18-24 September

Compiled by Kathleen Ridolfo

London's "Al-Sharq al-Awsat" (18 September): Huda al-Husayni says in an editorial entitled "U.S. Need for the Shi'ites in Iraq is Greater Than Its Need for the United Nations" that the United States has had to negotiate even with "extremist" Shi'ite elements in its effort to disarm them.

     "The three kisses that Ayatollah Husayn al-Sadr planted on the cheeks of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, followed by three more on the cheeks of Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq, must have reassured Powell concerning the future of Iraq, and that Bremer is moving in the right direction.

     "Despite the continued attacks in the Sunnite triangle, notable developments have occurred on the southern front of the Shi'ite triangle. U.S. and Shi'ite officials have announced that they are on the verge of reaching an agreement to rein in the armed Shi'ite militias in the city of Najaf. Shaykh Sadr al-Din Kubanji, head of the Najaf branch of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) has stated, 'We have almost reached a solution, albeit not a final one. SCIRI has begun coordinating with the U.S. civil administration in the city, and also with the occupation forces.'

     "...Washington needs to disarm the Shi'ite militias, since it is in the process of setting up a national police force. In addition, it has not been able to storm houses in the south at a time when it faces Sunnite resistance in central Iraq, while no U.S. troops have ever been attacked or killed in southern Iraq. In order to disarm the southern militias, it was necessary for Washington to negotiate even with the extremist Shi'ite elements such as Muqtada al-Sadr and his organization, the 'al-Sadr II Group,' despite the fact that it prefers to arrive at a more or less comprehensive solution with the Iraqi Shi'ites through mediation by SCIRI, which enjoys Iranian support. These two wings do not cancel out the other Shi'ite players in Iraq, such as Hizb al-Da'wah, the Iraqi Hizballah, and the group that supports Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who is of Iranian origin.

     "Colin Powell's decision to visit Mr. Husayn al-Sadr and the latter's agreeing to welcome Powell came as a sign of the presence of moderate Sadr representatives who are prepared to deal with the coalition forces. In addition, this visit came about following the near arrival of a U.S.-Shi'ite agreement in Najaf.

     "A U.S. source says that this agreement is out of the ordinary. For despite the fact that it took place in connection with the city of Najaf, it may become a model for other regions. Moreover, it is the reverse of what has happened in the Sunni regions of Iraq, where the United States has undertaken to dismantle all security and military institutions and is attempting to build new ones. In Najaf and other Shi'ite areas, by contrast, it is following an entirely different approach. The source continues, saying, 'In the Shi'ite areas, Washington has agreed, as it has in the areas of the Kurdish north, to acknowledge the legitimacy of the existing authority and the right of its militias to bear arms. In addition, it is discussing how to integrate these militias through the performance of tasks with the occupation forces. We note that the Shi'ites, rather than confronting the United States, are actively cooperating with it.' The U.S. source continues, 'The two sides, without a doubt, see what is happening in Najaf currently as an example that will spread to the remaining Shi'ite areas. Such developments will grow in significance when this U.S.-Shi'ite cooperation extends to the non-Shi'ite areas! Nor will I be surprised if I see U.S.-Shi'ite patrols touring the streets of Baghdad. Isn't 'al-Sadr City' there'?"

     "...If it is true that the United States is about to sign an agreement with the Shi'ites, then two political questions emerge. First: What will happen within the Shi'ite makeup in Iraq and Iran? After all, the two groups have wings that are in conflict with one another, and it is a certainty that there are many who object to this agreement and who will attempt to obstruct it. Second: What will be the effect of this agreement on U.S. policy? Despite the United States' need for it, it is not known whether U.S. public opinion is willing to accept an agreement that meets with Iran's approval, or whether the Democrats will use it against George [W.] Bush.

     "What is certain is that both sides have an interest in not stirring up a controversy over this agreement. If the Democrats in the United States grudgingly remain silent, it will be because they do not want to oppose an agreement that would protect the lives of their soldiers. However, what does Muqtada al-Sadr have to gain from continuing to protect U.S. soldiers? The "al-Sadr II Group" is attempting to portray itself as the sole Shi'ite voice that has not been "contaminated" by cooperating with the occupation forces. Last Friday, Muqtada al-Sadr said in his sermon, 'The Americans do not have the right to take our arms from us, and now that they themselves have failed, they should allow the Iraqis to bear responsibility for security in Iraq.'

     "As for Kubanji of SCIRI, he states, 'We must not fall for a conspiracy to divide Sunnis from Shi'ites. Our battle is with the infidels and the remnants of the former regime.'

     "The challenge before the United States in the Shi'ite areas reflects the challenges it faces in bringing about stability in Iraq as a whole. Be that as it may, the Shi'ites' positions on disarming the militias or involving them in the police forces indicate their willingness to arrive at an agreement. However, they are in no hurry, for they want to extract the greatest possible political gains from Washington, which does not have much time left."

London's "Al-Hayat" (20 September): In an editorial entitled "Rehearsals in Berlin," Ghassan Charbel calls the tripartite meeting in Berlin between Britain, France, and Germany a practice session for the UN General Assembly meeting to follow in New York.

     "Jacques Chirac can receive Tony Blair in Berlin with a smile of many meanings. He can pretend that his calculations were more accurate, that his caution was justified and that his objection to war against Iraq without international authorization was not just teasing. He can also say that 'Old Europe,' which Donald Rumsfeld has mocked, has proven to be wise and experienced. Those who dreamed of a crushing victory, during and after the war, destroy[ing] structures and organizations produced by World War II, have committed an irrational and hasty dream [sic]. He can say that the European facts have come back to impose themselves. On the eve of Blair's visit, Jacques Chirac and Gerard Schroeder succeeded in returning warmth to the Franco-German cooperation. It is a return reminiscent of previous days when Valery Giscard d'Estaing drafted with Helmut Schmidt the threads of the Franco-German 'axis' and when Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl succeeded in repairing the engine of bilateral cooperation, considered to be the locomotive of the European Union.

     "The tripartite appointment in Berlin today could have been different if things in Iraq went according to the desires of Bush and the hawks that came from the 9/11 rubble to launch the preemptive strikes and change the world with swift and hot surgeries. But the picture today does not support their pretext. It was obvious that the military victory over Saddam's regime is the easiest part of the Iraqi adventure. The postwar stage seemed costly on both the human and monetary levels. The dream of imposing a democratic regime on Saddam's headstone has evaporated. The environment is not ready, and the occupation is not the best way. The Iraqi situation seemed open to long American involvement and a bloody disorder. The Iraqi scene was as an opportunity for the extremists, which the "war on terror" has targeted for eradication.

     "Chirac and Schroeder did not have any interest in a total American victory in and after the war. But it is hard to believe that complete American failure in Iraq, should it happen, is in the interest of both countries and stability in the Middle East and the world. Today's negotiations seem like exercises to draft a roadmap that can help the United States out of the trap of a long war. In the last few days, Chirac defined the features of this map: A real role for the United Nations and a fast transfer of power to the Iraqis. On the other hand, we find a French and German willingness to train Iraqi militaries and to participate in the reconstruction. It is an attempt to reach Bush's mind through his ally, Blair. These are rehearsals to make the determined appointments in New York between Bush and [both the] French president and the German chancellor a success.

     "Based on that, the tripartite Berlin rendezvous seems important. The U.S. did not need "Old Europe" to topple Saddam's regime, but it surely needs it to build post-Saddam Iraq and break free from the Iraqi trap that it set itself."

Doha's "Gulf Times" (21 September): In an editorial entitled "Viewpoint: Killers Target U.S. Effort to Harness Iraqi Talents" the newspaper addresses the attack on Iraqi Governing Council Member Aqilah al-Hashimi, who died on 25 September from wounds he sustained in the attack.

     "Yesterday's assassination attempt against Aqilah al-Hashimi, a leading female member of Iraq's Governing Council, has shocked Iraqis and the U.S. civil administration in the country. Washington's top official in Iraq, Paul Bremer, condemned the attack as a 'horrific and cowardly act.'

     "Al-Hashimi is the third senior Iraqi figure to be targeted in a month. Two weeks ago, Ayatollah Muhammad [Baqir] al-Hakim was blown up in Najaf [along] with more than 100 of his followers and, last week, the police chief of Al Khaldiya, near Fallujah, was killed. The U.S. military accuses ousted President Saddam Hussein's supporters of carrying out these attacks against collaborators.

      "Al-Hashimi's appointment to the governing party was a surprise, as she was a senior Foreign Ministry official in the old regime who had supported Saddam until the end. She then successfully transferred her allegiance to the victorious coalition. Last night, as she fought for life in an American military hospital, she was proclaimed a heroine by former exile leader Ahmed Chalabi.

     "The attack shows -- as was intended -- that nobody is safe in Iraq, especially if they collaborate with the occupation forces. Other less-prominent officials who are cooperating with the occupation forces have also been targeted, though those attacks have not made headlines.

     "The death toll in Iraq is continuing to grow. In addition to the occasional allied serviceman or high official who is killed for political reasons, there are scores of Iraqis being murdered every day in a crime wave that has engulfed the country.

     "The occupying powers remain caught in a trap of their own making. Resistance operations are making large parts of Iraq almost ungovernable and are wrecking attempts to rebuild the infrastructure. Meanwhile, the general lawlessness and chaos makes it impossible to predict what would happen if the coalition tried to hand over power and pull out.

     "The U.S. public is only now starting to come to terms with the reality of President George W. Bush's strategy, which has placed a huge financial and security burden on Americans. Yesterday, a major opinion poll showed that support for Bush's policy on Iraq had plummeted by 5 percent in a week, to 46 percent -- the first time the 'Newsweek' survey had shown less than 50 percent backing. Exactly half the people asked did not want the president to be re-elected -- and that is before his political opponents have begun making a serious effort to discredit his reasons for war.

      "Bush may well end up as a one-term president, brought down, like his father, by his decision to concentrate on foreign wars rather than domestic prosperity."

Tripoli's "Al-Jamahariyah" (21 September): Says in an editorial entitled "U.S. Blood Tap in Iraq" that the United States must leave Iraq to Iraqis and the UN.

      "Every day there is more than one U.S. soldier whose spotted suit is transferred into a shroud. Every day there are more than three U.S. soldiers who are transferred by an ambulance to the nearest field hospital. Every day there are more than 20 attacks against more than 20 U.S. targets.

      "This is the scene in Iraq. More than that there is the frustration and fear that overcome the U.S. soldier in the island of death that is called Iraq.

      "The American soldier has reached a point where he sees every Iraqi as a fighter, every Iraqi vehicle, as an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] rocket and every Iraqi electrical pylon as an explosive.

     "The U.S. soldier in Iraq has reached a point where he imagines only death, which could come from behind walls, from inside vehicles, or from underneath pavements.

     "In the face of these painful strikes, it is no longer possible for the U.S. to fan its tail as it used to do; and it is no longer possible for it to shout at the world as it used to do, because things have changed.

     "The U.S. attacked Iraq with cruise missiles, with huge bombers -- such as the B 52 -- and with smart bombs. But it was far from Al-Fallujah, Mosul, and Al-Ramadi and from the Kalashnikov. Now, the U.S. has reached the hour of truth and the tap of U.S. blood is open everywhere in Iraq. The U.S. is sunk up to its neck in the Iraqi quagmire, rowing with two tired hands and calling for the world to rescue it even though it had completely ignored it.

     "Now the U.S. needs to abandon its arrogance and leave Iraq for the Iraqis and UN forces. The U.S. needs to be brave and admit defeat because courage does not mean possessing power and firing at windows with guns, but courage means being strong.

     "This is the best Washington can do in order to stop the bloodshed and to stop the tap of U.S. blood which is shed every day on the Iraqi pavement. It is the right of the U.S. not to persist in its folly."

Baghdad's "Al-Da'wah" (21 September): Says in an editorial entitled "Recent Raids and the State of Bitter Resentment and Desire for Revenge" that raids by U.S. forces in Iraq have left Iraqis angry.

