ChristiansUnite Forums

I just stumbled across these............
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Iraqi President Backs US Senate Proposal to Decentralize Iraq
By VOA News
08 October 2007

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani says he supports a U.S. Senate resolution that calls for the decentralization of Iraq into autonomous regions for Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds.

The non-binding Senate resolution adopted last month is opposed by the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

But, Mr. Talabani said in an interview with CNN Sunday that the Senate proposal deserves consideration and does not undermine Iraq's unity.

The resolution urges the creation of a federal government in Baghdad that would protect Iraq's borders and share oil revenues among the regions.

Mr. Talabani, who is a Kurd, says there is "no possibility" of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region becoming independent. He says such a state would face hostility from neighbors with Kurdish minorities.

The Iraqi president also says he believes the United States can withdraw at least 100,000 troops from Iraq by the end of next year.

Mr. Talabani did not explain why he thinks the U.S. military can carry out a faster pullout than U.S. commanders have discussed in public.

Mr. Talabani also says the U.S. military should keep three bases in northern, central and southern Iraq to train Iraqi forces and prevent neighboring countries from interfering.

Iraqi President Backs US Senate Proposal to Decentralize Iraq (http://voanews.com/english/2007-10-08-voa7.cfm)

Dividing Iraq

October 9, 2007

I. In one of the greatest shocks in quite a while, the Iraqi President -- a Kurd -- backed the Senate plan to divide Iraq into three separate autonomous states, much like this controversial Pentagon map shows!

To refresh your memory, the Senate plan passed just days ago envisioned separating Iraq into its three natural ethnic groups: Kurds to the North, Shi'ites to the South and the Sunni's in the West - Middle. Last week, Shi'ite and Sunni politicians joined in the outcry against this partition plan. The Shi'ite Prime Minister even stated that such a plan threatened the sovereignty of the "unified" Iraqi government.
President Bush attacked the partition plan. YET --
Yesterday, the Iraqi President, the Kurd's Jalal Talabani, shocked discerning people the world over when he supported just this type of partition!
NEWS BRIEF: "Iraqi President Backs US Senate Proposal to Decentralize Iraq ", Voice of America News, 08 October 2007
"Iraqi President Jalal Talabani says he supports a U.S. Senate resolution that calls for the decentralization of Iraq into autonomous regions for Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. The non-binding Senate resolution adopted last month is opposed by the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. But, Mr. Talabani said in an interview with CNN Sunday that the Senate proposal deserves consideration and does not undermine Iraq's unity."
You can forget President Bush's opposition to this partition plan, for two significant reasons:
1) This partitioning story first surfaced just weeks before the original invasion, so the existence of this plan was known to some in early, 2003.
2) This map, above, was created by The Pentagon, and was published in the Armed Forces Journal in their June, 2006, issue. This fact means that this map precisely reflects the planning and the final agenda for the Middle East at the highest levels of the Bush Administration!
Furthermore, while the Shi'ite government of Iran would like their Shi'ite Prime Minister to keep control of all Iraq, Iranian leaders would probably accept an enlarged Shi'ite Iraq as an acceptable fall-back position. They know, better than anyone else, that the Shi'ite government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would have to face the full fury of the Sunni faction once the American Army leaves. Thus, it would be better to have a plan guaranteeing them an enlarged Shi'ite region than to face defeat at the hands of the Sunni's and lose both the Sunni and Shi'ite regions.
Now, let us return to this featured article, above, to examine a most interesting statement which the President of Iraq uttered -- remembering that he is a Kurd.
"Mr. Talabani, who is a Kurd, says there is 'no possibility' of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region becoming independent. He says such a state would face hostility from neighbors with Kurdish minorities."
President Talabani is absolutely correct when he notes that Turkey and Iran would both vehemently oppose actual statehood for the Kurds in northern Iraq. Therefore, he proposes two possible solutions, the first of which is in this statement, above.
Talabani seems to be encouraging the use of the words, "autonomous Kurdistan region" , rather than the more volatile words like "nation" or "state". He probably would prefer the establishment of a nation loosely controlled by a weak government in Baghdad, while giving the right of self-rule to the three autonomous states.


