The future of Iraq; what is the position of the American-backed Iraqi government?

On November 27, 2007, I heard the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, Hamid Al-Bayati, speak at the infamous Columbia University.

That is a picture of Mr. Al-Bayati, taken from the event. (proof I was really there!)

While at this event, I took copious notes of all that was said so I could report it on C4A, and then I got lazy and did not do anything about this. So in any case, here is exactly what was said...

Mr. Al-Bayati first posited whether it is worth it for 162,000 American troops to be in Iraq. He responded that few Americans actually listen to Iraqis, and that negative news sells papers. He said that the Iraqi government has come a long way from where it was in 2004, but has a long way to go. He went on to note that life under Saddam was a prison. If you desserted the army, you would have your ear cut off, and the ear cutting would be shown on TV. He said Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people, and 5,000 people died in one attack. (we know this - the Kurds) He said Saddam killed 6500 Kuwaitis and committed war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. He went on to say that Zarqawi was a terrorist who assassinated a US diplomat in Jordan with Saddam's backing, and attempted to assassinate Bush Senior in 1991. He stated that the UN cannot account for large numbers of WMD's, and in any case, Iraq now will never develop WMD's.

Mr. Al-Bayati was asked if he backed the war in 2003, and he said that he did not back the war back then, but he wanted Saddam to instead be tried for war crimes. In any case, while war might not have been necessary in 2003, it has happened and needs to now be supported for terror concerns and humanitarian concerns in Iraq. Since 2003, the Iraqi people are jubilant regarding the fall of Saddam. The new democracy in Iraq needs the support of the world, and he is frustrated over the US divide over the American presence in Iraq. It hurts troop morale. Al-Bayati stated that the American mission in Iraq is noble, and Iraq will be a model democracy to the rest of the world. In the Iraqi constitution, 25% of representatives are women, and 50% of diplomatic missions are staffed by women. He said that an example of progress in Iraq is the oil sharing legislation that passed.

When asked about the Sunni/Shia divide, Al-Bayati stated that the attacks are not really sectarian. Zarqawi sought to bring a sectarian war (attack on Shina shrines in 2006 - this caused attacks in return) He said "insurgent" is a misleading term, as Al Queda thought it best to fight Americans in Iraq. He said foreign fighters are the most brutal, and more than 50% of serious acts of terror come from "one Arab country in the region" (he obviously meant Saudi Arabia), fighting Americans. Al-Bayati said that Al Queda wants Iraq to be a safe haven for them, and there is some truth to Bush's statement "We fight them there, so we don't fight them here."

Al-Bayati stated that peace in Iraq is possible, but will take time. He also stated that the notion that the war in Iraq was fought purely for oil is disproved by the fact that Saddam exported more than 50% of Iraq's oil to the US. (RT: not sure about that one, but it was in my notes as having been said by Al-Bayati) He also said that in any case, oil is the lifeline of the world economy, and not a trifling matter.

When asked about the UN, Al-Bayati said the UN will play a larger role in Iraq, via Resolution 1770, which deals with humanitarian aid for displaced people.

Critically, Al-Bayati said that the Iraqi government believes in engaging Iran, rather than isolating it. It believes that Iran has a key role in helping with security, and he does not believe there is real evidence that Iran is interfering with internal Iraqi affairs. (!!!!)

When asked whether he considers American troops 'occupiers,' he said that it is the opposite, as there are still troops in Germany from WWII, and no one considers the US 'occupiers' of Germany.

Al-Bayati also stated that he is extremely bothered by the Arab lack of support for Iraq. He said they refuse to reconsider the debt Saddam owed to these nations, and now 5% of Iraqi revenues is going to pay for Saddam's invasion of Iraq. (this is an old story: see the Arab treatment of 'Palestinians') It should also be noted that Al-Bayati was castigated by a Columbia student for being too pro-American. (yes, really)

Critical areas he sees for the future are electricity and drinking water, but the education sector is strong in Iraq.

---

This is what Al-Bayati stated back in November, 2007. What does that mean today?

