Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Insurgency: Advantage Ba'athists

By Scott Ritter, AlterNet. Posted March 1, 2006.


The latest civil violence in Iraq works toward the Ba'athists' long-term plans to regain control of Iraq -- and U.S. forces are falling right into the trap.
030106_story
Credit: Reuters/Slahaldeen Rasheed

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Scott Ritter

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Thinking back on my time as a weapons inspector in Iraq, I often compare and contrast the memories of what I saw and experienced during my nearly seven-year experience in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, and that which I see through the lens of the media since the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The experience has ranged from the deeply personal, seeing the very office spaces I and other inspectors worked in at the U.N. Headquarters compound in the Canal Hotel blown up in November 2003; to the spiritual, with the most recent horror inflicted on Iraq being the destruction of the al-Askari shrine, part of the Imam Ali al-Hadi Mausoleum.

The Canal Hotel had been my home away from home during my tenure as a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. It was the "home base" of the inspection teams, a sanctuary from which we sortied out on a daily basis to wage disarmament. It was also a safe haven to which we returned at the end of the day, exhausted and frazzled from inspections which, for the last few years of our work in Iraq, more often than not ended in crisis and confrontation. Here we could call home and speak to loved ones, go downstairs for a quiet meal in the U.N. cafeteria, and at night join our friends and colleagues for a barbecue and drinks at the U.N. bar.

The Canal Hotel was also home to other U.N. organizations, and its status as a symbol of the international community made it the ideal target for the Ba'athist resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. By blowing up the Canal Hotel, the Ba'athist insurgents not only killed the U.N. envoy, Sergio De Mello, and 16 others in the fall of 2003, but also the hope and promise of the international community emerging as a force of mediation and reconciliation between a brutal and incompetent American occupation force and an Iraqi people weary of war but distrustful of the foreign powers that governed their country.

The United Nations represented the best chance for a buffer to be positioned between the U.S. occupiers and the occupied Iraqi people, greatly reducing friction and with it the threat of increased violence and the resulting chaos and anarchy such violence would breed. The targeting of the Canal Hotel was a carefully premeditated act on the part of the Ba'athist resistance, designed to drive out of Iraq the one organization that might keep the U.S. occupation authority from self-destructing.

The brutal attack was efficient beyond all expectations. The United Nations left, never to return with any real strength or genuine authority. With the U.N. umbrella eliminated, other nongovernmental organizations likewise fled Iraq, leaving a huge void in the reconstruction of Iraq, an enormous task that was now thrust solely on the shoulders of the United States.

Corruption, greed and incompetence trumped the sacrifice made by U.S. service members in Iraq, dooming the reconstruction effort to fail spectacularly. The increased demands placed on the U.S. military in terms of both fighting an insurgency and carrying out reconstruction programs (two missions which are inherently different and ultimately contradictory in nature), meant that the points of friction between the U.S. occupiers and the Iraqi people were increased by an order of magnitude, much to the detriment of the cause of peace and stability.

The minds behind the insurgency

The reason I focus on the Canal Hotel attack is that it clearly demonstrates how horribly brilliant the Iraqi insurgency led by the former Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein is, and how well they understand the complicated internal dynamic of Iraq, especially when contrasted with the sheer ignorance of the U.S. occupation forces and those who formulate policy back in Washington, D.C. The Canal Hotel attack set in motion a sequence of events that has resulted in the strengthening of the insurgency and the weakening of the U.S.-led occupation.

The chaos and anarchy that dominates the Iraqi domestic scene today is a direct result of the Canal Hotel bombing, and represents the underlying strategy of the Ba'athist insurgents, which is to create the conditions within Iraq where the Iraqi people have lost faith in the American occupier and their proxy Iraqi government to bring about peace and stability. The goal is also to create divisions within Iraqi society based upon ethnic and religious allegiances that play well to the Ba'athist tactics of divide and conquer.

The Ba'athist strategy emphasizes chaos. One of the byproducts of chaos is unpredictability, and the Ba'athists have succeeded in mitigating the unpredictability of the anarchy transpiring in Iraq by carefully controlling the violence they inflict, both in terms of timing and target. Most observers of Iraq equate the terror being unleashed as a manifestation of the mindless lashing out of desperate holdovers (or, to quote Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, "dead enders") from the regime of Saddam Hussein.