This issue of a Kurdish state being attacked by her neighbors -- Turkey and Iran -- is a very real possibility. Both Turkey and Iran still maintain large numbers of troops on the northern border of Iraq, and both nations regularly take limited military action within this northern region. In order to keep these hostile nations out of a Kurdish state, President Talabani had a second idea.
Mr. Talabani also says the U.S. military should keep three bases in northern, central and southern Iraq to train Iraqi forces and prevent neighboring countries from interfering."
At this point Talabani's statements come full circle. He backs the original Plan to partition Iraq into three separate entities, while advising weak central government and continued American military presence which would deter Turkey and Iran from attacking.
President Talabani's statements are certain to fire up the intense debate as to whether Iraq should be divided. But, rest assured, partition is the plan.

Dividing Iraq (http://uruknet.info/?p=m37054&s1=h1)

Iraq Opposition Officers Connect with a Hashemite Prince to Replace Saddam
By Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli*

On July 14, 2002, the Iraqi media commemorated the demise of the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq 44 years ago. The last Hashemite king in Iraq was 23 year-old King Faisal II who was assassinated at the hands of army officers led by General Abd Al-Karim Qassim who carried out the military coup of 1958.

Under the auspices of the Iraqi National Congress (the main Iraqi opposition in exile), a group of about 70 former Iraqi army officers met in London on July 12, 2002 to chart the course for overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime and installing a new regime dedicated to freedom, democracy, and political competitiveness. The meeting of the Iraqi officers would have gone less noticed were it not for the unexpected appearance of Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, the late King Hussein's brother and the uncle of the Jordanian monarch, King Abdallah. In the words of one newspaper, Hassan "stole the show when he entered, ringed by TV cameras."[1 Another paper characterized his presence at the conference as "the large vocal bomb."[3] An Iraqi newspaper issued in London considered Hassan's appearance as subject to many interpretations no least of which was advancing "special interests of those present, as well as those of the United States which stands behind them."[3]

Prince Hassan was the highest ranking Arab official attending the officers' meeting. In his remarks Hassan insisted that his presence must be viewed as that of "an observer" with extensive friendships and family relationships with those present "including our cousin Al-Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein." [Who is the leader of the constitutional monarchy faction within the Iraqi opposition in exile.] Prince Hassan underscored the need for "enriching the struggle" against Saddam's regime, particularly by the Arabs and Kurds. He went on to emphasize that "we belong to the Shi'ites … and they belong to us." He then told the army officers: "The security we seek is not the security of the rifle, but as Allah has said, 'feed them from hunger and secure them from fear.'"[4] In short, the prince appealed to all significant segments of Iraqi society-the army officers, mostly Sunnis, the majority of Shi'ites who dominate southern Iraq, and the Kurds who dominate the north of the country (the two regions where most of the huge Iraqi reservoir of oil and natural gas are found).

Jordan denied any prior knowledge of Prince Hassan's participation at the officers' conference, and even denounced "the scenario" which concerns the return of the Hashemite family to Iraq.[5] King Abdallah characterized his uncle's participation at the Iraqi officers' meeting as "a grave mistake."[6] Being the beneficiary of Saddam Hussein's largesse toward Jordan in the form of free and/or subsidized oil, Jordan has sought, at least in public, to distant itself from any anti-Saddam coalition.

Others were not convinced by Jordan's denials. Writing in the Saudi London-based Arabic daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, editor, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, characterized Prince Hassan's participation as an expression of Jordan's displeasure with the recent Iraqi opening toward Syria and the Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, and its diminishing relations with the sole neighbor that opened its door to Iraq during the Gulf War and subsequent crises. "If Iraq wants to ignore Jordan," Al-Rashed said, "Jordan will ignore Iraq or at least send it a message." [7]

