Analysis: Iraq's 'changing' war

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Analysis: Iraq's 'changing' war
2
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 10:38am

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040722-084908-1295r


The "war" in Iraq is suddenly taking a very different turn, and regrettably, not one for the better. After first targeting the military, then changing tactics by kidnapping hostages and holding them in exchange for the withdrawal of Coalition troops -- and one may add with some success -- the "insurgents" are now going after the soft underbelly of Iraq, its fragile economy.


A new rebel group, hitherto unknown, calling themselves the "Black Banners" is the latest to surface. They join the plethora of armed groups opposed to the presence of foreign forces, particularly American soldiers, in Iraq. The Black Banners have detained six hostages: three Indians, two Kenyans and an Egyptian, all nationals from "neutral" nations.


The abducted men work as simple truck drivers for a Kuwaiti company. The kidnappers have threatened to behead one of their captives every 72 hours, beginning Saturday, if the Kuwaiti company does not agree to withdraw from Iraq by the set deadline.


The intriguing development in this new incident is that none of the countries involved in this latest round of abductions contribute troops to the U.S-led coalition serving in Iraq.


Furthermore, the Black Banners abductors demand that the countries concerned -- Kenya, Egypt and India -- withdraw all their citizens from Iraq, and stop doing business with the Americans. This request may be somewhat complicated to initiate.


As far as the Kenyans are concerned, withdrawing their nationals from Iraq should not be too difficult. There could not be too many Kenyans working in Iraq. But when it comes to the Egyptians and Indians, the issue becomes far more complicated.


India, a country with the world's second-largest Muslim population, after Indonesia, has long maintained excellent relations with Iraq. Even during Saddam Hussein's rule and throughout the more than a decade of U.N.-imposed economic sanctions, the two nations maintained cordial ties. Currently, about 100,000 Indian workers are at any one time employed throughout Iraq, working in mostly menial jobs.


Repatriating such huge numbers would require a monumental effort and would create an exodus of Biblical proportions, similar to the massive evacuation of foreigners that had to be undertaken after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990.


Egypt, too, has most probably as many nationals working in Iraq, if not more. Most of them are also employed in low-paying jobs.


So why would an insurgent group -- purported to be acting in the national interest -- demand the forced removal of people involved in rebuilding their country? One could only presuppose that having successfully pressured several nations, such as the Philippines, Spain and a number of Latin American states to withdraw their forces, the insurgents are now re-directing their efforts to undermine Iraq's economy. The aim of such a move would be to push Iraq into an economic abyss, hoping that the United States' post-invasion effort of rebuilding the country and "bringing democracy" would be guaranteed failure.


Cripple the economy and the country comes to a standstill. The rebels may be applying the old communist theory that in order to "win," they must first run the system into the ground. Why else would they demand the departure of people and businesses involved in reconstructing Iraq's war-tattered infrastructure and frail economy? People with no ties to the "occupation forces."


The answer may well be found upon further analyzing who would benefit from a weakened Iraq. That, in itself, may not be easy to interpret as the list could be long. First, is Iraq's timeless rival, Iran, with whom Iraq fought a bloody eight-year war. The Iraq-Iran war caused around a million deaths and saw the deployment of chemical weapons (by Iraq). Iran is not likely to forget that. The mullahs in Tehran remain extremely wary of a reconstituted and re-militarized Iraq. But on the other hand, an unstable Iraq can also be very unsettling for Iran, as well as Iraq's other neighbors.


The fact that the group is calling itself the Black Banners may offer a hint regarding their identity. Members of the Shiite community traditionally fly black banners, usually during certain religious holidays, such as Ashoura, or at funerals.


Then again, the Black Banners could just as easily be a cover name used by a number of groups working for any of Iraq's enemies who would like to see it remain in a weakened state. Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi comes to mind.


Zarqawi is a fundamentalist Sunni with deep loathing of the Shiites, and could have used the name to make it seem as if the Shiites are behind these abductions, discrediting them. The symbolism of the "black flags" is so obvious, that it immediately conjures up a certain doubt. The name was most certainly chosen to add confusion, a probability confirmed by a former intelligence specialist familiar with the region.


"I really don't see Shiite organizations engaging in these types of kidnapping, especially given the general negative reaction to the beheadings," Matt Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who specializes in terrorism, told United Press


International.


"There is just no precedent for this in the Iraq context."


In sum, this new phase in hostage taking might be the start of a distressing new trend in the Iraq war, one that could further damage the economy if hundreds of thousands of workers who help make the country function were to suddenly leave.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 11:09am
<>

The following is the concluding parapraphs of a seven part series I have been following. It to indicates an alarming new phase in Iraq. In addition, this article contends that Fallujah is not harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi but the Americans continue to bomb an kill civilians. It is all very confusing.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG24Ak01.html

My interest in the foreign mujahideen, in particular Saudis, finally became too dangerous even for me. My contact in Fallujah, himself a non-Iraqi seeking to join what he described as "al-Qaeda in the northern Anbar", encouraged me to go to the Julan neighborhood, which had been deemed by the local council to be off limits to foreigners, to meet Saudi fighters for al-Qaeda. My contact was to leave me there to go off "on a job". I began to wonder why al-Qaeda would be interested in meeting an American journalist. They are a secretive organization, interested only in reaching out to fellow Muslims for recruitment and in advertising their successes, such as the decapitation of US journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, I recalled. These were the resistance fighters who did not recognize the authority of Dhafer and his associates, and who threatened their lives for releasing the German journalists. An American was much more valuable. That night my contact brought two Iraqis working with the Saudis to meet me in my hotel unannounced. They barely greeted me, but looked me up and down with taciturn interest, as if examining merchandise. My contact's increasingly erratic behavior and confused statements insisting he trusted me and I should trust him convinced me that if I went to Fallujah again I would not return. I had been warned that my contact had turned, and was being pressured to turn over an American to make up for the lost Germans. I knew that the foreign fighters in Fallujah were embittered over the many hostages they had been pressured to release.

I left Iraq, flying out this time to avoid the checkpoints on Highway 10. The Royal Jordanian flight remained within the airport's limits for 15 minutes, circling up in sharp spirals until it reached an altitude at which it could safely fly over Fallujah and avoid being shot down by the resistance. Soon after, an al-Qaeda unit in Saudi Arabia calling itself the Fallujah Squadron began killing foreigners. The US war in Iraq, meant to democratize the region, had instead radicalized it, created a united front, with Fallujans fighting for the honor of Palestine, and Saudis fighting in the name of Fallujah.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 3:51pm

"The US war in Iraq, meant to democratize the region, had instead radicalized it, created a united front, with Fallujans fighting for the honor of Palestine, and Saudis fighting in the name of Fallujah. "



What turmoil! They have a common enemy.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs