The U.S. Attack on Saleh Al-Mutlaq's Headquarters

So This is Plan B?

By RAED JARRAR

On Monday the 1st of January 2007, the Iraq News Agency reported on an important development; the following is a paraphrase of their report:

The U.S. army announced that it has killed six "terrorists" and arrested another two during heavy fighting in Baghdad while attacking the headquarters of the National Dialogue Front, led by Dr. Saleh Al-Mutlaq. The army statement assured that the raid was based on an intelligence report that indicated the area has been used as a safe sanctuary for Al-Qaeda in Iraq members for executing attack plans.

The statement claims that while approaching the targeted area, the U.S. army received heavy fire from automatic machine guns and grenades from several near building tops. The statement continues that the allied forces returned fire on the source of the attack killing two terrorists. Meanwhile, several others fled to a 3rd building, adding that allied forces also managed to get a foothold in a near by building, which led to the killing of four terrorists and the apprehending of another.

I called Dr. Saleh Al-Mutlaq today and asked him about what happened, and his account is very different. Dr. Al-Mutlaq said that the U.S. and Iraqi forces surrounded his party's headquarters in Baghdad after midnight and that a brief exchange of fire took place, so he tried to contact the U.S. embassy and U.S. army to understand what was happening and to clarify that his guards thought they were being attacked by militias when they fired back, and that they didn't know the U.S. army was involved.

It seems that the U.S. embassy and Army where not interested in hearing from Dr. Saleh in that time. So instead of calling him back, the U.S. army destroyed the headquarters by an air strike that killed two of the guards, Mr. Jasim Ameer Muhammad and Mr. Muhammad Khamees Al-Falahi, in addition to killing a neighboring family of four (the parents with their son and daughter). The six casualties were described in the U.S. army reports as "terrorists".

This attack against the National Dialogue Front (NDF) led by Al-Mutlaq does not seem to be accidental. The Bush administration's attempts to create a pro-occupation coalition in the Iraqi government failed last week after Al-Sistani, the grand Shia Ayatollah, refused to support the U.S. plan. The bush administration's plan seems to have changed from simply excluding anti-occupation political parties (like Sadrists, Al-Fadila party, NDF, and others) from the Iraqi government to actively bombing them.

The attack on NDF's headquarters in Baghdad is nothing more than the first step in the administration's plan B. The Al-Sadr movement and its militia, Al-Mahdi Army, seem to be next, and others will follow.

Attacking NDF, the only political party with no militias, will push the country towards more violence and militarization. It sends one message to Iraqis who still believe in political solutions: We will destroy you unless you were strong enough to destroy us.

Raed Jarrar is the Iraq Project Director at Global Exchange and a member of the Steering Committee of United for Peace and Justice.

No votes yet

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How about proof?

It's posted.
Where was it published?
Do you have any proof other than the article?

How about proof?

yes.
informationclearinghouse.info
of what?

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

You do know the middle east.

Vees,
Do you have proof that we have finally decided to take the Saddam approach to controlling the Iraqi population?
I do have to compliment you on your knowledge of the fall in favor of your boy in Iran. You were dissing him two weeks before the first reports of his loss of popularity with the students.
You do know the middle east.

You do know the middle east.

no I have no proof whatsoever of what you postulate since the US cannot control the Iraqi population the way Hussein did (why call him by his first name?). Neither does the article suggest that. All that this article illustrates is the truly phenomenal stupidity of the occupation policies, that's all.

I don't have a boy in Iran, much less so one which I would "diss". Ever wondered whom the students who oppose Ahmadinejad would support? Take a guess - Bush? Blair? Olmert? (wake up! you are dreaming...)

I do know the Middle-East somewhat, nothing special here. Anyone with an internet connection can know as much as I do.

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Humility can be a curse.

(why call him by his first name?)
I need to differentiate him from Obama. Just a little Redneck etiquette.

"I do know the Middle-East somewhat, nothing special here. Anyone with an internet connection can know as much as I do."
First, they would need your intelligence and then your education.
You are a 2 percenter.

first & middle names & bikers

From Obama?! His MIDDLE name is Hussein and not his first name. You probably mean Osama vs Obama, but then this is first name vs last name. But by calling Hussein "Saddam" you probably avoid the use of your frontal lobes which, in other circles, is referred to as "redneck etiquette" :-)

I thought only bikers were "2 percenters", does that make me a "biker from the former Soviet Union who secretly converted to Islam and whose English and whose mind are so inadequate as to allow only for cut-n-pasting"?

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Can't take the 1% solution, there's 2

There is more than one group of 2 percenters. This could be yours.
http://www.mensa.org.yu/

Mensa Srbije i Crne Gore
http://www.mensa.org.yu/akt.php?naslov=eaktagr

aaah, a moment

sorry jaclon, but yugoslavia (and the new countries that came to existance on its territory) was never a part of the Soviet Union, this was the fact everybody there was particularly proud of. Well, after all the bull, and yugoslavia = the big illusion thingie, at least this remains as a good memory....

off with their heads!

You can imagine the Queen from Alice in Wonderland running the show...

I see no reason to believe that Bush has a plan (come on, the man who says a war will last days or weeks would have enough brains to come up with a plan?) Someone got nervous and started shooting and people got killed - almost end of story. If there are claims that children were killed and listed as "terrorists" in the report, that should definitely be investigated by the military; there are already people on trial for deliberately killing defenseless civilians and putting "terrorist" in their reports.

We're in enough shit as is, we're not going to try blowing up all the nay-sayers. That would only guarantee that we lose quickly and have a hostile government in place; you have to remember that the commanders out in the field will try to win with as little conflict as they think is possible (even if the commander-in-chief is a redneck cowboy) and blowing everything up isn't a good idea when you're trying to calm things down. One huge part of the problem, as Jim Baker pointed out (and I usually don't agree with him), is that we're not talking to anyone - we're just busting in and shooting things up.

But - look where we are now. Saddam was a dead man before the mock trials even began - it was a simple matter of tribal vengeance, not a proper trial to establish facts. Let's have a look at Tiananmen square over a decade ago - lots of dead students. Is anyone thinking of hunting down and hanging any of the commie bosses? To a large extent Saddam was brutal to maintain control over a country which still has a tribal culture. Anyone who thinks the current government will be any better has something wrong with their heads. Well, the Shia had their fun and killed Saddam - fat lot of good it did, eh? Maybe they were hoping to scare the Sunni into submission "hey, now it's our turn to kill you, you bastards". I have $100 that says we'll see a lot more of the same.

Syndicate content