The Developing and Deepening Conflict
Host: Farhad Saba

Post-War Scenarios

(Participant) Hello, Fred and colleagues. In the previous conference we looked for short-of-all-out-war scenarios (Dick's bit of presidential advice was part of that theme) and I wonder if you have seen the op-ed piece entitled "What a Little War in Iraq Could Do" by Michael Walzer, in today's New York Times. If you have, I'd be interested in your response.

Don, there is material about the PNAC available on their own Web site.

(Participant) I found Walter's proposal most interesting. It would surely contain Saddam with very low casualties, and be a modest victory. But the problem is that the Bush administration has no interest in solving that problem, and never has. They want a war with Iraq for other reasons. That's why they have never made any diplomatic overtures with Iraq's leaders. All of our efforts to deal with the stated problems are falling on deaf ears. If there ever was a brainwashed president, sleepwalking yesterday through the litany that he has mouthed in exactly the same terms ever since August, we have one now. We have to solve this problem at a very different level, unless Bush is feeling any sense that his tenure is in jeopardy.

(Participant) Fred: It would be interesting to discuss here:
What part of our citizenry and how many feel about our the new America that will be our home for the unknown future.

How do we, in ILF, see our new future? Do we have serious differences?

Can we describe these differences in a way that will encourage productive discussion and possible resolution that could be guides for "wise" national policies and future actions?

And especially Fred, as long as you have patience for this task, how can we clear our minds of how we see the Arab/Muslim world and reconfigure how to live at peace in the same planet?

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

Not so incidentally, how can those of us who are traditional Democrats and liberals work in harmony with Republicans and conservatives in helping our battered nation to adjust creatively to all these changes?

(Participant) How can we describe that postwar America? Certain factors stand out. The threat of terrorism is likely to increase, as Al Qaeda is fed new recruits from the growing antipathy toward the US of the Middle Eastern populations. This will lead to more of a security state, and more serious loss of civil rights. I doubt that the end of the war will give us back the rights we have lost. Probably just the opposite. Meanwhile our economy may worsen as we face extraordinary deficits, and greater competition from the EU and elsewhere. We will experience deep cuts in benefits and erosion of our infrastructure--greater poverty and all of its sad social consequences--illness, addiction, suicide, etc. The management of conflicts, environmental degradation and other planetary concerns that require international collaboration will suffer from the recent blows to the UN and the breakdown of other alliances---all this, by the way, regardless of which party is in power. The damage has already been done, and it will take a long time to rebuild, if indeed the changes are not permanent.

Optimistically, with great effort it probably can be rebuilt. There could even be a reaction today in Congress to the Bush tax cuts, which would help the deficit problem. We could enact campaign reform legislation. But those are remote possibilities. We are suffering now from a silent Congress, owned by corporate America, afraid of dissent, fearful of appearing unpatriotic. Unless that changes, we will no longer have the recuperative powers of a democracy.

I don't think our citizenry is at all aware of this scenario. Democracy would flourish here with just a few important changes--campaign finance reform, regulation of the ownership of media, and the use of advanced communication technology to present the public with possible scenarios that flow from certain decisions, rather than just voting on candidates or legislative proposals. That would make Americans look much smarter and wiser, because I think they could pick wisely among possible future scenarios. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether this is a likely future. I do know that our leaders now prosper from the ignorance and lack of critical thinking abilities of the American public so are not eager to deal with an informed populace. Of the two demonstrating groups now active in America, those protesting the war and those supporting it, which is more educated and informed?

(Participant) I generally agree with what Dick has said, but . . . .

In an effort to balance his point of view, he gave his pessimistic assessment in one-and-a-half paragraphs, and his optimistic assessment in three very short, cryptic sentences.

Should we not focus on the opportunities, and see if we can promote them in some way? We do have to start from where we are.

(Participant) Am I correct in thinking that the current US government talk about selecting companies for rehabilitating Iraq is PREMATURE, POOR PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR US, AND USEFUL MATERIAL FOR SADDAM'S P.R.?

A related thought: Our pre-war strategies for the peace to follow were predicated on a quick victory with limited loss of life and grateful Iraqi citizens. Am I correct in thinking that we need to invent a new exit strategy and the sooner the less expensive in every way? Is there an ILF role here? How does one even THINK about this without being "subversive"?

(Participant) Don, you're raising all the right questions, as far as I'm concerned. First of all, we should be clear that it is not only patriotic, but vital, that we ask hard questions, and even dissent from the war, if that is our thought. To do other would be immoral. "My country right or wrong" is apparently a distortion of the intended meaning of Decatur's line.

Having said that (and you know I have always opposed this war), I would not now deprive any of our troops the full budget they need to protect themselves and to accomplish their mission.

But, by implication, you are suggesting that we might consider changing the mission. Boy, will that be difficult! We are so committed now. Anything less than total victory would be tough for the administration, and the UN, to swallow.

Clearly, despite pronouncements to the contrary by Rumsfeld, et al, we are having a much tougher time than expected in conquering Iraq. Some of the dire predictions of those of us who protested are already beginning to show, even though we thought of them as post-war events--guerrilla bands, trouble with Turkey and the Kurds, desperate drinking water shortage in Basra, etc. And the worst is yet to come. Although it obviously destroyed all kinds of targets, including palaces, the Shock and Awe attack apparently failed psychologically, just as it did in Hanoi. It may have even stiffened resistance.

Saddam is thought to be pursuing a strategy of prolonging the inevitable outcome long enough for European countries to try to work out a truce or a settlement. I can't get my mind around how that might work.

Don, you have suggested that the ILF work on such a creative exit strategy. We had a good one earlier. Would it still work to get Saddam to agree to meet certain disarmament criteria in exchange for a troop pullback? I'm afraid Bush is too publicly committed to regime change. Saddam has done a couple of things to help such a move--he has called for humane treatment of POWs, and he has not used any WMD. He seems to be holding on as a strong leader, referring to the resistance of even lesser army elements than the Republican Guard as heroic. But unless Bush is unwilling to fight guerrilla forces and terrorism here and in Iraq, I don't see him agreeing to anything but complete surrender. Politically, it may be better for him to continue to have troubles to put down in Afghanistan and Iraq through the election of 2004.

It is the height of arrogance to announce the companies (Halliburton, by the way) that will be reconstructing Iraq, but it's been partly about business from the start.

Any good ideas out there?

(Participant) Dick: Since we have, here, the advantage of considering "I can't get my mind around" ideas, we might as well use it. As for Bush, he may have to get his mind around the notion that he can't continue the war until Saddam gets HIS mind around full capitulation. This new world is even more difficult to comprehend than the one you and I are used to.

(So try this one on your mind :)

Call a meeting of Muslim heads of state, under the aegis of the UN, from those Muslim nations which, prior to the start of this war, were partially friendly. Ask them to meet with us to discuss rehabilitating Iraq (with our money) and to sketch out strategies for developing a government with some of the advantages we--and the Muslims--see in democracy but compatible to the Muslim culture.

Of course it is difficult to get our minds around that one--until you try to get it around a military deadlock after a period of costly and bloody war.

I would be happy to erase the above and continue this discussion with a mind-wrapper idea from Fred.

(Participant) Don, do you think it possible that we will fight to a stalemate, or as you put it, a deadlock? Another Vietnam? Or just be caught up in putting out endless guerrilla fires?

(Participant) I wouldn't trust my opinion on that, even if I had one! But I do expect that putting out endless fires by warfare will be much in our future.

Whatever experience I have had leaves my interested primarily on process for decision making. My probably unrealistic interest is how to avoid another century of wars--not as a pacifist but as someone who believes that war simply fails to answer the kinds of issues that lead to war, and drains our ability to avoid one. When this war is over, we won't be any closer to a solution of whatever it is that made our leaders rush into it. Saddam may or may not still be around, but the complex bundle of troubles--including the big one of Israel/Palestine--will certainly not be resolved and will probably be worse. And with our ability (money power, and international respect) to help resolve it will greatly be reduced.

(Participant) The UN may be working behind the scenes to figure out something like the conference you suggested, but in all likelihood they bought into the idea that the war could be ended swiftly, and are waiting to see what to do. I wonder what Kofi is doing now?

(Participant) If we apply a paradoxical analysis to this deepening conflict, that is, expect the opposite of conventional thinking or Aristotelian logic, what might we predict? George Bush, precisely because he has spent years ignoring the Palestinians and favoring Sharon, could have the credentials to become the leader to force the construction of a Palestinian state. Saddam, instead of being ousted in shame, could emerge as an Iraqi hero of mythical proportions, albeit an exiled or dead one. (About a third of the Russian population tearfully mourned the fifty-year anniversary of the death of Stalin). Instead of liberating Iraq, coalition forces could encounter such lethal tribal uprisings and guerrilla warfare that a state of overwhelming martial law would have to be created, with uniformed leaders and massive troop concentrations in control for years to come, along with a repression of civil liberties comparable to Saddam's.

Are there others?

(Participant) The word around Washington is that Paul Wolfowitz will be running post-war Iraq from Washington, through General Tommy Franks and an American proconsul, Jay Garner, subordinate to the general. Any guesses as to how long that arrangement, or one like it, will last? Will we install an American/ Iraqi oil company so that we can exert some measure of control over the oil prices, and use that money to rebuild Iraq?

(Participant) I'll give that arrangement about 30 days, while wishing it were ten.

It will take a LITTLE time to identify and position responsible Iraqis.

(Farhad Saba) With the end of the war in sight, we should be very concerned about how an interim government is put in place, and how a new government is installed in Iraq.

The legitimacy of this new government will be questioned by almost all Arab and many other countries for years to come.

It will be looked at as a "model" and will be critically analyzed by everyone.

It will set the tone for the US foreign policy, at least in the Middle East, in the foreseeable future.

So, I am wondering, if I can ask everyone to give their view of what they would like to see in such a government?

(Participant) If we want to keep the existing nation of Iraq and make it stable, I'm afraid there will have to be a major military presence in the country for a long time, perhaps two or three years (we've been in Korea for fifty years). The US is already seen in a very bad light internationally for our pre-emptive actions, so I think that such power must be under the control of the UN. The sooner we can make that transfer the better. I'm sure it is unrealistic to think that the administration would give up its dominant position before the oil is under US control and US companies are under contract for the reconstruction. After that, I've little doubt that the administration would love to turn over the policing and humanitarian aid roles to the UN. My guess is that, in turn, the UN would not be quick to turn over the leadership to any Iraqi person or group, except in some puppet capacity. Truly democratic elections may be years away.

(Farhad Saba) I am afraid there is a lot of truth in what Richard is saying. I was all for removing Saddam, and hope the same will happen in Syria and Iran, albeit hopefully with more peaceful means. Nevertheless, at this point we meet the paradox of the US power, and bringing democracy to a country by the military.

As far as Iraqi intellectual elite offering a solution is concerned, I am afraid they will be no better than their counterparts in Iran almost 30 years ago. I was amazed at my "intellectual" colleagues who were campaigning for removal of the Shah how little time they had spent on what should follow after the Shah left the scene. Iraqis are still in shock of living under a terrorist regime for 25 years and have spent most of their mental energy in removing Saddam. They are also too concerned with tribal rivalry and internal security to think clearly now.

We have to rise to the occasion and provide them with a model that would be viable, and practical. If we don’t, we may have to have a military presence there for many years. In time, that will give the Shiite extremists an excuse to complain about a US military presence in Najaf, and Karbala. These cities are as sacred to Shiites as Jerusalem. Then, we will have a second "Palestine" on our hands.

(Participant) Dick is probably right about USA maintaining a military presence in Iraq for quite some time. Simply looking at a map it's easy to see the strategic importance of Iraq and how much advantage it would give the USA to keep troops there. I'm not personally optimistic about the ability of the UN to accomplish anything other than humanitarian aid. It doesn't have much of a track record to recommend it.

I'm curious to hear from you, Fred, as to what form of government you think has the best chance in Iraq. By best chance I mean: What will enable the Iraqi people to become more prosperous in all arenas of life, and join the international community in a participative and cooperative role?

(Farhad Saba) My vision of the short-term post-war situation in Iraq:

Phase 1--General Franks or his successor rules, while a shadow government of Iraqis is organized to advise him. US military forces provide security, both external and police.

Phase 2--The former shadow government rules, with General Franks or his successor having veto power. US military turns over police functions to Iraqis, retaining responsibility for both external security and keeping people already in Iraq from fighting each other--whether they be Kurds, Shi'ites, or whatever.

Phase 3--When security forces directed by the Iraqi government are ready to take over both external and internal security, then our commanding general gives up his veto power and we begin a gradual but steady withdrawal of military forces.

UN role: Advisory in Phase 1 concerning the formation of the shadow government.

In Phase 2, advisory with respect to the ruling Iraqis; perhaps more than advisory with respect to the organization of security forces, possibly replacing US forces function by function during this Phase 2.

In Phase 3, external security might be retained by the UN for an indefinite period.

How long? Phase 1 probably one year. Phase 2 probably 2, perhaps 3 years. Phase 3 probably active for a year, then tailing off gradually depending on how the Iraqis are doing and how well the UN is picking up the slack.

(Farhad Saba) Kip: If we are to rid the world of terrorism, we need to help countries with less articulated political systems to define their vision better, and develop capacities to implement their vision. I am speaking of Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian authority, Iran, Libya, Indonesia, the Philippines, and many other countries such as North Korea. We used to call them underdeveloped countries. I think the term is still appropriate. I think political correctness has deteriorated our ability to communicate clearly. These and similar countries have underdeveloped political systems by any standard, even their own in many instances.

These countries need security from outside intervention, and a political system that is capable of bringing three services to people:

• Justice
• Health, and
• Education

More articulated forms of government will develop when people in Iraq or North Korea for that matter feel that their basic security, police and the court system, basic health, and education are not in jeopardy.

We should start from the basics for the people, let them elect their local judges, and see how such system will eventually trickle up to a more complex political system. We usually start our discussion with the question if an American or Western style democracy is suitable for Iraq. I don’t think that’s where the people of Iraq would want us to start. I would start with enabling them to have well organized local judiciary, a basic health care system and classrooms for their children.

I would reserve the right, however, to intervene if the government starts to move away from these simple principles. We need to revisit the Wilsonian principle of self-determination when a country is clearly starving its people, or terrorizing them.

The system of terror in Iran, or Syria, for example, is clear and absolute. It has driven millions of young Iranian women to prostitution in many forms from subtle and discrete to government owned and operated brothels. Millions of young men are addicted to narcotics. This is in a country that more than 50% of its population is under 20 years of age. And not even a sound from United Nations! Why there are no demonstrators against this monstrous regime beats me. The silence is deafening when journalist, university students, and young women walking the streets disappear on a daily basis by the hundreds.

Such terrorist regimes will not operate within their own borders, and as we have seen in the past 20 years, they will export it to other countries. They are, therefore, an international problem and have compromised their right of self-determination.

(Participant) Fred, excellent comments! I agree with you that somehow the USA and the rest of the developed world have drifted away from a recognition of certain basics. On the one hand I'm tempted to say that is the result of our materialistic drive, but I suspect the cause is deeper than that. We have made life so complex that we take for granted that the entire world exists in the same state. Clearly that's not true.

What you have outlined seems reasonable and maybe even possible to achieve. It is interesting to note that the three areas on which you have focused are not in the best shape even here in the USA or Europe.

Do you think it is possible for the USA to play a viable role in achieving the goals you set forth or do we face too much distrust based on what I might call the "spiritual divide"?

(Participant) Kip, Fred, and Ray have outlined what needs to be done, and deplore the fact that the UN has not even talked about doing it. They therefore, and quite within the current thinking of our leadership in Washington, state that we should take up these huge chores.

I do not believe that we have either the stamina nor the know-how for doing it. My choice would be to acknowledge the short comings of the UN, and then undertake to revise its ability to do so.

We already have shown how far off the mark we can be if we seek to do it alone. My feeling is that the best role for us to play as a world superpower is to use our clout for helping to revise the UN, and to take a leadership role in doing what we can. The most difficult part of that role will be to restore some semblance of admiration and trust around the world.

I am not suggesting that this will be easy or doable. But recognizing that I am perhaps the least able to predict the future than all of us, I remain skeptical that the excellent agenda proposed by a majority of the others here is within our current capabilities, and perhaps not even a desirable role if we could.

(Participant) While I am in some agreement with previous comments (my guess is that Ray is close to the mark with respect to current Washington planning), I'm with Don who questions our ability to accomplish that rebuilding. First of all, why would we be so much better in dealing with Iraq than we are with Afghanistan? Oil, maybe? Bush didn't even put Afghanistan in his budget, and had to be reminded by Congress, which added some money. So I doubt that we have the will to do a lot. But because we need to be there to make sure that the oil resources are developed to our liking, we may feel more responsibility. But even if we have the will to do it, will we have the ability? The wealth? If we are heading into the economic disaster that will come if we keep on the road we are following, we simply won't be willing to spend the money to do that job, and build the Palestinian state, and undertake the other efforts that Fred optimistically thinks we can accomplish. Not that Bush and Co. wouldn't like to, or don't intend to, but I doubt that the American people will go along if we enter a depression, or even a deep recession.

(Participant) Fred, you are in a very optimistic mood if you think that the world can be rid of terrorism. Terrorism (or its other names, like freedom fighting, guerrilla warfare, rebellion) will not go away, ever, even if we improve situations everywhere. Remember, revolutions don't come when things are miserable, but only when there are rising expectations, which happen only when things do get better.

What we can do is remove ourselves as the main target, but so far we might as well be painting a bull’s eye on our backside.

(Participant) It will be interesting to see, building from scratch, what kind of a democracy the US sets up in Iraq. Responding to Fred's list of main concerns--justice, health and education--I wonder if we will pay any attention to the advice of criminologists, or will we emphasize big prisons, harsh sentences and more police, as we have counter-productively done in America for generations. Will we set up a taxpayer supported electoral system that protects candidates from the temptations of accepting money from special interests, or produce a system like our own, almost totally corrupted by such special interest financing? Will we organize a national health program that extends service to everyone, or force it into a private sector insurance plan which millions of Iraqis could not afford. Will we design an educational system that recognizes the difference between training and education, that focuses on individual and group creative achievement, removing the emphasis on grades, testing, and assessment, or will we construct one like our own, which has failed dismally to produce even literate graduates, let alone innovative, informed and wiser ones?

Who will make those determinations? I'm afraid it will be the same group that is responsible for the failures of our own system. But wouldn't it be ironic if, starting from scratch, the US were to design systems that recognized our failures and learned from them, designing in the process an admirable democracy, unlike our own?

Every day or two something happens to remind me of a simplistic idea about the international policy and relationships of the US. We could, I think, make up a list of the characteristics and/or behaviors that we regard a "Good" on the part of nations.

(Participant) I'd avoid words like "democracy" and "democratic", saying instead words like "Government with the consent of the governed" and "Protection of the rights of minorities".

We might even build a score system on a scale of 0 to 10. (I suspect we, ourselves, would score about 7--passing, but nothing to brag about.

We could then undertake to identify a score for each nation. We could support and encourage every nation making a clear, visible effort to improve its score. We could grant favors to high-scoring nations that are denied to low-scoring nations. We could speak softly and carry a big stick. And in time we would be admired and be followed, and become, again, a respected example to the rest of the world.

We cannot LEAD; we can only inspire.

(Participant) Granted, Ray, I shouldn't have said take the lead. I meant strongly support, in a way we never have.

Gore Vidal says that ours is the most corrupt democracy. How can we establish the criteria without changing ourselves?

(Participant)

1. Short range--What business arenas are currently best represented (e.g. banking, manufacturing, etc.) as viable in the local, regional and world marketplace?
2. Mid range--What business arenas are most likely to be good candidates for development in the next 3 years?
3. Long range--what business arenas are most likely to be good candidates for development in the next 7 years?

For each of those an initial assessment of the following might be useful:

1. What levels of leadership skills are available?
2. What are the skill levels of the labor pool? What is the distribution across the population? (e.g. x% skilled negotiators, x% management, x% high tech, x% ditch diggers, etc.)?

Assuming that some percentage of the population are ready, at this moment, to profitably engage in business in the local, regional and world marketplaces, what do they most need in order to get going? capital? technology? skilled labor?

Assuming further that some percentage of the population doesn't have the skills necessary (or other factors such as limited opportunities of employment) to get on board the short-term train, what needs to be done for them to keep them alive and give them a viable work opportunity in the mid range window (hope)?

What education and training programs need to be instituted now in order to have the necessary skill sets for the long term?

Is it possible to provide the Iraqi people with an understanding of the road that looms ahead that will give them hope rather than cause them despair?

(Farhad Saba) War dividend?

I am amazed how soon the ayatollahs in Iran have read the writing on the wall and are moving to restore relations with the US. In reading the following story from Herald Sun (Australia) please keep in mind that Rafsanjani is a very rich pistachio nut merchant who probably will lose a lot –more than political power—should any change come to Iran. Fred

Iran bid to restore US ties By Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran 14apr03

IRAN'S former president offered yesterday to help restore ties with the US, throwing his weight behind the idea of a referendum on the issue for the first time.

The move comes as hardliners in the country nervously watch US-led forces take control of neighbouring Iraq. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was quoted by the official Islamic Republic News Agency as saying that the question of restoring ties could be resolved through a referendum, or by sending the question to the powerful advisory body he heads.

However, Mr Rafsanjani said the final decision would have to be confirmed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader.

But the mention of a referendum represents a marked shift by Mr Rafsanjani, who has openly sided with hardliners since stepping down as president in 1997.

Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly rejected as "treason and stupidity" any talk about restoring ties with Washington, which have been cut since militants stormed the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Read the Full Article

(Participant) As to whether we are better off now, I'm sure that it is too early to say. I think most of the signs are negative. The celebrations in the streets were small and now over. Bigger protest demonstrations, and killings, are beginning to happen. Apparently we killed eleven protestors today. There is real resistance to our installing a puppet government, which is what our handpicked candidates will be. Ahmed Chalabi, the favorite of our neocon decision makers, has not lived in Iraq for forty-five years, has been convicted in absentia of bank fraud in Jordan, and has promised his American sponsors that he will recognize Israel. Hard to see him as a true representative or leader of the Iraqi people.

Otherwise, as Harlan points out in his new version of his ILF and ILF Digest commentary, we have not prepared for the management of post-war civil affairs.

(Farhad Saba) The war, so far, has been a military success. I would have given Saddam’s army about a month to two. But 3 weeks is astonishing by any standards. I would give the Iranian army 2 to 4 months against the US, and Syria about a week to ten days.

It is also yielding results in destroying or capturing terrorists. The Ansar-al-Islam group supported by Iran in Iraq, as well as Mujahedeen-e-khalgh supported by Saddam in Iraq against Iran were destroyed or severely damaged. Mujahedeen-e-khalgh have received support from the CIA in the past, and might be seen by some in the US as an alternative to the current regime in Iran. They are, however, a terrorist group by any definition and should not be trusted.

There are also other well known terrorist, like Abu Abbas who was arrested today, and who knows who will show up next. Other small time operators are also arrested on a daily basis. These are "imported" people from other Arab countries to "kill Americans." At the time of turmoil, indigenous groups may not be as overzealous as "imported" elements. So, they are brought in to create an atmosphere of instability. During the Iranian revolution, the ayatollahs were not successful in persuading Iranian protestors against the Shah to burn stores, and other property. They had to bring terrorists from ranks of the Palestinian Liberation Organization to do the job. In one incident in the city of Abadan, not too far from Basra, PLO operatives closed the doors of a movie theatre from outside, and set the place on fire. 400 people died in the incident, increasing discontent with the Shah and his regime.

The job, however, is not done unless Syria, Lebanon, and ultimately Iran are dealt with. These areas are infested with terrorist training camps, and so-called religious leaders with radical and highly aggressive ideas persuading youngsters to become suicide bombers. Keep in mind that the people of these countries are victims of their own terrorist regimes more than the US, and Israel.

The jury is still out as far as finding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are concerned. As I am sure you know there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, but no smoking gun yet.

Finally, we need at least a couple of years to see if Iraq can develop a viable political system.

So, I suggest that we evaluate the war with the following criteria in the days ahead:

1- Maintaining security
2- Arresting terrorists, and destroying their infrastructure
3- Persuading Iran, Syria and Lebanon to stop training new terrorists
4- Affording people of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon with more political freedom
5- Finding WMDs

None of these, however, can be done without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

(Farhad Saba) By the way…On the War Front...

It seems to me that Iraq has become a trap for Iranian agents of all kinds. In recent days, agents of all sorts ranging from members of the Revolutionary Guard to secret agents, and emissaries of mullahs in Tehran and Qum have been captured or killed by the US Forces in Iraq.

By letting Shi’its to demonstrate in Karbala and iterate anti American slogans the Iranians are emboldened to move into Iraq and help their brethren. I wonder when the mullahs are going to figure this out.

(Participant) Fred, when you wonder when the mullahs are going to figure this out, which mullahs are you talking about? Can you take that line of thinking a bit further? I note that our Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of ground forces, has responded to the various attempts at leadership by factions of Iraqis (and their Iranian helpers) by asserting the coalition's absolute authority, and by warning Iran directly. Think it will work?

Previous Page          Next Page

top