Digg!

Scott Ritter served as chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until his resignation in 1998. He is the author of, most recently, Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the U.N. and Overthrow Saddam Hussein (Nation Books, 2005).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
mrvetinari
Posted by: MrVetinari on Mar 1, 2006 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone who is coming up on two years in Iraq, let me tell you, this guy gets it.

Ritter's predictions have been pretty close to dead on, someone who influences policy needs to be reading his stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mrvetinari Posted by: badkitty53
» RE: mrvetinari Posted by: saywhat?
Damned if we stay, damned if we don't
Posted by: Taylor on Mar 1, 2006 2:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dunno, it seems to me that if we pull out too soon things won't resolve any better. Tehran would pour on the support for the Shiites. In turn the Sunnis in Kuwait, Saudi, and Jordan would support the Iraqi Sunnis. Turkey goes after the Kurdish oil fields, and then we have a much larger regional destabilization than we do now, with it's attendant disruption to world oil supply.
I really hate that Bush and Congress (both GOPs and Dems) got us into this mess, but I think we're kind of stuck here for a while longer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Mar 1, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“As of January 17, 2006, the rap sheet listed 2,229 American military dead in Iraq together with an unknown number of Iraqi civilians; what looks to be the sum of $1 trillion to $2-trillion, already committed to The Project for the New American Century’s real estate development in the Mesopotamia desert.

"Better reasons to impeach a president than the one pressed into service against Bill Clinton, whose penis was known to be aimless and shown to be harmless.” [HARPERS Magazine, March 2006 p.32]


Excerpted from Feb 27, 2006 WAWA BLOG:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

otto
Posted by: otto on Mar 1, 2006 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The American people seem to be addicted to war and violence every bit as much as they are addicted to Middle East Oil." What a statement! Scott Ritter for president in 2008...if some new party can be formed and funded!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: good idea Posted by: saywhat?
But, but, Scott! Wasn't a secular state one of Bush's stated goals?
Posted by: sausage on Mar 1, 2006 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You wrote on this very Web site a little less than a year ago:
"This constitution contains language which precludes Iraq from becoming an Islamic Republic like Iran, where religious law (i.e., the Shar'ia), versus secular law, reigns supreme

"...the Bush administration would be comfortable with the secular nature of any Iraqi government it produces."


The led for a Washington Post story from February 14 of last year by reporter Robin Wright says:"When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions."

Now above you write:"Sunni-led secular government in Baghdad, led by the Ba'athist party but operating under a different political face, would not only not be actively resisted, but rather embraced and encouraged."
So you are saying that a return of Iraq's government to the Ba'ath Party would be a good thing?

It's not that I completely disagree, but this whole thing could have been avoided if the Senate had stepped up and halted Bush's imperialistic adventurism. The world would be better off if Saddam had died of old age in his sleep. On the other hand, let the invasion of Iran begin; that will only hasten American's demise as a superpower.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» actually no Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: actually no Posted by: sausage
» RE: anthrax Posted by: EY
A frightening scenario!
Posted by: mythbuster on Mar 1, 2006 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scott Ritter is a great American. Anyone who is called a toadie by the Right and an Israeli spy by Saddam has got to be doing something rigth. The line about our addiction to war is dead-on. Considering the coming bad news in real estate and other sectors, watch the drum beats to attack Iran grow louder this summer. My fear is that we are at a tipping point...and no one knows where this could all go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ritter Uncovers Weapons of Mass Distraction
Posted by: Stonecutter on Mar 1, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scott Ritter has consistently shown his erudition and insight into the cesspool of Middle Eastern politics and war. This current article is captivating in its detail, clarity, awareness and breadth. Which is why no one in the Bush Adminstration will pay any attention to it. Tragically and ever more dangerously, the Bushies are stampeding toward the proverbial cliff, blind as bats to the Ba'aathist strategy.

A stunning irony that runs through this piece is Ritter's description of the religious society in Qom, Iran, to which the current Iranian president pays homage, that believes the 12th Imam will return to earth in an atmosphere of mortal chaos. Sound familiar?

