Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008

Baram on Maliki

"Dear Pat,

We know about Maliki's latest moves:

"Iraq

's prime minister has threatened to exclude the supporters of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr from politics.

Nouri Maliki told CNN that the cleric's movement would not be allowed to take part in elections unless it disbanded its militia, the Mehdi Army" . Muqtada for his part turned to Sistani (Najaf) and Kazem Ha'iri (Qomm) for their opinions (BBC).  In view of his and his late father's bitter rivalry with Sistani, this is a revolutionary move.

Maliki: yesterday the Iraqi TV reported of his speech at the funeral of his security aid Salim (Abu Layth) al-Ta'iyy who was killed in a battle in Basra. Maliki presented the government troops' attack on the Mahdi Army in Basra as part of the legacy of Muqtada's father, "Al-Shahid al-Sadr". By this he attempted to present Muqtada as someone who betrayed his father's legacy. Maliki presented himself for the first time as the "Commander in Chief (al-Qa'id al-'Amm) of the Iraqi Armed Forces".  This is based on the Iraqi Constitution according to which: "The Prim Minister is  ... the Commander in Chief of the armed forces" (Article 77). It also seems to be following in the footsteps of the American Constitution, but under Saddam, too, the president was the Commander in Chief. Maliki however has not until yesterday used this title. It seems that using it is part of his confrontational and uncompromising (so far) position vis-a-vis the Mahdi Army but also a part of an attempt to impose his will on his ministers of defense and the interior, two independent and strong personalities at the helm of the two most important security apparatuses.

Yours

Amatzia" 

Baram on the AQ/Saddam Relationship

I returned last night.  Dr. Baram left me this thought concerning his opnions about the AQ/Saddam relationship.  After some discussion he has allowed me to post it on the understanding that it is a summary of his ANALYTIC opinion and his recall of the events.  Because of the press of current work he will not be able to document it in detail for those who might want that.  The "report" he refers to is the new IDA/JFCOM report on the same subject.  pl

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dear Pat,

Maybe you will find this of some interest.

Two days after 9/11 Saddam appeared on Iraqi TV and praised the attack on America. He gave no credit to anyone for the operation, but explained that the US was responsible for the death of many thousands of Iraqi children. He threatened that if it did not change its policy (embargo, support of Israel) it would suffer further such blows.

The next day his foreign policy advisers, including the Foreign minister and Tariq Aziz (Deputy PM), strongly recommended that he should change his tack (a brave move). He refused and the Iraqi media continued for many months to praise whoever did 9/11. It even implied that the attack served Saddam's purpose ("It was not Bin Laden who smashed the four [sic!] airplanes into American buidings, it was Saddam's luck that did this") .

Three weeks after 9/11 the foreign ministry establishment managed to convince Saddam and even though his media continued as before, the foreign minister sent a message of condolences to the US Secretary of State through Nizar Hamdun (Iraq's UN Representative) and the US UN Representative. My impression was at the time that there was some political - ideological common denominator between them: Bin Laden actually had publicly supported "Iraq" - not Saddam - in its struggle against the US already in 1998. But I have never had any evidence of OPERATIONAL cooperation. So I am not surprised by the report. Saddam was no longer "secular" in 2002, but his version of Islamic piety and politics was very different from Bin Laden's.

Best

Amatzia"