Deep Blade Journal

Ministers were told premier was seen as stooge

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 24/09/2004)

British officials gave warning more than two years ago that Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, was seen as “a western stooge” who “lacked domestic credibility”, secret documents seen by The Telegraph reveal.

The Cabinet Office told ministers a year before the war in Iraq that the external opposition, made up of Mr Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord and Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, was “weak, divided and lacks domestic credibility”.

Mr Allawi, who was closely aligned with the CIA, and Mr Chalabi, who was initially the choice of many within the administration as Iraqi leader, were regarded by most Iraqis as “western stooges”, warned a “Secret UK Eyes Only” options paper.

A coup attempt in 1996 allegedly organised by Mr Allawi, a neurosurgeon who was trained in Britain, in tandem with the CIA ended in “wholesale executions”, according to the paper, which was prepared by the Overseas and Defence Secretariat in March 2002.

The documents also expressed concern over the possibility that the Americans would choose Mr Chalabi as the leader of Iraq after the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

They described Mr Chalabi as “a convicted fraudster popular on Capitol Hill”.

Mr Chalabi was convicted in absentia for fraud in a Jordanian banking scandal in 1991 and was sentenced to 22 years in jail.

There you have it. Warning flags waving brightly over two years ago. Huh? The Brits knew in early 2002 that America would remove Saddam and put an American “stooge” in charge of Iraq??

It should be clear to anyone observing current events with half a brain engaged that interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is a puppet of the United States. I have recent entries that assume this point.

But when John Kerry presented mild critiques of Mr. Allawi’s upbeat message, vociferous reaction from President Bush and Vice President Cheney lit into Kerry’s pessimism, and worse. Kerry said Thursday in Columbus, Ohio,

The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story…. I think the prime minister is, obviously, contradicting his own statement when he said, “Terrorists are pouring into the country”.

Here is the Vice President’s reply in a Louisiana speech:

Prime Minister Allawi is a brave man. Some years ago, Saddam Hussein sent killers after him with axes. They tried to hack him to death in his bed. He is a brave and a determined leader, and I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage when he rushed out to hold a press conference and attack the Prime Minister, yesterday right after his speech. Ayad Allawi is our ally. He stands beside us in the war against terror. John Kerry is trying to tear him down and to trash all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive. As Prime Minister Allawi said in his speech, and I quote, “When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence”.

Interesting, nowhere does Cheney say Allawi is not a puppet.

But now the wingnut side of the blogosphere has latched onto a quote from Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart

The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips

Click that link to see what free speech in America allows the wing to say about the challenger to the Republican dynasty.

Dwight Meredith at Wampum has an excellent analysis that gives clear examples of how the administration pulls the puppet strings.

And look also at the somewhat convoluted New York Times story, Iraqi With Close U.S. Ties Chosen to Be Prime Minister, by Dexter Filkins and Warren Hoge from last May 28. Here, the mysterious US-directed end-run around the UN in the Allawi selection is kind of explained:

Dr. Allawi is the leader of a group called the Iraqi National Accord. But he has a somewhat limited base among Iraqis, being viewed by many as an outsider because he lived in London for the past 20 years or so….The United States turned to the United Nations for help with the transition in January, after months of shunning the world organization, because its own credibility in Iraq had declined dangerously and it needed the international imprimatur that the United Nations can confer.

The decision to name Dr. Allawi was made with the approval of Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy, though it was unclear how enthusiastic his support was. At United Nations headquarters in New York, officials contended that they were caught unawares by the announcement but said that they endorsed the choice….[They] had been expecting Mr. Brahimi to deliver the names by the end of this month. They had also been told that the names would be made public as a group, not in the sporadic and individual manner that Dr. Allawi’s name emerged today.

Can there be even the slightest doubt that Allawi really is a puppet?

So let’s review and extend the main lesson of this episode – hinting at certain radioactive truths about Iraq leads automatically to strong backlash and charges of pessimism, disloyalty, or worse from the Bush loyalist wing.