There's been much written in the U.S. about the extreme religious right "Rapturists", who similarly believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth at Armegeddon (or in other words, mortal chaos and the "end of days" on earth), scooping up the true believers and comdemning the rest of us to hellfire and brimstone. All of this is supposed to take place in---where else?---the Middle East. It's often pointed out that these extreme believers don't give a hoot about global warming, escalating war, America's alienation from the rest of the world, etc., because the Rapture will supercede all these concerns and it's coming sooner rather than later.

What a coincidence, between this worldview inflamed by religious fundamentalist obsession in our country and its echo in Iran, considered to be our mortal enemy right up there with Al Qaeda. Kind of closes the circle on the awesome power of fundamentalist "globalization", as our government and its policies descend into the same snakepit of blind absolutism, self-righteousness and religious fanaticism that we are supposedly arrayed against in Iraq and Iran.

I do disagree that "no mainstream politician" has stepped up. Russ Feingold and John Murtha, to name two, have done so in no uncertain terms. Their positions have largely fallen on deaf ears in Congress, but have resonated strongly outside the Beltway. The question is whether they will gather force in an election year, and beyond to the next presidential election. I hope and pray that they do, and that the Corb plan for redeployment recently described by Howard Dean in several interviews will be seriously embraced by the country, if not this disastrous administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ritter Uncovers Weapons of Mass Distraction
Posted by: Stonecutter on Mar 1, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scott Ritter has consistently shown his erudition and insight into the cesspool of Middle Eastern politics and war. This current article is captivating in its detail, clarity, awareness and breadth. Which is why no one in the Bush Adminstration will pay any attention to it. Tragically and ever more dangerously, the Bushies are stampeding toward the proverbial cliff, blind as bats to the Ba'aathist strategy.

A stunning irony that runs through this piece is Ritter's description of the religious society in Qom, Iran, to which the current Iranian president pays homage, that believes the 12th Imam will return to earth in an atmosphere of mortal chaos. Sound familiar?

There's been much written in the U.S. about the extreme religious right "Rapturists", who similarly believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth at Armegeddon (or in other words, mortal chaos and the "end of days" on earth), scooping up the true believers and comdemning the rest of us to hellfire and brimstone. All of this is supposed to take place in---where else?---the Middle East. It's often pointed out that these extreme believers don't give a hoot about global warming, escalating war, America's alienation from the rest of the world, etc., because the Rapture will supercede all these concerns and it's coming sooner rather than later.

What a coincidence, between this worldview inflamed by religious fundamentalist obsession in our country and its echo in Iran, considered to be our mortal enemy right up there with Al Qaeda. Kind of closes the circle on the awesome power of fundamentalist "globalization", as our government and its policies descend into the same snakepit of blind absolutism, self-righteousness and religious fanaticism that we are supposedly arrayed against in Iraq and Iran.

I do disagree that "no mainstream politician" has stepped up. Russ Feingold and John Murtha, to name two, have done so in no uncertain terms. Their positions have largely fallen on deaf ears in Congress, but have resonated strongly outside the Beltway. The question is whether they will gather force in an election year, and beyond to the next presidential election. I hope and pray that they do, and that the Corb plan for redeployment recently described by Howard Dean in several interviews will be seriously embraced by the country, if not this disastrous administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A blast of fresh air from a great American
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 1, 2006 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scott Ritter should have been listened to BEFORE the Iraq invasion began. Why won't the US commercial media acknowledge that there were strong voices opposing the BS about WMDs before the war? The corporate media bears as much responsibility as Bush for taking the US military into Iraq. Furthermore, I haven't heard the term "Baathist" in the US media since ? pre-war days?

Nevertheless, it seems that there are other players in Iraq. The Interior Ministry seems to be running a death squad program a la El Salvador, with the tactic compliance of the US. This could just be an act of desperation, even though death and torture are the result.

72% of US troops want out; they know they can't do anything else there. The US military should NEVER have been used as an occupation force. The National Guard should NEVER have been sent out of the country (they could and would have prevented much of the Katrina disaster).

The poor planning and mishandling of this whole business is mind-bending. Meanwhile our vice president is getting drunk and accidentally shooting his friends; our secretary of war is sending contracts to all his old pharmaceutical buddies; our intelligence agencies spend more time snooping on dissenting Americans then they do watching the real problems; and our corporate media is actively misleading American citizens.