The Parallel with Afghanistan
Prince Hassan's appearance before the Iraqi officers perhaps goes beyond an expression of Jordanian displeasure toward Iraq's growing economic and commercial dealings with Syria and the Gulf countries. Prince Hassan may aspire to see the restoration of the Hashemites to Iraq, and his aspiration may not be entirely unrealistic. After all, writes Mehdi Mustapha, "Who could have imagined that the exiled Afghanis in the West would return to govern Afghanistan after 40 years? Who has heard of Zaher Shah and Hamid Karzai, and why can't this be replicated in Iraq?"[8] In a recent debate on the Qatari, Al-Jazeera television channel, the question of Hassan, serving as the Karzai of Iraq was mentioned but not enriched by a serious debate. [9]

Commenting on the same issue, a Kuwaiti writer, Muhammad Al-Rumaihi, says there is no longer a big difference between monarchical and republican regimes in the Middle East. The old notion that a republic is preferable to a monarchy has been weakened. After 50 years of rule, some republics seem to turn into hereditary republics, or are capable of doing so [Syria is a primary example]. In short, the author concludes, "the establishment of a multi-party constitutional monarchy characterized by high transparency" is one of the reasonable alternatives to the Iraq of tomorrow. "It is an inexpensive alternative," says Al-Rumaihi, "if measured by the high cost that Iraq might pay in the event of civil wars, factional disputes, and confessional clashes." [10]

The restoration of the Iraqi monarchy might appear attractive to the United States which leads the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein. The doomed Hashemite kingdom in Iraq and the current surviving one in Jordan can boast of a consistent record of accommodating U.S. interests in the area, and there is no reason to believe this record will be blemished if Hassan were to become the new king of Iraq. [11] In addition, given the enormous sufferings of the Iraqi people after 30 years of Saddam Hussein's despotic regime, the majority of Iraqi people might consider a return of the Hashemite monarchy as an acceptable relief to their plight.

In fact, some Iraqi opposition writers are reminding their readers that the first two decades of the first Hashemite king in Iraq, King Faisal I, [Hassan's great uncle] were characterized by a civilian government, a civilian constitution, and a civilian judiciary before a period of decline which set in with the ascendancy of the army officers to power. [12]

The Strategic Significance of Re-establishing the Hashemite Kingdom in Iraq
If the Iraqi leadership in the post-Saddam regime, with the tacit support and endorsement of the United States, were to invite Prince Hassan to re-establish the monarchy in Iraq, the move will have a far-reaching strategic significance in the Middle East. First, a Hashemite Iraq, with its enormous oil and natural gas wealth, with an educated population, and a traditionally vibrant middle class will serve as a countervailing balance to the dominance of Saudi Arabia in the area and in the oil world. It is interesting that the Saudi newspaper, Al-Okaz, found it necessary not only to denounce Hassan's participation at the meeting but also to remind its readers that Prince Hassan appeared at the meeting "arm-in-arm" with one of the Iraqi opposition leaders, Dr. Ahmad al-Chalabi who was sentenced in Jordan for embezzling the Petra Bank.[13] Second, Syria will be squeezed between two Hashemite regimes from the east and from the south, not to mention the less than friendly neighbors on the north and west. [14]

In the words of, Dr. Ahmad Al-Chalabi: "…a strong and democratic Iraqi state in alliance with the United States will have intellectual influence in this area and will create an internal challenge to the Middle Eastern countries … a democratic Iraq will have a positive influence on the whole area."

[1] Mukul Devichand, "Unlikely Rebels," Al-Ahram Weekly On-Line, 18-24 July 2002.

[2] Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, "The London Conference: Is it a propaganda war?" Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, July 15, 2002.

[3] Al-Zaman, July 17, 2002.

[4] Al-Hayat, July 14, 2002.

[5] Loc. Cit.

[6] Al-Hayat, July 30, 2002.

[7] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, July 15, 2002.

[8] Al-Ahram Al-Arabi, July 20, 2002.

[9] www.aljazeera.net/programs/op, August 8, 2002.

[10] Al-Hayat, July 24, 2002.

[11] The long-standing association of the Hashemite family with the West and Israel was underscored in the Al-Jazeera debate referred to in footnote 9 by As’ad Abu-Khalil, identified as professor of political science at the University of California.

[12] See, for example, Hassan Al-'Alawi, "The State of Constitution and Parliament," Al-Mu’atamar, July 6-12, 2002.

[13] Al-Okaz, July 18, 2002.

