THE IRAQ
Iraq is the cradle and source of old human civilizations, such as Assyria, Babylon, Nineveh (Neenawa), Ore and others. It is one of the most important and deep-rooted
parts of the world, where it goes back deep in history. Muslims conquered Iraq at the time of Omer b. Al-Khattab (ra), in 13-23 AH, 634- 644 AC. It became one of the important Muslim lands, where the big Islamic conquests started and set out. Some of the greatest battles of Islam took place on its soil, like Qadisyya and Mada� in. Many great cities were also built in it, like Basra, Kufa, Wasit, Baghdad, Samirra and Mousul. Iraq is the twin and reserve of Ash-Sham, and it is the extension for Arab Peninsular. The two rivers: Tigris and Euphrates cross its land, thus making of its wide plains the best fertile and productive lands in the world. Its distinctive geographic location at the head of the Gulf made of it one of the most important roads that connect Europe with the Indian Ocean. In the modern colonial era, Iraq won special importance for Britain, because it was considered a prime trading road to India, which was a jewel in the British crown. Its importance increased after the discovery of oil in it, at the beginning of 20th century. Iraq remained a part of the Ottoman Khilafah till World War I, where struggle over it between Britain on one side and the Ottoman State and Germany on the other escalated. Britain tried to snatch it from the Ottoman State during the war. So it occupied Al-Basra in the first year of the war, Al-Amara in the second year, but faced great defeat in Al-Kut in the third year. However, in the fourth year, the British managed to occupy Baghdad in 11 March 1917, led by General Mood. They continued their drive to the north, where they occupied Al-Musul in October 8th, 1918. Thus, the entire of Iraq fell in the hands of the English and was placed under British guardianship.
After that Britain appointed its stooge Faisal b. Hussein b. Ali, the governor of Makkah, as a king to Iraq. This was a sort of compensation for his father� s loss in Hijaz, which was given to Al-Saud. Britain retained under the Hashemite royal authority three military bases, which are Ar-Rashid in Baghdad, Al-Habbaniyya, north of Baghdad and Ash-Shi� aiba near al- Basra. The British military, political, economic and cultural advisers were the true rulers of the country. The British ambassador in Baghdad had the final word in governing Iraq throughout the Hashemite rule that continued till 1958. Thus during that period Iraq became a true British oasis. In World War II, Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany tried to challenge the English in Iraq. So, he made contact with Ghazi, the king of Iraq, who opposed the English. The king responded favourably with him; but Britain used to keep an eye on him. Once it discovered his relationship with the German, it quickly got rid of him by killing him in a car accident. According to the order of succession to throne, his young son, Faisal the second became a king. The British appointed his uncle, Abdul Ilah as a prince regent and crown prince, who remained loyal to the British crown till his death in the coup of 1958. In 1941, Germany repeated its attempt to take Iraq from the English. So, it supported 11
Rasheed Aali Al-Kilani who managed to take the authority in March 2nd, 1941, and immediately declared war against Britain, taking side with Germany. However, Hitler could not supply him with land troops for help; he rather sent him some German air squadrons. Britain was so much frightened of this sudden Iraqi coup, and the danger posed by the access of the Germans to Iraqi oil fields. So it determined to very quickly overthrow it. Its forces advanced quickly to Baghdad and occupied it. Al-Kilani fled
the country, four of the officers that participated in the coup were killed, Abdulilah was restored to the throne, and Britain confirmed again its grip over the country. The Iraqi resistance against the British colonialist did no cease during the entire period of colonialism. There was violent resistance against occupation in 1920, followed by strong resistance from time to time. However, British control over Iraq continued for long time due to the challenge to the resistance undertaken by the stooge government of Abdulilah and Nouri Said, who was the strong and effective ruler in it. This is besides inciting division between the various sects and trends, following the British policy of �divide and rule� .
America entered as a new player in struggle over Iraq after she abandoned her isolation after World War II. She started competing with Britain over controlling the
oil of Iraq. America had, since San Rimo conference in 1920, demanded from Britain her share in the oil of the Gulf. Britain was the leading state at that time, so it
unequivocally rejected the American demand. This prompted Wilson, the American president at that time to send a letter to the British government saying: �You want to
pursue a kind of colonialism, which became old fashion� . Britain continued after World War II to resist the American pressure for obtaining bigger share of the oil of
the Gulf. However, it could not ultimately prevent her from getting that. Churchill, the British Prime Minister wrote to Lord Biffer Brook, a member in the British
ministry of war, in reply to a memorandum regarding the US demands of oil: � I understand you well; but I am afraid the post war world might collapse if we joined it
while fighting America over the oil� . The American president, Roosevelt sent at the end of World War II a presidential committee to the Middle East. It visited Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar. After its return it submitted to president Roosevelt its report that starts with the following phrase: � The oil of the Middle East is the greatest treasure the nature left to the history; and the economic and political influence of this treasure will be very serious� . When the secretary of state, James Pearnes asked president Roosevelt: � President! What is the share of the oil of the Middle East that we must control? Roosevelt kept silent for a while and replied saying: Not less than 100%� . Harold X, one of the American delegates abroad wrote to the American president, Roosevelt saying: �Middle East is a huge world galaxy of oil fields that has no parallel in the world. Saudi Arabia is the sun of this galaxy, for it is the biggest oil well in Middle East. Its conditions are suitable, for its king Abdul Aziz Al Saud
wants two things: money and protection of the throne. USA must guarantee these two things� . Thus, the matter was arranged with King Abdul Aziz when president
Roosevelt met him on the American warship Queensea in Suez Canal. America won the oil of Saudi Arabia in accordance with a treaty between the king and the company
of (ARAMCO). This company consisted at that time of four oil companies, which were New Jersey, Texaco, Sokal and Sokoni Vacuum. The manager of Sokoni Vacuum stood in 1945 to literally speak: � The management of oil affairs differs from the management of any other commodity. The oil affairs are 90% politics, while only 10% are oil� . Then he added: � If it was inevitable upon America to manage the affairs of oil in the world, then she is obliged to do that all the time, even outside the bounds of its regional policy and outside the bounds of the international law if that was necessary� .
