December 7, 2005

Dear Khalid,

For this letter, I have chosen to address directly the issue of the “resistance,” as I feel as if this is a key point which cannot be glossed over. As we conclude the dialogue in the next few letters, I may address more specific issues, but I must address Khalid’s sentiment that the “resistance” is justified as they are fighting “the occupation.” This sounds fine as a simple sentiment of the oppressed fighting the oppressor, but let us truly consider some of the fallacies of this idea and some of its implications. Essentially, what does it really mean to be in favor of the “resistance”?

Who does your “resistance” represent? Perhaps first it is better to define who it does not represent. According to an article published recently by the AP about the upcoming OIC conference in Saudi Arabia, the government of Iraq is firmly against the “resistance.” Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said his delegation would ask the conference to condemn the violence in Iraq. “This is not resistance. It is terrorism, and should be condemned,” he told the Associated Press. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari echoed that sentiment. "We want the summit to come out with a crystal clear support of the political process and a condemnation of terrorism," he said. The insurgency “is a crime against all Iraqis, it should be condemned as strongly as possible.”

I know, Khalid, that you do not like the Iraqi government and feel that they are just puppets, but I believe this is just another case of what makes our debate extremely difficult as it is an accurate representation of your inability to be open to any possibilities of truth other than your own. The turnout for the votes was indeed quite remarkable and will be even more so in the next elections where more Sunnis will vote; and if you are unwilling to accept government elected by the Iraqi people, then we are truly far, far apart in our discussion, perhaps so far that our discussion is only two voices shouting at each other but only reaching a wall rather than an ear of receptiveness. In fact, I fear that this is probably the best way to sum up our discussion so far.

It certainly does not represent the Kurds in Iraq, despite the fact that most of the Kurds are Sunni Muslims. Neither does the “resistance” represent the Shiites; just ask any of the thousands of mothers who have had their sons killed and kidnapped by the “resistance.” The resistance also does not represent the Christians in Iraq—just ask those at St. George’s Church in Baghdad (a church led by an acquaintance of mine, Canon Andrew White, who is known and loved by most who know politics and current affairs in the Middle East. I also obtained much of my knowledge about Iraqi feelings about the war from Canon Andrew, who has been in Iraq for much of his adult life), where they have had all of their lay leadership kidnapped and killed, and who are still strongly in support of the American troops and the war. So after this brief survey, it is clear that the “resistance” does not represent Iraq, except for a minority of Sunni Iraqis who are doing two things: attempting to hold onto a power that they once had under the dictator Saddam Hussein, and acting on a sick ideology that praises any fighting or killing of Americans.

I do not want the readers to become mixed up in the rhetoric of hate that the “resistance” spits out and become blind to the facts—Iraqis don’t want the resistance just as they don’t want Americans there any longer than they have to be.

How do you think Jordanians feel right now about the “resistance”? If thousands of people (both Arab and Muslim) parading through the streets against your beloved “resistance” don’t teach you anything, then it is certain that no words of mine will. So as we can see, the “resistance” also doesn’t represent the Jordanian people, neighbors of Iraq, who have now felt the sting of its terrorism in their capital. While international opinion is not always in support of the war, it is certainly not in support of terrorism, which has now been felt in so many countries around the world, so the “resistance” also does not represent the international community. Judging by the opinions expressed in the article mentioned above, as well as common sense about Muslims around the world, the “resistance” does not represent the opinion of the majority of Muslim governments and people around the world. Let us be clear about what this “resistance” really is: a vain and losing cause to instill fear, impose a new domination, set up a world order ruled by fanaticism, and quite plainly, an abomination to Islam.