It means that the Iraqi government is relatively 'pro-Western' in some ways, but is 'anti-Western' in a most critical way of supporting Iran. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, the Iraqi ambassador to the UN think it is 'inconclusive' that Iran is supporting terrorists within Iraq. He thinks it best to 'engage' the Iranians. How exactly can the US claim to be gung ho against Iran getting nukes when they are supporting an Iraqi government that has this agenda? I am deeply troubled by this.

Then, today, I saw a post on Michael Totten's blog that was accompanied by the following photograph:

Please note the 'Palestinian' 'kaffiyeh' affixed to the neck of this 'soldier.' At first I was unable to tell if this was an undercover marine, since it did not look like an Iraqi, and I emailed Michael Totten as to the identity of that individual: was he American or Iraqi? Indeed, he was Iraqi. But what does that mean? I see it as a clear sign of Iraqi identification with the 'Palestinian' cause. Imagine, if you will, if the Iraqi police officers walked around with swastikas. It would be an outrage! But it is completely acceptable for them to walk around with kaffiyehs. Just as it is completely acceptable for the Iraqi government to 'engage' Iran. Who are we kidding? The US government has no coherent position on Iran, and I cannot imagine, at this point, the US government taking actual, serious action on Iran.

What do real Iraqis think of Israel and where will this country go? The Iraqi government, in their UN votes, are very clearly are supporting the broader Arab goals of demonizing Israel. At the same time, they are clearly not supporting terror in the way Saddam was.

Is this an improvement from Saddam? Was it worth going into Iraq? I honestly do not know. This is a very complicated situation with no easy answers. Is America doing anything to reverse antisemitism in Iraq? Is there antisemitism in Iraq to the extent it is found in other Arab states? Again, I really do not know answers to these questions, but when you hear the Iraqi ambassador to the UN speak about 'engaging' Iran, a nation whose president seeks to wipe Israel off the map... ...You really have to wonder.

In any case, Michael Totten did write a great article about the Kurds of Iraq. Their cause seems more clear cut and just; they are friends to Israel. (at least more than most other parties in the region) An unknown side fact: Kurds also are some of the last people in the world to speak Aramaic, along with Lebanese Jews. The Middle East is a complicated place with no easy answers. I do hope that, regardless, this report shed some light on more of what makes the Middle East so complicated.

So much to say, so much to say!

I have been terrible about updating this blog, I know!

Anyway, I have so many things that have happened in my life since I last updated, too many to count, really. These are things that C4A readers would find of interest, and I have been lax in updating...

To sum it up...

1. I went to a conference, organized by CAMERA, exploring Jewish antisemitism in the media. By that I mean Jewish sources which are explicitly anti-Israel, to the extreme of telling utter lies. How do you combat such lies, when a Jewish source is telling them? I took copious notes for no real reason, since I have no idea where I put the notes. One complaint I have about the conference is that they did not serve adequate food over the time period of the conference. All there were were muffins and cookies, over a whole day! But definitely it was memorable.
2. I went to another conference, organized by Eye on the UN, which explored the antisemitism of the UN. I saw Pamela from Atlas Shrugs from afar, and never spoke to her in person. (I was thinking how she supports Vlaams Belang) There were AMAZING speakers at this conference, including John Bolton and Senator Norm Coleman. But most importantly of all, there was Nonie Darwish. She gave a very impassioned speech about the plight of Muslim women in the Islamic world. She is doing amazing things. As far as the UN goes...there is a permanent majority of antisemitic nations, which are out to do Israel in. It's a sad tale. It's one we all know. The saddest part is that an international agency like the UN could do real good...but it has been totally delegitimized.
3. I heard Alan Dershowitz talk...twice. Let me say...he is excellent when he is attacking Israel's attackers. He was infuriating when he decribed Israel as "occupying" the West Bank, and the "human rights dilemma" of home demolitions. He is good friends with Shimon Peres, so what do you expect? I heard him say that Israel should abide by the Barack plan, or something close to it, because otherwise Israel will be an "occupying" power. It was very difficult to listen to. Mr. Dershowitz, please stick to what you are good at: debating Noam Chomsky and others! The sad thing is that because he is seen as "pro-Israel," he is considered a right wing nutcase. Truly sad state of affairs.
4. I heard the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN speak, at Columbia. Yes, that very Columbia, where Ahmadinejad spoke. Disgusting to set foot on those grounds, but I did anyway. The ambassador basically said that there is progress in Iraq, but it is not covered by the media. He said that the nation is 4 years old, and it takes time to really build a country out of scratch. With that said, he pointed to the oil sharing deals as proof of Sunni-Shia-Kurd reconsiliation, as well as the big turnout for voting. He spoke of how 25% of the Parliamentarians are women - as said in the constitution. He has a point - that is major. And he said that the US should not leave Iraq right now, until the nation is stable. It should be noted that there was a Columbia student who was upset with the ambassador...for being too pro-American!
5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I went on the tour of Europe that I said I would. I traveled to six countries in ten days! I traveled to England, Germany, Switzerland, France, Poland, and Czech Republic. I have no idea how I had the gumption, and the energy, to do so much traveling. It should be noted that this was a C4A trip, as I went with fellow posters PM and Steven. I am so excited to have met these amazing people, and I consider them friends for life, truly. Words cannot even adequately sum up the trip, which was a trip of a lifetime. I saw Auschwitz, I saw a Jewish museum in Basel, Switzerland - home of the First Zionist Congress, and I had amazing conversations. I feel renewed and reinvigorated in my activities.

