Target Centermass

Day: December 1, 2004

  • Barghouti Seeking Palestinian Presidency

    In their attempt to become a civilized democracy, the Palestinians are holding an election to replace dead-but-not-soon-enough terrorist-in-chief Yasser Arafat. Unfortunately but expectedly, it’s on the verge of becoming a circus.

    Jailed Palestinian uprising leader Marwan Barghouti declared his candidacy for president Wednesday, a stunning last-minute reversal that shook up Palestinian politics ahead of the Jan. 9 vote for Yasser Arafat’s replacement.

    Adding to the uncertainty, the militant group Hamas said it would boycott the election. It was the first sign of open divisions between the interim Palestinian leadership and the Islamic opposition group since Arafat’s death Nov. 11.

    The moves injected drama into what has been a smooth transition of power. Before Wednesday, interim leader Mahmoud Abbas managed to win pledges of unity — if not outright support — from the disparate Palestinian factions and seemed a shoo-in to win the presidency.

    The fiery, charismatic Barghouti, who is serving five life terms in an Israeli prison for his role in deadly attacks, is far more popular among young Palestinians than the staid Abbas.

    Last week, Barghouti sent a message from his prison cell saying that he would not pursue the presidency for the sake of unity in the ruling Fatah movement. But Wednesday, he abruptly changed his mind.

    Cheered by supporters who shouted “With our blood and souls, we will redeem you, Marwan,” Barghouti’s wife, Fadwa, dropped off his registration documents at the Palestinian election headquarters ahead of a midnight deadline. “I officially registered Marwan,” she told reporters. Earlier, the campaign paid a $3,000 deposit, associates said.

    Abbas already has been nominated as Fatah’s presidential candidate, so Barghouti must run as an independent. But as a leading Fatah member, he would likely undermine Abbas’ prospects.

    Barghouti, 45, represents the younger generation of Fatah that grew up in the West Bank and Gaza, while Abbas, 69, comes from the “old guard” of leaders who returned from exile with Arafat a decade ago.

    Barghouti became a political activist in the 1970s, joining Arafat’s Fatah movement. He spent six years in Israeli jails — where he learned Hebrew — for his membership in Fatah, and was deported in 1987.

    He was one of the first exiles to return seven years later under interim peace deals with Israel. Barghouti supported those accords, advocated a Palestinian state alongside Israel and had close ties to Israeli peace activists.

    But when the Palestinian uprising broke out in September 2000, Barghouti used Arab satellite television to turn himself into the most prominent voice of the Palestinian resistance. Though he said he still supported a peaceful solution, Barghouti said force — including shooting attacks on Israelis — was justified to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

    Israeli arrested Barghouti in 2002, accusing him of funneling money to militants and being involved in attacks that killed 26 Israelis. He was convicted of attacks leading to five deaths.

    While Abbas and Barghouti both favor a negotiated settlement with Israel, an election victory for Barghouti would complicate matters. Israel has quietly embraced Abbas, whom it considers a pragmatist, and has ruled out freeing Barghouti.

    However, because of his popularity, it might be easier for Barghouti to make the concessions needed to reach a peace deal with Israel.

    That the Palestinian president could be a criminal would be nothing new. The potential for change would be that he would actually be behind bars for his crimes.

    And is Hamas, having claimed in the past that it was ready to step in and govern the Palestinian people, shooting itself in the foot with its boycott threats? Or is the gambit to de-legitimize any resulting president going to elevate Hamas as a viable alternative to the Palestinian Authority? Interesting days ahead, folks.

  • U.S. to Expand Force in Iraq

    As expected, the U.S. is upping its number of boots on the ground in preparation for the upcoming elections.

    The United States is expanding its military force in Iraq to the highest level of the war — even higher than during the initial invasion in March 2003 — in order to bolster security in advance of next month’s national elections.

    The 12,000-troop increase is to last only until March, but it says much about the strength and resiliency of an insurgency that U.S. military planners did not foresee when Baghdad was toppled in April 2003.

    Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, deputy operations director of the Joint Staff, told reporters Wednesday that the American force will expand from 138,000 troops today to about 150,000 by January.

    The previous high for the U.S. force in Iraq was 148,000 on May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared that major combat operations were over and most soldiers thought the war had been won. The initial invasion force included thousands of sailors on ships in the Persian Gulf and other waters, plus tens of thousands of troops in Kuwait and other surrounding countries.

    The expansion in Iraq will be achieved by sending about 1,500 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, N.C., this month and by extending the combat tours of about 10,400 troops already in Iraq. Those 10,400 will be extras until March because the soldiers who were scheduled to replace them in January will arrive as planned.

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved the moves Wednesday, according to a Pentagon statement.

    “They are the most experienced and best-qualified forces to sustain the momentum of post-Fallujah operations and to provide for additional security for the upcoming elections,” the statement said.

    The Pentagon originally expected to train and equip enough Iraqi government forces to fill the security gap in the weeks leading up to the elections, but that hope was not fulfilled.

    The military is reluctant to extend soldiers’ combat tours because of the potential negative effect it could have on their families, and thus on their willingness to remain in the service. In this case, Gen. George Casey, the most senior U.S. commander in Iraq, decided it was necessary to keep up pressure on the insurgents while also providing security for the elections.

    Another small increase before the voting would not surprise me.