Maliki broadens dictatorial powers in Iraq

Iraqis, government officials and regional experts see increasing signs that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is expanding his power and undermining the fragile democracy struggling to take hold in Iraq. A ruling in January by Iraq’s highest court, which was sought by Mr. Maliki, gave him control of once-independent agencies responsible for conducting elections, investigating corruption and running the country’s central bank. A month after that ruling, two leading human rights groups reported that forces that report directly to Maliki in violation of the country’s constitution were running secret jails where detainees had been tortured. And in July, Iraq’s high court ruled that members of Parliament no longer had the power to propose legislation. Instead, all new laws would have to be proposed by Maliki’s cabinet or the president and then passed to the Parliament for a vote.

With influence from the United States waning as the military prepares to withdraw at the end of the year, Mr. Maliki’s critics say that one legacy of the eight-year American occupation is a democratically elected leader from the country’s Shiite majority who has far more power than its Constitution intended. Critics said that the court ruling in January directly contradicted Iraq’s Constitution, which clearly states that the commissions do not fall under the prime minister’s office.

Referring to the recent court ruling, Aliya Nasaif, a lawmaker from the Iraqiya coalition which is a rival to Mr. Maliki’s State of Law bloc, said: “Because there is no law, you will find him overwhelming other institutions. This is the beginning of dictatorship. We are regressing by centuries.”

An independent analysis in 2008 ranked Iraq the third most corrupt country in the world. In that year, the Maliki government was systematically dismissing Iraqi officials in the Commission on Public Integrity, an oversight agency created by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority to fight corruption in the notoriously graft-ridden Iraqi ministries.

Corruption investigations by the head of the commission, Judge Radhi al-Radhi, repeatedly embarrassed the Maliki government. Mr. Al-Radhi was forced out and fled Iraq in the summer of 2007, after 31 of his agency’s employees were killed over a three-year period and he had received numerous threats to his life. He was granted asylum in the United States and subsequently testified before Congress that an estimated $18 billion in U.S. taxpayer reconstruction money had been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft and waste by Iraqi government officials since 2004. Two former State Department employees testified further that Bush administration policies “not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission, but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government.”

Iraqis’ outrage about corruption and poverty in the country spilled into the streets in March, sometimes violently, to protest the government’s failure to provide electricity and jobs. Rights groups criticized the government for a violent crackdown on those demonstrations, saying that scores of people — including journalists — were beaten and detained.

Mr. Maliki, an uncharismatic but canny politician who was elected prime minister in 2006, has been credited with helping reduce the violence that once threatened to tear Iraq apart. But his critics say those victories have come at a cost. They accuse Maliki of taking a stronger hand over Iraq’s powerful police and military by leaving open indefinitely the slots of defense and interior ministers, allowing him to act as the head of both agencies.

Some members of Iraq’s fractious Parliament, a rubber-stamp institution under Saddam Hussein, have said they would take measures to check Maliki’s power, vowing to cut funds to security agencies controlled by the prime minister and pass laws that limit his powers. None of those attempts, however, have gained much traction, in large part because the opposition is so divided.

Officials with the election commission said they were baffled by the court’s decision that placed them under Maliki’s supervision. They worried that Iraqis would lose faith in the credibility of local and national elections if Maliki’s office began to select election monitors or to change the rules governing where voting takes place, how ballots are counted and who runs polling stations. Shortly after the decision was handed down, Faraj al-Haidary, head of Iraq’s High Electoral Commission, said he had received a letter from Maliki’s office telling the commission to halt the appointments of 38 low-level election officials. He said the commission had refused.

Fear has also extended to the central bank, where officials said they worried Maliki would now have the power to order the institution to print money to cover Iraq’s growing budget deficits. Such a move would weaken the value of Iraq’s anemic currency and lead to rapid inflation.

Mr. Maliki, a religious Shiite, had been seen as a fairly weak leader until 2008 when he ordered an Iraqi military offensive against Shiite militias which had taken control of parts of southern Iraq. His critics say he continued to strengthen his power by using his security forces to resolve political disputes.

The political situation became more complex in January when anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr returned to Iraq from exile in Iran. Sadr, who led two uprisings against U.S. forces after the 2003 invasion, cemented his movement’s position in the new Iraq coalition government after playing a crucial role in putting Maliki back in power for a second term. The Sadrist movement secured 39 seats in the new Parliament and has seven ministries in Maliki’s government.

On March 26, an estimated 18,000 unarmed but ominous members of Sadr’s disbanded Mahdi Army led a massive anti-American rally in Baghdad in opposition to any U.S. military presence beyond the agreed departure date of Dec. 31. A crowd of spectators estimated at 70,000 waved Iraqi flags and shouted “No, no, America!” as they burned American flags. U.S., Israeli and British flags were painted on the pavement to be stomped on by the marching militiamen.