And so, with that all said...summing up my life as best as I could...I shall bid you adieu, for now.

Letter to Columbia University's Provost and President

Today is a sad day in the history of academia. Today is the day that the mass murdering tyrant, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be speaking at Columbia University. To protest this, I decided to write a letter to the president of the university, as well as the provost. I doubt this will do anything, but at least I was able to let out my frustration SOMEWHERE. Please send emails to Provost Brinkley at ab65@columbia.edu and to President Bollinger at bollinger@columbia.edu to protest this abomination.

I am writing this email to express my extreme disappointment at the decision to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia's campus. Ahmadinejad is a mad who has denied the Holocaust and even led a Holocaust denial conference. He speaks of wiping Israel off the map and funds terrorism around the world, including Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, famously said "If all the Jews around the world would gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Sadly, these are not just idle words, as the Iranian-backed Hizballah was behind the 1994 bombing of a synagogue in Argentina. More than simply being an antisemite, Ahmadinejad famously calls America "the Great Satan," and just yesterday in Iran held a massive anti-American rally, with giant signs saying "Death to America." Again, these are not merely idle words, as Iran funds and trains the Mahdi army and Revolutionary Guard, who attack US forces in Iraq. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has publicly been seeking nuclear weapons to follow through with all his threats.

The evil of Ahmadinejad thus established, I have to question what could possibly be gained by having him speak on campus. What possible legitimate reason does such a man have to seek to wipe a nation off the map which has not been aggressive towards Iran? What possible legitimate reason is there for Holocaust denial? What possible legitimate reason is there for funding a terror organization, Hizballah, whose goal is an Islamic fundamentalist state in Lebanon, and the destruction of worldwide Jewry? And as there is no possible justification for these actions (other than a desire for power and destruction), then how could Columbia invite such an evil man to speak on campus, thus legitimitizing Holocaust denial? What will Columbia's representative ask Ahmadinejad? "Why do you deny the Holocaust?" And what will he possibly say that could suffice a sufficient answer? "Why do you wish Israel's destruction and say Death to America?" What could Ahmadinejad answer that will be anything except legitimizing these concepts?

Merely inviting such an odious personality to campus implies that Ahmedinejad's evil is not evil, but rather is part of the post-modern morally relative world. After all, "Who are we to judge what is evil and what is not evil?" Merely inviting Ahmadinejad to campus implies there is no objective reality. It invites the thinking that maybe the Holocaust did not exist; perhaps there should be a 'debate' on this subject. (Of course, Ahmadinejad refuses to actually meet any survivors, nor tour Auschwitz.)

