Iraqi Voices 0f Resistance


* The on-going resistance against foreign occupation: principles according to international law

* Muthana Harith al-Dari: "The Resistance will continue till the exit of the occupiers" (27 Nov 2020)

* The occupation cannot stay (Mohamed Al-Faidhi, spokesman of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, on the future of the Iraqi resistance and the inevitability of US withdrawal - 13 Nov 2020)

* The resistance speaks (19 June 2020)

* The Iraqi Resistance: Five Years on, Saddam's Successor Resurfaces (05 June 2020)

* Secretary General of AMSI Sheikh Harith al Dhari : I Defend The Iraqi Resistance (19 Feb 2021)

* Support the Iraqi Resistance through the Advocacy of International Law (Abu Mohamad 14 Jan 2008)

* Interview in Madrid with Abu Muhammad, spokesman of the patriotic and nationalist Iraqi Resistance (10 Dec 2020)

* Iraqi resistance demands U.S. withdrawal and recognition (Internview with Abu Mohammed 20 Oct 2020)

* The most prominent jihadist factions in Iraq unite politically (12 Oct 2020)

* Iraqi Resistance announces founding of Supreme Command for the Jihad and Liberation forces (03 Oct 2020)

* Al-Rashideen Army to the Americans: Don’t walk behind a mirage, we will fight you till the last man falls (03 Oct 2020)

* Let's foil, with the unity of the armed Resistance, the conspiracy to divide Iraq (Baath Statement, 01 Oct 2007)

* Open Letter from AMSI to the Resistance Fighters (15 Sep 2020)

* The Hidden Facts. A Message from the Iraqi Resistance (1920 Revolution Brigades, 08 Sep 2020)

* AMSI Net Interview with Sheikh Dr.Abdulselam Al-Kubaisi (29 Aug 2020)

* Dr. Muthanna al-Dhari: The armed resistance is the Iraqi’s honor and the AMSI supported it from the beginning (22 Aug 2007)

* With the Patriotic Front, Iraq shall be liberated and a patriotic multi party regime will take place (Baath statement 14 Aug 2020)

* Reply to Bennis: The Iraqi Resistance is just and should be supported (Kosta Harlan, 11 August 2020)

* Out of the shadows (Seumas Milne 19 July 2020)

* Insurgents “Right to Take on US” (BBC 03 May 2020)

Iraq: a blueprint for peace (Karen Button 28 April 2020)

* Interview with Senior Ba'ath Party Member (Dahr Jamail 20 April 2020)

* The Iraqi Resistance Only Exists to End the Occupation (Haifa Zangana 12 April 2020)

AMSI: The Iraqi Resistance Defeated the Occupation in Iraq (26 March 2021)

*  Iraqi resistance alters world situation (John Catalinotto 23 March 2021)

Sheikh al-Dhari: The Occupation is Godmother of the Problems (22 March 2007)

* Iraqi Resistance Indicators (Mundher Adhami 21 March 2021)

* Open letter to the anti-war movement (Hana Al Bayaty, 18 March 2021)

Iraqi Insurgents Offer Peace in Return for US Concessions (Robert Fisk 09 Feb 2021)

* Iraqi Resistance: building peace through defeating Aggression (Kuala Lumpur 05 Feb 2021)

Southern Tribes Add to Iraqi Resistance (IPS, 19 Jan 2021)

* Letter from Salah Al Mukhtar to Nancy Pelosi (29 Dec 2006)

*  The Political Program of the Baath Party and its Patriotic Resistance. (October 2006)

* Resistance Growing Up at School (IPS, 12 Oct 2020)

* Only resistance is legal (Hana and Abdul Ilah Al Bayaty, Ian Douglas - 05 Oct 2020)

* Message to the Iraqi people and the Iraqi resistance  (Jose Maria Sison 07 April 2020)

* An Interview with Dr. Mohammad al-Obaidi of Iraq's Peoples' Struggle Movement (Counterpunch, 12 July 2020)

* Resistance in Iraq, true and false (David Pestieau  18 June 2005)

* Postscript to the Turkish edition of Iraq Eye to Eye with the Occupation (EPO) (Mohamed Hassan & David Pestieau  15 April 2020)

* Iraq - Eye to Eye with the Occupation • Chapter III: The Historical Roots of Resistance (Mohamed Hassan & David Pestieau  15 April 2020)

* An insiders look at the Iraqi resistance (Jihad Unspun)

* Iraqi Resistance Reports (Free Arab Voice)

* Iraqi Resistance speech on videotape (13 Dec 2004)

* The Iraqi Resistance Reports (Al Basrah)

* Iraq resistance news on Information Clearing House

* Meet the resistance (Al Quds 27 Oct 2020)

* As violence grows, oil-rich Kirkuk could hold key to Iraq's future (Guardian 27 Oct 2020)

Iraqi Opposition Leader Speaks - Interview with Salah Al Mukhtar (22 Oct 2020)

* US Losing Control Fast (IPS, 06 Sept 2020)

* Interview with Izzat al-Douri (Time 24 July 2020)

* National Sovereignty and Military Occupation Not Compatible  (03 May 2020)

*  Resistance remains a national calling for all Iraqis in the face of US designs (April 11 2005)

*  Iraqi Resistance Distances Itself From Civilian Blood (March 07 2005)

*  Iraq’s Right to Resistance and Self-Determination By Ghali Hassan (february 25 2005)

*  The power to resist  (January 21  2005)




*  [PDF] Qu'en est il aujourd'hui du droit de résister et du droit de se défendre? Le cas de la Palestine (Mireille Fanon-Mendès France 07 May 2020)




The on-going resistance against foreign occupation: principles according to international law.


Civilians in an occupied country have no obligation of loyalty towards the Occupying Power regardless of the motives of the invading forces. The only obligations they have relate to their civilian status: civilians are protected by applicable human rights law as well as by Geneva Convention IV relating to civilians and the provisions relating to civilians in Protocol Additional I. A civilian who takes up arms against the Occupying Power loses rights as a civilian, but takes on the rights and obligations of combatant forces. This is the situation of the classic levee en masse: the Geneva Conventions recognize the combatant status of persons who spontaneously take up arms on the approach of the enemy.


This rule is augmented by the principle of self-determination: under the law of self-determination, a people have the right to resist, with force if necessary, an alien or foreign occupier. The fact that some of the people resisting the U.S./British occupation of Iraq were not part of the pre-invasion Iraqi armed forces is not relevant, as persons who were civilians can take up arms as insurgents against any occupier. As protected combatants they have the right to take up arms against the Occupying Power and cannot be criminally charged except for acts that violate the laws and customs of war. The reason for this rule is obvious: were civilians who spontaneously take up arms and organize themselves into defense forces to be considered “terrorists” instead of combatants, this would mean that persons under attack from a foreign or oppressive force would not be able to fight back and resist without being considered terrorist.

The U.S. administration has generally succeeded in its political rhetoric on the issue: practically no U.S. politicians and very few scholars in NGOs in the U.S. have challenged the false labelling of the Iraq resistance as “terrorist.”


The U.S. seeks to avoid application of the self-determination rules by claiming that Iraq is no longer an “occupied” county but rather a sovereign State with a government. In this regard there has been some lukewarm recognition of an “interim” Iraqi government since 2004, but this was more for practical reasons than for legal ones. For example, UN Security Council resolution 1546 of June 8, 2004, while seeming to recognize Iraq’s sovereignty, is notable for its contradictions and ambivalence. It records “that …by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full Sovereignty,” but then notes “the situation in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,” thus requiring that “the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq….”


Regardless of the intent of this resolution, the U.S. has not ceased either its military operations in or its military occupation of Iraq according to the terms of humanitarian law. U.S. military commanders acknowledge that they retain control in most areas. For example, Col. David R. Gray, commander of the Army’s 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, said in April 2006, “We maintain over-all control in the Kirkuk province.” Similar statements by other U.S. military officers attest to the continued commitment of the military to its overall control over most of Iraq. Under the terms of Article 2 of each of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Geneva Conventions continue to apply as long as there is partial or total foreign military control.


The hand-over of some administrative functions to civil servants does not relieve the Occupying Power of its obligations under humanitarian law or terminate the right of the Iraqi people to resist a foreign occupation: the right to self-determination stays in force until the Occupying Power cedes all power and ceases all military operations.11 In any case, the continuous on-going clashes in Iraq demonstrate the limits of the Iraq “government” to fulfil its security and welfare responsibilities. At the same time, the U.S., by promoting that “government,” improperly seeks to limit its responsibilities as an Occupying Power while still retaining direct, if not sole, influence on the course of Iraq’s decision-making.


