A Tale of Two Organizations

The Iraqi National Foundation Congress
– & –
The Anbar Salvation Council




A Study of Public Perception about Iraq

There is a widespread misconception that the Iraqi insurgency is popular among the Iraqi people. While there is a high degree of support among Sunni Arabs, the entire community only compromises about 20% of the population and it is unknown how much support the insurgency actually enjoys out of that percentage.

Terrorist propaganda can be quite effective at creating false impressions on the subject. A high-level leader for the defunct terror-related group, The Iraqi National Foundation Congress (INFC), had the following to say about the situation… “The resistance is an Iraqi resistance - a popular resistance”.

The Iraqi National Foundation Congress was supposedly comprised of members from many Iraqi ethnic groups with the common aim of putting a united political face to the “Resistance”. They made confusing claims that they represented the insurgency, at the same time they sought to limit the liability that would result from such position.

Secretary-General, Sheik Jawad al-Khalisi, stated, “Bit by bit, the Congress has become the main force representing the opposition to the occupation. It represents opposition using different forms. We don’t have direct contact with the military group of the resistance, but these groups send letters and messages to us. They consider the INFC their political structure and defend the political positions that the resistance groups are fighting for.”

He then went on to add, “We don’t say that we are the political face of the resistance. Firstly, we are a political structure; we don’t have a military wing. But some resistance groups whom we don’t know of say that the positions expressed by the Congress represents the whole opposition in Iraq - armed and unarmed.” …This is classic doublespeak, yet such political groups have gained a great deal of credibility with the Western media. As a result they have received positive coverage in media sources like Business Week and the Guardian.

Let me give you a little more background before I drive this point home. The INFC was a failed attempt to unite the Sunni and Shiite insurgencies into one political force. Sheik al-Khalisi is a Shiite Imam, but the organization was dominated by the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars.

You may be aware that the Iraqi government has recently issued an arrest warrant for its leader, Dr. Muthana Harith al Dhari. He is wanted in regards to his role in the current Sunni violence against the Shia. This fighting between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias has captured the headlines for many months now. So the contrived alliance between the two groups has been revealed to be a total farce. It was amazing that they managed to propagate this lie for so long, even as Sunni insurgents continued to bomb Shiite mosques and murder Shiite civilians. This was only possible because there are so many people in this world that are uncritical of anything that makes the US look bad.

The INFC was created in the heady atmosphere which surrounded a failed two-pronged military campaign by Iraqi insurgents. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr tried to exhaust the US military by creating a second front during the US offensive against Sunni terrorists in the city of Fallujah. It was vitally important to secure the city in order to help legitimize the upcoming nationwide elections. As a distraction, and also as a power grab, Sadr launched an attack on the holy city of Najaf. The result left him fighting an uphill battle against both the US military and his fellow Shiites. All of these insurgent operations ended in defeat, but at the time the media hailed those events as a well coordinated attack that was bringing the US military to its knees.

Some reporters have a heavy anti-American bias and they are eager to promote as much terrorist propaganda as they possibly can. A good example would be Naomi Klein, a well known journalist and author of several anti-globalization books. To underscore the polarization of her politics I would like to point out that she actually co-authored a book with Noam Chomsky and Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos.

In popular opinion it is an unquestionable truth that the Bush Administration doesn’t know what it is doing in Iraq. The focus of the media has been to cultivate this misconception by highlighting the perceived mistakes of the Administration. So get a load of this conclusion from an article written by Klein and published in the L.A. Times on April 9, 2004…

Fury Ignites Solidarity in Iraq

“For months, the White House has been making ominous predictions of a civil war breaking out between the majority Shiites, who believe it’s their turn to rule Iraq, and the minority Sunnis, who want to hold onto the privileges they amassed under Saddam Hussein. But this week, the opposite appeared to have taken place. Both Sunnis and Shiites have seen their homes attacked and their religious sites desecrated. Up against a shared enemy, they are beginning to bury ancient rivalries and join forces against the occupation. Instead of a civil war, they are on the verge of building a common front. You could see it at the mosques in Sadr City on Thursday: Thousands of Shiites lined up to donate blood destined for Sunnis hurt in the attacks in Fallujah. “We should thank Paul Bremer,” Salih Ali told me. “He has finally united Iraq. Against him.”

So the blood of Shiites now flows in the veins of their Sunni murderers and the Bush Administration was exaggerating the animosity between the Sunnis and Shiites. How can people be so wrong on so many levels?

US Rep John Murtha claimed that, “Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against US forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence”. Meanwhile the UN estimated that as many as 100 Iraqis a day are being killed in the current wave of sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites. That would be about 3,000 people killed per month, more than the total of US casualties over the last three years. While the UN number is probably an exaggeration, the true number of Iraqis killed by terrorism and sectarian violence is hard to come by. This is because those who compile Iraqi casualty figures do so solely to bolster anti-American propaganda. Attributing casualty counts to Iraqi insurgents goes against their political agenda.

Anyways, the most frequently quoted and well documented casualty figures originate from the anti-American website Iraqi Body Count. They estimate that a maximum of 1,842 civilians were killed in Iraq during the month of October. This is still a significant number, but nowhere near 100/day. The website exclusively blames the US for those deaths despite the fact that the overwhelmingly greater part of the casualties resulted from sectarian, insurgent and criminal violence. Thus they can ignore the implications of sectarian violence just like Klein did.

It is surreal that Iraqi terrorists have successfully transferred the guilt for their own crimes into the lap of the United States. However, this violence existed long before the US liberated Iraq. International human rights groups indicate that Saddam’s regime killed up to 182,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign. The Iraqi military used chemical weapons including mustard and nerve gases to kill Kurdish civilians and samples of the chemicals have been collected as evidence. This brutal campaign focused on razing hundreds of villages to the ground. Those lucky enough not to be killed were subjected to mass deportations.

In the south Saddam’s regime is responsible for the deaths of up to 300,000 Shiites. The great marshlands at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were drained as revenge for a Shiite uprising. This destroyed the livelihood for almost the entire Marsh Arab population. The political repression against the Shiites resulted in the banning of the public display of most Shiite religious ceremonies and severe restrictions of their human rights.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths resulted from Saddam Hussein’s invasions of Iran and Kuwait. In 1990 retreating Iraqi troops ignited over 600 Kuwaiti oil well fires that burned for months. Efforts to put out the fires were hampered by land mines that were intentionally concealed for that purpose. Even worse was the intentional spilling of millions of gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf and Kuwaiti land. This resulted in the deaths of 25,000 birds and the most serious ecological disaster in human history.

Overall the dictator is responsible for over a million deaths that resulted from cold blooded executions and his aggressive wars.

There are some in the media that are dedicated to suppressing the guilt of Saddam Hussein in order to transfer that guilt to George Bush and Tony Blair. The Guardian ran the most twisted editorial that I have ever seen in a major news publication. In the wake of Saddam Hussein’s death sentence David Cox waxed nostalgic for Saddam’s regime. He called it “a fortress of stability in the shape of Saddam’s Iraq”. Cox babbled on making excuses or downplaying the crimes committed by Saddam’s regime.

The hysterical nature of the piece is reflected in its poor research techniques. Cox went as far as to absurdly defend Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. He pointed out that Iraq has had a long-standing territorial claim based on the fact that Kuwait had once been part of the Iraqi province of Basra. Cox omits the fact that the same source which he used as a reference indicates that Iraq had officially recognized the borders of Kuwait on two separate occasions prior to the invasion. The article (which originally appeared on the Library of Congress website) only relates that Saddam used the prior territorial claims as a pretext for the invasion, but that kind of shoddy journalism is the standard fare at the Guardian.

So let’s get back to the issue about how popular the “Resistance” is. There is a great deal of concern (or hope) that the US is losing the battle in Iraq due to what is perceived to be “heavy-handed” tactics by US forces. Do you think the media shows any consistency on this issue when addressing the different insurgent groups in Iraq?

In September a prominent Sunni tribal leader, Sheik Fassal al-Guood, approached the Iraqi government and asked them to formally recognize a Sunni-led anti-insurgency group, The Anbar Salvation Council. He had the following to say, “Anbar has been ruled by terrorists. There has been a real mess ... criminal gangs are kidnapping and killing children and women and so we ask our esteemed government to legitimize this council.”

These were more than just words. The Anbar Salvation Council has produced results by neutralizing two high level Al Qaeda leaders and in one engagement killing 55 Al Qaeda terrorists. This was the product of an alliance between 25 of the 31 predominately Sunni tribes in the volatile Anbar Province. They all share the common goal to defeat Al Qaeda and insurgency. Since they are composed from the majority of Sunni tribes in the heartland of the insurgency, the fact that they have allied themselves to the Iraqi and US governments should raise more eyebrows.

Another member of the Anbar Salvation Council, Sheik Abdul Al-Rishawi (chief of the Rishawi tribe), made himself a target by speaking out about the anger that the Sunnis feel against the insurgents who are claiming to be defending them. “We held a meeting earlier and agreed to fight those who call themselves Mujahideen… We believe that there is a conspiracy against our Iraqi people. Those terrorists claimed that they are fighters working on liberating Iraq, but they turned out to be killers. Now all the people are fed up and have turned against them.”

During this conflict it has been noted that it is vitally important for the US to secure the cooperation of the Iraqi tribes. Dr Abdul Hamid Al Rawi, from the College of Political Science at the University of Baghdad pointed out; “If the US is serious in wanting good relations with the Iraqi people, then it must have good relations with the sheiks. It is my considered view that loyalty to the tribes is bigger than ethnic or religious loyalty in Iraq.”

