*The Shiite leader Ayatollah Baqir al-Hakim, newly returned from Iran, has said, "We reject an imposed government," and, "I fear neither the Americans nor the British." - Asharq al-Awsat.



*A huge conflagration broke out at the central communications building in Baghdad. I fear this event is symbolic of the failure of the US to bring Baghdad back to anything resembling normality so far.





*The Americans have appointed Muhammad Amin Ahmad as the Iraqi foreign minister, to be advised by US career diplomat David Dunford (a former ambassador to Oman). Ahmad is a controversial choice, since he was director general of administration of the foreign ministry under Saddam. Many of the ministry's employees were Baathists, and this same team has been reassembled, though a few people have been told not to show up. Ahmad says that the main task is to get the offices at the foreign ministry back into working order, so that employees have a place to work. Anticipating criticism, Dunford shrugged that in totalitarian regimes government employees often are forced to join the party, and that anyway you have to start somewhere. (A lot of officials running the German government under the Americans after WW II were former Nazis, too). ( - AFP and Asharq al-Awsat)



One is sympathetic with Dunford that you have to start somewhere. And, after all, it is the foreign ministry employees who know how to run a foreign ministry. But it would be a nice symbolic touch to avoid having party members fill the highest posts right now. The American-appointed minister of health, Ali Shnan al-Janabi, recently embarrassed the Americans at a press conference by refusing to criticize the Baath Party, of which he is a former member. His appointment raised howls of protests from professors at Baghad University and elsewhere.



*The principal opposition parties in Egypt have called for a liberation of political life in that country from its chains and the establishment of public freedoms and human rights. They called for the free election of the president, dissociating the president from being head of his party, and reducing the powers of the president in the Egyptian constitution. They also announced that they would try to stage a popular campaign at the level of each of the provinces in favor of these reforms. They want freedom of the press, and want to turn Egypt into a liberal democracy. A spokesman for the ruling National Party said that measures were being taken to establish a human rights commission, and that the special security courts would be retired. - al- Hayat.



The opposition politicians must smell blood in the water after the fall of Saddam. Poor Saad Eddin Ibrahim (with whom I studied), professor of sociology at the American University in Cairo and head of the Ibn Khaldun Center, spent several years in jail for saying things rather milder than this. Will Mubarak dare crack down on this outbreak of reformism? Or will he find ways to blunt the movement behind the scenes and return Egypt to stagnation?

*The American team in Iraq is being shaken up big time. Barbara Bodine, a long-time diplomat and Arabist, who has effectively been the US mayor of Baghdad for three weeks, is being sent back a desk job at State in Washington. Some reporters have speculated that Bodine was sacked by the incoming American pro-consul, Paul Bremer, because of events that had occurred in Yemen. Bodine had been ambassador there during the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, and when FBI investigator John O'Neill came in to Sanaa, she complained that he was heavy-handed and got him transfered back out. O'Neil's supporters saw her as having interfered with the investigation. (Ironically, O'Neill was killed in the World Trade Center on September 11). Bremer is rumored to be one of those O'Neil supporters.



Although it is true that Bodine only had three weeks in Baghdad, under chaotic post-war conditions, it is also true that the place is a mess, with no regular armed police patrols and with entire sections of the city, such as the east Baghdad slums, relinquished to Shiite militias. This situation is probably more Rumsfeld's fault than it is Bodine's, but she is taking the fall.

*According to al-Hayat, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, just returned from Iran, has called for a state in which all would feel secure and in which women would play a central role. He rejected, however, any possibility of continuing to live with Baathism (the former ruling ideology of secular Arab nationalism and "socialism," i.e. an Arab form of fascism). At a press conference in Basra, he called for a modern, freely elected Iraqi government that would be "contemporary and Islamic." He denied that the religious forces in Iran want to veil women away from society, saying that they are half of society and need to play a central role in it. He said that if Iraq was governed according to modern principles, it would become an Iraq of "jihad for reconstruction, and of love and amity, not of hatred and destruction."



Other reports have him saying ""We Muslims have to live together... We have to help each other stand together against imperialism. We want an independent government. We refuse imposed government." The NYT reports that he said, that "Iraq must base its laws on Islamic strictures and prohibit the kind of behavior that may be acceptable in the West but is forbidden in Islam." This statement is pretty alarming. One could imagine lots of behavior he would like to forbid. Would it include listening to pop music? Wearing blue jeans? Women going about unveiled? Having a glass of wine with dinner? Iraqis have had someone tell them how to live their lives for 35 years. They should be very careful about letting someone else come along and do the same.



Before he left Iran, Baqir al-Hakim had identified four pressing problems: 1) the remnants of the Baath regime; 2) the presence of coalition forces; 3) the need to establish a new regime that could address the problems of livelihood faced by Iraqis and restore order; and 4) the establishment of a government elected by all Iraqis, including ones from all the ethnic and religious groups.



I would not take everything Baqir al-Hakim says at face value. Remember that the people around Khomeini used to say progressive things like that about women, too, before the revolution in Iran. I think Baqir was being cute in using the phrase "veil women away from society" because it allowed him to deny that he believed in the seclusion of women. Entirely secluding them is anyway not a program held by very many Islamists, though it did characterize the Taliban in Afghanistan. What al-Hakim said would be consistent, however, with making women wear the veil when in public or in the presence of unrelated men, and with segregating education and work places by sex. Segregated education works against women at the college level and at the level of professional schools, because if they don't form a large enough group, no law school or medical school will be built for them--and they won't be allowed to go to the men's graduate schools.

* Breaking news. Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim has returned to Iraq, stopping first in Basra with a hundred-vehicle convoy. He is reported to have addressed a crowd of 10,000. He spoke in his speech against Iraq having a "foreign-installed government" but did not mention the US by name. AP reported him saying, "I am a soldier of Islam, serving all the Iraqi people. We don't want extremist Islam, but an Islam of independence, justice and freedom." Al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, supports Shiite law being the law of the land in that country. AP quotes a Basra follower of al-Hakim, Muhammad Abu al-Zawra, as saying, "He is the new Khomeini for us. A majority of Iraqi people want him as our leader." And he compared this moment to the time when the Imam Ali (the Prophet's successor according to Shiites) visited Basra. (This comparison would be considered theological extremism or ghuluww in mainstream Shiite theology). Baqir al-Hakim is now on his way to Najaf. One fears trouble between his armed retinue and the Sadr Movement mobs in that city, who are intolerant of Iran-backed rivals to Muqtada al-Sadr.



Jay Garner, head of the Pentagon's Reconstruction office in Iraq, appointed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Baqir's brother, to a nine-man leadership council preparing the way for an interim government, thus including SCIRI. At the same time, US troops near Baquba, the capital of Diala province near Iran, report occasional firefights with Badr Brigade forces, the paramilitary wing of the al-Hakims' SCIRI party.

*US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz criticized Turkey in an interview on CNN for not giving practical support to the US war effort in Iraq. On Turkish news site said, ' In his criticism, Wolfowitz singled out the Turkish military for not playing "a leadership role" on the Iraq issue. He suggested that, without involving itself directly in politics, the Turkish military could have said strongly that "it was in Turkey's interest to support the United States." ' This statement, even if hedged in this way, is truly scarey and demonstrates that Wolfowitz should be impeached. He is suggesting that the military of a democratic country should speak out on politics. And he is implying that it should do so in opposition to the will of the Turkish public and its elected representatives. If he thinks it would have made a difference, that can only be because of the Turkish military's past history of making coups when its will was thwarted by civilian politicians.



Would we want a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who stepped up to the podium and said, "I don't care what President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld or Congress think, I say a war on China is necessary at this juncture, and that they cannot afford to ignore the strongly held feeling about this of the US officer corps!" ??



Do we really want a high official of the US Defense Department going about saying that such statements from the military are desirable in a democratic society? Is this where Wolfowitz is taking the US?



Some 90% of the Turkish public opposed the US war in Iraq. In wishing ex post facto for a stronger military voice in that debate, Wolfowitz reveals himself to have openly militarist leanings. He is unfit for the office he holds and should be called on the mat before Congress for this outrage.



*Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim is on his way back to Iraq from his long exile in Iran. He will make a public appearance first in Basra to test the political waters. He is said to be planning to become a spiritual guide and to turn his political party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq over to his brother, Abdul Aziz. Before he left Iran, the Ayatollah said, ``The future of Iraq belongs to Islam. And making efforts to preserve Iraq's independence is our key challenge.''



*In his Friday Prayers sermon at the Muhsin Mosque in Sadr City, Baghad, Kazim al-Nasiri, a cleric, told "tens of thousands of worshippers that a senior religious figure from the holy city of Najaf,"--Kazim al-Ha'iri, "had issued a recent edict on the fate of the Ba'athists." He said, "The message is clear. The hawza cannot protect them - these Ba'athis, these Saddamites - who are now coming out. This is unacceptable to the hawza . . . It is permissible to kill them." The Bush administration has appointed several mid-level Baathist managers to important positions, angering Shiites and others persecuted by the regime. Kazim al-Ha'iri [Haeri] is not actually in Najaf, but rather in Qom. Or he was, last I knew. He has been in exile in Iran for many years, and is a Khomeinist. He is playing figurehead for the leader of the Sadr Movement, Muqtada al-Sadr. This open call to vigilante violence against members of the old regime constitutes and important challenge to the US task of keeping the peace. The mayor/police chief of Najaf itself, appointed by the US military, is a Sunni former Baathist, which has provoked demonstrations in the Shiite holy city. Al-Ha'iri is saying the mayor should be assassinated.



*For interesting background on Paul Bremer, the new American civilian administrator of Iraq, see Bill Berkowitz, WorkingforChange



*PS for reporters and other writers reading my site: The name Kazim or Kadhim is properly spelled with a "K" in English, not a "Q". Likewise it is al-Hikmah Mosque with a "K" in the middle. The 'K' and 'Q' represent different sounds in Arabic, and are not interchangeable. Also, with regard to vowels: Arabic only has three short ones, a, i, and u. Thus, a spelling like Hezbollah or Haeri represents Persian/Iranian pronunciation, not Arabic. In Arabic it would be Hizbullah and al-Ha'iri or al-Hairi. No 'e's' or 'o's' in Arabic.

*Jay Garner has added two further members to a nine-man leadership council (it is so far all men). One will represent the Shiite al-Da`wa Party and the other is a Sunni Arab representing an old party active in the 1940s until 1968 when it was banned. This move is a good step in the right direction. My contacts in Iraq swear up and down that virtually no one there much likes the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which they code as Iran-backed. But SCIRI was the only Shiite party included in the leadership council at first. The al-Da`wa Party has lots of bona fides. Although an Iranian-backed splinter group from al-Da`wa attacked US embassies in the Gulf in the mid-1980s, the mainstream of the movement has not been terrorist in character. It seems strong in Nasiriya and has opened offices all over the Shiite south. Its members opposed Saddam. It rejects Khomeini's theory of the "Rule of the Jurisprudent."



The next thing that is desirable is for more moderate elements in the Sadr Movement to be drawn into the governmental process. So far they have been anti-American and standoffish. But then so initially was al-Da`wa. I don't advocate that the Sadrists necessarily have a seat on the interim governing council, but they should be drawn into compromise and horse trading somehow. Some suggest that Muqtada and the Sadrists will fade as order is restored. While this possibility exists, it would be foolish to count on it. The Shah thought that Khomeini would fade away after 1963, too.



In addition, four parties have agreed to join in with the planning of a national congress, including al-Da`wa, the Communist Party, the Arab Socialist Party, and the Iraqi Islamic Party.



The Iraqi Islamic Party has a Web site in Arabic, and if it is the same organization (I guess there cannot be two such), it is Sunni fundamentalists willing to participate in parliamentary democracy. They have cleverly bought the domain name, www.iraqi.com, which should give them high visibility. They have posted to their site joint fatwas authored in part by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who came out of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. One condemns US policy after September 11 for "targetting" Muslim regimes. Another criticizes Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians. IIP officials in Mosul have called for the early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and have pledged to fight against secular influences from Baathism, Communism, and so forth. (It is therefore ironic in what company they find themselves in today's announcement). They also formed a front to end US occupation. The mystery of why Garner would turn to them and why they would accept to be turned to is tantalizing. There is some evidence, in Falluja, Mosul, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Arab center, of a powerful fundamentalist current among Iraqi Sunnis. Again, I'm all for drawing such groups into parliamentary give and take, which is likely to keep them moderate. But I hope they haven't been promised anything a priori to get them aboard.