[14] Al-Mua’tamar, July 13-19, 2002.

Iraq Opposition Officers Connect with a Hashemite Prince to Replace Saddam (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA10602)

King and Country
The Hashemite solution for Iraq.

BY BERNARD LEWIS AND R. JAMES WOOLSEY

Following the recent passage of the Security Council resolution on Iraq, the key issue continues to be how quickly to move toward sovereignty and democracy for a new government. The resolution's call for the Iraqi Governing Council to establish a timetable by Dec. 15 for creating a constitution and a democratic government has papered over differences for the time being.

But there are still substantial disagreements even among people who want to see democracy and the rule of law in Iraq as promptly as possible. The U.S. sees the need for time to do the job right. France, Germany and Russia want both more U.N. participation and more speed--a pair of mutually exclusive objectives if there ever was one. Some Iraqis call for an elected constitutional convention, others for a rapid conferring of sovereignty, some for both. Many Middle Eastern governments oppose democracy and thus some support whatever they think will fail.

There may be a path through this thickening fog, made thicker by the rocket and suicide-bombing attacks of the last three days. It is important to help Ambassador Paul Bremer and the coalition forces to establish security. But it is also important to take an early step toward Iraqi sovereignty and to move toward representative government. The key is that Iraq already has a constitution. It was legally adopted in 1925 and Iraq was governed under it until the series of military, then Baathist, coups began in 1958 and brought over four decades of steadily worsening dictatorship. Iraqis never chose to abandon their 1925 constitution--it was taken from them. The document is not ideal, and it is doubtless not the constitution under which a modern democratic Iraq will ultimately be governed. But a quick review indicates that it has some very useful features that would permit it to be used on an interim basis while a new constitution is drafted. Indeed, the latter could be approved as an omnibus amendment to the 1925 document.

This seems possible because the 1925 Iraqi constitution--which establishes that the nation's sovereignty "resides in the people"--provides for an elected lower house of parliament, which has a major role in approving constitutional amendments. It also contains a section on "The Rights of the People" that declares Islam as the official religion, but also provides for freedom of worship for all Islamic sects and indeed for all religions and for "complete freedom of conscience." It further guarantees "freedom of expression of opinion, liberty of publication, of meeting together, and of forming and joining associations." In different words, the essence of much of our own Bill of Rights is reflected therein.

We need not shy away from the 1925 constitution because it establishes a constitutional monarchy. Understandings could readily be worked out that would not lead to a diminution of Amb. Bremer's substantive authority in vital areas during the transition--some ministries may, e.g., transition to Iraqi control before others. In the document as it now stands the monarch has some important powers since he appoints the government's ministers, including a prime minister, and the members of the upper house, or senate. Many of these and other provisions would doubtless be changed through amendment, although the members of the current Governing Council might be reasonably appointed to some of these positions on an interim basis. Some new features, such as explicit recognition of equal rights for women, a point not clear in the 1925 document, would need to be adopted at the outset. During a transition, pursuant to consultations with Amb. Bremer and with groups in Iraq, the king could under the constitution appoint ministers, including a prime minister, and also adopt provisional rules for elections. The elected parliament could then take a leading role in amending the constitution and establishing the rules for holding further elections.

Using the 1925 constitution as a transitional document would be entirely consistent with permanently establishing as head of state either a president or a monarch that, like the U.K.'s, reigns but does not rule.

It is worth noting that monarchy and democracy coexist happily in a number of countries. Indeed, of the nations that have been democracies for a very long time and show every sign that they will remain so, a substantial majority are constitutional monarchies (the U.S. and Switzerland being the principal exceptions). And we should recall how important King Juan Carlos was to the transition from fascism to democracy in Spain. As odd as the notion may seem to Americans whose national identity was forged in rebellion against George III, there is nothing fundamentally undemocratic about a limited monarchy's serving as a transitional, or even a long-term, constitutional structure in Iraq or any other country.

cont'd next post

Selecting the right monarch for the transitional government would be vitally important. Conveniently, the 1925 constitution provides that the people of Iraq are deemed to have "confided . . . a trust" to "King Faisal, son of Hussain, and to his heirs . . . ." If the allies who liberated Iraq recognized an heir of this Hashemite line as its constitutional monarch, and this monarch agreed to help bring about a modern democracy under the rule of law, such a structure could well be the framework for a much smoother transition to democracy than now seems at hand. The Sunni Hashemites, being able to claim direct descent from the Prophet Mohammed, have historically been respected by the Shiites, who constitute a majority of the people of Iraq, although the latter recognize a different branch of the family. It is the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, not the Hashemites, who have been the Shiites' persecutors.