(written in consultation with Karen Parker, JD, Advisory Committee of BRussells Tribunal)

Iraqi Opposition Leader Speaks

Robert Dreyfuss (22 Oct 2020)

The following is the transcript of a lengthy interview, slightly edited for grammar, that I conducted by telephone with Salah Mukhtar. Mukhtar, who lives in Yemen, is a former Iraqi official and diplomat who worked in the Information Ministry and who served at the United Nations and as Iraq's ambassador to India. At the time of the invasion in 2003, he was Iraq's ambassador to Vietnam. Though he does not claim to be a spokesman for the resistance in Iraq or for the Baath party, he is close to both. Here is what he had to say:


Q. How strong is the Iraqi resistance?

A. The armed resistance has finished all the preparations to control power in Iraq. The middle class collaborators with the United States have started the leave Iraq already. Most of them are outside Iraq: Ahmed Chalabi, Iyad Allawi and others. A second wave of agents are preparing to leave, and some have already left, to Jordan, to Syria, to Britain, and some other places, because the strategic conflict, practically speaking, has reached the point of putting an end to the occupation. The resistance is controlling Baghdad now. Yesterday, I spoke to many people, and they said that the attack on the American base was part of a new strategy to inflict heavy casualties on American troops in Iraq.


Q. I’ve read that many tribal leaders in Iraq are calling for the release of Saddam Hussein, and others want to cooperate with Maliki.
A. Those who are working with Maliki are living in Jordan, not inside Iraq. They do not dare return to Iraq, especially those who are from Anbar Province, so they have no weight inside Iraq. As for those who are sending messages to release President Saddam, they constitute the overwhelming majority of the tribes in Iraq. It is becoming a national phenomenon. … It started suddenly, hundreds of messages from tribal leaders from the north to the south of Iraq.

Q. Are their pro-Baathist forces in the National Assembly?
A. They are not representing us, but they are sympathetic. They are demanding the elimination of the de-Baathification law, and to open direct dialogue with Baathists. They say that it is nonsense to talk about national reconciliation without including the Baathists in the dialogue. Even Allawi and his group were part of this.

I assure you, the resistance has the upper hand in Iraq. The only thing we are worried about is the direct intervention by Iran. Otherwise, everything is guaranteed. Within four or five hours we can impose security and stability in Iraq after the Americans withdraw. That’s why we want the UN Security Council to declare its opposition to any outside intervention in Iraq, to guarantee that Iran won’t intervene in Iraq. Otherwise, those people allied with the United States will have to leave when the United States leaves. The resistance holds the ground almost everywhere in Iraq.

Q. What is the role of Muqtada al-Sadr? Can you have a dialogue with him?
No. Muqtada is allied with Iran. … Now he is more dangerous than the Badr Brigade. The harm being inflicted on Iraqi society is from the [Sadr’s] Mahdi Army. The Badr group was crippled by the resistance.

Q. Why don’t we see a resistance movement in the Shiite areas of Iraq?
A. There are Shiites occupying high positions inside the resistance, with the Baathists. No other organization has popular support inside Iraq. But the media does not cover what is going on in the south. The nature of the operations in the south is not like the resistance operations in Anbar and Baghdad. It is directed against the so-called Hakim group [the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, SCIRI] and the Mahdi Army, who are killing the nationalists, cooperating with the occupation. They are killing more people than the occupation forces are. But there is a silent majority in the south, which is against the occupation and against Iran. They are fed up with the crimes of the pro-Iranian groups.

You know, in the south, in many cities, Iran even has official offices, and the Iranian intelligence service is controlling areas of southern Iraq. They are using Iranian money. You can tell a taxi driver, “Got to the office of the Iranian intelligence service,” and they will take you. But the silent majority in the south is fed up with Iranian influence in that area. That’s why we are not concerned with the situation in the south, except for the threat of direct Iranian intervention.

The legitimate army has been rebuilt, the army that went underground in the invasion. Ands they are ready to control Iraq right now. Ninety per cent of all Iraqi resistance is made up of Iraqi army. There are highly qualified officers of the Iraqi army are leading nearly all resistance operations in Iraq.

They built the Iraqi army on a sectarian basis, with Badr Brigade and pesh merga [the Kurdish militias]. But there are some nationalists inside the army, and the resistance gets information from nationalist officers inside the official army.

Q. Will there be a Tet Offensive-type of attack? Will the Green Zone come under attack?
A. There has been talk in Baghdad about liberating the Green Zone, especially over the past few weeks. But this is not likely for the time being, because the strategy of the resistance is based on collecting points, as in boxing. You collect points, one by one, to see who is winning. So you exhaust the enemy, by attacking from time to time, until he collapses. The victory of the resistance in Iraq will not be achieved by one battle.

We expect the first month of next year will be decisive. The Americans are exhausted, and the resistance is preparing simultaneous attacks on American forces everywhere. The increase in U.S. casualties are rising sharply as part of a decision by the resistance to increase these attacks.

Q. Who speaks for the resistance?
A. No one. I do not speak for the Baath party or the resistance. But I am very close to both of them. It was decided before the invasion to not establish direct connections with any other party, to prevent penetration and to make it more difficult to get intelligence. … I speak to them by phone, and mostly by Internet. And by direct meetings, when I travel. … Some Arab governments give me passports to facilitate my movement. They play the role of mediating between the resistance and the United States.

Q. What is the U.S. attitude toward the Baath party?
A. The Americans, generals and others, contacted President Saddam in prison and spoke about the situation in Baghdad and around Iraq,. Rumsfeld met him, and Condoleezza Rice, too. She met him. And before her, Rumsfeld met him. They both tried to convince him to make statements calling on the resistance to lay down their arms and to cooperate in the so-called political process. He rejected that. But they told him, you can choose between the fate of Mussolini and the fate of Napoleon Bonaparte. Later, they alluded to something else, involving the return of the Baath party … And now some Arab governments are pressuring the United States to accept the return of the Baath party to guarantee the stability of Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and some other Gulf states have contacted the United States to convince the United States to reinstate the Baath party as the only solution to minimize Iranian influence in the region.… The Baath party has taken a decision to build a National Front in Iraq, including other parties, including some Kurdish groups.

Q. Would Ayatollah Sistani cooperate?
A. Sistani is nothing. No one listens to him. He is not Iraqi. He will not remain in Iraq after liberation.

Q. It looks like a civil war.
A. Civil war in Iraq will never happen. In my family, there are many Shiites and Sunnis. And the majority of Iraqis are like this. So how can I kill my brother?

Q. Many Iraqis are being polarized by the killings, driven to sectarianism.
A. It is not sectarian fighting. It is political fighting. In the highest leadership of the resistance there are Shiites and Sunnis, Christians and Muslims. They are working together inside the resistance, including Kurds and Turkmen. … The people of Iraq are increasingly blaming Iran and the United States for the killing. … Iran wants to control the area, by using their influence among the Shiites. And who brought the Iranian gangs to Iraq? The United States. You remember, after the attack on Iraq in 1998, after Desert Fox, the Americans concluded that there is no way to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein without cooperating with Iran. So they started their cooperation with Iran, and it began in Europe. And the center of it was Abdel Aziz Hakim. And then Sistani made a fatwa calling on Iraqis to not resist the American invasion, and another fatwa to cooperate with the occupation. And who is supporting the Maliki government? Who supported the Jaafari government? The United States. They are Iranians. Those who are ruling Iraq since the invasion are not Iraqis.

Q. What about the possibility of a military coup in Iraq?
A. If the United States wants to give power in Iraq to the generals, through a military coup, as they are hinting about, that military coup will be [sympathetic to] the Baathists. If its leader is not pro-Baathist, there will be a second coup against that leader. … Because all officers in the Iraqi army, the old army and the new army, are under the control of the Baath party. So there is no solution outside the Baath party.

The increase in the volume of mass killings has increased the willingness of the Iraqi people to accept a military coup. I would say that 80 per cent of the Iraqi people are willing to accept it, to accept anything that would help to crush the Iranian gangs [i.e., the Mahdi Army and the SCIRI’s Badr Brigade]. That coup will be supported by the United States, to purge the Iranian gangs and groups, and destroy them by military might and to establish a military dictatorship for some time. … But those who support a military coup will accept a Baathist coup, a second coup. … The United States has made contact with some Iraqis, old generals, old army Baathist generals, to topple the government of Maliki. They are based in Jordan. Some of them accepted to cooperate with the United States, to crack down on the Mahdi Army and other gangs. And they contacted some tribes in Anbar. They are preparing an attack on Iranian gangs in Iraq, and it will happen, soon.