However, Britain that conceded to America the oil of Saudi Arabia and part of the oil in Iran, it did not concede to her the oil of Iraq. It continued to safeguard Iraq as its
main basis in the region. So, it annexed Iraq to each of Turkey, Iran and Pakistan to form Baghdad Pact in February 1955, and put all of them under its control. America endeavoured to infiltrate this British hegemony over Iraq using a military coup that was prepared like that of Nasser� s coup in Egypt against king Farouq. A movement of free (military) officers was organised under the leadership of Abdul Karim Qassim and Abdul Salam Aarif, following the model of the movement of free officers in Egypt. The situation in the region was adequately used, particularly the success of Nasser in his coup against king Farouq, the failure of the trilateral invasion against Egypt and the start of banishment and weakness of Britain in the region. Abdul Karim Qassim and Adul Salam Aarif led a successful coup in 14 July 1958, which overthrew the royal system in Iraq and established the Iraqi republic. Abdul Nasser immediately welcomed the military that led the coup. Britain tried to intervene for stopping the coup, so its forces landed in Jordan, American dispatched her forces to Lebanon, Turkey mobilised its forces to its borders with Iraq, and king Hussein called the states of Baghdad Pact to restore the royal system to Iraq. The situation became tense and the matters complicated. The Soviet president, Khrucheve strongly warned the western countries, particularly Britain and Turkey, of the consequence of intervention in Iraq. The Soviet army mobilised it forces along its borders with Turkey, and America connived with them. Thus, Britain feared after this escalation, retreated and things calmed down. The new republic system in Iraq thus stabilized and Iraq got out of the military and political English grip after Iraq withdrew from Baghdad pact. Iraq also withdrew from the British monetary grip by withdrawing from the Sterling region.
In 1961, a new Iraqi law was enacted by which the Iraqi State reclaimed most of the concession areas of the foreign oil companies. This provoked Britain and other
western states against the government of Abdul Karim Qassim. The leaders of the coup were divided towards Abdul Nasser. Abdul Salam Aarif was considered loyal to Nasser, so he preferred Iraq join Egypt and Syria in the United Arab Republic. However, Abdul Karim Qassim was against that. When Aarif noticed his friend Qassim not completely affiliated to Nasser policy, he renounced him and started to look for an opportunity of making coup against him. Qassim then removed him from the government in which he was considered the second person; and he was later on arrested and put to trial.
The situation in Iraq aggravated because Qassim increasingly worked with the communists in Iraq during the last years of his government. This strengthened their
position in Iraq and accordingly rallied the agents of America and Britain against him equally. Nasser started to strongly attack him and his communist allies in Iraq,
accusing them of being agents to Moscow. He accused them of abandoning Arab Nationalism. Therefore, Nasser supported some revolutionary movements against
Qassim, one of which was the movement of colonel Adul Wahhab Shawwaf, but it failed. Ba� th party started also to organise its cadres and prepared for a coup.
The Ba� thists and nationalists united over overthrowing Qassim, and they effectively tried to assassinate him in 1959. Abdul Nasser supported them, where his military
attach� in Baghdad, Abdul Majid Farid paid 7000 Egyptian pounds to facilitate the assassination operation, according to the information given by the secretary of Ba� th
party at that time, Ali Saleh Sa� di. However the attempt failed. Political forces continued to rally against Qassim. America, Britain and oil companies that were harmed due to withdrawing their concessions supported them. Matters escalated more, and the Kurds joined the game, so the enemies of Qassim increased and conditions became completely ripe for a new coup.
Then the coup came in 8 February 1963, where Ba� th party and the national forces led by Abdul Salam Aarif and supported by Nasser, conducted a bloody violent coup
that led to killing of Qassim and the elamination and torture of communists. Ali Saleh Sa� di, the secretary of Ba� th party said after the coup: �We came to power on an
American train� . King Hussein of Jordan said in an interview with Mohammad Hasanain Haikal, the former editor of Al-Ahram newspaper: �Allow me to say that
what happened in Iraq in 8 February 1963 had enjoyed the support of the CIA� . The people of the coup were forces of mixed loyalty to America and to the English.
Therefore, it was not expected this coup would continue without one of the two sides overcomes the other� . The coup was arranged of the Ba� thists led by Ali Saleh Sa� di, Mahdi Ammash, Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr and other people loyal to the English, and of the nationalists, led by Abdul Salam Aaarif, Tahir Yahya and others, who were favourite to Abdul Nasser and supported by America. Later on dispute took place between the partners in the coup, the nationalists and Ba� thists, due to their political views and international loyalties differences regarding the government powers. Abdul Salam Aarif thus removed the Ba� thists from the authority, brought the Nasserites closer, strengthened his grip on the authority, and started to imitate Abdul Nasser in the government styles, curries favour with him and follows his policies. The Ba� thists responded to their removal by trying to make a coup against Abdul Salam Aarif. So, they started to rally their forces and tried to overthrow him in 1964, but they were exposed. Abdul Nasser immediately sent 600 Egyptian military to Iraq to support the forces of Aarif. This led to the failure of the Ba� thists attempt. Nasserites allying with the nationalists, who were led by Aarif, were rewarded by giving them more posts in the Iraqi government. In 13 April 1966, Abdul Salam died in a plane crash. So, his brother Abdul Rahman Aarif was appointed as president of Iraq. America played a great role in his appointment; however he was of weak character and not good for politics. Matters in Iraq became unstable after the death of Aarif, and the influence in Iraq fluctuated between the English and American. It finally settled for the advantage of the English by the coup of July 1968, where the Ba� thists loyal to the English led by al-Bakr and his deputy Saddam Hussein took the reign of power. Ten years after that al-Bakr was forced to concede the authority to Saddam Hussein who managed to rally the Ba� th forces behind him, and combined security forces in his hand. Thus, matters settled to Saddam after he destroyed all the centres of military forces in the state. Then Saddam started a war against Iran on behalf of the British interests that were harmed by the revolution of al-Khumaini, where the war continued for eight years and destroyed every thing. In 1990, Saddam waged a new war against Kuwait, where he occupied it in the summer of that year. Britain aimed from that war to be a means of pressure that leads to negotiation over two matters: The first is to promote its agent Saddam, the strong man in the region, which would lead to strengthen its position in the region. The second is acknowledge America� s share in the influence and oil in the Gulf.