There's one solution: Impeach this idiot president, re-establish media ownership laws, and pull the US military out of Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

B'rer Bush and the Iraqi OilNTarbaby
Posted by: Artkansas on Mar 1, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More and more the story of Bush and Iraq looks like the story of B'rer Rabbit and the Tarbaby. No one made B'rer Rabbit get involved with the Tarbaby, it was his own rhetoric that got him involved.

And B'rer Bush is going to find it very difficult to pull out of his Iraqi OilNTarbaby. I'm just sad that he will probably pull America down with him in acting out his tragedy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no such thing as Zarqawi.
Posted by: ng1944 on Mar 1, 2006 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no Zarqawi.
Simply look who benefit from all this violence and unrest,
US, Israel, British.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Or maybe, that was the plan all along...
Posted by: Erik1968 on Mar 1, 2006 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to admit that Scott Ritter makes a pretty convincing case. But has it occured to anyone that we're dealing with some pretty dastardly evil guys on our side, too? I mean, isn't it possible that WE planned it this way?

I mean, what if the whole plan in Iraq was to isolate the Sunnis as sort of neo-Palistinians. Divide Iraq into three parts, set up a constitutional/electoral process that guarantees that we're forced to step in and shrug our shoulders and say, "well, I guess they weren't ready for democracy yet..." and act as "peacekeepers" between the warring factions while establishing permanent military bases and a permanent colonial occupation force.

What if we started to get worried that despite all our hoops, the Iraqi government started moving toward real governing (which, you'll notice, hasn't actually happenned yet; despite all the elections, there's still no Iraqi government). What then? Ritter describes the demolition of the golden dome as "professionally done, with charges being set into holes drilled into each of the four pillars holding the dome up."

Well, isn't a professional job like that more likely the work of Special Forces? You're telling me a bunch of Ba'thists who get by on hit and runs on cops shops and chow lines suddenly develop a team that can infiltrate the holiest Shia site and blow it up? Really?

I know this is pure conjecture, but what if the US blew it up to incite a civil war? Doesn't that make a little more sense than the Ba'athist super-team? I mean, We're NEVER going to accept a Ba'thist government in Iraq. If we were willing to do that, we'd have just fostered a coup of Saddam and made peace with whoever was left.

Maybe this is crazy conspiracy-speak, but if you look at the track record of Cheney, Abrams, et al, it's not as farfetched as it looks. If the whole plan was to steal the oil (and, dude, check out everything the plan for a new century wrote from 1998-2001 on Iraq), then to me, a low-level civil war is a great way to do it. Ask Abrams how well it worked in El Salvador.

I absolutely believe that withdrawl will cool the insurgency But has it occured to anyone that maybe that's the last thing our administration wants?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is actually the best option for US
Posted by: Brucewxx on Mar 1, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you wonder how the history replayed right before your eyes. When British occupied Iraq years ago they tried to use the Shiite to govern, but failed badly. So they turned back to Sunnis and stablized the situation. If the secular Sunnis takes the power back they could be another force there to balance the Iran, exactly like Saddam did for US. The problem is that Shiite has become so powerful now with the training from the US support and with the support from Iran, it would be very hard to take the power away from them without fight. Idiots like Bush, Rumsfield, Chenney, and Conti, didn't know that Saddam was their best friends there..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

comments from Iraq report USUK is the terror bomber
Posted by: verite on Mar 1, 2006 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and that USUK is likely to be behind much of the provocations such as the Golden Dome bombing.

eg..
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/

Sadr, who suspended his visit to Lebanon and cancelled his meeting with
the president there, promptly returned to Iraq in order to call on the
Iraqi parliament to vote on the request for the departure of the
occupation forces from Iraq.

“It was not the Sunnis who attacked the shrine of Imam Al-Hadi, God’s
peace be upon him, but rather the occupation [forces] and Ba’athists…God
damn them. We should not attack Sunni mosques. I ordered Al-Mahdi Army
to protect the Shi’i and Sunni shrines.”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, urged Iraqi Shia not
to seek revenge against Sunni Muslims, saying there were definite plots
“to force the Shia to attack the mosques and other properties respected
by the Sunni. Any measure to contribute to that direction is helping the
enemies of Islam and is forbidden by sharia.”

Instead, he blamed the intelligence services of the U.S. and Israel for
being behind the bombs at the Golden Mosque.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that those who committed the
attack on the Golden Mosque “have only one motive: to create a violent
sedition between the Sunnis and the Shiites in order to derail the Iraqi
rising democracy from its path.”

Well said Mr. Blair, particularly when we keep in mind the fact that
less than a year ago in Basra, two undercover British SAS soldiers were
detained by Iraqi security forces whilst traveling in a car full of
bombs and remote detonators.

Jailed and accused by Muqtada al-Sadr and others of attempting to
generate sectarian conflict by planting bombs in mosques, they were
broken out of the Iraqi jail by the British military before they could
be tried.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ritter on Iraq
Posted by: rafey on Mar 1, 2006 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right on. We could use Scott for the candiate of choice given that most of those intending on the run are almost Republicans by definition ... or at least they are ever so fearful of treading too heavily. They are too kind and gentle and do not wish to make their real views known. We require and alternative, someone with a broad perspective, ideas and valid solutions and who is not afraid to say what needs to be said!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Bombed Mosque is Unimportant
Posted by: orwell212 on Mar 1, 2006 3:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether the US/UK or Ba'athist bombed the mosque is unimportant, because as Ritter illustrated the intended effect is the same: US conflict with Iran. We (citizens of the US) cannot allow this to happen. Either the Ba'athists are extremely adept at leading us down this road or Bush and his regime are actually one step ahead of them, and are using this as a springboard to attack Iran.

There are too many people in this country who understand the misinformation and manipulation that got us involved in Iraq, and we are too far removed from 9/11 for that to be used as a catalylst to allow this to happen. Hopefully these voices will be heard in the future. I wish the Ritter article was picked up by every media outlet in the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brilliant, But American People Are NOT The War Addicts
Posted by: fairleft on Mar 1, 2006 3:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fantastic piece of speculative writing, except for the final paragraphs about how the politicians can't say "out now" cuz the people want to keep our troops there. This is, of course, spectacularly the opposite of the truth, as looking at any opinion survey would tell Scott.

The real problem is the Republi-Demo Party, which is more beholden to military-industrial power (in particular to the oil, arms, and Israel lobbies) than it ever has been. War party politicians believe it is electoral death to deny themselves campaign donations from the military-industrial complex.

How to bring the troops home: make pro-occupation politicians of both parties suffer in 2006. Until that happens, and is recognized as such, we'll stay deep in the Middle Eastern mess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RIDICULOUS! We ARE war addicts!!! Posted by: fifthworld
» The Polls Say We Want Peace!!! Posted by: fairleft
And there's still Iran to go
Posted by: riley on Mar 2, 2006 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush and company are already setting it up to coincide with the 06 elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It could be Baathists or ?
Posted by: tclaverdure on Mar 2, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well lets narrow down the characters in this plot.

This attack could have been carried out by....

A. Baathist Sunnis
B. US forces
C. British forces
D. Shin Bet

B, C, and D of course are fully capable of the job, and with out a doubt could have many reasons to attack the Shiite holy site.

Some have questioned the ability of the Baathists to carry out the attack, saying it is not possible. Well lets not forget that these Baathists are a smart and ruthless bunch, I am sure they are fully capable. If I were to place a bet I would go with A. Any one who was in power and lost power wants power back and hell what else do these folks have to do these days but fight for their side. Though hey and hell yes the British/USA/Israeli axis of darkhearts could be the villians we may never know.

The bottom line is that humanity has a long way to go before we become one people on one planet. With the way we are destroying our ecosystem it probably will not happen.

Al Gore in 2008. Stay in the senate Hillary, for the good of the planet and all humanity. We can't handle another GOP presidency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember the two SAS comandos dressed as Arabs
Posted by: London on Mar 2, 2006 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some moths ago two SAS men dressed as arabs were caught by the Iraqi police carrying explosives in the back of their vehicle. The British had to run a tank through the prison walls to rescue these two. We never got the full story as to what mission these two were on, did we?

After witnessing this event, it seems highly likely that destabilisation of Iraq is a matter of policy with US and UK.

Even before the war they were saying it would take something like eight to ten years to get out of Iraq. I remember thinking then that after 5 years everyone would give up hope of them ever leaving that country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Editor, notfittoprint.com
Posted by: lafosner on Mar 3, 2006 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I worked as a reporter for Pacifica radio in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion/occupation. I interviewed Scott Ritter a couple of times. I distinctly remember hearing Scott saying many times that there was no active WMD program in place in Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed NO direct threat to the United States. Of course, nobody with any clout actually listened.

But if anybody doubts this man's ability to see through the muck and get at the truth, just look at his record. Then look at the record of the Bush administration--enough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

useful reference
Posted by: vespasian01 on Mar 4, 2006 12:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This strategy brief by Mr. Ritter is worth linking to other venues in order to keep it intact for future reference. With its societal implications, this piece encompasses more than just strategy. This is an insider's powerful views regarding likely reshuffling of societies and national borders in an ancient region. Along with first-hand knowledge, Mr. Ritter brings compassion and insistence on accountability. This piece, and similar policy critiques by SR, will be useful historical references in both the near and long term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: useful reference Posted by: AlienSlave
Scott Ritter' s IED
Posted by: runsfearless on Mar 17, 2006 12:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have just returned from a talk given by Scott Ritter at SUNY New Paltz and was astounded that he has received the media attention and credibility he has. An examination of what he says leads to his self-induced intellectual suicide. He does an exquisite iconographic performance as the
ex-Marine, ex-Arms Inspector, macho 'good guy' determined to prove everyone is ignorant, except Scott. Ritter has cornered the market on strategic economic, political, and conspiratorial theory. He will expose the truth to the world, and will go down six-guns blazing in a John Wayne phantasy. The problem is that he under-estimates everyone, even El Prezidente, who I thought could never be under-estimated. How did Ritter reach prominence? By being right and lucky once. Once. I predicted the same thing, and more, than he did. It's documented in a letter to McCain and Kerry, well before the war. Big deal. I didn't need to be an ex-marine, ex-arms inspector to reach the same conclusions he did. But, solely because he was an ex-ex, he managed to get the attention of the media he so abhors. Through luck, and smart self-promotion he became the "Voice of Truth," Scott Ritter style. The truth is that he is not smart at all. He hoists himself on his own petard with his own words, "Thinking back on my time as a weapons inspector in Iraq, I often compare and contrast the memories of what I saw and experienced during my nearly seven-year experience in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, and that which I see through the lens of the media since the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq." Sure. I can do the same thing about my year abroad in Vietnam in 1969. There was a complete disconnect between what was happening on the ground and what the media reported. Is this a new phenomenon? Ask some veterans of any event, from a car crash to World War II, ask them if the media got it “right.”

Ritter is a product of the same media he says misled the American people, and the world. The same media he uses for his shameless self-promotion of himself as "Chief Prognosticator of Future Events in The Middle East." He even has the arrogance to predict the date of an American strike against Iran. Even a "nuclear pre-emptive strike against a non-nuclear created foe" is on Scott's table. I think he should go to back to his magic eight-ball and rub it for awhile. He has nothing but disdain for the American people, except for himself, who he holds in the highest regard. He even enlightened a very intelligent audience by spelling "Molybdenum" for us. Let's go for Seaborgium, Mendelevium, and my personal favorite, Niobium! Jeez. This guy is a straight up fraud. That is precisely why he holds his audiences and the American people in such low esteem as being "ignorant sheep." He has gotten away with becoming a person anointed with the mantle of expert prognosticator, who has inside knowledge into the workings of everything and everyone; knowing he has scammed so many people with the help of his own described misleading media, he holds those who believe him in shameless disdain. If they believe this, why they must be ignorant fools, and are worthy of nothing more than disdain.

If he can pull this off on the public that so desperately wants to "believe," he can get people to believe anything, even the ridiculous notion that he can predict the month the American strike against Iran will take place. My advice is don't run off to the nearest OTB and bet any money on Scott Ritter or his predictions. I'll take even odds on his speaking fees for the past two years that not only is he dead wrong, but that he will be exposed as the fraud he truly is.

I think the American people are pretty astute. Just look at the poll numbers. Perhaps, to the dismay of Ritter and Bush, they will turn out to be wolves in sheeps' clothing.

Goodbye, ex-ex, and good luck. Or maybe it should be goodnight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]