Chinney
2004-05-21, 23:07
This story has not received all that much play in the other news sites I have read, but it was the banner front-page headline in today's Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040521/IRAQ21/TPFront/TopStories)
Excerpt:
BAGHDAD -- Ahmed Chalabi was the Pentagon's darling.
One of the most powerful men in Baghdad, he enjoyed a 500-soldier private army, a sprawling headquarters in the embassy district, a seat on Iraq's Governing Council, a monthly $340,000 (U.S.) stipend from the Pentagon and an intelligence network that helped persuade Washington that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Yesterday, his allies turned against him -- with a vengeance. For three hours, with the support of American advisers and at least five U.S. military vehicles, dozens of Iraqi police rampaged through his home and offices.
They kicked down doors, slapped the guards, pointed their guns at anyone who resisted, smashed portraits of Mr. Chalabi and his grandfather, seized computers and files, confiscated his prayer beads and even raided the refrigerator in his private office, helping themselves to Pepsis and fruit.
Given that few other news sites seem to have given the story as much prominence, I wonder if perhaps the Globe and Mail has overplayed it - perhaps based on exaggerated accounts from Mr. Chalabi himself. The man is known for playing fast and loose with the truth.
One the other hand, even if the story is partly exaggerated as to the degree of force used in the raid, the raid itself is still significant. Consider that as recently as January 2004 this man was the Guest of Honor at President Bush's State of the Union address in Washington.
My own view is that the U.S. has every reason not to be thankful to Chalabi. It is now clear that he has not been helpful presence in Iraq, nor was he a positive presence even before the war. He played a big part in the lie machine that got the U.S. into the mess in Iraq - although those in the U.S. Administration were more than just complicit in these lies.
On that other hand, regardless of my lack of respect for what Chalabi has represented and done over the past couple of years, I do wonder if discarding him in this manner is yet another mistake. The U.S. cannot afford more enemies now in Iraq. While the U.S. now correctly realizes that Chalabi cannot play a constructive role in a new Iraqi government, would it not have been better to offer him some symbolic post - perhaps outside of Iraq - rather than opening up a potential new line of attack? Alternatively, if Chalabi and/or those around him should be subject to a criminal probe, could not all of this have been done a bit more gently? You don't always have to use an iron fist.
Excerpt:
BAGHDAD -- Ahmed Chalabi was the Pentagon's darling.
One of the most powerful men in Baghdad, he enjoyed a 500-soldier private army, a sprawling headquarters in the embassy district, a seat on Iraq's Governing Council, a monthly $340,000 (U.S.) stipend from the Pentagon and an intelligence network that helped persuade Washington that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Yesterday, his allies turned against him -- with a vengeance. For three hours, with the support of American advisers and at least five U.S. military vehicles, dozens of Iraqi police rampaged through his home and offices.
They kicked down doors, slapped the guards, pointed their guns at anyone who resisted, smashed portraits of Mr. Chalabi and his grandfather, seized computers and files, confiscated his prayer beads and even raided the refrigerator in his private office, helping themselves to Pepsis and fruit.
Given that few other news sites seem to have given the story as much prominence, I wonder if perhaps the Globe and Mail has overplayed it - perhaps based on exaggerated accounts from Mr. Chalabi himself. The man is known for playing fast and loose with the truth.
One the other hand, even if the story is partly exaggerated as to the degree of force used in the raid, the raid itself is still significant. Consider that as recently as January 2004 this man was the Guest of Honor at President Bush's State of the Union address in Washington.
My own view is that the U.S. has every reason not to be thankful to Chalabi. It is now clear that he has not been helpful presence in Iraq, nor was he a positive presence even before the war. He played a big part in the lie machine that got the U.S. into the mess in Iraq - although those in the U.S. Administration were more than just complicit in these lies.
On that other hand, regardless of my lack of respect for what Chalabi has represented and done over the past couple of years, I do wonder if discarding him in this manner is yet another mistake. The U.S. cannot afford more enemies now in Iraq. While the U.S. now correctly realizes that Chalabi cannot play a constructive role in a new Iraqi government, would it not have been better to offer him some symbolic post - perhaps outside of Iraq - rather than opening up a potential new line of attack? Alternatively, if Chalabi and/or those around him should be subject to a criminal probe, could not all of this have been done a bit more gently? You don't always have to use an iron fist.