You know, Iran has said, if it is attacked by the United States, it will attack American troops in Iraq. And this kind of threat is a very serious one. If you combine the attacks on the United States by the Iranian gangs with the attacks of the armed resistance, it will be a big tragedy for the United States. So the American government is trying to minimize the influence of Iranian forces in Iraq before any practical move against Iran.

If [a coup] happens it will be a crazy move by the United States. It will prove again that the United States doesn’t understand the Iraqi situation. Most of the army, the old army, 99 per cent of them, are Baathists. Either the new generals will cooperate with the Baath party, or they will be toppled by the Baath party.

 Exclusive: Insurgent Ba'athist In His Own Words

Q&A;: Izzat al-Douri sets out the insurgency's terms for negotiating, rebukes the tactics of al-Qaeda, and calls for friendship with America — once it has been defeated in Iraq
Monday, Jul. 24, 2006


Via written questions and answers passed back and forth by trusted intermediaries in Iraq, Time has conducted the first-ever Western media interview with Izzat al-Douri, former lieutenant of Saddam Hussein and the most senior member of the Ba'athist regime still at large. Today, al-Douri is America's most wanted Iraqi fugitive, and a leading figure in the Iraqi insurgency.


TIME: Does the Ba'ath Party still have a role in Iraqi politics?

Izzat al-Douri: If you mean the current political process, the Ba'ath Party rejects it, because it was manufactured by and serves the occupying force and is destructive of our country. The political role of the Ba'ath in the struggle [against the occupation of Iraq] is to mobilize and bring together the energies of the people for the fight to expel the occupation and liberate our country.

TIME: Do you hope to return to Baghdad as a free man?

Al-Douri: I have great hope and supreme confidence that, through the agency of God, and of the mighty people of Iraq and its heroic fighters, I shall return to Baghdad on its liberation from the grip of the occupation.

TIME: How sound is the infrastructure of the Ba'ath Party, and what is your influence over it?

Al-Douri: The Ba'ath Party has undergone an internal shake-up, restructuring its base and leadership on struggle-oriented, faith-based patriotic and nationalist principles. It now has a revolutionary, struggle-oriented identity and has shaken off the dust of the past. I constantly exercise influence on it to remain pure, patriotic and dedicated to struggle.

TIME: What is your opinion of the new Iraqi government? Are there any persons in that government in whom you trust?

Al-Douri: Yes. I respect all individuals who have not been polluted by crimes against the Ba'ath and the Iraqi people, whether they be with the political process or outside of it. I respect even some inside the government — and they are not a few — whose intention is, as they say, to reduce the damage done by the occupation to the citizens and to alleviate their sufferings, or to carry on the struggle for the liberation of Iraq from inside the political process, though this is a form of wishful thinking. My advice to them is to boycott the political process because they and the agents, traitors, and spies who are with them are incapable of offering anything to the people while under the occupation.

TIME: We've heard that there are a number of attempts at negotiation between some Ba'athist organizations and the United States. Are these negotiations carried on with your approval? If so, what progress has been made? If not, under what conditions might negotiation take place, whether with the United States or with the Iraqi government?

Al-Douri: The Ba'ath's position on negotiations, especially with the American and [British] sides, is clear. It rests on principles that cannot be prejudiced or impaired by any individual or party. They are:

1. Recognition of the resistance in all its forms — Islamist, patriotic, and nationalist — any group whose aim is to liberate Iraq from the invasion forces.
2. An announcement of withdrawal of U.S. forces, without restriction or condition.
3. Complete cessation of raids, round-ups, and operations involving killing and destruction.
4. Release of all captives, detainees, and prisoners.
5. Restoration of the [old] army and national security forces.

There have been no negotiations with the Americans, merely attempts by the American side to make contact with the Ba'ath Party and to negotiate with it in order to draw it into the political game. Similar attempts have taken place with other anti-occupation parties. No dialogue will take place — with any party — that is not on the basis of these principles. Any party that does not abide by these principles will fall into the swamp of the political game and that of grand treason. The Ba'ath is ready to negotiate with the Americans on the basis of these principles at any time they choose.

TIME: What is your opinion of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Is he working for or against Iraq? [The question was sent in March, three months before al-Zarqawi's death.]

Al-Douri: I participate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in his belief in faith and the unity of God, but I differ from him fundamentally in the style, method, and path through which he expresses his faith. Our religion is the religion of submission to God, and of peace, security, safety, freedom, self-liberation, truth, justice, progress and coexistence. Those who are recalcitrant or take up arms and stand in the way of Islam's civilizational and humane course — as the American administration, its agents, henchmen, and spies are doing — we are ordered to fight such people by the Koran. In accordance with our faith, we only fight the occupation forces and their treacherous apostate agents who fight us. I harbor great respect and appreciation for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and I rejoice in his courage, the strength of his faith, and the sacrifices of his fighters, [but] I call on him and his fighters to direct their jihadist struggle against the enemy that has invaded the land of Arabdom and Islam. Let none of us be drawn into the occupying enemy's game of igniting hateful sectarianism. I also affirm that any exposure of citizens and their assets [to harm] will inevitably serve the occupation.

TIME: Some of the jihadist groups active now in Iraq claim to be applying the Taliban model of an Islamist state. Would such an outcome be acceptable to you?

Al-Douri: The Iraqi people will never be ruled by sectarianism or by sectarianists. The one who governs Iraq, with all its diverse elements, with all its national groups and sects, must do so on the basis of the freedom, democracy, and human rights that our noble religion guarantees.

TIME: Did Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction? If not, why did the government of Saddam Hussein not make that clear?

Al-Douri: This story about Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction is a lie of the American administration and its intelligence services, that they fed the American people and the world with the aim of occupying Iraq.

TIME: Why did the Iraqi army not put up much of a fight against the U.S.-led Coalition forces?

Al-Douri: After its entry into Kuwait, the Iraqi army had been stripped of its strength; the American administration and its allies went to extreme lengths to do it harm and to destroy its structure. Thereafter, it was under tight U.N.-imposed sanctions for 14 years. [At the start of the war] it faced aerial bombardment by the two greatest powers in the world supported by all the world's evil forces. Had it not been for certain strategic and tactical errors, the army's performance would have been better than it actually was. It was one of the greatest mistakes of the Iraqi leadership to accept formal engagement to the end of the road, despite the amazing disparity of forces. Had the leadership husbanded the army's strength and means till the second page had been turned, Iraq would have been liberated and the occupation ended long before today.

It is the Iraqi army that today is in charge of the planning and supervision of more than 95% of patriotic resistance operations against the occupation.

TIME: What do you think of the trial of Saddam Hussein? What do you believe the outcome will be?

Al-Douri: The trial of President Saddam Hussein and his comrades is a farce. The outcome will be what America wants it to be, not that demanded by the law and the judiciary, and not that wanted by the Iraqi government of agents and spies.

TIME: Do you expect a complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq in the near future?

Al-Douri: I do not work for a conventional withdrawal of America from Iraq but rather for the victory of the resistance — the forced withdrawal of America from Iraq. My hope is that America will withdraw before it collapses so that losses on both sides may be minimized, and so that there will remain an opportunity for the people of Iraq to construct normal, broad, deep, and effective relations with America on the basis of independence, freedom, self-liberation, and the shared legitimate interests of both parties. Iraq, like all countries of the world, cannot do without legitimate mutual relations and joint cooperation with America in all fields of life because of the latter's vast resources, especially in the economic, technological, and developmental spheres. We understand the role and strategic interests of America as a great power. However, such relations must be on the basis of freedom and independence and the right of men to choose the way of life that they want, as well as of lack of interference in the internal affairs of others or of tutelage.

TIME: Have you in the past met any of those who are now in the U.S. government — for example, Donald Rumsfeld, who visited Iraq in the 1980s?

Al-Douri: I did not previously make the acquaintance of any of the American leadership but I had very high hopes of President Bush before his election, which I had hoped for — unlike that of Clinton. I expected that he would make a courageous and chivalrous President of the greatest state in the world and that he would carry in his heart all those values and principles — of freedom, democracy, and human rights — that his country promotes.

But the American administration has committed crimes in Iraq that will never be forgiven; the crimes that are being committed today in Iraq contradict completely all the principles in which the American people believe and which they wish for the world. The occupation troops, and especially the Americans, have committed thousands of massacres in all parts of Iraq, of old men, women, children, and civilians. They have destroyed tens of thousands of buildings, farms, factories, and other real estate.

I wrote to President Bush at the start of the occupation and after the capture of President Saddam Hussein via a friend in the official Arab circles. After painting a clear picture of the course of the killing and destruction, I warned him against the outcome of pursuing this path and of its dangers, for America, for Iraq and finally for the world as a whole. I pointed out to him that America's enemies would come together in Iraq from every place in the world to take revenge on it and that Iraq would be transformed into a world center for terrorism and the manufacture and export of terrorism in its many different forms. Then the mighty people of Iraq would rise up, and America would lose much and regret what it had done. I said, "I know that you are courageous, and courage calls for a decision to withdraw immediately from Iraq." Now everything that I mentioned has been realized.,8816,1218390,00.html

Meet the resistance

27 October 2006.

Al-Quds al-Arabi reported on Friday October 27 the creation of a 25-person group to represent the Iraqi resistance, representation to include: Baathists, the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance, the general leadership of the armed forces, Patriotic Socialists against the Occupation, the Muslim Scholars Association, the Ayatollah Ahmad al-Hasani al-Baghdadi, the Nationalist Nasserist Movement, the Islamic Army, the Rashideen Army, and the Brigades of the 1920 Revolution. This brief article also names ten individuals in the group, not all of them well-known.

Three of them, however, are leaders of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance, which was known pre-2003 as the Iraqi National Alliance (no name-change in Arabic), and represented the mostly exile Iraqis who opposed the Saddam regime, and who were not connected either with the CIA-supported Iraqi National Congress, nor with the Iranian-supported SCIRI group. The Iraqi National Alliance met with Saddam in 2002 in an attempted reconciliation ahead of the US invasion, then devoted itself to armed resistance following the invasion.

Needless to say this group of independent resistance fighters has received no attention whatsoever in the Western press, where the the correct line has been rigorously enforced to the effect that the only armed opposition was composed of Saddamist dead-enders and radical Islamists.

The leader of the IPA, and a member of this 25-person group, is Abdul Jabar al-Kubbaysi, a civil engineer, a member of the Socialist Arab Baath party in his youth, then a Saddam opponent in exile, joining the armed resistance to the US occupation in 2003, arrested and held by the Americans from September 3 2004 to December 28 2005. Another member of the 25-member group is Ahmad Karim, ex-Iraqi Communist Party, then part of a breakaway "patriotic" branch of that party when the leadership of the Iraqi party supported the US-inspired economic sanctions. And a third IPA representative in this 25-member group is Awni al-Qalamji, currently the official spokesman for the IPA, and the person who wrote the Al-Quds al-Arabi piece summarized here a couple of days ago.

The best introduction to the world of the Iraqi National Alliance is this interview with al-Kubbaysi dating from December 2002 and translated into English. The whole thing is well worth a read, but I would like to highlight a couple of parts, first on their relationship to the Saddam regime:

Al-Kubaysi: Yes, we have a mass following inside Iraq. This is because we haven't come out of nowhere. But we don't have organized forces. Historically, the Arab nationalist current in Iraq had two wings: the Baath and the Arab Nationalists' Movement. We paralleled or more than paralleled the currently ruling Baath current. Our masses are in agreement with the regime in broad patriotic and
Arab nationalist terms, but not on the issue of freedoms, which are still a matter on which we differ. The ruling party rules by itself. The masses whom we met when we came here support the regime in its patriotic and Arab nationalist orientations, and are ready to fight in defense of Iraq against the embargo and any aggression. But they believe that the spread of political openness will strengthen the resiliance of the homeland to aggression and embargo. These masses welcomed our arrival. They considered it a step on the right path. Even if the regime wants to kill us we must
fight together with it against aggression. If we don't, we will lose the justification for our existence.
Then there are these remarks on the sectarian and/or racial nature of most of the other opposition groups at the time (this is 2002 and al-Kubbaysi is being interviewed in Iraq):

FAV: Are we to understand from all that that there is no Iraqi opposition abroad with any weight or credibility which could form an alternative to the regime?

Al-Kubaysi: No! [There isn't.]

FAV: Even those who are with the Iranians?

Al-Kubaysi: You said "Iraqi", not extensions of the Iranians. Be aware of the fact that the opposition abroad is split up along ethnic and confessional lines. If America brings them in, there will be massacres in Iraq, because they are oppositions that are narrowly restricted in terms of what religious and ethnic groups belong to them. Not only that, but there are six or seven Turkmen parties, for example. In addition there are three Assyrian organizations. These have never established Iraqi organizations; rather they have established a climate and a basis for the growth
of real domestic civil warfare. There will be blood-letting if they are fated one day to take power. From this we see the importance of the movements in our Iraqi National Alliance and of the rank-and-file of the Communist Party (whose leaders are now pursuing a destructive and unpatriotic course).

The real patriotic Iraqi oppositionists today are the ones who own nothing and are supported by no foreign state. If they came to Iraq, they would come together on the basis of their patriotic line in it. Even the Kurds...

Letter from Salah Al Mukhtar to Nancy Pelosi


Dear Ms. Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader,

I am sure you have read Baker-Hamilton Report and I understand that it, clearly, concludes that the American invasion of Iraq is a total failure, and that it was the most brutal and cruel act against Iraq and Iraqis. It also states that it is now impossible to change the course of actions to  the benefit of the United State . It is George Bush who put the future of the United States in this dark pit, and when he got stuck, he started digging deeper and deeper and sinking in that hole instead of  retreating upward. It is he, George Bush, who took U.S.A.  as the world leader to destroy its leadership in the Iraqi swamps. The American failure in Iraq will trigger more disasters in America, starting with US economy, and then the political system inside the US will follow, which will lead to total disaster putting the future of the US in the fate of unknown. 

It is sad that when one loses his compass and takes the wrong way, instead of going back to find out the right direction, he loses his sense of directions which may take them to the abyss, and that is what the report suggested. The Baker-Hamilton report should have represented the compass by which the American administration could once more find its way, instead it continued to   make the same mistakes as the Bush administration by wanting to correct the wrongs by staying on the same path.  The Baker-Hamilton report was only an attempt at correcting a mistake by continuing with its essence, which is the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, and not leaving Iraq for the Iraqis. For this reason, it will not solve the problem, especially since it ignored the most important aspect of the problem, which is the armed national resistance by considering it one of several parties or organizations which should be compiled into the political process, instead of the main factor in the fate of Iraq since its invasion.  


If the Iraqi Resistance (IR) is, just, one force in between the forces who share the political game with the US in Iraq, then how did   it destroy your project in Iraq and the Middle East ? And then drove the Bush Administration to admit its failure in Iraq?

I am sure you know these facts, but if you don't, it means that you are still under the propaganda umbrella of that administration which is another disaster. Because if you haven't figured out yet the fact that there are just two factors in Iraq; the US forces on one side and the Iraqi Resistance on the other, you will make the same mistake the Bush administration is still making, which is digging yourself deeper into the pit!

So, my question is, are you sure of your failure in occupying Iraq which is the worst disaster in the American history –as your colleague Madeleine Albright said- and want a way out? Or do you want to stay in Iraq and continue deeper into the pit, as gravity will naturally take you?  


There is one way out, it is to sit with the Iraqi Resistance and negotiate the US retreat from Iraq as soon as possible. This means, your administration should be realistic and forget about winning the war in Iraq. The war that cost you hundreds of billions of dollars which could have helped solving the problems of people living in poverty, or used to help 40 million illiterate Americans. Instead, American households are receiving the corpses of their sons and daughters in black bags.  And as you already know, the Iraqi Resistance has passed all the strategic as well as the tactical tests in its struggle to liberate Iraq, and the more the US forces are staying in Iraq the more causality they will suffer. So, changing the military, political, or security plans will not affect the IR strategy against US occupation forces!  

Dear Madam,

I want to introduce to you my advice that the only way out of Iraq with grace and dignity is to recognize the Iraqi Resistance as the only representative of the Iraqi people. And the key to that is the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, who is the only leader, can solve the security problems in term of hours after your forces leave Iraq. And if you asked yourself that why most people, lately, in Iraq agreed that Saddam should return to power, you will find the answer. The Iraqis believe that Saddam Hussein is the only leader who can put an end to the killings, destruction, and chaos in the Iraqi society caused by the US occupation. And he is the only one who can guarantee safe withdraw from Iraq

Dear Madam,

Whatever you've done, and whatever we've done, there is a truth that has entered history with all of its proof and documents and witnesses: it is that you invaded Iraq and you destroyed it completely by returning it to the pre-Industrial Age, as James Baker threatened in 1991  the Iraqi leadership. Post-occupation Iraq has resulted in becoming an environment not suitable for human life- without clean water, or hospitals, or medication, or electricity or safety or food. It is rampant with drugs and organized crime, a place where abductions and killings are daily incidents. Another reality has been entered into history: you killed at least 30,000 Iraqis, according to the admissions of your president Bush. This number is ten times the number of victims of 9/11 which pushed you to kill innocents, and not the actual people responsible for this. If, however, we take the number published by the British journal Lancet, based on a study done by an American university, then you've killed 655 thousand Iraqis as a result of your invasion. According to Iraqi independent sources, however, the invasion has resulted in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis. America is responsible for their deaths because according to the international laws, as an occupier, it is responsible for the security of the civilians of the occupied country. Maybe you do not know, Madam, that the American occupation, and with direct help from Iran or with help from political parties allied with Iran in Iraq, more than 6 million Iraqis have been forced out of the country and this has made them refugees all over the world as result of their fear of organized killings. If you doubt these facts due to the false information the CIA gives you, the UN itself has recognized the emigration of 1.5 million Iraqis since the invasion. This number of course does not represent the actual number of people who have been forced out of the country. This emigration or forced emigration is not spontaneous, but planned. Its goal is to change the demography of Iraq so that it becomes a country of multiple ethnicities and religions, in accordance with the constitution forced upon the country by the occupation. The reality is that 85% of the Iraqi population is Arabs.  

To complete the plan to divide Iraq , your government allowed the entry of more than 4 million Iranians and Kurds into Iraq from Iran and Turkey. This was also to change the demography of the country and make the percentage of Arabs closer to the percentages of other ethnicities. This will result in the division of Iraq, just as Yugoslavia was divided!  

If some have told you that these facts are exaggerated, I suggest you bring together an international investigative committee to study how many people have been forced to leave the country and how many people were allowed into the country and given the Iraqi citizenship in spite of the fact that they were not Iraqi. There was even an admission from the former Iraqi prime minister Ibraheim Al Jaffari where he said that Iraqi citizenship was given to 2.5 million people after the invasion. If others have told you that this is the work of Iran and the political parties allied with it, I must remind you that these parties work with America and the last two prime ministers were from the Daawa Party which is allied with Iran and currently cooperating with America. The American government has opened a Pandora's Box with its invasion of Iraq and its destruction of its nation, which once represented an island of stability in an ocean of chaos. From this box, many evils have escaped and they will not remain trapped in Iraq or even only around it. If the invasion continues, these evils will surely reach America . Did you intentionally mean to spread evil around the world? 


These facts have entered history and along with them another fact which shocks the human conscience. It is that all of the excuses for invading Iraq were lies. Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, by your own admission after the war, in spite of the fact that this accusation was what convinced you as a Congress to invade Iraq. Iraq did not have links to Al Qaeda as your investigations proved after the invasion. This was the second accusation that convinced you to invade Iraq. Are there any other accusations that were used to legitimize the invasion!? Yes. There was an accusation of violation of human rights and it was a secondary accusation. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq, its destruction and its return to the pre-Industrial age, and the killing of 1 million Iraqis and the torture of a complete population and the transformation of complete cities into mass graves as was done in Fallujah, were a result of false accusations and excuses to legitimize the invasion. What human conscience would permit this and be silent about it? What ethics would allow someone to do this without criticism or accountability? If you think that your strength will protect you from accountability, what goes around comes around and there is a saying that goes, "If those before you had kept it, it would never have gotten to you." Tomorrow, Madam, a time will come when America will be held accountable for these ugly crimes against the innocent Iraqi people who never harmed America, and were never its enemies. Also, if you did not know before, I am obliged to tell you now that the Iraqi people hold America responsible for its tragedies which are the worst since 8,000 years of Iraqi history. This conviction holds true for Arabs and Muslims alike and for most people all over the world who were shocked by your unbelievable reaction to the admission that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction! 

Imagine, Madam, that an American police officer killed a man with the excuse that the man was going to shoot him. The investigators later come to the conclusion that the man never actually had a weapon. What would your reaction be then? Surely you would ask that the police officer be punished according to the law. This example is not different from what happened in Iraq where responsibility is concerned, the differences lie in the magnitude and type of crime. Why aren't your voices raised to hold accountable the people responsible for destroying a country and killing one million Iraqis? Is it permissible to kill Iraqis because they are not Americans? Or do the victims of 9/11 make it permissible to kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis? You may not think of these questions in America, but the whole world does. This will have dangerous ethical and legal repercussions on America and her people if you do not rush to correct your horrible mistakes in Iraq. The first step in America's exit from the black pit of Iraq is the admission that it made horrible mistakes with regards to the deaths of Americans in Iraq (and by the way, the Americans who've died in Iraq are now equal to those who died on 9/11), and these mistakes have resulted in damage to America's international reputation which will be difficult to fix. Also, the admission that the Iraqis suffered pains unknown to them in the history of the country, as abovementioned. The second step is to negotiate quickly with the resistance and its symbol, the POW Saddam Hussein to ensure a new beginning for relations between America and Arabs and Muslims based on mutual respect and cooperation based on mutual interests and human values.  

Madam, you might say that your government has contacted the resistance and gotten nowhere. I answer you that yes, it did contact them, but what did it want? Did it want to correct its mistakes and escape Iraq with grace? Or did it want to trick the resistance into entering the political process, which would mean America would attempt a political victory after a military defeat. It is not required to bring the resistance into the political process, this would mean an admission of the occupation and an agreement to the occupations continuance at the point of its demise. What is necessary is the complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupation forces and handing over power to the resistance. This is the only solution and these are the conditions of the resistance. These conditions must be accepted by America if it wants the resistance to help it out of the dark pit of Iraq .  


By negotiating with Saddam Hussein, you will find a solution for the catastrophe of Iraq, and also a solution to the American catastrophe due to its invasion of Iraq. You will also find a solution to the problems of the whole area. So do you really want the stability of Iraq and the region, or do you only want to spread chaos and havoc in it? Your negotiations with Saddam Hussein will prove that you do   not want chaos, and chaos in our area cannot be useful for you and damaging for us. The resistance has pulled you to the bottom of the pit, and the regional chaos, or Iraqi chaos, will harm you perhaps more than it harms the area. This is because for this chaos to be constructive, you must hold all of the strings, according to Condoleeza Rice. But the loss of American control will result in the burning of our houses as well as yours.  


In conclusion I would like to remind you that we speak to you from a position of strength because your army is defeated in Iraq and we are at the same level. We speak to you to give you advice before it is too late. If there are other Iraqis like me, today,   asking you to negotiate with the resistance and its representative Saddam Hussein, tomorrow there may not be someone willing to negotiate with you. The biggest sign that America wants to destroy the region will be the execution of Saddam Hussein. If he is executed, this will be a message that cannot be mistaken and it will indicate that you want to spread this chaos across the whole region. At that point, there will be no barrier keeping this 'constructive chaos' from inevitably reaching America. Have you forgotten we live in a digital village?  

Salah Al Mukhtar

Iraqi Resistance: building peace through defeating Aggression

Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan Almusawi. Former Iraqi Permanent Representative to UN.

Kuala Lumpur, February, 5th 2007

YA Bhg Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Alsalam Alykum Warahmatu Allah Wa Berakatuh,

The aim of this paper is to render homage to Iraqi people, whose resistance and sacrifices accelerated the decline of the Uni-polar World Order. The Peace Movements around the world are urged to express solidarity with Iraqi resistance. the victory of Iraqi resistance is a victory for the International community in its struggle to defeat war mongers and create a New World Order based on respect of International Law and the right of peoples to live in peace. 

1- With the end of the cold war, the US emerged as the only super power dominating the world with no geopolitical or ideological contenders. Many in the world hoped that the American leadership will promote liberal Ideals of democracy, economic openness, human rights and the rule of law.

2 - The first serious test of the American leadership came with the Iraq-Kuwait dispute (Summer 1990). From the beginning , the US proved its inability to lead the world in a civilized and legal manner. The US used  Iraq-Kuwait dispute to advance its short sighted national interest putting the following goals for its intervention;

*Topple the Iraqi legitimate Government and establish a poppet regime in Baghdad.

* Control the oil and plunder the wealth of Gulf States. * Strengthen its military presence in the region , in particular in the Arab Gulf.

* Provide better protection for Israel and its war of aggression. 

It is clear that non of these goals has to do with US main responsibility as Permanent Member of Security Council, IE; Preserving International Peace and Security and resolving international crisis by peaceful means.