The respect enjoyed by the Hashemites has been earned. They have had a generally deserved reputation for tolerance and coexistence with other faiths and other branches of Islam. Many Iraqis look back on the era of Hashemite rule from the 1920s to the 1950s as a golden age. And during the period of over 1,000 years when the Hashemites ruled the Hejaz, wherein the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located, they dealt tolerantly with all Muslims during the Haj, or annual pilgrimage. Disagreements and tension under Hashemite rule have never come close either to the bloody conflicts of many centuries' duration in Europe between Catholics and Protestants or to the massacres and hatred perpetrated by the Wahhabis and their allies in the House of Saud.

Recently in a brilliant essay in the New Republic, Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen has pointed out that tolerance and "the exercise of public reason" have given democracy solid roots in many of the world's non-European cultures, and that balloting must be accompanied by such local traditions in order for democracy and the rule of law to take root. The legitimacy and continuity which the Hashemites represent for large numbers of people in the Middle East, and the tolerance of "public reason" with which they have been associated, could provide a useful underpinning for the growth of democracy in Iraq.

Historically, rulers in the Middle East have held office for life and have nominated their successors, ordinarily from within the reigning family. This ensured legitimacy, stability and continuity, and usually though not invariably took the form of monarchy. In the modern era succession by violence has sadly become more prevalent. It would be reasonable to use the traditional Middle Eastern concepts of legitimacy and succession and to build on the wide and historic appreciation for the rule of law and of limited government to help bring about a transition to democracy. The identification of legitimacy with the Western practice of balloting has now occurred in many cultures around the world, but it may well occur sooner in Iraq if it is developed at least initially as an expanding aspect of an already legitimate constitutional order.

Some contend that a process that gave the U.N. a central role would somehow confer legitimacy. We are at a loss to understand this argument. Nearly 40% of the U.N. members' governments do not practice succession by election. In the Middle East only Israel and Turkey do so. Why waste time with U.N. member governments, many of them nondemocratic, working out their differences--and some indeed fundamentally oppose democracy in Iraq--when the key parties who need to do that are the Iraqis? Besides, real legitimacy ultimately will come about when Iraq has a government that "deriv[es] its just power from the consent of the governed." During a transition in which Iraq is moving toward democracy, a government that is operating under its existing constitution, with a monarch as called for in that document, is at least as legitimate as the governments of U.N. members that are not democracies at all.

Much would hinge on the willingness of the king to work closely and cooperatively with Amb. Bremer and to appoint a responsible and able prime minister. The king should be a Hashemite prince with political experience and no political obligations or commitments. In view of the nation's Shiite majority, the prime minister should be a modern Shiite with a record of opposition to tyranny and oppression. Such leaders would be well-suited to begin the process that would in time lead to genuinely free and fair elections, sound amendments to the 1925 Iraqi Constitution, and the election of a truly representative governing body. We would also strongly suggest that the choices of king and prime minister be made on the basis of character, ability and political experience--not on the basis of bias, self-interest, grudges or rivalries held or felt by some in the region and indeed by some in the U.S. government.

Mr. Lewis is a professor emeritus at Princeton and the author, most recently, of ?The Crisis of Islam? (Modern Library, 2003). Mr. Woolsey is a former director of the CIA.

King and Country (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004230)

This could be the ground work for Babylon rising. We know Babylon must rise again because of Bible Prophecy in Revelation 16.

Revelation 16:10-11 Then the fifth [angel] emptied his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was [plunged] in darkness; and people gnawed their tongues for the torment [of their excruciating distress and severe pain] 11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their anguish and their ulcers (sores), and they did not deplore their wicked deeds or repent [for what they had done].