| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| CIA Pushed Iraqi Opposition Out of Southern Town | |
| 2003-04-08 | |
| A local militia opposed to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein took control of the southeastern city of Amara on Sunday but a CIA officer told them to withdrew under threat of bombing, opposition officials said on Tuesday. The militia of several thousand armed men, led by a man by the name of Abu Hatem Mohammed Ali, captured the headquarters of the governorate, 230 miles southeast of Baghdad, without support from U.S. forces, opposition leader Kanan Makiya told the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. He described Abu Hatem as a well-known guerrilla leader, a longtime contact of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC) and a man known to the Pentagon. "He was then told by a CIA officer whose name I do not know but who spoke perfect Arabic that he had to vacate that city ... He was threatened with bombing and strafing of the building, the compound he took over, so he decided it would be better to be wise and he did withdraw in fact," he added. Makiya said the lesson of the incident was that U.S. forces should cooperate with local opposition forces instead of trying to do everything alone. "I bring it as a cautionary tale of where we can go wrong," he said. An INC official in the Gulf said there had been a problem coordinating with the U.S. units in the field and with the INC leadership, which moved to the southern town of Nassiriya on Sunday under leader Ahmad Chalabi. "Those guys (U.S. troops) are not used to dealing with Iraqis with arms who are their allies. It's a learning process," added the official, who asked not to be named. Humm, CIA guy not get the memo, or is there something about Abu Hatem we don't know?
| |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #4 Maybe we wanted to minimize blue/blue events. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-04-08 14:59:19 |
| #3 also note well - Chalabi and INC have friends among supporters of Israel, as do Kurds. Chalabi in power in Iraq takes away pressure on Israel - road map less likely - State and CIA jobs of currying favor in rest of middle east made more difficult. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-08 14:23:13 |
| #2 "a man known to the Pentagon" once again (simple, this time): DoD likes INC. State and CIA dont. DoD doesnt like Saudi, Egypt, makes nice with Israel. State's job is to make nice with all countries, likes Saudi and Egypt, distrusts this democracy crap. CIA's job is to run agents, likes authoritarian regimes that cooperate, distrusts this democracy crap. CIA and State make nice with Saudi. CIA and State have "issues" with Israel. CIA and State always wanted regime change "by coup" in Iraq. Question now is who will rule Iraq - DoD, or State/CIA. UN, Blair, just pawns in this struggle. The war is on. DoD put INC people on the ground in Nasariyah. Brits running Basra, so its a neutral zone. Kurds are strong enough to be independent (of US agencies, that is) CIA doesnt want to be completely outflanked so keeping INC linked group out of Amara. All this prelude for Battle for Baghdad (which will NOT involve any Fedayeen or "elite" guards - will be fought out in UN, on Capital Hill, etc Rummy vs Powell and Tenet) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-08 14:15:26 |
| #1 I think that the warlord argument is valid, however unlike afghanistan the tribalism of this country is much less marked. They have a stronger nationalist identity which is going to be valuble in reconstruction efforts. However, the key to being able to stabilize iraqi will be the introduction of another strong central government to replace the baathist regime. You cannot do that with factional guerilla/political parties running around making problems by trying to assert dominance from a controlled region onto a national stage. The situation with the kurds is sticky enough. -DS "the horns hold up the halo" |
| Posted by: DeviantSaint 2003-04-08 14:04:45 |