Finally, inviting a leader on campus who is so repressive against his own people, and regularly jails dissidents in his own country, flies in the face of the supposed atmosphere of "freedom of speech" that Columbia purportedly believes in. If Columbia really seeks to engage and legitimize all sides of the political spectrum, including tyrants and mass murderers, then at least Columbia should require that these tyrants and mass murderers do not jail and torture dissident voices within their own nation. Inviting Ahmedinejad to speak spits in the faces of the thousands of political prisoners within Iran, and the unknown numbers who were killed for the "crime" of being gay, a feminist, a modernist, or even raped. For a campus that claims to believe in freedom of speech, feminism, and civil rights, I do not see it putting its money where its mouth is.

If this administration had any respect for the thousands of victims, worldwide, of Iran's regime, they would immediately retract the invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak. If it fails to do so, it has abdicated its role as a model of higher learning.

My meeting with Elliott Abrams

As mentioned previously, I met with the Deputy National Security Advisor to the United States, Elliott Abrams, a few weeks ago. He was at a local area synagogue, and spoke after Friday night services. The main subject of his talk was Jews in government. Essentially, his claim was that from the 1960s-1990s, it was basically a nonissue to see a Jew in government. However, with the Walt and Mersheimer paper, suddenly, the outside community (not the Bush administration) sees it as a problem that Jews are in government. He said that there are now college courses at elite universities that look at whether the "Israel lobby" and AIPAC control US foreign policy. The Walt/Mersheimer paper is read, and then the Dershowitz response paper is read. Both are 'debated,' to determine the 'truth' of whether AIPAC and the "Israel lobby" control foreign policy. Imagine that. Imagine if there was a class where Holocaust denial literature was read on par with Elie Wiesel's books, and the "truth" of it were debated. Such is the state of modern American academia. Truly frightening. Abrams said that he feared for the future generations, saying he saw antisemitism on the rise not just abroad, but here on American soil, in American academia.

After his talk, there were many questions and answers posed. I raised my hand and asked the first question. My question was: "In light of the fact that Yassir Arafat's uncle was a Nazi who was an architect of the Final Solution, and that Fatah's roots are indeed in Nazism (and there is no indication that Abbas/Abu Mazen thinks any differently)...why is Israel and the US fooling itself by pretending that somehow Abu Mazen is 'moderate' and should be 'negotiated with'?"

Abrams's response was very instructive. He said that Abu Mazen may not be a moderate by "our standards," but he was someone who at least "wanted to talk." However, Abu Mazen has little power, and so it's basically pointless to speak to him until and unless he does have power. He then went on a long sidenote about how moderates rarely do end up in power in these sorts of nations. According to this 'logic,' then it would be up to the US and Israel to do all that is possible to empower Abu Mazen.

But here is where you kind folks will be enlightened. After the talk, a little birdie told me that some people close to Elliott Abrams completely disagree with his characterization of Abu Mazen as "someone who wants to talk," and a "relative moderate," but could not say so publicly. This little birdie also thanked me for saying what I said publicly.

Interesting, no?

Other tidbits from Abrams...

He spoke of Iran and its nuclear threat, and then said that the Democrats wanted to put language into a bill that would take the military option OFF the table for Iran. He said (and I agree with him) that the only way to be effective with Iran is to keep the military option on the table, and he admonished many Jewish organizations who remain silent about this. He also spoke support of the democracy project in these Muslim nations. He believes that democracy is ultimately the answer, since no democracy is a threat to the world.

Afterwards, I privately approached Mr. Abrams. I said to him "Mr. Abrams, respectfully, how can you say that democracy is the answer, when in Egypt, if there were fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would be elected TOMORROW? And the same is true in most of the Muslim world. Democracy? What about Indonesia, where the "democratically" elected president said the Holocaust never happened? What about Iraq, where it looks likely that there will be sharia law? Islam itself is both a political system and a religion. Isn't THAT the problem?"

His response was basically that Egypt is in the state it is in because Mubarak (president of Egypt) has suppressed all opposition parties, and hence the ONLY choice now is the Muslim Brotherhood. He said democracy is a long term, not immediate solution there. Then he said that the Indonesian PM who denied the Holocaust was, after all, voted OUT. He spoke ultimately a line about optimism. And he did so privately - with no one else nearby to even listen in. In short, this is what he really believes. I also mentioned Sandmonkey (with regards to democracy in Egypt) - and yes, Mr. Abrams has heard of him.

