Free Iraq

تحديث: الطالباني: الصدر طلب من بعض رجال الميليشيا مغادرة العراق ـ 15 شباط 2007

Update

Dear Imad,

I think your opposition to the Sadr movement is unduly influencing your judgement, customary astuteness and thoroughness.

I have seven logical/rational conundrums relating to the Maliki "directive":

1. The US and their half-baked ally Maliki draw up the Baghdad security plan. They decide to target Sadr and his senior cadres as part of the plan. Maliki then decides to save his ally Sadr, to whom he owes his premiership, by writing a top secret directive to spirit away 11 senior Sadrists. (Presumably he forgot to tell Sadr to tell Abdulhadi Al-Darraji and Hakim Al-Zamili, senior Sadr aides, that they were going to be arrested by US-led Iraqi forces. He must have also forgotten to add that hundreds of Sadr's activists were about to be arrested in US-led dawn raids. But never mind, let us assume he was absent minded.

2. Maliki decides to consult famous CIA agent Mouafaq Al-Rubai'i before he sends the directive. This obviously means that the CIA and the US forces knew of the directive, which means that they too changed their minds and decided to save Sadr's bacon. Unless of course they didn't like it but forgot to do anything about it.

3. Maliki then decides to send the directive to Sadr's Office, but copies it to the Sadr movement's bitter enemies, SCIRI, who are also Maliki's opponents, as they wanted Adil Abdulmahdi as prime minister and not him.

4. Maliki commits high treason, all on paper and fully documented and signed by himself, by copying the directive to the Iranian Embassy. Mind you one could argue that if he betrays his country to Bush, why not to any other side.

5. One mystery is why would Maliki consult the CIA agent about a directive that undermines the US plan?

6. Another mystery is, having consulted the CIA man, he then proceeds to write it all down and copy it to so many people? Why not just whisper it in the ear of Sadr or an aide ?

7. Last but not least, the whole world knew, and the US officials and papers have been telling us for many weeks, that the Baghdad security plan included hitting Sadr's activists. The so called 11 did not need a top secret directive to tell them to hide away. All the Iraqi and Arab TV channels were telling them the US-led forces will be after them. It is a well known tactic of irregular forces to melt away and fight another day.

I think that this "directive" is the work of the US-led occupation's disinformation department. We need to be very careful, Imad, because they are trying to divide and sub-divide the Iraqi people and make them hate and kill each other, as the only way of avoiding complete defeat, Siagon-style, in Iraq.

I appeal to you not to publish such unverifiable documents, or at least to refrain from endorsing their 'authenticity'.

Best, Sami (I hope you don't mind if I copied this email to friends of mine) February 16, 2007

Thank you, Sami. One then conludes from your analysis and conclusion "I think that this "directive" is the work of the US-led occupation's disinformation department", that the US-led disinformation department are pre-empting their own Surge by advising Sadr beforehand on how he and his top echelon should slither away. Bravo.

"Mr Khadduri,

As a mere spectator of your correspondence with Sami, I must agree with him that you show an incomprehensible, to me, dislike for Al Sadr.

He seems to be very anti-occupation.I read a recent interview of his with a Spanish newspaper and I must admit I was impressed by his fortitude and views. I don't believe for one moment that those killings are on his orders (we have pretty good evidence that Mossad-CIA tandem is using Lebanon-Palestinian methods to justify the occupation.

I am also convinced that those bombings are not at all "suicide" bombings but rather planted by the occupiers) You were anti-Saddam and I suppose against his Baathists who are the backbone of the Iraqi resistance. I discard that you can possibly be an Al Qaida sympathizer. May I ask you, who are you for? Some Angels? And how many divisions does your side have? Your friend Sami's got a point.

Rgds, Peter Vujacic"

Thank you, Peter, for your comments.

On Muqtada:

If you listen to his tirades (posted, alas in Arabic as he does not know English), on several of my previous postings, e.g. this and others, you would immediately realize that the Italian interview (translated by BBC) is definitely polished by 'excellent’ translators, either from the Arabic to Italian, or from the Italian into English. They must be excellent story writers. I can not tell you really who is the better phrase polisher of the two, but Muqtada's 'speeches and statements' do make Bush's utterances sound like coming from a master interlocutor (which was the title of a recent posting here that included one of Muqtada's 'political' positions which he ended with the profound statement that "politics has become a child's play".

In short, he could not have said what was reported. It was so heavily massaged that it impressed even you.

As for who...??

No, I do not believe in angels, nor in Al-Qaida's crimes against innocent Iraqis (and Resistance Fighters who do not abide by their demands to join them or quit) and their demand that we must succumb to their Islamic State.

Suffice it to say that I assume that you have heard of the several Patriotic Iraqi Resistance Forces.

They are whom I am for.

As for how many divisions do they comprise, even a few effective regiments would do, minus seven US airplanes in three weeks, and this after four years.

posted by Imad Khadduri  # 12:33 PM