     "In the last two weeks, there have been ongoing cases of raids on citizens' houses in some governorates of Iraq. These raids take place at night, in a bizarre fashion that we have never seen even in American films. In fact, it is hard to believe many of the stories that are told, since they are beyond imagining, involving horrific, violent scenes in which furniture is grabbed, doors are shattered, and human blood is mixed with that of animals against the background of women's screams, the whiz of bullets, soldiers' kicks, and unintelligible, unidentified voices.

     "There is nothing wrong with raiding factions that want to harm and destroy the homeland, whether from within or from without. Nor is there anything wrong with searching a house that contains something that poses a threat to people. However, [it is wrong] to raid the home of a respected family that is known for its hatred of the regime that brought about 35 years of the hell of unjust rule. The raid took place late at night, and the family, [which resides] on the outskirts of Al-Miqdadiyah city, was awakened to the sound of pickaxes beating on the iron gate of their house. The residents called out, 'Who are you? Who is there?' and when they received no answer, they had no choice but to think that thieves had raided the house. As a consequence, the son fired a shot in the air to make the thieves aware that there was danger, and what did the U.S. soldiers do but open fire and shoot the son dead in the middle of the house. The tragedy continued when the mother threw herself on her fallen son, and the soldiers, who had seized the elderly father and bound him, sat him down across from his murdered son without anyone being able to give him first aid or offer him water. For they had heard him crying out, 'Water! Water!' but the kicks of the soldiers brought them to a halt and caused them to despair of anything but the mercy of God. Meanwhile, the soldiers were searching the house one section at a time, tearing the doors off their hinges and stealing money. The women were praying and praying, asking God to grant them strength to endure. When the sister realized that no one would be able to stop her brother's bleeding, she rushed off in a frenzy and brought a copy of the Holy Koran with which to cover her brother's wound. But what should the American soldier do but grab the Koran and hurl it into the mud, after which the henna-like blood stain remained on the book as a witness to the crime.

     "What happened is that the young man, who had eight young children, was left to bleed for two hours until he departed this world. The elderly father was led away to the military headquarters, then returned home the next day with the words 'We're sorry,' and without the U.S. soldiers having come across anything in the house that was forbidden. Moreover, although we may have explored this incident in detail given our proximity to it, there appear to be hundreds of similar raids taking place, and hundreds of tragedies. We doubt whether conduct such as this will put a stop to the resistance about which we hear every day. On the contrary, it will generate a state of bitter resentment and discontent. We could read the clear protest in the eyes of the city and in the eyes of the slain man's young friends, who fully believe that he died unjustly. I am astonished that a nation that possesses such deadly weapons, as well as high technology and advanced academic institutions by means of which it has been able to reach the moon, has not been able to comprehend the peoples of the world or deal with them in a manner that befits its morals, its doctrines, and its history. It is not enough for Bremer to have said several days ago, 'Sorry, I've never read anything about Iraq.' Nor is it enough for the British to have enrolled the U.S. soldiers a couple of months ago in a course on how to deal with the Iraqis and for all of them to have failed because they were 'quick to anger.'

     "We do not wish to go into the details of these matters, since all peoples have their own unique characteristics. However, what is of concern to us first is that the Iraqi soil be respected, and that not a single particle of it be trespassed upon. For this soil was trodden upon by God's messengers and prophets, and by the imams and righteous after them. They ate of its fruits and drank of its waters. Moreover, homes have a particular status; they also have doors. Hence, when there is some suspicion concerning someone's home, those who are suspicious ought to be accompanied by a mayor or respected elder. This is the practice to which we have been accustomed even under the most violent regimes. In fact, it is one of the fundamental legal values. Moreover, lest we all reach a dead end, it would be more fitting for us to close off all the borders, cut off the hands of thieves who leave prison hours after they commit their crime, and put a stop to the smuggling of our treasures and our antiquities. It would have been more fitting to enroll the U.S. soldiers and their commanders in courses on how to deal with Muslim people, on heavenly values, on genuine principles, and on the fact that actions such as these generate nothing but bitter resentment, hatred, and the desire for revenge."

Cairo's "Al-Ahram" (23 September): Says in an editorial entitled "Iraqis' Sufferings Should be Ended" that the Iraqis are still suffering due to the instability in Iraq.

     "The recent days have seen an upsurge in Iraqi resistance operations that cause the U.S. forces huge losses. Stability and security are still unattainable in Iraq and the Iraqis are far from seeing an end to the ordeal they have been in for about 13 years now. Amid this regrettable situation, the attempt to assassinate an IGC member has been an added element of instability. The attempt, and similar failed and successful attempts on the lives of Iraqi security officials, show that resistance and liquidation operations are no longer against the U.S. forces alone, but target also those who cooperate with them in either the political or the security domains.

     "Amid this state of insecurity and political turbulence, no actual steps are taken for earnest projects to rehabilitate the country and reconstruct its infrastructures, collapsing under the weight of decades of wars and internal problems.

     "Iraqis remain the only party that pays heavily as a result. They have been receiving over the past years lots of unfulfilled promises whether from the former regime or recently from the Americans who have occupied their country on the pretext of ending despotism and building an economically advanced democratic system. All local, regional, and international parties that are implicated in the present Iraqi situation owe it to the Iraqis to make more efforts to end their suffering. This can be only by fulfillment of the promises made to them."

     "The United Sates has acknowledged the need to withdraw, giving the impression that Iraq will restore independence and enjoy democracy. Washington is required to confirm that impression by drawing up a timetable for withdrawal."

Amman's "Al-Dustur" (24 September): Discusses the opening session of the UN General Assembly in New York in an editorial entitled "International Legality Faces a Test."

     "UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.S. President George Bush delivered speeches before the first session of the UN General Assembly yesterday. Their speeches reflected the yawning gap between the role that the United Nations wants to play in solving international problems and the secondary and supportive role that the United States wants the United Nations to play in solving these problems.

     "The UN secretary-general, who tried to express the will of the international community to provide a new environment of peace, security, and international cooperation, emphasized that no state can launch a preventive war in accordance with its own view of a foreign threat. This was a clear message rejecting the excuses that were used to launch the war on Iraq and affirming the role of international legality in defining these threats and confronting them.

     "In contrast, President Bush justified his country's war on Afghanistan and Iraq. He also outlined the duties of the United Nations in Iraq through administrative, economic, and humanitarian contributions and the formation of a multinational force under U.S. command to keep security in that country where military operations are escalating every day.

     "While Kofi Annan reemphasized the terms of reference of peace in the Middle East, the U.S. president adopted a stand that was not based on international legality for the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He exhibited non-recognition of the Palestinian leadership represented by President Yasir Arafat and viewed the Palestinian factions as terrorist organizations that must be eradicated. At the same time he demanded that Israel provide the proper conditions for the implementation of the roadmap, a demand that was not based on certain points or a timetable. Further, President Bush did not refer to any UN role in establishing peace in the Middle East.

     "The U.S. president reviewed a number of international problems, including terrorism, poverty, disease, and slavery, enumerating his country's contributions to confronting them. But he did not depart from his concept of his leadership of a unipolar world. This is a major point of dispute that several major powers are trying to express by affirming the unity of the international community in confronting international problems, even if the United States takes the lion's share in that confrontation.

     "The Iraqi issue is the most indicative of this dispute. War on Iraq was a major factor in the split that the Security Council witnessed before the war and that it is witnessing now through the rejection of the U.S. draft resolution by some members, especially France and Germany. The U.S. draft resolution exploits international legality in a matter that is not based on international legality in the first place [Ed. note: the United States had not yet submitted a draft resolution when this press review was posted]. What is required is to end the occupation and restore power to the Iraqi people to establish their own free and democratic system, not to grant the occupation a legitimacy of any kind.

     "The first session of the UN General Assembly has shown the immense challenges that the United Nations and the current world order are facing. It is now certain that the issues of Palestine and Iraq are a test for the United Nations. It is a test of not what the United Nations can do to resolve these issues but of whether the United Nations accepts or does not accept the principle of the imposition of hegemony over it and the definition of its role by a single state. This state works according to its interests, not according to its duties and responsibilities for maintaining world peace and security and for resolving regional disputes after it has become a part and parcel of these disputes."