There you have it, folks. An inside track into the mind of a top official in the Bush administration, and my interaction with him. I hope you enjoy this read.

I should say that after the talk with Mr. Abrams, I spoke with a director from the Obsession movie (who attended this event), about radical Islam and the like. It was interesting that he did not know much to anything about India. He also thought Robert Spencer's words were "extremist," but he has read his books.

My next post will be a detailed rendering of my attendance at the US-Indian-Israeli relations event.

Anti-Israel hatred at universities

I attended a top-notch undergrad school. At my undergrad school, I was simply apolitical and apathetic with regards to Israel. The four memories I have concerning Israel are as follows...

• During my last semester at college, I took a writing class concerning the theory of space. The prof would mention Israel with regularity, calling Sharon some sort of a monster.
• I remember having a conversation with a "progressive" back in 2000 or so, and telling her I wouldn't vote for Nader in part because he was anti-Israel. This "progressive" said she was pro-Palestinian, and this was a positive position of Nader's.
• Hanan Ashrawi, a spokesperson for the PLO, came to speak at my alma mater. I didn't pay attention to this, but I recall there were Hillel groups who were upset with her. (Please note the Camera link about this woman)
• Many undergrads were applying to go to Birthright Israel, a free trip to Israel, but at the time, pre-Intifada, (I am oooold), Birthright had a massive waiting list! During the Intifada, no one wanted to go, sadly.

These are the totality of my memories concerning Israel, as an undergrad. My impression is that things have radically changed in the years since I have graduated. Please read the following article about 'Palestine Awareness Week" at Saint Louis University. You will see how there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate students into hating Israel, and blaming the Jews for the world's problems. This is hardly an isolated incident. Columbia University is an Ivy League school that is widely seen as one of the best in the world. Note who the Chairman of the Mideast Studies Department is - Rashid Khalidi. This individual also has served as the President of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in 1994. Mr. Khalidi publishes the Journal of Palestine Studies, a Palestinian propoganda journal that regularly refers to the creation of Israel as "an-Nakba," (catastrophe in Arabic) Mr. Khalidi famously said "the tragedy of September 11 was a godsend” to “American Likudniks and their Israeli counterparts” because it “enabled them to draft the United States to help fight Israel’s enemies.” (source) In addition, Mr. Khalidi is responsible for gross plagiarism of his 'academic' works. (source) Essentially, Mr. Khalidi, who is the Chair of Columbia's 'Mideast Studies' Department, was Arafat's minion. (source) Juan Cole was the most recent president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America. Juan Cole is, like Khalidi, a propogandist. He has been known to bend the truth to his liking when it suits him, including the absurd claim that Ahmedinejad (aka Dinnerjacket) never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. (source) Mr. Cole also stated some of the following things...

The Neocons wanted to knock down Saddam, Khamenei and al-Asad in hopes that those countries would be so weakened and preoccupied with internal power struggles that Sharon would have an unimpeded opportunity to pursue his dreams of Greater Israel.” (source)

It may be that the powerful Likudniks inside the US government are deliberately engineering a diplomatic rift in NATO, so as to ensure that Paris and Moscow cannot position themselves to influence Washington’s position (usually supine) toward Sharon’s excesses.” (source)

Paul Wolfowitz’ attitude to NATO allies is “so gratuitous and immature that one can only guess something else lay behind it,” that something being a wish to create bad blood between the U.S. government and states that are, in Cole terms “no longer a knee-jerk supporter of Israeli militarism and expansionism.” (source)

For more on Juan Cole, please read here. Mr. Cole is a professor in the Mideast Studies Department at another prestigious school - the University of Michigan. And for the creme de la creme of academia, Harvard, Culture for All already covered the firing of president Lawrence Summers for noting the anti-Israel bent of academia! The anti-Israel entrenchment of academia runs far and wide. Remember, I am not citing junior professors. I am citing some of the top professors in the field. And this is just the US. At Oxford, for example, Tariq Ramadan is teaching - a known propogandist for the Muslim Brotherhood. And lest we forget, Culture for All already profiled Karen Armstrong. What should be done? There is no clear answer. It is troubling to see lies taught as fact in universities across the world. It makes one wonder what sort of primrose path the world is heading down.