Saturday, December 30, 2006


"While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims"
~ White House Press Statement, March 5, 1984.

The Americans continue to congratulate themselves on having buried the Anfal trial with the execution of Saddam, thus hiding their complicity in Anfal and the complicity of NATO member, Turkey. You can check out the rejoicing at PajamasMedia and its blogroll, as well as at Gateway Pundit. In fact, Gateway Pundit has an interesting post mentioning the joy of the Badr Brigade (bottom of post), which should give us a clue as to which sectarian/ethnic division the US is now supporting.

Infidel Bloggers' Alliance is not happy that yours truly does not exhibit the proper submissive attitude toward America's greatness in disposing of the official testimony of the victims of Anfal. In my opinion, it is the Americans who do not exhibit the proper submissive attitude toward Kurdish fighters who secured all of South Kurdistan, Mûsil, and Kerkuk in March and April, 2003. It should be remembered well by the Americans that it was Kurds who stepped up to the plate to play ball when good ally Turkey wimped out. South Kurdistan is the place where no American troops have suffered so much as a hangnail, much less even the threat of an IED.

The burial of the memory of the Kurdish Anfal victims in an undisclosed location near Tikrit is the thanks that the US offers the Kurdish people.

Everyone should expect the American propaganda of the Stephen Pelletiere/US Army War College report blaming Iran for the use of chemical weapons against the people of Helebçe to come back into vogue as the US continues to press Iran. That particular report was specifically designed to whitewash the Saddam regime, and American support for the Saddam regime, while blackening the Teheran regime. In an article from the NYTimes, January, 2003, we have Pelletiere's own words on the matter:

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

Good for him. He knows better than the survivor-witnesses because he was privy to intelligence information, which can be wrong, and he investigated how Iraqis would fight against the US, but he never went to Helebçe immediately after the attack to confirm any of his information. Genetic specialist Christine Gosden, who has done a lion's work for the Kurdish people on this matter, doesn't mention the use of cyanide-based agents (blood agents), but believes that the effects of the attacks seen in the survivors are a result of a "cocktail" of mustard and nerve agents--and Dr. Gosden's work is based on science, not classified intelligence materials.

Evidence found as a result of scientific work with survivors, the testimony of survivors, and official Iraqi documents pertaining to the Anfal campaign (and implicating Turkey in the genocide) are the kinds of evidence that will never make their way on to the world stage in the vehicle of the Anfal trial.

For this, Kurds should thank America?

Again, writing before the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Pelletiere concludes with the following:

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Here the ignorance of Pelletiere really shines, mistaking so-called pro-Iranian Kurds for "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I don't recall any dead Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the evidence from Helebçe, nor do I believe that all the dead children, mothers, and grandparents at Helebçe were pro-Iranian "guerrillas." Ditto for all the other villages attacked at the same time. As for other "repressive regimes" that Pelletiere's regime supports, we can name Turkey.

Statement from Masûd Barzanî's office, from AFP, carried on KurdistanObserver:

"We hope that Saddam Hussein's execution will open a new chapter among Iraqis and the end of using violence against civilians," said a statement from the office of Kurdish regional president Massoud Barzani.

"It is important the execution should not be a pretext for not documenting the crimes of Anfal and Halabja, and the mass killing against thousands of the Kurds and Barzanis. Curtains should not be closed on these issues."

Man . . . that is so flaccid, flaccid as in limp, as in lacking any kind of strength or firmness. It's so flaccid, it's a sellout, especially in light of this:

But Saturday's execution also brought to an end his prosecution in a separate case in which he is charged with genocide in the deaths of around 182,000 Kurds during the 1988 Anfal campaign by Iraqi security forces.

Prosecutors have said the case will go ahead with Saddam's six surviving co-defendants, but that the late dictator will no longer figure in the list of the accused.

Translation: End Of Story.

In the meantime, the Americans are eager to spill more Kurdish blood to defend the albatross hanging around their necks: Baghdad. From the KurdishGlobe:

According to a report published in The New York Times on December 14, the Iraqi government is keen to replace U.S. troops in Baghdad largely with Kurdish Peshmarga forces. The report refers to Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie, who announced previously that the plan had been presented during the meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, on November 30. However, the primary task of the Kurdish forces would be to combat terrorist groups and contribute to the security of the capital of Iraq.

In spite of strong opposition that many Kurdish political analysts and intellectuals display in this domain, the decision to send Kurdish armed forces to Baghdad seems to be a very likely scenario. KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani maintained upon his return from Baghdad that if "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki officially asks the President of Kurdistan to send Peshmarga forces to the middle of Iraq, then we agree, but only for specific purposes." Moreover, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani told the Kurdish paper Kurdistani Nwe that the central government could benefit from Peshmarga, as it is a recognized and legitimate military force in the region. Kurdish forces will be compensated by obtaining that part of Iraq's national budget for defense affairs.

Ax! Ew qehbexanî ye.


Pastorius said...

It's not a matter of expressing a submissive attitude. It is gratitude for getting rid of your enemy that I think is proper.

Gratitude is not submissiveness. They are two different things.

My point was that we needed Saddam dead sooner rather than later. There was always the possibility that he would be put back in power.

Major journalists within the United States had been calling for just that within the past few months.

How would you have liked that to have happened?

Mizgîn said...

Saddam was supported by the US, which looked the other way when he was engaged in genocide and gross human rights abuses, therefore it was the obligation of the US to right its wrong.

You needed Saddam dead sooner rather than later; We did not. We needed "an irrefutable record that Saddam was responsible for the genocide against the Kurds," as Peter Galbraith has put it, because now "the door is open to a future leader in Baghdad asserting it was never proven," which is something the wider Arab world has done for some time.

I really don't care what "major journalists in the US" say about anything, because they live in fantasyland along with most other Americans, and thus they are too parochial and self-centered to have any grasp whatsoever of the region. Add to that the fact that they are part of a corporate/governmental-controlled system, which permits them to selectively provide information to the public about those victims deemed "worthy" by the system. Southern Kurds were "unworthy" until the US decided to rid itself of its troublesome ally, Saddam. Northern Kurds under Turkish occupation remain "unworthy" victims particularly because the US has been deeply involved with the genocide perpetrated by another good ally of the US--the Ankara regime. Now let's see how long the current "unworthy" Kurds under Iranian-occupation keep hold their present "unworthy" status. As soon as the US is ready to do something with Iran, those Kurds will miraculously become "worthy." And no matter how much bullshit every US administration talks about Syria, Kurds under Syrian occupation are always "unworthy," a dubious distinction they share with their northern brethren.

If your point is that American security and safekeeping of Saddam was so weak or inept as to raise the possibility of a return to power, then the Americans should have handed Saddam over to Kurds. We would have made certain that he never returned to power, not by anything the weenies in the American propaganda establishment could possibly say, nor by any attempt to physically "rescue" him by any force on earth. Including American force.

It is the Americans who lose will after 30 or so minutes, or after a mere 3,000 deaths or so, not us. We have been fighting for a very long time and will continue to do so even when the US installs its next strongman in Baghdad. After this little fiasco with the Saddam execution, I will not be surprised if the US chooses its new best buddy for the job, Moqtada al-Sadr.