Such advice has been taken very seriously by US policy makers. Reconstruction projects have been designed to benefit tribal leaders and employ as many of their tribesmen as possible. Sometimes this has caused tribal leaders to be targeted for such collaboration. A good example would be the assassination of Sheik Hikmat Mumtaz in the restive city of Samarra. Although the city has been resentful of the US occupation, the killing of their leader united much of the tribes against the insurgency and led to a drastic reduction in attacks against US forces. The level of violence was reduced enough to enable the redeployment of most US troops that were formerly inside the city and give Iraqi government forces more control over the city center*.

Ironically, Sunni Arabs in neighborhoods afflicted by sectarian fighting find themselves relying on US forces for protection. They do not trust government troops which are dominated by Shiites and Kurds. In several Baghdad neighborhoods the Sunni residents have put the Iraqi authorities on notice that they are not to enter their territory without American escorts or they will be fired upon.

Amir al-Qaisi, a Baghdadi of Sunni origin, spoke about the fear that his fellow Sunnis have of government troops that are not under direct American observation because they behave themselves more humanely when under such supervision. His local mosque uses loudspeakers to signal that gunmen are entering the district without American escorts and the locals randomly open fire until American troops come to investigate the disturbance. Al-Qaisi stated, “When we hear the Americans coming, we stop so that they will not think we are firing at them. Some Sunnis might be saying the Americans should withdraw, but I’m certain that deep down, they’re not convinced.”

A measure of the shifting nature of the relationship between the Sunni population and US troops is that Sunni tribal chiefs who formerly advocated and possibly supported the insurgency have held a series of meetings with the American military to discuss protection against Shiite militias. The escalation of sectarian violence between Iraqis has changed the stature of US troops in Iraq for the better. While Jassim al-Samurraie (a resident of a Sunni neighborhood) views the US with suspicion, he still has a shocking admission… “Now, when we see an American checkpoint we are less worried than when we see an Iraqi checkpoint.” So while the world looks at the US as an abuser of human rights, members of the civilian population that we are supposed to be abusing have to concede otherwise. In this case, the admission is clearly stated despite the individual’s deep-seated anti-American sentiment.

Sadr’s militia has much in common with the Sunni insurgency. The use of violence as a tool of intimidation is a shared trait that they both heavily rely on. Since the “idealistic” days of the Iraqi National Foundation Congress this dependence on violence has driven a huge wedge between the two groups. During the existence of this alliance Sadr was willing to ignore Sunni brutality against his people so that he could expand his selfish pursuit to increase his powerbase. The destruction of the golden dome of the Al-Askari Mosque was the spark that ignited the current bloodbath, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Terrorists cannot co-exist together, as the current fighting between Fatah and Hamas shows. The self-destruction of their communities was earned through their tactics of hatred.

So where does that leave the people of Iraq?

The Sunni tribes are increasingly turning towards the US for help against internal and external foes. Foreign Jihadis and lawless insurgents are tearing up the Sunni homeland, while the Shiite militias drive out Sunni civilians from Shiite-dominated neighborhoods. It is no small wonder why the majority of Sunni tribes have allied themselves with the pro-American/anti-insurgent Anbar Salvation Council.

No other group besides the Americans actually gives a damn about the welfare of Iraq as a whole. US troops are in opposition to any group that pursues violence in the country.

Sunni society is plagued by insurgents who seek a return to Sunni rule. They senselessly target innocent Shiites, Kurds, and civilians of other ethnic groups. They also can be very brutal towards their fellow Sunnis that are accused of collaboration (just about anyone without connections to the insurgency can be a collaborator).

Islamists demand a Sunni theology in a country with a Shiite majority. They attack anyone they deem to be collaborators and take a special zeal in attacking Shiite holy places. These terrorists are mostly funded and organized by groups outside of Iraq.

Shiites are resentful of years of oppression by the Sunni minority and seek to oust Sunni influence from almost all aspects of society. Some have formed militias that have adopted an appetite for retaliation against Sunni terrorism. They wantonly commit acts of genocide against Sunni civilians and have little regard for reconciliation.

Kurds have sealed themselves into an autonomous territory where they rule as almost a sovereign nation. Some Kurds seek to take back their homes that Saddam’s security forces evicted them from in the Anfal campaign. Thankfully this fighting has not been as intense as that between the Sunnis and Shiites.

The media has a “US-centric” view of Iraq. They only care about the events in that country which affect political power in the United States. The suffering of the people of Iraq is only used as propaganda in this one-sided distribution of information. That’s why I am a blogger.

*Footnote:
Our successful engagement with tribal leaders is not limited to Iraq, it can be seen on a grander scale in Afghanistan. Last year 1,000 tribal Afghani chiefs and elders approved their government’s plan for long-term security ties with the United States. The alliance with these tribes has been instrumental in keeping the violence in Afghanistan almost exclusively limited to the isolated regions of the mountainous border with Pakistan.