3 - Following is a short reminder of main actions taken by the US against Iraq that disclose the extent of US war crimes, genocide, and crimes against Humanity.
* The US dismissed all International and Regional initiatives to resolve Iraq- Kuwait dispute peacefully.

* US Imposed , through the UN Security Council , a comprehensive regime of sanctions against Iraq . These sanctions continued for 13 years costing the life of two million Iraqi civilians and the suffering of the rest of Iraqi population.

It is worth to mention here that sanctions were imposed on Iraq only four days after its invasion of Kuwait ( Res. 661 of 6 Aug. 1990). That means that the US jumped to the provisions of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter  dismissing Chapter Six provisions on peaceful measures to resolve disputes. It is also worth to mention that after nine days of US invasion to Iraq, the only reaction of the UNSC was Resolution 1472 of 28th Mar 2003, which (Requests concerned parties to strictly abide to there obligations under International Law).

* Under the pretext of implementing Resolution 678 ( 1990 ) , the US waged its destructive war against Iraq,. It dropped 120 000 Tons of bombs on Iraq destroying its infrastructure ,and killing thousands of civilians. It also used Depleted Uranium bombs in this aggression which caused  on going human and ecological catastrophe for generations.

4 - The US pursue these destructive and inhuman objectives not only through unilateralism (unilateral sanctions, imposing No-Fly-Zones, bombing Iraq from time to time , etc...) but mainly through Multilateral Institutions, in particular the United Nations Security Council. I represented my country at the United Nations for seven years (Deputy Permanent Representative from 1994 to 1998, and Permanent Representative from 1999 to 2001). During this period I witnessed how the United States turned the Security Council to a rubber stamp for Resolutions drafted in Washington and London. I shall give some examples in my oral presentation.

5 -The US crimes a against Iraq , in particular the inhuman comprehensive economic sanctions and the disproportionate use of force against Iraqi civilian targets, led the entire world to question, and increasingly oppose the American leadership. Even inside the US there were growing rejection to their country's policy towards Iraq. In this occasion I express Iraqi people gratitude to Kathy Kelly. She was among the first American citizens who raised their voices denouncing the genocide perpetrated by her country against Iraqi people.

6 - The growing international condemnation of US crimes in Iraq has relented with 9/11 tragic events. The whole world showed  support and sympathy with the American people and Government. The US Government, from its part, and contrary to all expectations, exploited 9/11 as a banner to pursue its hegemonic policy. It invaded Afghanistan with out a proper authorization of the United Nations, and Invaded Iraq in flagrant violation of the International law and the Charter of the United Nations.

7- From the first day of its illegal and illegitimate occupation of Iraq, the US followed a destructive policy violating all its obligations under The International Humanitarian Law as  occupation power. Here are some examples:

* Disbanding Iraqi Army and Security Forces, and allowing the destruction and looting of State Ministries,  Military Camps, Economic Facilities, Museums, hospitals, universities, etc....

* Establishing Iraqi political institutions under the occupation,  based on sectarian and ethnic division. This policy intended to change the identity of Iraqis from the national one to ethnic and sectarian one. This, incite sectarian violence and destroy the social fabric of Iraqi Society.

* Adopting , through the illegal Iraqi General Assembly established under the occupation, a Constitution aiming at dismantling the country to at least three entities on sectarian and ethnic basis.

* The excessive use of force against Iraqi civilians. LANCET medical journal report stated that 650 000 Iraqis were killed since the US invasion. US troops in Iraq committed all kinds of war crimes: Torture, rape, mass killings, destruction of entire cities ( Fallujah and Tel-Affar for example), collective punishment to the population ,etc....

* the Us` army used prohibited weapons against Iraqi population: Depleted Uranium bombs, White Phosphor (the use of it against civilian targets tantamount to the use of Chemical Weapons, cluster bombs.. etc. 

8- The  US occupation and crimes were faced by growing military and political resistance from Iraqi people. All measures taken by the occupant to contain the Resistance were not successful ( Excessive use of force ,Transfer the sovereignty to Iraqis on paper etc..)
.The following figures taken from American statements , show the growing Iraqi Resistance (the real figures are much higher):

In 2003 , the number of daily attacks against US troops in Iraq was (13) . It rose to (50) in 2005, to (70) in June 2006 and to (180) in Oct. 2006 ( see page 10 of Baker- Hamilton Report). These figures do not include the attacks, targeting other US or Foreign presence in Iraq , like the private Security teams or mercenaries, nor those targeting Iraqi collaborators with the occupation.

9 - While the Iraqi resistance is growing , the US army is missing its recruitment goals. It seems that the US military is more successful in recruiting for the Iraqi resistance than it is for the US army. The significance of this fact is that the US is not able today to fight one single war , put aside wining it! 

10 - One of the originalities , some call it miracle , of the Iraqi resistance is its ability  to defeat the US army with no external support. On the contrary , Iraqi Resistance suffers from  isolation, distortion and demonizing , including accusations of terrorism.

11 - Here is one of the stories of heroism of Iraqi resistance:
One week after the US invasion , an Ambassador of an important country in Baghdad asked me for an urgent meeting. At that time I was Director General of International Organizations Department in MOFA ). I met with that Ambassador in Alrasheed Hotel. He transmitted an  urgent request from his leadership to hand them over an Apache Helicopter the Iraqi Army seized intact the day before. I asked the Ambassador , is this Helicopter so valuable for his country ? he replied this Helicopter is the Pearl of the US army arsenal and his country wants to know its secrets. I informed my minister Dr. Naji Sabri who send an urgent letter to President Saddam Hussein supporting the request. President Saddam Hussein rejected the request.

On this same Pearl, few months ago the US army announced that the Apache will not participate in big combats against the ( insurgents ) any more., adding that the Apache is vulnerable to insurgents attacks , and 58 of it were downed by them last three years.

 * The US aggression against Iraq is an aggression against humanity and its principles. Solidarity and support to Iraqi resistance will accelerate the collapse of the US hegemony on the International Affairs , which will open the path for a new more just multilateral world order.

* The International Community should make the US accountable for its war crimes without double standards or selectivity. Certs, this is a far reaching goal but it is not impossible. This forum is a n important step to achieve it.

* International Institutions need  to be reformed , to make it immune from manipulations by strong countries in detriment of its noble goals. Security Council should assume its role as a tool to preserve international peace , not the contrary. Security Council reform should not be limited to the expansion of its membership. Reforming its procedures and decision making process is essential. A democratic and accountable Security Council is a guarantee against wars of aggression.

* Dissemination of peace culture is an important element to prevent war. Peace loving people can deter his government from waging war of aggression. Recalling that the American people stand against US war in Vietnam was a key factor in ending that war. Actual opposition of many peoples to US invasion and occupation of Iraq  led to dramatic changes in International relations: Fall of Aznar government of Spain , Berliskony of Italy, future fall of PM Tony Blair, defeat of republicans in last legislative elections in the US, etc....

* I end with recalling the valuable appeal of H.E. Tun Dr. Mahathir ;

( We must win the propaganda war to banish war as an option to resolve disputes and conflicts between nations and communities).

Thank you.

Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan Almusawi

Former Iraqi Permanent

Representative to UN.

Kuala Lumpur, February, 5th 2007

Iraqi Resistance Indicators. 

The graphs below help show the steady progress of the Iraqi resistance over the four years of occupation.  They are extracts from the Iraq Index updated on 19th March 2007.



 The Iraq Index , from which these extracts come (pp 23 and 24), is produced by the Washington-based Brookings Institutions.  It comes in 54 pages of tables, graphs and footnotes in PDF format, half of which on security indicators  

The index has been updated weekly over the last four years, in whatever section new data become available.  The authors are Michael E. O’Hanlon and Jason H. Campbell. 

Like projects such as Iraqi Body Count  and Iraqi Coalition Casualties Count, the Brookings index is based on what is regarded by the western parliamentarians and the establishment figures as reputable sources which would verify and correct their data.  Considering the politics of data, the figures are conservative and may well not represent the full story.  Most security figures are from U.S. Department of Defense Quarterly Report to Congress. 

Mundher Adhami

Iraqi Committee for Media and Culture

21 March 2007


Reply to Bennis: The Iraqi Resistance is just and should be supported

In the four years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, public debate within the U.S. antiwar movement on whether to support the Iraqi resistance has rarely taken place. Consequently the recent polemic between Alexander Cockburn and Phyllis Bennis (a leader in the United for Peace and Justice Coalition) is an extremely positive development and should be welcomed. It is an important debate that needs to take place at all levels within the U.S. antiwar movement.