Below is an incomplete list of such truths. Look for any of these in mainstream media discourse. If you happen to see one discussed, you can be sure that the appropriate dismissal or loyalist backlash is included:

· Allawi is a puppet.

· Sovereignty turnover was a sham.

· The planned Iraqi elections are being set up to be a sham.

· The United States desires control of Iraqi oil.

· Saddam Hussein was not in March 2003 any sort of threat to the United States.

· The United States is less safe after the invasion of Iraq.

· The invasion of Iraq was illegal.

· Iraq is not better off than it was before the invasion.

· The invasion of Iraq does not make the world more peaceful.

· The likelihood of civilian deaths does not impede US military operations.

· Widespread torture of US prisoners is conducted under the color of authority.

· Iraqis have a right to resist occupation

· Bush, Blair, and their collaborators are war criminals

· People labeled “Islamic fanatics” do not deserve summary execution

Look for additional discussion of some of these in later posts.

Essential article by Naomi Klein lays it out with clarity in the September issue of Harpers

Everyone needs to read Baghdad Year Zero published in the September 2004 issue of Harpers Magazine. It is absolutely crucial for understanding the underlying planning for the conquest of Iraq.

Deep Blade has reported extensively on the illegality of the planned economic transformation of Iraq here and here, especially in connection with the indefinitely-postponed US-Iraq Business Alliance Conference — co-sponsored by the University of Maine School of Business — that was to have been held November 13, 2003.

It turns out now that events during this mid-fall period last year are absolutely pivotal to understanding the current situation. In the face of rising Iraqi resistance, the article explains the decisions taken by the Bush administration resulting in the 180 degree policy shift of last fall, where Coalition Provisional Authority head Bremer went from insisting on an in-place constitution and elections before the occupation could be ended, to the sham sovereignty hand-off and appointed puppet government there now.

Klein’s article zeros in on the critical moments as the forces of resistance in Iraq rose up to derail neocon economic planning:

By November, trade lawyers started to advise their corporate clients not to go into Iraq just yet….Insurance companies were so spooked that not a single one of the big firms would insure investors for “political risk”.

While “international law prohibits occupiers from selling state assets,” it says nothing about puppet governments. So the risky plan was to officially end the occupation by the end of June, “but not really. It would be an appointed government chosen by Washington.” And the timimg was set with the US election in mind.

The UN role in the plan, led by envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, was a sham, as the UN was cut out of the loop towards the end of May at the very last second.

But the plan also hinged partly on the interim constitution. Here’s a major thing I didn’t realize at the time — barely reported if at all — that I learned from the Klein article: Article 26 said, “The laws, regulations, orders, and directives issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority…shall remain in force.” After al Sistani had intervened to prevent this article from being included, five bombs exploded in front of mosques in Baghdad and Karbala on March 2, killing 200. Sistani backed down and the interim constitution, with Bremer’s legal loophole was signed.

BUT, “The final blow to the neocon dream came in the weeks before the handover.” The Whitehouse and CPA “had twisted arms to give the top job to former CIA agent Iyad Allawi, a move that will ensure that Iraq becomes, at the very least, the ‘coaling station’ that Jay Garner originally envisioned.”

However, UNSCR 1546 does not ratify the interim constitution! This was reported as a blow to the Kurds, but it also puts the neocon privatization contracts in limbo, while “Iraqi ministers are already talking about breaking contracts signed by the CPA.”

It looks to me that as a trade-off last June, the US decided authority over military operations and the election-year “Let Freedom Reign” propaganda front were more important than Kurdish autonomy or affirmation of the legality of Bremer’s orders.

Klein concludes that the resistance to US-backed corporate thievery and privatization has won round one, as “Businessmen threatened by Bremers investment laws have decided to make investments of their own–in the resistance”.

On the other hand, it’s far from over, because “…while the Iraqi resistance has managed to scare off the first wave of corporate raiders, there is little doubt that they will return”.