– edited from The New York Times, Reuters and Associated Press
PeaceMeal, May June 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

War in Iraq has made U.S. less safe

Jim Stoffels

In his August 31 address from the Oval Office, President Barack Obama declared: "Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended." That statement is disturbingly reminiscent of George W. Bush's "mission accomplished" appearance on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln seven-and-a-half years ago. Obama immediately contradicted the finality of his announcement: "Of course," he said, "violence will not end with our combat mission."

And neither will combat end. 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq to advise, train and closely support Iraqi security forces. "Closely support" means "fight alongside." In this supporting role, counter-terrorism is the chief and most perilous mission. Several thousand special operations forces, including Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, will continue to hunt and attempt to kill al-Qaeda and other terrorist fighters.

President Obama went on to say, "We have met our responsibility," without specifying what that responsibility is to a country still in disarray. After having invaded Iraq, overthrown its government and disbanded its security forces, some consider it a moral responsibility of the United States to piece Iraq back together again. Obama previously seemed to be in that camp. In May, he said: "This is what success looks like: an Iraq that provides no haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign and stable and self-reliant." But now he seems to be redefining "success" according to the way the winds of fortune are blowing in the Iraq desert.

Piecing the country back together is largely unfinished. U.S. goals for reconstruction are unmet and the program has been plagued by failure to collaborate with the Iraqis, billions of dollars wasted on abandoned or incomplete projects, shoddy work and inadequate security. And it is still unclear whether the reconstruction program generated Iraqi good will toward the United States instead of toward the insurgents.

Now eight months after parliamentary elections were held, Iraq still has no permanent government because of continuing sectarian discord. And its security forces have not shown that they are prepared and able to defend the country's territory. In September, the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad came under an intensifying barrage of rocket attacks -- attacks that alarmed U.S. officials and reinforced doubts about the ability of Iraq's forces to maintain security.

Iraq is expected to depend on U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter a possible attack by a neighboring state.

President Obama offered this historical perspective on the war: "A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency." Translation: An invasion of Iraq sold on false claims that it possessed weapons of mass destruction incited an uprising of Iraqis fighting for the freedom of their country from an invading and occupying army.

According to President Obama, "our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future." That view depends on which side of the ocean we're on. Several years ago, a shopkeeper in Baghdad said to our troops, "If only you could put things back the way they were."

"As our military draws down," President Obama said, "our dedicated civilians -- diplomats, aid workers, and advisers -- are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world."

That's a much rosier picture than painted in a mid-July report by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, a bipartisan panel set up in response to mounting concern over monumental waste and inefficiencies in dealing with the legions of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report warned: "Current planning for transitioning vital functions in Iraq from the Department of Defense to the Department of State is not adequate for effective coordination of billions of dollars in new contracting, and risks both financial waste and undermining U.S. policy objectives."

If truth be told, the war has made us Americans less safe by weakening the country we invaded, strengthening Iran and creating a new organization of terrorists -- al Qaeda in Iraq. But as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the most gargantuan military machine in the world, Obama is bound to speak in patriotic platitudes and is co-opted from speaking the truth that our invasion of Iraq -- like Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait -- was a criminal war of aggression.

There is one truth, however, that Obama did utter: "Over the last decade ... we have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas."

And let us not forget the spent lives of more than 4,400 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Jim Stoffels, Richland, is a retired physicist and chairman of World Citizens for Peace. This op-ed was published in the Tri-City (Wash.) Herald on December 5, 2010 and in Peacemeal, Sept/October 2010.

British panel begins inquiry on Iraq war; Blair to testify

LONDON - An official inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war opened November 24 with top government advisers testifying that some Bush administration officials were calling for Saddam Hussein’s ouster as early as 2001 — long before sanctions were exhausted and two years before the U.S.-led invasion. Critics hope the hearings, which will call ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, will expose alleged deception in the buildup to armed combat. Blair will be questioned on whether he secretly backed President George W. Bush’s plan for invasion a year before Parliament authorized military involvement in 2003.

The order to send 45,000 British troops to take part in the 2003 invasion has always been controversial and led to massive anti-war protests in London. During meetings with the inquiry committee held before the formal hearings began, relatives of British soldiers killed during the conflict accused Blair of taking Britain into an illegal war and deceiving the public. A pre-war government dossier justifying military action included the claim that Saddam was capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. No such weapons were found, leading to accusations that Blair had distorted intelligence.

As the inquiry began, a small group of anti-war protesters gathered near Parliament. “Five years we’ve waited for this, and finally we’re getting somewhere,” said Pauline Graham, 70, who traveled from Glasgow, Scotland, to see the hearings. Her grandson Gordon Gentle, 19, was killed in the Iraq city of Basra in 2004.