Some weeks ago Alexander Cockburn wrote of the need for the U.S. antiwar movement to openly support the resistance ("Support their troops?", CounterPunch). In her reply, "Why the Anti-War Movement Doesn't Embrace the Iraqi Resistance", Bennis correctly argues that the basis of unity in the movement should not be "Victory to the resistance", but the demand "Troops out now". But Bennis goes further and argues that anti-imperialists have no responsibility to raise support for the Iraqi resistance. Bennis says that the Iraqi resistance is illegitimate (with some arrogance, she refers to the Iraqi resistance in quotation marks) and is therefore undeserving of support. This conclusions rests on a number of erroneous arguments, concentrated here in one paragraph of her article:

"...As a whole, what is understood to be "the Iraqi resistance" against the U.S. occupation is a disaggregated and diverse set of largely unconnected factions, in which the various often-antagonistic armed movements (including some who attack Iraqi civilians as much as they do occupation troops) hold pride of place. There is no unified leadership that can speak for "the resistance," there is no NLF or ANC or FMLN that can claim real leadership and is accountable to the Iraqi population as a whole. There is no unified program, either of what the fight is against or what it is for. We know virtually nothing of what most of the factions stand for beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation - and from my own personal vantage point, of the little beyond that that we do know, I don't like so much."

Essentially, Bennis objects to the alleged lack of unity among the resistance forces. For the sake of argument, let's suppose what Bennis says is true: competing organizations within the Iraqi resistance are incapable of reaching the level of political unity required to form a common resistance front, program, and central political and military command. What does this prove if not the difficult conditions of work that the Iraqi partisans face? Bennis ends up arguing that without a national liberation front there can be no national liberation movement. But this is to ignore the historical development of national liberation movements throughout the 20th century, which in each case formed unified liberation fronts through a protracted process of resolving political, social, and military contradictions among numerous organizations.

It is also an inconsistent argument. Apply the same logic to the U.S. antiwar movement and see what results. Given the numerous political differences within the different coalitions and political organizations that make up the U.S. antiwar movement (not to mention the serious class and racial divisions), one could accurately state, "There is no unified leadership that can speak for [what is called 'the U.S. antiwar movement'], there is no [common front] that can claim real leadership and is accountable to the [American] population as a whole. There is no unified program, either of what the fight is against or what it is for."

Yet it would be absurd to use this as a basis for writing off the importance of the antiwar movement in U.S. society.  The U.S. antiwar movement may lack a single unified command, but it certainly has a large social base, an ability for coordination in action, some political unity, and the ability to impact events in U.S. society. Likewise, the absence of a single liberation front uniting the entire Iraqi resistance in no way precludes the existence of dynamic resistance movement, with a large social base, acting towards a common strategic goal. In fact, such a dynamic, coordinated and popular resistance movement is precisely what exists in Iraq today.

In any case, the facts on the ground are quite different from what Bennis tells us. Over the years the Iraqi resistance has developed from hundreds of smaller organizations to a handful of large, powerful political and military fronts. (According to Abdul Jabbar al-Kubaysi, the secretary general of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance, there are currently eight resistance fronts that comprise the Iraqi resistance.) This is very much an ongoing process: just last month, the formation of the Patriotic National Islamic Front for the Liberation of Iraq (July 2007) marked yet another major advance in the unification of the Iraqi resistance. It will take some time to form a single, unified political and military command for all of the Iraqi resistance, but its formation is question of when, not if.

The fact that well over 100,000 attacks have been carried out by the Iraqi resistance against the U.S. occupation forces in the past four years (currently about 1100 a week) should be enough to indicate the steadfastness, strength, and popularity of the resistance. The frequency and intensity of these attacks would be inconceivable without a high level of inter-organizational political unity, coordination and cooperation. Further, it would be impossible to fight a guerrilla war of this scope without the broad support and involvement of millions of ordinary Iraqis. Bennis implies that the resistance lacks such popular support, claiming that "some [resistance groups] attack civilians as much as they do occupation troops." (One might might recall that during the Vietnam war the U.S. government told the same lies about the Viet Cong–whom Bennis then supported.) But once again, Bennis' claim is not supported by facts. According to the Department of Defense figures, U.S. troops are subjected to 75% of the resistance attacks, Iraqi puppet security forces to 17%, and civilians, 8%. Clearly the overwhelming majority of resistance attacks are aimed squarely at the U.S. occupation and its puppets in occupied Iraq.

Bennis writes, "We know virtually nothing of what most of the factions stand for beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation - and from my own personal vantage point, of the little beyond that that we do know, I don't like so much." Actually, we don't need to know any more than that. Again, why is Bennis applying double standards? The basis for unity in the U.S. antiwar movement is "troops out now." Why does Bennis demand a higher level of unity for the Iraqi resistance before it would be deemed acceptable to support? In the same article, Bennis says that the future of Iraq is up to Iraqis to decide. This applies to the resistance as well. It is the Iraqi people's resistance. We don't get to pick and choose the cloth it is cut from.

In her article, Bennis points out that it was solidarity with the resistance in Vietnam that raised the level of consciousness among millions of people in the U.S. about the nature of the imperialist war in Vietnam. "That was then, this is now," writes Bennis. On the contrary, just as it did during the Vietnam war, this solidarity must become a key component of our work in the antiwar movement. Grasping the nature of the Iraq war, its causes, consequences, and possibilities for resolution, is a prerequisite to building a consistent and powerful antiwar movement that can strike hard at the foundations of the U.S. war machine. A critical part of this process is raising understanding and support for the resistance in Iraq. It is disappointing that an important leader of one of the largest antiwar coalitions in the U.S. would dismiss the importance of this solidarity work and take an openly hostile view towards the Iraqi people's resistance.

Bennis is wrong to separate the resistance from the people. The Iraqi resistance is the legitimate, just, and heroic expression of an occupied people struggling for liberation. It should be recognized as such and firmly supported by those who oppose U.S. imperialism and stand for an independent, sovereign, and liberated Iraq.

Kosta Harlan
August 11, 2020

The author is an antiwar activist and member of Students for a Democratic Society in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In March 2007 he attended the first international solidarity conference with the Iraqi resistance in Chianciano, Italy.

The Political Program of the Baath Party and its Patriotic Resistance.

 (The Program of Resistance and Independence)

 As the mujahid Baath Party of Believers and its heroic patriotic Resistance expand their operations and the bases of their activity, the patriotic forces that reject the occupation and its lackeys and political arrangements support the Baath and its Resistance.  A great mujahid people embrace them, and standing by them and supporting them are the honorable sons and daughters of the Arab Nation, the Islamic world community, and all free people in the world.  The Baath and its Resistance present their political program aimed at the liberation of Iraq and attaining its national independence and the unity of its people and territory, in accordance with the priorities and sequences that appear in this document in the following form: 

First: Complete national independence, which requires the acceptance by the occupying powers of the following principles and requirements: 

Total recognition by the occupying countries of the Iraqi Patriotic Resistance in all its armed and unarmed formations as the sole legitimate representative of great Iraq. 

A declaration of the resolution to withdraw fully and unconditionally from Iraq within a certain time period to be delimited through coordination between the heroic Iraqi Resistance and the occupier. 

Absolute acceptance of the state and national sovereignty and independence of Iraq and the preservation of the national unity of its people, territory, holy places, and resources, rejecting all calls and laws aimed at partitioning and splitting up Iraq. 

Agreement on entering into serious, purposeful, and constructive negotiations with the Resistance Command or its representatives on the basis of the rights and principles of the homeland and its liberation as presented in this document, with the aim of arriving at a formulation of an agreement on the complete liberation and independence of the country. 

A declaration by the United States of America and its allies that they take responsibility for the war and the occupation and saying that the operation of the occupation of Iraq constituted an order and an act of aggression that had no basis in international legality nor any legal or moral justification and that it took place outside the bounds of international law. 

A declaration of readiness by America and its allies to present a formal apology to the Iraqi people for the crimes, transgressions, and violations that they committed against them and an apology to Iraq’s national leadership for the unjust, oppressive, and destructive measures that they took against them and against Iraq. 

