Category: General

Saddam in his underwear. Chemical Ali in a bathrobe. Not appealing mental images, and certainly not pictures that should have reached publication.

A British tabloid published more revealing photographs of Saddam Hussein in U.S. custody on Saturday, a day after it ran a front-page picture of the former Iraqi leader naked except for his underwear.

The international Red Cross, which is responsible for monitoring prisoners of war and detainees, said the photographs violated Saddam’s right to privacy. The U.S. military condemned the publication and ordered an investigation of how the pictures were leaked to The Sun.

Saturday’s pictures included one of Saddam seen through barbed wire wearing a white robe-like garment, and another of Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as “Chemical Ali,” in a bathrobe and holding a towel.

[…]

The Sun said the photos were provided by a U.S. military official it did not identify who hoped their release would deal a blow to Iraq’s insurgency. Managing editor Graham Dudman told The Associated Press that the newspaper paid “a small sum” for the photos. He would not elaborate except to say it was more than 500 British pounds, which is about $900.

The New York Post, which is also owned by Murdoch, also published the photos on Friday.

The U.S. military in Baghdad said the publication of the photos violated U.S. military guidelines “and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals.”

A spokesman, Staff Sgt. Don Dees, said the military would question the troops responsible for Saddam.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S. military officials in Iraq believe the photos are “dated”– perhaps more than one year old, although no specific date has been established.

“This is something that should not have happened,” Whitman said.

Whitman’s last sentiment is dead on, not only based on the treatment of prisoners but also for any possible international fallout.

But what will the fallout be in the tinderbox that is Iraq and the Arab world? Apparently, decidedly mixed.

The Islamic world yesterday was divided over the Saddam photos — some said the pathetic former dictator got what he deserved, while others thought the pictures were degrading.

“Saddam Hussein and his regime were bloody and practiced mass killing against the people,” said Hawre Saliee, who, like many fellow Iraqi Kurds, despised the Saddam regime.

“Whatever happens to Saddam, whether he is photographed naked or washing his clothes, it means nothing to me,” Saliee, 38, said.

“That’s the least he deserves.”

Some Iraqis — who gathered in coffee shops in Baghdad and elsewhere to see the photos on satellite TV — were offended to see their jailed former leader in his underwear.

“This is an insult to show the former president in such a condition,” said Abu Barick, a 45-year-old Baghdad businessman.

The public reaction appeared less hostile than to the publication of photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison — and certainly less violent than to Newsweek’s botched report that the Koran had been desecrated by U.S. prison guards in Cuba.

The story goes on to look at reaction in the rest of the Arab lands.

Ahmad Miski of the Arab American Chamber of Commerce said, “I think in places like Egypt and among the Palestinians where he was popular, people might take offense.

“But in places like Iraq, Kuwait and Syria that suffered from the Ba’athists, I think people will be happy to see him like this,” he added.

Barick, the Baghdad businessman, said Saddam was ancient history these days — and didn’t deserve this attention by the news media a year and a half after his capture.

“Do they want to degrade the Iraqi people? Or they want to provoke their feelings?” he added.

But Miski, of Syrian descent, still said, “I was happy to see him like that.”

“We are used to seeing photographs of Saddam looking grand and powerful, smoking a big cigar while his people were starving and suffering,” he told The Post.

“Now it’s time for Saddam to start to suffer. Its time for him to go before a court and face the justice of his people.”

I find it interesting that issues involving Saddam can be as divisive to the Arabs as they can be here on the home front.

The very same Iraqi Sunnis who worked to keep their followers from participating in the January elections, thus shortchanging themselves in government representation, are now determined to re-enter Iraq politics.

Sunni political, religious and tribal leaders came together Saturday to form a new political front intended to represent the disempowered Sunni minority in the process of drafting a new constitution and contesting the next round of elections in Iraq.

More than 1,000 Sunnis crowded into the Engineering Club in Baghdad to declare the existence of the new front, formed under the auspices of three groups that led the Sunni boycott of January’s elections: the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Sunni Endowment, another religious body.

The move, at a time of growing tension between Shiites and Sunnis, gives rise to hope that the disgruntled and factionalized Sunni community may yet be able to find an avenue through which to reach an accommodation with the Shiite-dominated government, despite an increase in sectarian killings that has threatened to plunge the country deeper into violence.

The move gives rise to hope? Not really, as the group’s initial foray into politics is to immediately place a demand for the resignation of a member of the new government. This doesn’t seem to be a very cooperative political group that is being founded.

But tensions were evident at the meeting, with Sunni leaders angrily blaming the new Iraqi government for the slayings of a number of Sunni religious leaders in recent days, including a prominent cleric who was allegedly detained by Iraqi police before his body was found dumped nearby earlier this week, showing signs that he had been tortured.

[…]

The new group called for the resignation of the new interior minister, Bayan Jabr, who has been accused by Sunnis of allowing the Shiite Badr Brigade militia to operate alongside Iraqi security forces.

Jabr, addressing his first news conference, said only the elected National Assembly has the right to call for his resignation. “People who failed to get one seat in parliament cannot demand such a thing,” he said.

He did not dispute, however, that his ministry has been cooperating with the Badr Movement, saying he has used them as a source of information on the insurgency. “We have a policy of cooperating with all political movements. We are ready to receive information even from the devil,” he said.

I cannot speak with any authority about either the role and behavior of the the Badr militias or the actions of the interior minister, but I can at least say that I appreciate the man’s attitude.

Sunnis attending the conference said they are determined now to join the political process and recover their lost political role by participating in the next election, scheduled for December after a new constitution has been drafted.

“There will be a wide participation by Sunnis in the next elections for sure, and especially if the new constitution fulfills Iraqis’ demands and aspirations,” said Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarraei, a leading cleric with the Association of Muslim Scholars. “We have resolved to enter the political field.”

This is the only part of the story that actually holds forth any hope, though other Sunnis have already made it quite apparent that they missed the boat in January. Greater Sunni participation in December is something that should be expected. Given that, does this group bring more clout to the Sunnis or further fracture them on the political front?

Promises by the new government to include Sunnis in the political process have so far fallen short of Sunni expectations. Under pressure from the U.S. administration, efforts are under way to include Sunnis in the process of writing a new constitution, which has not yet started despite an August deadline for completing the document.

One problem, Shiite officials say, is that the Sunnis themselves are divided over who represents them, making it difficult to determine which Sunnis to include in the process.

Another group formed specifically to negotiate on behalf of Sunnis, the National Dialogue Council, was excluded from the formation of the new Sunni front, calling into question the prospects that the new front will solve the problem.

“This will make divisions between the Sunnis because we already have the National Dialogue Council, which contains more than 45 parties,” said Sheik Ali al-Mash Hadani, a spokesman for the council. “So what is the purpose of this new group?”

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, terrorist leader and sub-human extraordinaire, is trying to convince followers of Islam that, hey, it’s cool with their god if he kills innocents among them.

An Internet audiotape posted Wednesday, purportedly by al-Qaida-in-Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, justifies the deaths of fellow Muslims in attacks against U.S. troops and their Iraqi allies by saying that jihad – or holy war – dwarfs all other concerns.

“God ordered us to attack the infidels by all means … even if armed infidels and unintended victims – women and children – are killed together,” the speaker said. “The priority is for jihad so anything that slows down jihad should be overcome.”

Realize that bombers in marketplaces are not targeting infidels — they are specifically aiming at the murder of innocent Muslims.

The defense of the deadly attacks could be aimed at bolstering the ranks of the insurgency with Sunni Arabs who may have initially shied away over concerns about innocent civilians being killed. The speaker claimed that top religious scholars have repeatedly sanctioned suicide bombings.

The tape was the first said to be from the Jordanian-born militant since a new, Shiite-dominated government was put in place in early May. In the past weeks, al-Qaida in Iraq and other militant groups have stepped up their campaign of car bombings, suicide attacks, shootings and kidnappings [apparently ordered by Zarqawi].

[…]

At the Pentagon, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said al-Zarqawi’s justifications for killing fellow Muslims showed he “has absolutely no moral foundation. It’s an outrage.”

“What he says is it’s OK for Muslims to kill Muslims, and not just any Muslims but innocents, men, women and children,” Myers told a news conference. “And that’s what he’s been doing. If you look at the statistics over the last couple of weeks, a lot of Iraqi men, women and children have died because this violent extremist is trying to convince others to do it.”

In the tape, the speaker denounced Shiites, accusing Shiite militias operated by parties that are now part of the government of assassinating Sunni Muslim figures, kidnapping Sunni women and seizing mosques since the U.S.-led invasion two years ago.

“These hateful brigades … deported Sunni families from the south, killed hundreds of the Sunnis, took over the mosques, and turned them to bastions of apostasy,” he said.

Shiites are “collaborating with the worshippers of the cross,” who invaded Iraq, corrupted the country and violated holy sites, the speaker said. “This is all taking place under of a state of apostasy among the rulers of this nation.”

[…]

“He said he’s trying to provoke a civil war. He’s trying to keep freedom from happening in the Middle East,” Myers told reporters.

Of course the terrorists are hoping to incite a civil war, as I’ve stated many times. The movement of these radical Islamist bastards is one that feeds on suffering, both as a weapon and as a recruiting tool. A successful democracy in Iraq would be a virus that would suck the life out of the likes of Zarqawi.

Chad has more over at In the Bullpen.

Warning: take this with a freakin’ major grain of salt.

Iraq and Iran pledged Tuesday to turn the page on nearly a quarter-century of war and bitter rivalry during a visit here by Iran’s foreign minister, who expressed support for Iraq’s new Shiite-led government.

“I have no doubt this visit will open up significant new horizons for cooperation between the two countries,” the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, told a joint news conference after talks with his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharazi.

“Post-Saddam Iraq is a new Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, far removed from its bellicose predecessor,” Zebari said.

Iraq may be at peace with its neighbors, but its neighbors, most notably Iran and Syria, are certainly not at peace with Iraq.

He also said Iran had pledged to cooperate on security and not provide any support to the insurgency.

Kharazi said: “We will not allow terrorists to use our lands to access Iraq. We will watch our borders and will arrest infiltrators, because securing Iraq is securing the Islamic Republic.”

I don’t believe Kharazi’s first sentence but do believe the second. It all depends on what one thinks Iran means by “securing” Iraq.

Iraq, struggling to contain insurgent attacks that have killed more than 400 people since a new government was unveiled three weeks ago, has accused neighboring countries of not doing enough to secure their borders.

Kharazi, the highest-ranking Iranian official to visit Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein two years ago, assured his counterpart that Iran would not interfere in its neighbor’s affairs.

“Iraqis are in charge of their own affairs,” he said. “Any interference would be an insult to the Iraqi people.”

“It is in Iran’s interest to support by all possible means the Iraqi government,” he added. “It is not in the interest of any of Iraq’s neighbors to see the current situation continue because it would have negative consequences on the entire region.”

Again, I don’t believe the first sentence of the last paragraph but have no problem accepting the truth in the Iranian’s following sentence, if one defines “current situation” as a growing, popular democracy. That is certainly something that would have negative consequences for the current radical rulers of Iran.

Baghdad and Tehran re-established diplomatic ties in September, although many issues, including a peace treaty, remain unresolved following the devastating 1980-1988 war that left about one million dead.

Relations between Iran, with a Shiite majority, and the interim Iraq government set up by the United States in June 2004 were awkward.

But the formation this month of a Shiite-dominated government has helped ease relations. Many of the new Iraqi ministers spent years in exile in Iran, an archfoe of Washington, and Zebari made a point of repeatedly speaking in Farsi during the news conference.

The need to counter-balance Iranian influence is a key part in why the inclusion of the Sunnis into the new government is needed. That is meant to buy short-term viability while working towards long-term stability.

Kharazi’s visit comes against a backdrop of increasing tension between majority Shiites and previously dominant Sunni Arabs in Iraq, where a recent series of tit-for-tat killings have raised the specter of a sectarian war.

Iran would love an Iraqi civil war, as the Shiites would crush the minority Sunnis and Iran-friendly radical clerics would potentially grow in popularity and influence. Syria would settle for a civil war, if only to prevent a free and economically successful Arab democracy as a neighbor.