However, America used that incident as an excuse to seize the Gulf, build military bases in it and gain control over its oil and rulers, both the American and the British
agents, under the pretext of liberation of Kuwait. Britain attempted to reach a solution through negotiation, but it failed. America, rather considered this the opportunity it
prepared for since many years, which is to become the master of the Gulf. When Britain noticed her determination, it joined her in the war for only driving the Iraqi
regime from Kuwait rather than destroying it. This is because the war was announced for liberating Kuwait, and they both agreed to that. Thus, the war started, where
America led a coalition of thirty foreign and Arab countries to fight against Iraq and drive it out of Kuwait in 1991. America was about to overthrow the regime of
Saddam and take over Baghdad had she not observed her agreement with Britain, particularly the declared reason was liberating of Kuwait. Thus, it abstained from
destroying the regime. Instead it left it to destroy the uprising of the Shiites and Kurds against his authority. So, when Bush Senior contacted General Schowartscove
who was advancing towards Iraq, and asked him to halt and withdraw immediately, the American general was surprised and said: (Sir! There is no any obstacle before us,
and within hours we would be in Baghdad and destroy Saddam� s regime). Bush answered him saying: (There are matters you do not know; return back immediately).
He was alluding to the deal he made with Britain. However, America used later on the presence of Saddam for scaring the gulf by the Iraqi regime, so as to remain their
safe refuge. She also used his presence as an excuse to create no flight zones in the south and north of Iraq, under the pretext of preventing him from making air attacks
against his citizens and neighbours. Thus, she was content with making siege against Iraq instead of overthrowing its regime. The American siege continued under the UN cover till 2003, where the American and British forces swept over Iraq again, occupied it, overthrew the regime of Saddam and controlled the oil of Iraq. Thus, Iraq fell again to direct colonilization under the leadership of America, and its ruler became for the first time an American person called Paul Bremer.
War against Iraq was only the first step towards a huge project that was fashioned before the current administration took power. This project was designed in
coordination with the military armament and oil companies, besides the forces of the right wing in USA. It started with thoughts for laying out new foundations for the new American foreign policy in the 21st century. This new American foreign policy aimed at preserving America as the leading state in the world, subjugating the entire world to the American influence, and preventing any state or nation from trying to challenge America or budging her away from the post of leading state in the world; even if this
needed unilateral military solutions without the approval of the UN. This policy was first called: � peace through strength� , as it came in a document issued by the Pentagon in 1992, when Dick Cheney was secretary of defence. Work continued on this project till it was finally formulated in 1997. The founders of this plan were Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. This project was called in its final form � Project for the New American Century� . The project came in a document published in September 2000 under the title of � Rebuilding America� s Defences: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century� . It called for:
Changing the unfavourable regimes, distribution of the American forces in South Europe, South and Centre of Asia and Middle East, controlling the energy resources
in the world, militarising the space, and the intention of using nuclear weapons for realising the American goals. This document, which was disclosed by � Sunday Herald� , pointed out that Bush administration had planned for military control over the gulf since many years, whether there was or not Saddam Hussein in power. The document mentioned: �The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf�. Therefore, the plan for attacking Iraq was ready before. What was needed is only to
have the circumstances for its implementation; and thus the events of 11/9/2001 were the required suitable opportunity.
America accordingly started to prepare the environment for executing that even before occupation of Afghanistan. This preparation went through the following
stages: The most important cause they claimed was Iraq� s possession of mass destruction weapons, WMD. Therefore, the talk was at the beginning about the axis of evil; and Iraq, Iran and North Korea were mentioned as players in it. Bush gave in January 2002 a statement in which he described Iraq, Iran and North as axis of evil. Bush
added saying: the three states do not seek to possess WMD; they rather intend to give them to the terrorists. Bush said: (Time is not in our advantage. I am not going to wait new events while the threats loom in the horizon. I will not allow to the most dangerous regime in the world to threaten us with the most dangerous weapons in the
world). It was well known the American administration had no intention of military intervention in Iran and North Korea. Colin Powel, in a listening session before the
congress two weeks after that speech of Bush about the axis of evil, he said regarding Iran and North Korea; (There is no plan to start war against these two states. We want to start dialogue with these two states. We want to contain North Korea so as to prevent it from distributing weapons, and we will exercise pressure against them. We have no plans to attack North Korea or enter into dispute with Iran).
The most important reason that made Bush Junior add Iran and North Korea to Iraq in the axis of evil was firstly not to show Iraq the only target, for this would be harmful from political and planning aspects. This would indicate the American administration is focusing on Saddam; and thus all sights would be then focused on what would Bush do in Iraq. Bush administration would then be in a difficult position before the American and world public opinion. The second is that if Bush spoke about Iran
alone with Iraq, then it would be likely understood it is a new crusade war against Muslims. This would create for Bush troubles in Muslim lands before the war against
Iraq starts. Therefore, North Korea was the third ideal state to choose, because it is not Islamic and it is portrayed as enemy to America. Besides, America wanted to
preoccupy China and Russia through fuelling the front of North Korea. Thus, the declaration of Bush about the axis of evil prepared the American public opinion to
accept a potential war for destroying that axis of evil. Talk followed about Iraq possession of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and that it does not hesitate in using them. This is because it used them against its people, besides it coordinates with the terrorists and might deliver to them these weapons. Statements by senior officials in the American administration started to follow in succession about that subject. Condoleeza Rice declared the reason for targeting Saddam is also: (Iraq is an oppressive regime. It is true there are other oppressive regimes in the world, but Iraq is a regime that attacks its neighbour countries. It is an oppressive regime that threatens the American interests and her allies in the region. There is no any other state similar to Iraq regarding the following subjects: Saddam supported the terrorists in the Middle East against our friends, so he gave funds to the suicidal Palestinians, and attempted to assassinate the American president (Bush Senior during his visit to Kuwait). There is no president in any state similar to Saddam. Saddam was not content in manufacturing WMD, but he also used them. There is no other state in the world that did the same).
Bush administration spoke loudly about WMD of Saddam; and it tried to convince her allies and the American public opinion of that. The period between November
2001 and March 2002 was decisive for taking the decision of launching a war against Iraq. The officials of Bush administration that spoke about WMD depended on the
analysis made previously by the UN, the American CIA and the western intelligence agencies. They did not aim at verifying Iraq� s possession of WMD; they rather
wanted to raise their voice about this subject so that it becomes a pretext for the war, which America prepares the atmosphere for it. Furthermore, the neo-conservatives who hold the reigns of the American administration feared even the likelihood of WMD existence in Iraq. This is because they considered that as danger and threat to the Jewish state, and accordingly to them, for they viewed Israel as a vital interest to them in the region. As regarding the possibility of Saddam giving WMD to the terrorists, this was one of the greatest matters discussed in the American administration. Wolfowitz acknowledged that when he said: (We have three worries regarding Saddam regime. Firstly, the WMD; secondly, the regime support to the terrorists; and thirdly, the crimes it committed against the Iraqi people. In reality, there is a fourth more
important reason, which is the link between the WMD and terrorism). Thus, the neo-conservatives started to focus on Saddam� s possession of WMD, and
the possibility of delivering them secretly to the terrorists for attacking America with them.
Many scenarios were written about this subject. An American official said for example: (The greatest danger that might come from Saddam is his use of Chemical
weapons by conventional means, as an example in a bag or a suicidal plane). Rumsfeld spoke to the congress regarding the relation between Iraq and terrorism,
saying: (One of our first aims in war against terrorism is to prevent the replicate of September and confronting America with WMD. It is not necessary here to discuss
whether the terrorist threat will come from a terrorist regime or a terrorist group. What matters is to eliminate such threat regardless of its origin. The matter we know
is that Iraq possesses at this moment biological and chemical weapons, besides its seeks to obtain nuclear weapons). Few weeks after the end of attack against Afghanistan, ie after December, Iraq became at the top of the American agenda. America prepared the its domestic atmosphere, and did her best to prepare the possible international atmosphere, under the pretext of Iraq� s possession of WMD and its secret delivery to the terrorists. America added a further objective, which she used to emphasise on frequently. It is the civilization struggle against the Islamic region to promote in it the Western civilization, so as to replace Islam in the people� s minds. The Americans thought they could through this project spread their false values, and lay down the education curricula for moulding the minds of the future generations in the region according to their designs. They started to speak much about freedom, democracy, supporting women (rights) and human rights. They wanted to portray their occupation of Iraq as a way to carry these (shining) values to the region. The project of the (Great Middle East), which they were occupied with since the beginning of 2004, came in that context. They planned to present it to the G8 (Industrial Countries) summit in middle June, and to NATO conference late June. America wanted to make of Iraq a centre for spreading the Western values in the region. Thus they would generate a bad political class that stands an obstacle before the ambition of the Islamic ummah. This ummah yearns to her great Islam and to resume her Islamic way of life by establishing the Khilafah rashida. The Khilafah rashida became anxiety to the west
and particularly America. So, they plan to attack the Khilafah and attack Islam on which it stands, even before it comes to sight.
Thus, America prepared the atmosphere for her attack against Iraq: She wanted to eliminate the WMD, and spread the democratic principles, freedom and the corrupt
western values in the region. The war broke out in 19/3/2003, where America occupied Iraq by destroying the official regime in 9/4/2003. The regime was already
defeated from within because of its abandonment of the aqeeda of the ummah and its peak, which is jihad. Bush announced the end of the major combat operations in
30/4/2003. America thought she won the war and stabilized after demolishing the official regime. However, she was shocked by the Muslims heroic resistance to the
occupation, which surprised her. It is a violent resistance, which the American enemies before others acknowledged its strength. The events in Falluja, Najaf and
other Iraqi regions are live examples, which give witness to that. This prompted America to speed up the authority handover, at least symbolically, to the agents of the
CIA in Iraq, so as to reduce the military and moral pressure against her. She also tried her best to bring in Iraq some forces from the countries that support her in this war.
She even tried to involve the NATO in Iraq as she did in Afghanistan. She decided to make the end of June (2004) the time for the symbolic authority handover, to her
agents in Iraq. She thought this would deliver her of the predicament she walked in. Senior officials in the American state department and Pentagon said before the
American Congress in 1/7/2004, regarding their explanation of the authority transfer to the Iraqis that the new interim Iraqi government is expected to assume its tasks in
1/7/2004. This government would not enjoy except �a limited sovereignty� over the country. It would not have authority over the military forces of the USA and the
coalition forces present in Iraq. In a listening session before the committee of arm forces in the American Congress, Paul Wolfowitz, defence minister assistant, and
Mark Grossman, deputy of state department said: �USA functions in accordance with the state management of the interim period, which was approved by the Iraqi
Governing Council and the resolution issued by the Security Council last October. Both legislations give the American military leaders the task of running the security� .
Though, the process of transferring the authority to the Iraqi interim government is described as granting of full sovereignty, Grossman described it as �limited
sovereignty� , because it is �limited by the interim law and the UN resolution� .
According to the current plan, the envoy of the UN general secretary, al-Akhdar al- Ibrahimi will supervise the formation of an interim government that runs the Iraqi
government institutions for a period of six months. It will then pave the way for electing an interim national assembly in January 2005, which would select a second
government and coin a draft of permanent constitution. Wolfowitz described the government of 1st July as �completely interim� , and its task is to �run the ministries.
But that which is more important is to prepare for the elections� . He added, the government will further run the police, �but with coordination with the Central
American leadership, because this situation is not natural in this aspect� . The republican senator, John Warner directed a question to the head of the Joint Chief of
Staffs, General Richard Meyers, saying: �We will then transfer the sovereignty, but the military decisions will remain totally in the hands of the American general; is that
true?� Meyers replied saying: � Yes; this is true� . Wolfowitz spoke shedding light on the efforts aiming at creating a new big military force there: � Sovereignty is not a matter that might or we want to restore it. Security of Iraq will be part of a multi national force under American leadership, including Iraqi forces� . The USA warned that the new Iraqi government, which is expected to assume the authority in Iraq on first of July might have to give up some of its functions for the coalition forces.
Colin Powel, the secretary of state said it is necessary the coalition forces continue to undertake their tasks under the American leadership. Powel had also said in an interview with Reuters: � The Coalition forces must remain under American leadership. This might overstep that which some people call as complete sovereignty� . He added saying: �He hopes these details are worded in the UN resolution� .
Approaching the time of the authority handover, as they called it, to the Iraqis, confrontations between the occupation and the resistance blazed. When the Falluja
was under siege, conflicts broke out with the supporters of As-Sadr (al-Mahdi army). The occupation, by request from Bremer himself, asked the intervention of the Iraqi
Islamic party, Sunni �Ulema Society, and other Shiite parties like Hizb ud-Da�wa and some Shiite religious authorities, like Sastani. This was to mediate for reaching
ceasefire between the people of Falluja and supporters of As-Sadr on one side and the occupation on the other side. However, the occupation insisted on its conditions.
Despite the presence of ceasefire, the occupation continued to mobilise its forces for besieging Falluja, and they remained persistent on arresting or killing As-Sadr and
disbanding his militia of �al-Mahdi army� . Arrival of America to Iraq for its occupation and making of it a passageway and a spring board for starting and continuing its project for the American century, obliges it to form an Iraqi stooge government, unique of its kind. This government would give America extensive powers and unlimited concessions so that she uses the land of Iraq as a starting point for the creation of the American empire and finalising the project of American century. The statements given by Wolfowitz before the Congress explain this matter, where he said: � Sovereignty is not a matter that might or we want to restore it. Security of Iraq will be part of a multi national force under American leadership, including Iraqi forces� . This is also explains the statements of some American officials who said the USA
wants to pursue her operations in Iraq after the handover of authority to the Iraqis in 1st of next July, by signing a security agreement with the Iraqi side. General Richard Meyers, head of Joint Chief of Staff announced also � that the period of the American military presence in Iraq is still unknown� . He talks about more than 130 thousand soldiers stationed in at least seven military bases inside Iraq.
America tried to increase her barbaric activities against the resistance in Iraq so as to stabilize the matters till the time of the symbolic authority handover to her agents in
Iraq. She used various fighting means, but she could not shake the power of the resistance despite her torture to the people. She could not also create security for
herself; rather fear and terror overwhelmed her soldiers once they left their tanks. Even inside their tanks they do not enjoy any security or safety. Falluja, the twin city
of Jenin gives witness to that and speaks of it, despite the aerial and land strikes America conducted against it. Later on, the barbaric crimes of America appeared revealing the torture means she used in the Abu Ghraib prison, which reached a degree animals would abstain from doing by their instinct; however America did that. So, she is really like what Allah said: (They are like the animals, rather worse). [TMQ ] Thus, the disreputable civilization of America and her despicable values appeared in
their true nature; these civilization and values, which they claimed would liberate Iraq and the entire region.
American aggression against Iraq has exposed America in her true nature, as declined ideologically and intellectually, even militarily. Look at these few young believers
who do not count so many in numbers, yet they rubbed America� s face in dust. The events have also shown that the huge weapons, which America possesses, are used by fainthearted people who are not good for challenge or bravery. Had not America possessed this huge arsenal of weapons, cowardice of her people would have been
exposed the same way her despicable civilization and values were exposed. Therefore, the symbolic authority handover planned at end of next June will not deliver them from the quagmire they fell in. Their ambassador, Negrobonti who was appointed in Iraq after 30/6/2004 will not also deliver them, though he was selected for being a leading person in politics and crime. The choice of John Negrobonti as America� s ambassador to Iraq for replacing Bremer comes within the American plan for suppressing the people of Iraq and eliminating all the centres of resistance and opposition to the wicked American projects. Negrobonti had gained wide experience in Hondoras - when he worked as an ambassador there � in dealing with those who dissented from the American will. He is known to have been directly implicated in training and equipment of �regiment 316� , known as regiment of death in Hondoras. This regiment killed, during Negrobonti service there, about 200 dissidents that opposed the use of Hondoras as �a non immersed planes carrier� during the war. The militia of �Contra� against Sandinists in Nicaragua waged that war at that time. Negrobonti did not hesitate in making lies under oath during his witness before the Congress regarding his complete knowledge of the happenings in Hondoras, and his implication in �Iran Contra� scandal. He acknowledged transferring American aid assigned to Hondoras to the Contra, a matter that disagrees with the American law. This violation was naturally enough to remove him from any high post. However, they considered his crimes record preferable to his violation, which qualified him to become the ambassador and the absolute master in Iraq.