The Iraqi Communist Party for its part pledges to fill the current political vacuum in Iraq with a democratic alternative. They also want to see that the millions of Iraqis who need them get food, electricity, security, etc. I.e. they are speaking as though they are like Berlinguer's Communist Party in Italy, more democratic socialist than Stalinist. See (in Arabic) www.iraqcp.org.



My suspicion is that the ICP has far more support in Iraq than does Kamil Nasir Chadurchi, the representative of the old lapsed Sunni secular party, and so deserved to be in the top nine. But given how conservative Garner is, I suppose it is amazing that they have been accepted into having any role at all.



Earlier press reports had suggested that Garner was against having any further Shiite representation on the nine man leadership council, beyond SCIRI. If those reports were true, then he has obviously changed his mind or his staffers have briefed him better. I'd say these steps are positive. But I would have been happier if the 9 man council had been elected from the floor of an Iraqi congress, not appointed by an American former general. It also seems odd that he is making these appointments on the eve of the arrival of Paul Bremer, the civilian administrator who will be most involved in the political process.



*There was a riot yesterday in the Shiite shrine city of Karbala that almost no one reported in the US, in which former Baath supporters demonstrated and staged a sitdown because they had been excluded from the city's ruling council (which consists of tribal sheikhs and clerics). The crowd was dispersed when local authorities had men fire warning shots over their heads.

*The humanitarian and security crises continue to grow in American-occupied Iraq. Electricity has been returned to only 9 of 21 major cities, and much of the capital still lacks it. Lack of electricity generally equates to lack of pure water. Cholera has broken out in Basra and many Iraqi children in particular are at risk of dying from dehydration caused by diarrhea from dirty water. In many places garbage continues to pile up, which is also a threat to hygiene. The British have given Basra some security by patrolling with a reconstituted Iraqi police force, which they armed. The Marines started to do this in Baghdad, but then were ordered out of the city and the army took over. Loathe as I am (from an army family) to admit the Marines did it better, alas, they did. The US army has disarmed its own Iraqi police force. So the police stay determinedly in the police station and don't patrol, because everyone else has Kalshnikov machine guns and they would just get shot down. The US troops are too thin to patrol much of the city very regularly. So, the crime wave continues, a lot of shops won't open, people are insecure in their homes, and hospitals remain under threat of having their medicines stolen by gunmen. Uh, guys: arm your local police, at least with pistols, for heaven's sake.



The US television news departments are determinedly refusing to broadcast the truth of how bad things are, lest their advertising revenues plummet when patriotic US viewers desert them. Not one scene of garbage piling up. They did report the cholera outbreak, but very briefly and episodically. One over-voice said the problem could be combated by teaching mothers to boil water for their children. Right. Without electricity or fuel, how do you accomplish that in cities, pray tell. Call in the X-Men's Cyclops to boil the water with his eye-rays? This sort of supercilious comment is a way of blaming the victim. Iraqi children are dying of diarrhea because Iraqi mothers are ignorant, it is is being alleged, not because the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz team was in such a hurry to conquer Iraq that they made no preparations for what to do after the regime fell. I know for a fact that the brass in the Pentagon did give thought to this problem and recognized it would be a problem; but there was no follow-through, most likely because the civilians at the top of the Defense Department did not authorize it. One functional expert I talked to last fall, who had seen events in Bosnia and Kosovo said that you would need a mobile gendarmerie, but worried that the US military lacked that capacity. Too right.



Meanwhile, one can only imagine what brave Iraqis who stayed in Iraq and defied Saddam, such as members of the Shiite Sadr movement and the al-Da`wa Party, think about being excluded from Jay Garner's interim government, while an organization representing former Baathist officers has a seat at the table! This is obscene, and guanteed to cause trouble.



Upshot: Bush administration good at fighting, bad at organizing things.