In the event that the occupier declares his acceptance of the above principles, the leadership of the Baath and its heroic Resistance declare their agreement to enter into serious and purposeful negotiations in accordance with the following: 

Second, negotiations require from the occupier and its allies that they accept all the national rights of the great Iraqi people and the fixed principles of their liberation, which represent the will and supreme national interests of the people of Iraq, and they are as follows: 

  1. Complete withdrawal from all of Iraq’s land, airspace, and waters without limit or condition.
  2. Release of all prisoners, detainees, and captives without exception and the agreement to regard the current courts operating against Iraqis as invalid, unlawful, and illegal, and canceling all the measures they have taken because they were taken under the aegis of an illegal occupation and that which is based on falsehood is itself false.. And also an agreement to recognize the legitimacy of all the institutions of the state – both governmental and non-governmental – and all the laws and conventions that were operative before the hated occupation.
  3. The cancellation of the current political system operating under the aegis of the occupation, and likewise the cancellation of all the decrees, laws, and political and economic measures that it has taken in violation of international laws and practices, which require that the laws of the occupied country remain operative and in effect when an occupation takes place; as according to international law it is impermissible for the occupier to issue any laws or decrees to attain his interests or the interests of his lackeys.
  4. The return of the Iraqi army and the other national armed forces to service according to their laws, regulations, and traditions operative before the occupation, and likewise the cancellation of the law of rooting out the Baath and the recognition of its Iraqi, pan-Arab, and international role in leading and constructing Iraq, as a political, intellectual, and social movement with a great humanitarian mission, and a halt of all raids, pursuits, and arrests of Party militants and the mujahideen of the various armed resistance groups.
  5. A pledge to provide full compensation for all losses, material and moral, suffered by Iraq – its individuals and institutions – since the year 1990 and until today.  This would be effected by means of a fund that would be funded by the countries that occupied Iraq, in the first place America and Britain and the other participating and supporting countries that facilitated the occupation, in addition to the huge material losses that the Iraqi state incurred because of the systematic destruction and looting and plunder of moneys, factories, banks, archaeological relics, etc., operating through designated legal committees – Iraqi and from other neutral countries to be named by the Iraqi Resistance command.  The fund would be run by a patriotic government formed by the Resistance and then elected by the people.
  6. Cancellation of all current international resolutions passed against Iraq since the year 1990 and until now, in particular those concerned with drawing the borders, reparations, and other matters.
  7. Handing over lackeys, spies, and traitors who committed the crime of high treason against the people and the homeland so that they can be tried under the law and receive their just punishment for collaborating with the occupier in destroying Iraq, killing its people, robbing its national wealth, and desecrating its holy places.


When those have been done, the leadership of the Baath and its patriotic Resistance will declare their patriotic initiative after the liberation in accordance with the steps in it and in coordination with, and with the participation of, all the detachments of the jihad and the Resistance as follows: 

Third, elections and running the affairs of state after independence. 

The command of the Iraqi Resistance will form a temporary Consultative Council consisting of 50 to 100 patriotic personalities from among the armed Resistance, the political parties and currents, and resistant patriotic personalities who reject the occupation and its lackeys. 

The Consultative Council, which will include the Resistance formations, will form a national unity government of patriotic Iraqi personalities known for their rejection and resistance to the occupation with a term of two years.  This government, under the total supervision of the Resistance leadership and the Temporary Consultative Council, will carry out the following responsibilities: 

  1. Complete supervision over the running of the affairs of state in all spheres.
  2. Attaining what has been agreed upon by the Resistance leadership with the occupation in the course of negotiations and in particular the operation of total and unconditional withdrawal of the forces that invaded Iraq, and follow up on the implementation of the provisions of the agreement on national liberation and independence.
  3. Dissolving the militias that belong to the occupation and the parties allied with it without exception, and the dissolution of the current army, police, and security service, formed under the aegis of the occupation and by its activity, and work to end all carrying of arms throughout Iraq.
  4. The re-formation of the former Iraqi national army in all its formations, as well as the former national security forces in all their formations, the revival of all the state institutions dissolved by orders of the occupation, the elimination of the destructive effects of these orders and compensation for those harmed by them materially or morally.
  5. Preparation of a permanent constitution for the country that is to be discussed by the Consultative Council and presented for approval by a general popular plebiscite, that would organize political and public life throughout all of Iraq for a period of five years after independence.  By means of it a president and parliament would be elected, national and patriotic rights for the Kurds and other minorities would be guaranteed and under it all the people in their different nationalities, religions, and sects would coexist with the type of permanent national unity that the Iraqi people have been characterized by all throughout their glorious history.  The elected parliament will be empowered to change that constitution in accordance with the development and stability of the political, economic, and security situation in Iraq.
  6. Free, democratic, and impartial elections would be held in accordance with the constitution after the end of the transitional period, guaranteeing the free participation in them of all movements, political parties, and currents in order to achieve the birth of a pluralistic, democratic, national system that would respect human rights, guard public freedoms, and preserve the unity of Iraq and its people, achieve its independence, and preserve its material and human resources.
  7. Undertake a comprehensive national reconciliation effort on the basis of the rights and national principles that appear in this document.  Such meetings, dialogue, accord, and reconciliation would be open to all Iraqis, their political parties, movements, and individuals who declare their acceptance of these principles and their readiness to work to implement them and to strive to win them.  This reconciliation would be preceded by a review and examination by all the active patriotic forces in the Iraqi arena, the practice of criticism and self-criticism on the most extensive scale, and the adoption of the principle ‘May God forgive what has happened in the past,’ dispensing with the policy of revenge and vengeance for revenge, the elimination of subversion, and the settling of scores, not pointing weapons at anyone other than the rapacious occupier in order to liberate the homeland and its holy places.  That is all for the sake of creating a spirit of mutual trust and planting that spirit in the hearts of all Iraqis to be the fundamental guarantee of their participation in the construction of Iraq after liberation, far from any monopolization of power, individual rule, authoritarianism, extortion, or one-upmanship of some over others.


Fourth, relations with the United States of America and the rest of the states of the world.

The Iraqi Patriotic Resistance and its governments will establish the best of political and economic relations with all the countries of the world other than the rapacious Zionist entity in the Arab land of Palestine, so as to guarantee mutual interests as between Iraq and those states and so as to achieve participation in mutual interests and shared respect with no interference in the internal affairs of the one by the other. 

The command of the Iraqi Resistance understands the nature of the vital interests of the United States of America as a great state and is ready to establish good and permanent relations with it on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs in accordance with agreements, treaties, and international conventions that guarantee those interests and preserve the sovereignty and independence of states and peoples and respect for their will, guaranteeing their right to deal with their natural, human, and material resources as they see fit. 

The Iraqi Resistance will establish the best of relations based on mutual respect and shared interests with all the countries that directly neighbor Iraq, in particular the fraternal Arab countries, respecting all agreements and international treaties, and the absolute non-use of force in solving bilateral differences except in cases of defense of the self, the homeland, and the people against any armed external aggression. 

Fifth, This program is regarded by the Baath and its Patriotic Resistance as a comprehensive, appropriate, and objective start towards a comprehensive solution of the situation in Iraq, ending the occupation and its effects and ramifications.  The Iraqi Resistance will never accept a halving of the agreement or a partial agreement with the occupier, since it is not possible to accept a cease fire and an end to fighting here or there in the land of Iraq lest this provide the opportunity for the political process under the occupation to achieve success under the leadership of the lackeys of the occupation.  The leadership of the Baath and the Resistance absolutely rejects the principle of taking part in any political activity under the aegis of the occupation or in accordance with its will. 

The leadership of the Baath and its Patriotic Resistance, as it presents its national program for national liberation and independence, is determined to continue fighting and leading the struggle against the occupiers so as to win the independence of Iraq and its construction in a patriotic and democratic manner.  The Baath and its Resistance, as they lay down these principles, foundations, and basics that represent the rights of the people and the homeland that cannot be conceded or abandoned regardless of how heavy the sacrifice, hope that the occupier will take heed, return to his senses and embark on the path of truth, relying on rationality, logic, and history, and recognize these rights and commit himself to carrying them out.  The forces of liberation and resistance of the peoples for the sake of attaining their freedom and will cannot be defeated or broken because God, the people, and free people throughout the world are with them.  They will win, by the grace of God, however long the battle with the occupiers and invaders may last.  The occupier has no choice but to accept the fixed principles of total liberation and complete independence from all forms of hegemony, domination, and exploitation, and sit down at the negotiating table in order to stop the bloodshed and save what is left of its face, or it must get ready to face the certain and ignominious defeat of its invading forces and the end of its imperial scheme for hegemony and domination.  Victory comes only from God the Exalted, the Mighty. 

Long live Iraq!

Victory to its heroic Resistance!

Salute to the martyrs and mujahideen!

Long live Palestine, free and Arab!

And God it is who brings success. 

The Command of the Baath Party and the Patriotic Resistance.

October 2006.

 Arabic original at: