an axe to grind, or the current President, who may try to cover up such abuses? Neither are very reliable if you ask me.

[Erik]

So who is right and who is wrong? Who is lying and who is telling the truth?

That's an interesting one.
But I think Iraq's current president benefits by denying those claims.
And IIRC he is a Kurd too, and the Kurds are very anti-Saddam and pro-invation.

[Farnan]

That's an interesting one.
But I think Iraq's current president benefits by denying those claims.
And IIRC he is a Kurd too, and the Kurds are very anti-Saddam and pro-invation.

An Allawi is a politician running for election with some Sunni allies...

[Erik]

An Allawi is a politician running for election with some Sunni allies...

I didn't know that.

I guess it's all politics then.
This thread should be called "Iraq from a political motivated perspective".

[Carach]

ever heard of 'it has to get worse before it gets better'

maybe thats being applied here.....insurgency etc makes it worse...but it will, with time, get better, as afghanistan has done.

[obilic3]

Afghanistan is far from better, you had a group of warlords (northern alliance) against the Taliban and some more warlords.. all equally as bad as each other and any Taliban. Now you have the capital Kabul occupied with a pointless leader and the rest of the country run by warlords…is this better? or just ‘different’ to the Taliban? With most of the bad and naughty haha terrorists either still in Afghan or in Pakistan on the boarding towns and villages where its nearly impossible to track someone down.