I am truly sorry to have to say this, and perhaps by saying this I will alienate you, Khalid, as well as many readers, but based on my study of Islam, friends who are Muslims, and time spent in Muslim countries, I conclude that international Islamic terrorism is destroying the faith. It has dominated headlines now for 4 years or more and has certainly not spread the faith in a healthy fashion, as the Sufi mystics of history did in places like central Africa and Indonesia. Now I certainly know, based on the love that I have for so many Muslim friends and the love they have for me, that this is not what Islam is about—but it continues. I am also not trying to say that colonialism and globalization were not partial and indeed significant causes of the rise of such ideologies as Wahhabism and the thought of Said Qutb, but what I am saying is this: The strategy is utterly failing to bring about the reform and spread of Dar al-Islam that was originally the purpose.

My suggestion for this debate is essentially this: Khalid’s ideas about the “resistance” have indeed been well represented by Khalid, but they must be recognized for what they are—the opinion of a minority of Iraqis—especially those who were not severely repressed by Saddam Hussein.

To conclude, I do indeed think it is a shame that in Khalid’s words this must be “a debate” where we bring our grievances, so to speak, to the table. How are we as Americans and Iraqis truly going to heal and reconcile if not through open dialogue with the goal of friendship despite political differences? There is certainly a time and place for debate, but I question whether this is it.

I also am disappointed and shocked that Khalid takes such a stand on the “resistance,” as this is implicitly saying that he is in favor of the terrorism that continues to kill far more people over the last year than the military battles have for quite some time. If Khalid is truly in favor of such warfare, then two can certainly play at that game. I believe that I could just as easily ask Khalid the same questions about the basis and reasoning for fighting in regards to Al-Zarqawi and the like as he has for the United States. So in the end, does might make right? Who says who has the right to fight? In this life, it seems that we all must decide based on our faith, beliefs, etc., and right now I am comfortable with a war that has and will bring better conditions to all Iraqis not just to the obvious majorities and minorities that were oppressed under Saddam Hussein. (Canon Andew White’s church has grown remarkably despite the danger as an example of institutions repressed previously by the Hussein government that are now flourishing.)

No doubt, the war has often been mishandled, leading to a prolonged insurgency, and as a result many innocent Iraqis have been martyred for the causes of freedom and justice that Islam certainly espouses as they have died under the hands of the “resistance.” At this point I am not asking the readers to even support American military actions, but I am asking the readers to at least see this resistance for what it is, and finally to get involved for peace if they really do want to change things. Join the Red Crescent or the Arab League or various Muslim human rights organizations and go to Iraq—the more hands that there are working for peace, the sooner American soldiers will leave, but more importantly, the sooner the destructive ideology of the “resistance” will be defeated.

December 14, 2005

Dear Evan,

I want to tell you a joke! :)

This actually happened to me. I was talking to one of my neighbors, he is few years younger than me, and his name is Hassan.

One day Hassan asked me how old my brother Raed was.

I said, “1978.” (This is the common way to answer a question about one’s age in Iraq, by birth year)

He looked uncomfortable and said, “No, I think he is 1977!”

Hahaha!!!

And I replied insisting, “No, 1978.”

And he wouldn’t believe me!

Haha!

I had mixed feelings, I wanted to laugh so hard, but I was so frustrated that I wanted to punch his nose at the same time, haha!

I am kind of having the same feelings that I had that day, many years ago, with you now, Evan. Not that I want to punch you on the nose, haha, but that I can’t believe that you are don’t believe what I said about the feelings of Iraqis towards this or that!

But as the Godfather said before, “I am a civilized person.” So I am going to try to convince you more of what I think.

You are quoting AP [the Associated Press], Jalal Talabani, and Zibari about the feelings of regular Iraqis! If you can’t see the irony in that (obviously you don’t), then I will explain it to you.

Jalal Talabani, who has the best relations with Israel and the US in the region, wouldn’t say anything that is not totally supporting of and approved by the US.

AP? I am giving you first-hand information, and you are quoting foreigners who are quoting Jalal Talabani.

I appreciate what you said when you described what Zibari did. He “echoed” the speech of others and this is actually what Talabani does himself. This is the extent of authority he has. He echoes whatever the White House says and is not even allowed to change the words or terms. 

Kurds are mostly Sunni Muslims, but unfortunately due to their corrupt leadership, they have been taught that the Arabs hate them, and that every Arab is waiting out there to kill as many Kurds as possible (although I swear that throughout my whole life in Iraq, I don’t remember meeting one single soul among the Arabs who hates the Kurds, just for being Kurds). And the Kurdish leaders convinced the Kurds that every Arab is Saddam Hussein, exactly like your administration is trying to tell Americans and the world that every anti-occupation supporter is pro-Saddam, and just like what they—and, sadly, you—try to tell the world that every pro-resistance supporter is pro-terrorism. All of this, with all due respect, is mere lies. Therefore, Kurds count themselves as simply Kurdish, and their loyalty to their ethnic group is higher than that to their religious belonging, while their leaders are secular. So you can hardly count the Kurdish political stand as being a stand of Sunni Arabs.

Kurds have been completely separated from the rest of Iraq after receiving their independence years before the war. There are actually borders between Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq. Iraqis weren’t allowed to go into the Kurdish areas. Kurds had their own government, flag, language, satellite stations, mobile phones (access to the rest of the world), and also a much higher per capita income than the rest of Iraq.

I am trying to say is that they have been disconnected from the rest of Iraq, and there was never a war in their region. All these factors led to the fact that they are not screaming with support for the resistance, simply because they are not concerned with the whole issue. Their leaders are against the resistance because they are very pro-occupation and the new constitution also supports their ability to make use of oil and other natural resources in their area. Still, Kurds that live in Baghdad (I am talking about those in Baghdad in particular because they are the ones I have met and lived with) and know that Arabs aren’t evil creatures who feed on Kurds, are actually pro-resistance. 

The corrupted Kurdish leaders worked very hard for many years to plant the strong Kurdish identity in the heads of Kurds because it is in their—the leaders—best interest. They tell them, “You are Kurds, and not anything else but Kurds, and we happen to be Kurdish leaders! We are the ones who should lead you, not the Iraqi government, which is made up of Arabs. We are Kurds, we take care of each other, away from those Arabs.” They feed them ideologies and then they receive the legitimacy of being and continuing to be leaders.

This very same concept also applies to the corrupt Shiite leaders, who have no qualifications to lead whatsoever, except for the fact that they are Shiite! And then it’s in their best interest to further widen the gap between the Shiite and Sunni, and to have the Shiite firmly hold on to their Shiiteness, rather than Islam or Iraqiness. This simply gives them a role, and a chance to be leaders! Do you know that just by being in the positions they are in, they get 20 percent of the total income of every Shiite in the country? Yes, sir, 20 percent! And only God—and the grand ayatollahs—knows where that money goes. The new constitution gives them the right to get their own country now in the south, a pro-Iran province, which means that they are able to control the oil as well, besides the 20 percent tax that they collect from people, so why resist the occupation? It’s in their best interest to support it. And then they formed the new government, supported by Iran, and formed the police and National Guard to protect the presence of the occupation, which insures their interests in the constitution that the occupation wrote up. So do you expect these people to support the resistance?

On the other hand, the regular Shiite in the street, a lot of them who support the resistance, like those who are Sadrists, support the resistance (who alone number in the millions) and also the followers of other leaders beside Sadr such as the followers of Sistani. A lot of them support the resistance as long as it only attacks Americans and the other occupations forces.

You expect the Iraqi president to support the resistance? Or do you expect the Saudi king to support it? Don’t you remember that he allows American bases on Saudi lands? So much for democracy. How many Saudis do you think love having American bases in their country? Did you say none? I thought so! But there are still bases there, aren’t there? I would call that undemocratic, wouldn’t you? I think you should call for your government to go and liberate Saudi Arabia! Oh wait, they wouldn’t, they are good friends.

You expect the Saudi king not to condemn resistance?

In Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and practically every other country in the Arab and Muslim world, the majority of people support the resistance, and the majority of people condemn terrorism.

Many sides have tried to associate Islam with terrorism, but still Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth, so I guess we don’t have to fear much for the reputation of Islam at the moment.  

You have no idea—as a matter of fact, no one does—about the numbers of Arabs who came to Iraq to fight during the war. They didn’t come to defend Saddam Hussein, but to defend Iraq. They were killed in the streets and people buried them under the pavement or on the side of streets without names. All that is left is just a piece of paper saying “An Arab martyr is buried here,“ or “An Arab mujahid is buried here.” No one could bury them properly, just like what happened to the rest of the Iraqi corpses, because it was too dangerous to go anywhere. My neighbor was killed—by the American army— when driving on a highway. He had many sons and daughters, and they couldn’t get his body out of his car except after many days due to the dangerous situation. He was shot, just like thousands of other Iraqis, just for being in the street at the wrong time, a time when an American soldier was feeling uncomfortable or insecure. A lot of the Arabs left their lives to come and participate in the resistance. Here, I just wanted to try and clarify the issue of the Arabs’ support of the resistance.  

People in Jordan who went out to march in the demonstrations were condemning terrorism, which kills innocent people. If we want to apply this to the case of Iraq, terrorism is what is and will continue to be undertaken by the occupation. Even the presence of the terrorists and their operations and the continuity of their presence in Iraq, is the occupation. The blood of Iraqis, that was shed by terrorists, stains the Americans’ hands as much as it stains the terrorists’ hands. But the Americans have managed to get a few extra thousands of liters of Iraqi blood from those whom they killed, either during military operations, by bombing their houses, and by using cluster bombs, white phosphorus, bullets, and practically every other weapon ever invented, except for nuclear weapons. Some of the bullets are covered with DU [depleted uranium] to give them higher penetration abilities. In this war, America and the other occupation forces are practically the ugliest form of terrorism ever seen.

The resistance is the force of the oppressed against this oppressor. The resistance couldn’t possibly have started or continued, if it wasn’t for the funding and protection of Iraqi people. Imagine four people in a car, carrying their weapons and waiting for an American convoy to pass so they can attack it. How many Iraqis see them? How many Iraqis can report them anonymously? How many Iraqis can attack them? But none of that happens! People protect them, and cheer for them when they perform their operations. They help the attackers in their escape after they are done. Some people even divide their income between their families and the resistance, some people work half-time to provide for their families and dedicate the rest of their day to working with the resistance. It is a public grassroots movement, and the official numbers and report show that it’s increasing and getting smarter and stronger. These are facts that AP can’t report because they don’t know about them, and Talabani won’t talk about them because he doesn’t like them. 

The political process has not been any less shameful. It was designed and carried out in a way that supports every pro-American and pro-occupation party. It eliminates the rest of Iraqi people. How could a thug like Allawi be a part of the political process? The magical answer: because he is not only a pro-American, but also represents the US. How did the corrupted Iraqi government get into power? The government of torture, the government that drills holes in people’s bodies in prisons, the government of financial corruption, how did they get in power? The magical answer: because they are pro-occupation!

Sistani, hoping to create his Shiite-Iranian empire, and to increase his income, has ordered the Shiite to vote for the Shiite list in the last elections. And the Shiite are not allowed to question what their mullahs say. Now that the size of the mess this government has created is coming up to the surface, Sistani has decided that he isn’t going to support any of the lists in these elections! After all of this, the government has established a firm foot in the army and police, and built a government based on sectarian racism.

The US army helped, though, in exposing the last two scandals of Jadiriyya and Nosour Square. People knew about them months ago, but now right before the elections—conveniently—they exposed them to the international community and to all Iraqis. They used pictures to show people how bad the Shiite government is. At the same time, guess who came out on the surface condemning torture? Allawi! Haha! The same one who was called the butcher of Falluja! the same one responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis! the same one who was the direct reason for the Sunni boycott of the first elections—because of the government attack on Sunni cities back then, including Falluja! and who at the same time did not let the rest of the Sunnis vote for being too busy trying not to die in other Sunni cities! Allawi—who managed to evaporate a few billions of Iraq’s money during his time as a PM, and I am saying “evaporate” because somehow nobody was able to find them. Allawi—who represents in the eyes of Iraqis the new Saddam Hussein. That same Allawi is now being polished and painted to be reproduced as the man of peace and human rights.

So, ladies and gentlemen, after the US coalition with Shiites against Sunnis since the war started, till the Sunnis lost enough lives to have them pull back out of the whole political process, and after giving the Shiites the chance to make a government and then show people how bad it was right before the elections—like they didn’t know before—we come to one conclusion: Dear Iraqis, Sunnis are terrorists, and Shiites are torturing freaks; the best for you is to elect a secular person like, for example, Allawi!

Who, just as a small, simple, unimportant side-note, happens to be pro-occupation and will make sure the occupation will never leave as long as he is in power.

What was that saying about permanent friends and permanent interests?!!

It’s all one big dirty game. The first and last and only one to benefit out of it is the occupation itself.

The whole elections process is controlled and run by the Iraqi government and the occupation forces. What kind of results do we expect to get?

An Allawi will win, no matter what. Just wait a little bit and see when the results come out: I mean by that any person who represents the interests of USA rather than those of the Iraqis.

The constitution divides Iraq. Federalism is a dividing tool. In every other place, federalism is used to unite separated states. In Iraq it means, according to the constitution, dividing Iraq and giving the provinces higher authority than the federal government, the right to have their own official language, their own police and army, and their own constitution, too. That’s all in the new constitution.

The occupation and all of its followers, and all of the Allawis, will never leave while they are being asked nicely; they will leave when they are forced to.  

The resistance never killed an American for being an American. Was any single American soul killed by the Iraqi resistance before the war? Of course not! The American administration is putting the American fathers and sons in the front in Iraq, as an occupying force, to insure its own interests at the expense of the lives of Americans, who are being killed because they are wearing military uniforms and coming from across the map to be in and occupy our country. They are not being killed for being American or because we hate your way of life. They are being killed as a reaction to their actions, which are far worse than anything the resistance did to them yet. The occupation is spreading the poison of hate by killing more people and by continuing to stay in Iraq.  

In the end I want to ask you few questions:

1. Why doesn’t the American administration set a timetable of pulling out of Iraq, and then embarrassing the resistance by ruining its goals? The resistance will continue to fight till the last man, till the occupation leaves. Why doesn’t the US administration set a timetable to leave Iraq—let’s say in one year? And then the resistance will find itself obligated to stop, and get in the government to be part of the police and army to build strong enough forces to control the country before the end of the year.

My answer: Because they don’t want to leave ever, and even if they are going to pull out some of the forces, they are leaving a number of military bases. I want your reply for this, please, for each of the following points: Why not set a schedule? And also I want an answer about the fixed military bases: Is that a sign of sovereignty of the future Iraq? Would you accept fixed permanent foreign bases in your country? Isn’t this long lasting occupation? I am going to nag you till you answer them all!

2. I heard you talking over and over about the innocent Iraqis who were killed by the terrorists (well, according to your definition of terrorists, not mine). My question is: Do you support the killing of Iraqis by the American Army? Over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed. Cluster bombs and white phosphorus were used against civilians. Yes, civilians in civilian areas, as you know that kind of weapon doesn’t discriminate. It’s practically a weapon of mass destruction so to speak, in the sense that it’s designed to kill as many people as possible in an area. Well, you might say that some of the resistance were among those civilians that were killed. Do you support killing these numbers of innocent civilians just because maybe they work with the resistance? If the situation were the opposite and your country were occupied and the occupiers killed civilians, including your family members, by using white phosphorus—which means that they practically burned to death—just because some of the resistance happened to be in the neighbor, what would you think? (Sorry if I sound rude; I need to let you understand that I am not talking about theories. Those people who burned to ashes were families of other people you know.)

If you take your time and find the courage to answer ALL these question honestly, I think then we would have moved forward in our “debate.”

Thank you.

Khalid