In order to silence any condemnation to Negrobonti in Hondoras, Bush administration� after nominating him to a post of delegate in the UN � removed some
people of �regiment 316� from the USA. This included the regiment� s founder General Loise Alonso Discowa Alivira, who assumed the post of deputy to the
ambassador of Hondoras in Washington. This general had later on revealed many of the facts about the American support to the regiment. This is the ambassador of USA she intends to appoint in Iraq after the symbolic authority handover, so as to replace Bremer in governing Iraq. Thus he would become the true governor of Iraq, and nominally an ambassador of the USA. After understanding the reality of this man, it is possible to imagine the crimes, which he will commit in Iraq if the future of Iraq remained, Allah forbidding, the way they plan for it. It is unlikely to have a change in the American policy if Kerri won the coming presidential elections in 4/11/2004. This is due to the political facts that are dictated and will be still dictated on the world. So this would limit the options available to the winner regarding the international policies. John Holsman, an analyst in the conservative institution of Heritage said: � The difference between the two (candidates) regarding the war against terrorism is very much less than most people think. There might be a difference in the degree of harshness, but not in the general essence� . Other foreign analysts and diplomats say: �Despite the difference in methodology, the political facts, such as escalating violence in Iraq, the continuous attacks of the extremists worldwide, the limited resources, the structure of the Congress and the internal public opinion; these will dictate the policies of Bush or Kerri� .
Moreover, the activities adopted by the current administration will naturally impose specific matters on the coming administration. Steven Hiss, the expert in presidential
policies in Brookings Institute has pointed to this by saying: � The government and the world are inside a lift; so you cannot simply stop and say, I think I have to leave
here� . A former official in Bush administration said to Reuters: �Kerri might wage a more effective war against terrorism, than Bush. This is because he might follow a more complicated approach due to large-scale treats. He might merge between the military power and soft power, such as building coalition, and struggle to winning hearts and minds� . This is the American position that planned the aggression against Iraq, and determined the phases of this aggression for realizing America� s objectives in Iraq,
and for using it as a basis and a spring board to the entire region. In order to have a complete picture, we will mention the European position, particularly the French, Russian and English:
European and Russian Position:
The French president, Chirac warned strongly, in a press conference held in Alezyee in 29/4/2004, of symbolic authority handover and of using the Security Council for issuing a new resolution that leaves the authorities in the hands of the coalition. He considered this to be � catastrophic�. Chirac said: � It is urgent today to handover the authority to the Iraqis. However, the question is to know how this will be done�. He said: � It is my conviction there is no feasible way-out from the current situation in Iraq for proceeding to rebuild Iraq without true transfer of authority under the real supervision of the UN�. He continued to say: � It will be catastrophic to have a solution based on ambiguous settlement, where it will be said: Look, the UN exists in Iraq, it provides the international cover, while in reality things did not change and the coalition continues to hold the true authorities�. The French president referred to the suggestions proposed by al-Akhdar al-Ibrahimi, whom he had met in Paris, saying: � These
suggestions would lead to presenting a resolution draft in the SC�, which the USA is working on it. However, he commented saying: � Are these suggestions leading to a clear and strong international resolution, which will be approved in the SC and become the basis for rebuilding Iraq politically, economically and socially? I am not sure of that�. Chirac had also called upon the EU to strongly support the suggestions of al-Ibrahimi and to � speak with one voice�. But, because of the known
differences between the EU members, he expressed his suspicion that Europe would achieve this aim. The declarations of the French president reflect the fears of Paris of �wasting� the opportunity represented in the due rights of next June 30th, and of Washington�s rejection to benefit from this occasion �because she follows another policy�, as it was expressed by a French source. Paris works with Madrid and Berlin for crystallizing a �joint course�. In this context, Chirac received the Spanish Prime
Minister, Khosee Rodrigiz Thabatro, who reached Paris in his way from Berlin, where he made extensive consultations with Councillor Girhard Shroeder about the situation in Iraq. France wants the SC to adopt a resolution that clearly confirms the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis, and confirms the capability of the Iraqi government that results from the elections of 2005 in asking the forces of the �coalition� to leave the country.
An informed French source explained the position of his country regarding the content of the new resolution of the SC, which is supposed to define a course that leads to elections. He clarified France wants the resolution to emphasise the Iraqi sovereignty is �real�, and the handover of authority would be �genuine and complete� at the end of next June. The source said: � France wants to verify this sovereignty �through actions on the ground� , particularly in connection with the Iraqis� management of their resources by themselves� . He added: � The second matter that Paris wants is that the Iraqi government, which will be formed after 1st July, is entitled to examine the activities of the multi national forces. It insists the Iraqi military forces must not be annexed to the American forces. He confirmed his country insists on including this in the wording of the SC resolution; indicating this represents a limit� . He pointed out France wants, after running the elections that result in a �sovereign and legitimate� Iraqi government, that this government has the right at any time to ask the departure or continuance of the foreign forces. �The important matter is that it has the choice to clearly express its wish� . He continued to say France does not want the new resolution to have any point about �review� of the conditions at a particular (future) date. This is because SC has no right to decide the date of this review for adjudicating the issue of withdrawal, which is entrusted to the Iraqis and the Iraqi government resulting from the elections. He added: � In case France did not obtain such confirmation within the framework of the new resolution, it will abstain from voting without using the Veto� . The source confirmed there are European countries, like Germany and Spain that support the Russian position, which differs little. Moscow envisages two resolutions:
The first is for approving the formation of the new government, while the second is to emphasise the importance of accepting the demands of this government. Voting will
then take place in the SC over these demands so as to decide the authority and size of sovereignty given to the government. He said France prefers issuing one resolution,
beides �clear commitment of the return of sovereignty� . It is clear France and Russia endeavour, through exploiting the conditions in Iraq, to obtain the support of Europe for generating a change in the American international policy. This is because they are aware of the American plans for the period that comes after Iraq, and that America wants to make the entire world an American ranch. This would put France and Russia and the rest of Europe at America� s mercy for many decades. She does not want to permit any international role to France and Europe, not even to maintain their interests in the world. Therefore, they will try to obstruct the symbolic authority handover to Iraq through using an international resolution that gives legitimacy to the presence of America in Iraq for decades to come. This would enable her bringing in Iraq forces from Arab and non-Arab countries so as to join the coalition forces in Iraq, and thus leave America free to engage in her other military tasks in the world. Therefore, European countries and Russia will try to prevent using the UN for serving American interests in Iraq. Europe has a long road to go before it can speak in one voice, a matter, which Chirac pointed to when he expressed his doubt about Europe� s capability to realize this aim. However, France will try through Europe to frustrate the American plans in Iraq so as to prevent America from proceeding in its plans for building the American empire and finalizing the project of American century. It will try to do this in defence of its interests. However, this does not mean France, Russia or any state in the world wants America to completely fail and withdraw from Iraq, thus leaving it free of any western influence. They would not like to see Muslims in Iraq restore their authority without being controlled by a bunch of western agents. This would cause more harm to their interests than leaving America complete its plans. The worst thing crusader Europe fears, as well as all the evil forces in the world is that America leaves Iraq free from the grip of a bunch of Western agents. This is because Europe, contrary to America, is close to the Islamic world. Europe tasted the acrimony of war with Muslims. It is aware what the liberation of Muslims from the noose of the disbelievers means. This is particularly if that became a beginning to the liberation of the entire Islamic world from the noose of the crusader disbelievers in the Middle East.
British Position:
As for Britain, it still follows its usual course since it retreated from influencing the international events and controlling its own plans and designs. Since then, it did not
leave the American wagon move without joining it, even if it had to ride a secondclass carriage. It struggles to protect its interests in the colonies of its perishing
empire, and tries to obstruct the American plans, wherever it is possible. It tried to do that in Iraq, and is still trying. It aspires to have a share with America, regardless of
its size, and to be within the picture of the events as a co-player with the leading state, even if its role was according to America� s plans. However, it never missed seizing
any opportunity to disturb her plans. It did that before the war was waged against Iraq when it coerced America to resort to the SC, seeking the issuance of a resolution that permits her aggression. Britain knew at that time SC would not agree because it was aware of the effective countries in the SC. Thus America would then wage the war without having an international resolution, and appear violating the international law. Despite America would not bother for that, Britain considered that enough.
Therefore, on one side Britain complied with America, but on other side it agreed with Europe in frustrating America and foiling her plans. It does this in accordance
with its own way, ie without open challenge. Thus, it complies with America without dissociating itself from Europe, following the policy of: (a foot in America and
another in Europe).
The policy currently followed by the American president, Bush, towards Iraq comes within the frame of the long term American plan. The strategist designers of the
American policy for controlling the Gulf laid down this plan. The former American president, Nixon started effectively the implementation of this plan in 1970. This
came after the government of the British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson decided on the 1st of January 1968 to withdraw from its colonies east of Suez Canal, including
the Gulf, by the end of 1970. Nixon and all the American presidents who came after him started to implement this plan according to the available conditions and within a
project whose execution requires some decades.
The events of 11/9/2001 provided Bush Junior with the appropriate condition to attack and occupy Iraq. Besides controlling its oil after she controlled the oil of most
of the Gulf States, America does not want Iraq to become again a strong and coherent state. She rather wants it to be made of impotent linked parts so as to control it easily. She wants as well to fulfil to the Kurds her promises to them when they were opponents to Saddam, by having a strong position in Kurdistan of Iraq similar to an
entity. America endeavoured since World War I to create an entity to the Kurds. After the emergence of the Kurds issue as a result of the settlements of World War I and
fragmentation of the Ottoman State, the American president, Wilson called in Versailles Conference to grant the Kurds right to self-determination. However,
Britain that was the leading state at that time, ignored this American wish, and divided the territories of Kurds between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria to please its
stooge at that time, Mustafa Kamal.
America used to always support the Kurdish separatist movements in North Iraq despite the loyalty of these movements to Britain. This is because America preferred
the absence of a single strong state in Iraq. She took this matter as her strategy since it abandoned its isolation. When Abdul Karim Qassim assumed authority by her
support, she proposed to him making Iraq a federal state made of three parts. After the second Gulf war, America seized the opportunity of the siege on Iraq, so she
sanctified the presence of the safe areas (no flight zones) to fragment Iraq and to pave the way for establishing a Kurdish state. Therefore, America made conciliation
between the fighting Kurdish groups, and sought to build a Kurdish ruling entity for them, particularly the conciliation between the main two Kurdish parties: The
Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), led by Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), led by Talbani. America tried to convince Turkey with the idea,
and she sent delegates to the Congress for this purpose. Then she supervised the elections process in the Kurdish areas for establishing state institution there,
including a parliament.
Graham Fowler, the deputy of the former head of American Intelligence Council of Iraq affairs, said in August 1996: � Iraq must be divided into three parts. America
insists on her plan for creating a Kurdish state� . Richard Holbrook, assistant of former secretary of state, who was sent by his government to Turkey for convincing it
with the American idea, said to the Turkish president, Dimiril in 5/9/1995: � The best solution for Iraq is the federal one� . Dimiril replied by saying: � Federalism means
division, which will hurt Turkey� . Britain however strongly opposes the division. Douglas Hog, State minister of British foreign affairs said: �Our clear policy towards Iraq is based on no support or encourage to any attempt that aims to creating an independent Kurdish state inside Iraq, within its international borders. We believe Iraq must remain a united state, and, by all of our efforts, we oppose its division. We believe that creating a region to the Kurds in Iraq, which enjoys autonomy, can solve their issue there. We agree with the Turks over this subject; and if we disagree with the government of Saddam, this does not mean we desire in dividing Iraq� .
The interests of Turkey and other neighbour countries make them agree with the British policy that aims at preventing the division of Iraq. Secretary of Turkish
foreign ministry said: � It is wrong to define North Iraq as Kurdish area, for it has 300 thousand Turkmen� . America tries through Bremer and her stooge, �Iraqi Governing Council� to take in consideration the special situation of the Kurds by preparing the fragmentation of Iraq into impotent entities under the name of union or federalism. America had already promised the Kurds (when they were in opposition outside Iraq at the time of Saddam) of large racial federalism that includes Karkook, which becomes a nucleus for an independent state. Therefore, when Saddam was removed, the Kurds tried to undertake practical measures for implementing this promise and for annexing Karkook to the autonomy area, which existed at the time of Saddam. However, America faced, after occupation of Iraq, opposition from her other agents regarding Karkook. Therefore, it was content by only strengthening the former autonomy area. So, she gave it effective authorities, and stipulated that in the constitution coined by the �Governing Council� , in compliance with the wishes of America. Thus, the article number 53 in the Iraqi constitution coined by Bremer and approved by his stooge �Governing Council� state in paragraph (a): � The government of Kurdistan is recognised as the official government of the territories that were run by the
government mentioned in 19/3/2003� . The term of �Government of Kurdistan� that came in the law means the Kurdish National Assembly, Kurdistan cabinet of
ministers, and the local judiciary authority in the province of Kurdistan. This means it is a state inside the state. Article number 54, paragraph (b) stated: �Regarding the
application of the federal laws in the Province of Kurdistan, the Kurdish National Assembly is allowed to adjust the implementation of any of these (federal) laws
inside the region of Kurdistan� . If this were not separation, what it would be then? This is the criminal constitution that was written under the guns of occupation. The
sincere sons of Iraq must address this constitution before it is too late, and they have to abrogate it. They have abrogated before (al-Yasiq) that was coined by Tartars after
they swept over Baghdad and burnt every thing and threw millions of the Islamic culture transcripts in Tigris River. If they did not rush to abrogate it, then Iraq might
be torn up into fighting impotent states. It will then become breeding ground for corruption, and market for promoting every deviant thought, and every abominable
and odd opinion and thought of disbelief.
Muslims in Iraq will never despair and nor surrender. They are part of a deep-rooted nation, the Islamic ummah that reigned over the dunya for many centuries. The
American and British occupation will vanish, sooner or later. The Islamic ummah worldwide is about to set out for liberating herself of the yoke of the new American
colonialism, its oppressive and disbelief laws, and its criminal authority. By these laws, the division of the ummah was sanctioned, and her might was proscribed and
her honour was disgraced. Thus, America� s inhumanity was openly exposed in killing the Muslims in Falluja, Karbalaa, Ba� qooba, Baghdad and Najaf. The evil smell of
the oppressive colonialist� civilization appeared in its ugly treatment to the Iraqi prisoners in the prison of Abu Ghraib. That ghastly horrible treatment alarms the
hearts, and tongues feel ashamed to describe. The repugnant smell of this barbarian civilization has spread everywhere at a time the American media clamour and fill
space by talking about promised democracy and freedom.
Iraq was afflicted, since the fall of the Ottoman Islamic State, with stooge, misguided and corrupt rulers. They are some of its disrespectful sons who were imposed over
the heads of the Iraqis by the unbeliever colonialists. Since the moment the filthy feet of the British touched the land of Iraq during World War I, Muslims in Iraq have
been groaning and suffering under the oppression of these wicked, traitor and slave rulers, stooge to Britain and America. They have pushed Iraq in the fire of the British
and American struggle over interests in the region. They have spread terror all over Iraq due to the hectic struggle between their national, communist, Nasserite and Ba� th
movements over authority. This bitter struggle over authority destroyed the state and changed it into ruin. They already caused havoc in it, and shed a lot of blood, and
finally they returned Iraq again to direct colonialism, after this long bloody journey. So, the outcome of 80 years of government by these stooge rulers is simply: ruin,
destruction, killing, torture, and tribulations, and then the return again of direct colonilization.
This is the outcome and this is the harvest. The ummah must properly comprehend this bitter and difficult experiment of Iraq� s history, and understand its danger. We
should not pass by it as if nothing had happened. The lesson we learn from this experiment is represented in creating a complete and absolute conviction that the
national, Ba� th, communist, Arab and Nasserite movements have utterly failed. We should not then rely on such and like movements and parties that adopt such ideas.
We must rather believe the loyalty of these movements to the foreigner is not only political, but intellectual as well. Once this conviction existed in the ummah, the path
she has to follow for revival must only be return to Islam, and its pure source. There is no way for proper return to Islam except through its political sense, which dictates
the establishment of the Islamic State, the Khilafah State. This state alone can deliver Muslims in Iraq and in the entire Islamic countries from the unbeliever colonialists,
agents, tyrants and hypocrites.
APPENDIX
During the preparation of this book for printing, some matters happened regarding the
subjects that were under discussion in the book:
1) The Sudanese government and the rebels of the South signed the treaty of (Nivasha), on Thursday night 27/5/2004. The treaty consists of three framework agreements related to division of legislative and executive authority between the government, the rebels and some political powers. This is related to the centre, South regions, South of Blue Nile and Nuba Mountains. The agreements stipulated as well giving autonomy Ebyi followed by a referendum to decide its subordination to the North or the South.
2) The Security Council issued resolution number 1546 on 8/6/2004 that gives legitimacy to America� s forces in Iraq and to its control. It also opens the door for Arab and non-Arab states to join the occupation forces in Iraq under the pretext of the SC permission. The forces in Iraq would be called multi national forces, led by America, instead of their previous real name of American occupation forces.
3) The leaders of the G8 industrial countries: USA, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia met on 8/6/2004 in Sea Island opposite state of Georgia (of USA). The meetings continued for three days (8-10)/6/2004. The Great Middle East Project prepared by America was presented in the meeting and approved after inserting some insignificant adjustments in it.
4) The authority was symbolically handed over by Bremer to an interim Iraqi government on Monday 28.6/2004. It included Ghazi Alyawir, as president of
the republic (symbolic post), and Iyad Allawi, the agent of the CIA, as Prime Minister (executive post). Authority handover took place during a short meeting and without a major celebration as they promised before. This is because they were afraid of the resistance for the safety of the attendance. This is despite the strict guard on
land and in air. This means the master Bremer, his followers and the interim government are unable to have security for themselves; how then they will provide security for others?
Our last Du� aa is to raise Praise to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
BOOK CONTENTS
Back to the HOME PAGE