Sir Peter Ricketts, chairman of Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001, said Britain had hoped for strengthening the Iraq containment policy in place since the 1991 Gulf War — reducing the threat posed by Iraq through sanctions, weapons inspections and security measures. But he said some in the Bush administration had a different vision. “We were conscious that there were other voices in Washington, some of whom were talking about regime change,” Ricketts said, citing an article written by Bush’s National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warning that nothing would change in Iraq until Saddam Hussein was gone. The turning point for the U.S. administration was the Sept. 11 terror attacks. After the attacks, Ricketts said, “we heard people in Washington thought there might be some link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden ... I don’t think we saw any evidence of it.”

The Iraq inquiry is envisioned to be a comprehensive look at the war from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. The panel will question dozens of officials, including military officials and spy agency chiefs. It will also seek evidence but not testimony from ex-White House staff.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown set up the inquiry to address public criticism of three key aspects: the case made for war, the planning for the invasion, and the failure to prepare for reconstruction. Leaked military documents published November 22 disclosed that senior British military officers claim war plans were in place months before the March 2003 invasion, but were so badly drafted they left troops poorly equipped and ill-prepared.

Bereaved families and activists have long called for an inquiry into the U.S.-led war. The Labour-led government lost a significant share of parliamentary seats because of the war. Inquiry chairman John Chilcot said the panel would consider the legal basis for war but it will not establish criminal or civil liability; it can only offer reprimand and recommendations in hope mistakes won’t be repeated in the future. Chilcot said he hoped the panel would be able to deliver its conclusions by the end of next year.

On the Net: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk

– compiled and edited from The Associated Press, 24 Nov. 2009, and Reuters, 12 Nov. 2009
PeaceMeal, Nov/December 2009

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Iraqis hit by frenzy of crime after years of war

BAGHDAD - The kidnappers holding Muhsin Mohammed Muhsin, an Iraqi auto mechanic’s 11-year-old son, gave him just two days to come up with $100,000 in ransom. When he could not, they were just as quick to deliver their punishment: They chopped off the boy’s head and hands and dumped his body in the garbage. The boy’s final words to his father came in an agonizing phone call: “Daddy, give them the money. They are beating me,” Muhsin pleaded a day before he was killed.

As the worst of the country’s sectarian bloodshed ebbs, Iraqis now face a new threat to getting on with their lives: a frenzy of violent crime. Many of those involved are believed to be battle-experienced former insurgents unable to find legitimate work. They often bring the same brutality to their crimes that they showed in the fighting that nearly pushed the country into a Sunni-Shiite civil war in 2006 and 2007.

The result has been a wave of thefts and armed robberies, hitting homes, cars, jewelry stores, currency exchanges, pawn shops and banks. Kidnapping, too, remains terrifyingly common, as it was during the peak of the insurgency. Now, however, the targets are increasingly children, and the kidnappers, rather than having sectarian motives, are seeking ransoms. In southern Baghdad’s Saydiyah neighborhood, photos of missing children are pasted on electricity poles and the concrete blast walls that enclose many areas of the bomb-battered capital.

There are few statistics tracking the number and kinds of crimes, in part because the government remains focused on the bombings and other insurgent attacks that continue to plague Baghdad and Iraq’s north. But in the minds of the public, crime has become as consum-ing as the violence directly related to the war. And like the lack of electricity and other services, crime is now a top complaint of Iraqis.

Iraqi military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said investigations found that 60 to 70 percent of the criminal activity is carried out by former insurgent groups or by gangs affiliated with them — partly explaining the brutality of some of the crimes. Some members of Iraq’s security forces are also involved, perhaps a sign that militants are still infiltrating the security services.

In one of the most high-profile crimes in recent years, several members of Iraq’s presidential guards — which protect senior officials — broke into the state-run Rafidain Bank on July 28 and stole about 5.6 billion Iraqi dinars, or $4.8 million. They tied up eight guards at the bank in Baghdad’s central Karradah area and shot each one execution-style. Four of the robbers were caught, convicted and sentenced to hang. Three others remain at large.

In April, Iraq created a military task force to battle gangland-style crime after gunmen with silencer-fitted weapons killed at least seven people during a daylight heist of jewelry stores. Still, criminals continue to operate seemingly without fear of getting caught.

Muhsin Mohammed Muhsin, the 11-year-old, was kidnapped around noon on Aug. 31 on his way home from a neighbor’s funeral in Baghdad’s eastern Shiite district of Sadr City, where he lived. Sadr City is home to about 2.5 million Shiites and was a stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia of the anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who fought U.S. troops intermittently until he declared a unilateral cease-fire in 2007. When it was under militia control, kidnappings there were extremely rare.

Alaa al-Moussawi, chairman of an export and import company, said, “What feeds the fear inside us and increases our worries is that some of these gangs are members of the security forces.”

– edited from The Associated Press, September 21, 2009
PeaceMeal Sept/October 2009